Duloxetine Compared with Pregabalin for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Management in Patients with Suboptimal Pain Response to Gabapentin and Treated with or without Antidepressants: A Post Hoc Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of duloxetine vs. pregabalin in the treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), comparing patient subgroups with and without concomitant antidepressant use. METHODS: This post hoc analysis assessed data from a randomized 12-week study that confirmed the noninferiority of duloxetine to pregabalin. In the previously published study, patients with DPNP with inadequate response to gabapentin were switched to duloxetine monotherapy, combination therapy of duloxetine plus gabapentin, or pregabalin monotherapy. Current, stable antidepressant use was allowed; 79 patients were concomitantly treated with antidepressants and 328 without antidepressants. In this post hoc analysis, improvement in the weekly mean of diary-based average daily pain ratings (numerical rating scale: 0-10) in antidepressant users and nonusers was analyzed using a longitudinal mixed-models repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis, including a test of the 3-way interaction (antidepressant subgroup by treatment by week) to assess whether the differences among treatment groups over 12 weeks differ between the antidepressant-use subgroups. RESULTS: The 3-way interaction was significant (P = 0.035), demonstrating that treatment-group differences in pain reduction over time differ between the subgroups. Among patients without antidepressant use, patients treated with duloxetine had significantly greater pain reduction than pregabalin at Week 4 and at each successive week up to the 12-week endpoint (-2.8 for duloxetine and -2.1 for pregabalin; P = 0.031); patients treated with duloxetine plus gabapentin had greater pain reduction than pregabalin at Weeks 2, 3, 5, and 7 to 9 (P ≤ 0.05) but not at endpoint (-2.4; P = 0.222). Among concomitant antidepressant users, no treatment-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DPNP inadequately treated with gabapentin without the concomitant use of antidepressants, switching to duloxetine instead of pregabalin may provide better pain reduction. Conversely, in nonresponders to gabapentin who are concomitantly using an antidepressant, switching to duloxetine or pregabalin may provide similar pain reductions.

The effect of adding exenatide to a thiazolidinedione in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Exenatide therapy is effective in combination with metformin or sulfonylureas for treating type 2 diabetes. Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) also are commonly used, but the efficacy of exenatide with a TZD has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of exenatide versus placebo on glycemic control. DESIGN: Placebo run-in, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from May 2004 to August 2005. SETTING: 49 sites in Canada, Spain, and the United States. PATIENTS: 233 (exenatide group, n = 121; placebo group, n = 112) patients with type 2 diabetes that was suboptimally controlled with TZD treatment (with or without metformin). Mean (+/-SE) baseline glycated hemoglobin A1c level was 7.9% +/- 0.1%. INTERVENTIONS: Subcutaneous abdominal injections of 10 microg of exenatide or placebo twice daily, added to a TZD (with or without metformin) for 16 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c level. Other outcomes were fasting serum glucose level, body weight, self-monitored blood glucose level, and any adverse events. RESULTS: Exenatide treatment reduced hemoglobin A(1c) level (mean difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.21% to -0.74%]), serum fasting glucose level (mean difference, -1.69 mmol/L [-30.5 mg/dL] [CI, -2.22 to -1.17 mmol/L {-40.0 to -21.1 mg/dL}]), and body weight (mean difference, -1.51 kg [CI, -2.15 to -0.88 kg]). Sixteen percent of patients in the exenatide group and 2% of patients in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. In the exenatide group, 40% (n = 48) of patients experienced nausea (mostly mild [n = 21] or moderate [n = 19]), 13% experienced vomiting, and 11% experienced hypoglycemia. In the placebo group, 15% of patients experienced nausea, 1% experienced vomiting, and 7% experienced hypoglycemia. LIMITATIONS: Combinations with TZDs and sulfonylureas were not tested. Trial duration was relatively short. Only 71% and 86% of patients in the exenatide and placebo groups, respectively, completed the study. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide therapy improved glycemic control, reduced body weight, and caused gastrointestinal symptoms more than placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes that was suboptimally controlled with TZD therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00099320. For more information on exenatide click here.

An essential role for CCL3 in the development of collagen antibody-induced arthritis.

CCL3 is a C-C family chemokine detected at high levels in the synovial tissue and fluids of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. CCL3 binds to the chemokine receptors CCR1 and CCR5, which are expressed by inflammatory leukocytes such as macrophages and T cells present in the affected joints of RA patients. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether absence of CCL3 prevented development of inflammation and joint destruction in anti-type II collagen monoclonal antibody (anti-CII mAb)-induced arthritis. "CCL3 null mice were different from wild-type control mice in terms of body weight loss". In addition, CCL3 null mice exhibited milder clinical and histopathological scores following administration of anti-CII mAb and endotoxin. Moreover, the release of TNF in response to systemic administration of endotoxin was not affected in CCL3 null mice compared to wild-type mice, indicating that the phenotype was not attributable to a defect in endotoxin response. These results indicate that CCL3 plays an essential role in the development of inflammation and joint destruction induced by anti-CII mAb.