Gabapentin for Pain in Pediatric Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVE: Gabapentin is commonly used to treat pain in children receiving pediatric palliative care. This study describes the real-world use of gabapentin and the associated benefits and adverse effects/events (AEs). METHODS: A prospective, multicenter cohort of standardized data collection after a clinical decision was made to use gabapentin for managing neuropathic or nociplastic pain in children attended on by a pediatric palliative care service. It was conducted across 11 sites in seven countries including hospital, inpatient, and outpatient services. Clinical outcomes were graded using pain scales validated for age and cognitive ability and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCICTCAE) at baseline, 14 days, 28 days, six weeks and 12 weeks after initiation of gabapentin. Ad-hoc safety reporting continued throughout the study. RESULTS: Data were collected from 127 children with a median age of 4.7 years (IQR 0.1-17.9); 61% had a neurological disorder, 21% advanced cancer and the cohort had a high level of disability (Lansky/Karnofsky performance score 37.1). Gabapentin was prescribed at standard pediatric doses. On average, 76% of children had a reduction in pain and 42% experienced a potential AE. The mean pain score decreased from 6.0 (SD 2.6) at baseline to 3.3 (SD 2.4) at 14 days and 1.8 (SD 1.8) after 12-weeks of gabapentin therapy. Ten percent had increased pain at each time point. AEs did not increase when individual changes over time were accounted for except for somnolence (7%). Serious AEs attributable to gabapentin were possible or probable in 3% of children. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin prescribed at standard doses for advanced cancer and severe neurological injury in children under a pediatric palliative care service was associated with generally improved pain intensity at previously described levels of adverse effects.

Prophylactic gabapentin during head and neck cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This review was designed to compile the currently available evidence on the prophylactic use of gabapentin in the head and neck cancer patient population. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify articles related to the use of prophylactic gabapentin in patients undergoing head and neck cancer therapy. Candidate studies were screened for inclusion and a subsequent bias assessment was conducted by multiple reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted in cases in which the studies used compatible outcome measures. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for bias. Among the four small studies that examined pain prevention, 2 were positive and 2 were inconclusive. Three of the four studies examiniRDng opioid use noted less need for opioids in the treatment arm. Meta-analysis of the pertinent studies showed no difference in feeding tube placement (RD = 0.64%, 95%CI: (- 25.8%, 27.1%), p = 0.962) but substantially less weight loss among those in the treatment arm (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic gabapentin appears to be a promising treatment option for preventing pain, reducing opioids, and reducing weight loss in patients undergoing head and neck cancer therapy. However, the studies on the treatment to date are small and several have a substantial risk of bias.

The Efficacy of Gabapentin + Dexamethasone for Postoperative Analgesia Following Septoplasty: A Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

AIMS: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of gabapentin, dexamethasone, and gabapentin + dexamethasone for pain control after septoplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized trial included 120 patients that underwent septoplasty and were randomly divided into 4 groups: group G (preoperative gabapentin 600 mg p.o.); group D (intraoperative dexamethasone 8 mg i.v.); group GD (preoperative gabapentin 600 mg p.o. + intraoperative dexamethasone 8 mg i.v.); group C (placebo control). RESULTS: The median VAS score was significantly lower in groups G and GD at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours postsurgery than in group C (P < .008 for all). The median VAS score was significantly lower in group D than in group C at 1, 2, and 4 hours postsurgery (P < .008 for all). There weren't any significant differences in the VAS score between groups D, G, and GD at any time point. Groups G, D, and GD had a significantly lower frequency of rescue analgesic use than group C; however, there were no differences between groups G, GD, and C (P < .001 and P = .108, respectively). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin, dexamethasone, and gabapentin + dexamethasone are equally more effective analgesics during the first 4 hours postsurgery than placebo. The addition of dexamethasone to gabapentin does not provide extra analgesia. Both gabapentin and gabapentin + dexamethasone have a more prolonged analgesic effect than dexamethasone alone.

Gabapentin-Friend or foe?

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is a recommended first-line agent for treating neuropathic pain; however, its efficacy rate is reportedly low, and the risk of adverse events is high. A plausible explanation for this lies with its wide range of actions, the entirety of which have yet to be fully elucidated. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted on gabapentin's known and proposed analgesic mechanisms of action, as well as potentially opposing or detrimental actions. RESULTS: Gabapentin's classical analgesic mechanisms involve direct attenuation of excitatory neurotransmission in the spinal cord via inhibition of neuronal ion channels, while indirect mechanisms include descending inhibition and block of injury-evoked synaptogenesis. Glial effects have also been reported; however, whether they are neuroprotective or detrimental is unknown. Furthermore, data from animal models do not reflect clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin's clinical use should be reconsidered according to the net effects of its numerous assumed actions, including the tripartite synapse and oligodendrocyte effects. Whether it is doing more harm than good, especially in the scenarios of incomplete or loss of response, warrants consideration when prescribing gabapentin.

Case Series: Synergistic Effect of Gabapentin and Adjuvant Pregabalin in Neuropathic Pain.

Gabapentin and pregabalin both exert high affinity to the α2δ subunit of the voltage-gated calcium channels which inhibits excitatory neurotransmitter release. The synergistic mechanism was described in rats given combinations of gabapentin and pregabalin. In this case series, we described 2 cases which may illustrate the synergistic effect of gabapentin and pregabalin in treatment resistant neuropathic pain. Low dose pregabalin was added to therapeutic gabapentin to achieve appreciable pain reduction in one case and improved quality of life in another case. Further research with more enrollment and longer study duration may help elucidate the appropriate dosing and potential associated side effects.

Cardiovascular risk of gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with diabetic neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin and pregabalin are commonly prescribed medications to treat pain in patients with diabetic neuropathy. Gabapentin and pregabalin can cause fluid retention, which is hypothesized to be associated with cardiovascular diseases. However, whether long-term use of gabapentin and pregabalin is associated with adverse cardiovascular diseases remains unknown. This study aims to examine the association between gabapentin use, pregabalin use and several adverse cardiovascular events. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used propensity score matching within patient electronic health records (EHRs) from a multicenter database with 106 million patients from 69 health care organizations in the US. The study population comprised 210,064 patients who had a diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy and were prescribed diabetic neuropathy medications in their EHRs. The exposure cohort comprised patients who were prescribed gabapentin or pregabalin to treat diabetic neuropathy. The comparison cohort comprised patients who were not prescribed either gabapentin or pregabalin but were prescribed other drugs to treat diabetic neuropathy. The outcomes of interest were myocardial infarcts, strokes, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and venous thromboembolic events. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 3-month and 5-year risk for adverse cardiovascular events between the propensity score-matched cohorts. RESULTS: Both gabapentin and pregabalin were associated with increased risk of 5-year adverse cardiovascular events compared with the comparison group. In patients prescribed gabapentin, the highest risk was observed for deep venous thrombosis (HR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.37-1.82), followed by pulmonary embolism (HR: 1.5, 95% CI 1.27-1.76), peripheral vascular disease (HR: 1.37, 95% CI 1.27-1.47), stroke (HR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.2-1.43), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.38) and heart failure (HR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). In patients prescribed pregabalin, the highest risk was observed for deep venous thrombosis (HR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.31-1.88), followed by peripheral vascular disease (HR: 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.49), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.13-1.47), pulmonary embolism (HR: 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.59), stroke (HR: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12-1.42), and heart failure (HR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.11-1.3). There were significant associations between short-term (3 month) gabapentin use and heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. Short-term (3 month) pregabalin use was associated with deep venous thrombosis, peripheral vascular disease. CONCLUSION: In patients with diabetic neuropathy who were prescribed gabapentin and pregabalin, there is an increased risk for heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, stroke, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism with long-term use. Our findings suggest that increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events, along with other side effects, the efficacy of pain control and the degree of tolerance of the patient, should be considered when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin long-term in patients with diabetic neuropathy.

Gabapentin reduces stress and does not affect ocular parameters in clinically normal cats.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effects of gabapentin on ocular and behavioral parameters following oral administration in healthy cats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Masked, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover-design study. Ten young, healthy cats were scheduled for two veterinary visits 7 days apart and randomly assigned to receive a compounded capsule containing 100 mg of gabapentin or placebo (100 mg lactose powder) at the first visit and the opposite treatment at the second visit. Respiratory rate, heart rate, stress score, sedation score, compliance score, horizontal pupil diameter, intraocular pressure, and Schirmer tear test-1 were measured prior to and 1.5, 3, and 6 h following capsule administration. Stress score, sedation score, and compliance score were assigned based on established behavioral scales. Results of the two treatments were statistically compared with a p-value <0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Respiratory rate was significantly reduced at 1.5 (p = 0.049) and 3 (p = 0.03) hours following gabapentin administration. Stress score was significantly reduced at 1.5 (p = 0.01) hours following gabapentin administration. Sedation score was significantly increased at 1.5 (p = 0.015) and 3 (p = 0.03) hours following gabapentin administration. Gabapentin had no significant effect on heart rate, compliance score, or ocular values measured in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin reduces stress and increases sedation at 1.5 h after treatment, with no significant effect on horizontal pupil diameter, intraocular pressure or Schirmer tear test-1 results.

Gabapentin and pregabalin in bipolar disorder, anxiety states, and insomnia: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and rationale.

The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the α2δ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become widely prescribed drugs. Many of these uses are off-label for psychiatric indications, and there is increasing concern about their safety, so it is particularly important to have good evidence to justify this usage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for three of their common psychiatric uses: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. Fifty-five double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 open-label studies were identified. For bipolar disorder, four double-blind RCTs investigating gabapentin, and no double-blind RCTs investigating pregabalin, were identified. A quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the study population, design and outcome measures. Across the anxiety spectrum, a consistent but not universal effect in favour of gabapentinoids compared to placebo was seen (standardised mean difference [SMD] ranging between -2.25 and -0.25). Notably, pregabalin (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18) and gabapentin (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.52) were more effective than placebo in reducing preoperative anxiety. In insomnia, results were inconclusive. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of the efficacy of gabapentinoids in anxiety states, but minimal evidence in bipolar disorder and insomnia and they should be used for these disorders only with strong justification. This recommendation applies despite the attractive pharmacological and genetic rationale for targeting voltage-gated calcium channels.

Blocking AURKA with MK-5108 attenuates renal fibrosis in chronic kidney disease.

Renal fibrosis, a common feature of chronic kidney disease (CKD), is characterized by excessive deposition of extracellular matrix (ECM) leading to scar formation in the renal parenchyma. Active epithelial-mesenchymal communication (EMC), and the proliferation and activation of fibroblasts are implicated in the causation of renal fibrosis. Aurora-A kinase (AURKA) is a serine/threonine kinase required for the process of mitosis. Dysregulation of AURKA has been demonstrated in the context of various cancers. However, the role of AURKA in CKD-associated fibrosis has not been elucidated. MK-5108, a potent and highly selective AURKA inhibitor, was shown to exhibit anti-cancer activity in recent preclinical and clinical studies. In the present study, we investigated the role of MK-5108 in renal fibrosis employing animal and cell models. In vivo, AURKA was highly expressed in fibrotic kidneys of CKD patients and in mouse kidneys with unilateral ureteral obstruction (UUO). Post treatment with MK-5108 at the 3rd day after UUO remarkably alleviated renal fibrosis, possibly by inhibiting the proliferation and activation of fibroblasts and suppressing the phenotypic transition of renal cells. Moreover, the enhanced inflammatory factors in obstructive kidneys were also repressed. In vitro, MK-5108 treatment inhibited the pro-fibrotic response in renal cells induced by transforming growth factor-ß1. Finally, overexpression of AURKA in renal fibroblasts promoted fibrotic response, while silencing AURKA showed anti-fibrotic effect, further confirming the pro-fibrotic role of AURKA. In this study, inhibition of AURKA by MK-5108 markedly attenuated renal fibrosis. MK-5108 is a potential therapeutic agent for treatment of renal fibrosis in CKD.

Restoring invisible and abandoned trials of gabapentin for neuropathic pain: a clinical and methodological investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentin (Neurontin) is prescribed widely for conditions for which it has not been approved by regulators, including certain neuropathic pain conditions. There is limited evidence that gabapentin is safe and effective for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Published trial reports, and systematic reviews based on published trial reports, mislead patients and providers because information about gabapentin's harms has been published only partly. We confirmed that trials conducted by the drug developer have been abandoned, and we plan to conduct a restoration with support from the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials Support Centre (https://restoringtrials.org/). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study, we will analyse and report the harms that were observed in six trials of gabapentin, which have not been reported publicly (eg, in journal articles). We will use clinical study reports and individual participant data to identify and report the harms observed in each individual trial and to summarise the harms observed across all six trials. We will report all adverse events observed in the included trials by sharing deidentified data and summary tables on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/w8puv/). Additionally, we will produce a summary report that describes differences between the randomised groups in each trial and across trials for prespecified harms outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will use secondary data. This study was determined to be exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review (protocol #1910607198).

Effects of a single oral dose of gabapentin on storm phobia in dogs: A double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Storm phobia in companion dogs is a common disorder that significantly impacts dogs' welfare. Gabapentin, the action of which is only partially understood, is widely used for its antiepileptic and analgesic properties. Only recently, the veterinary community began to use gabapentin to address phobia and anxiety in dogs. This study tested gabapentin to lower fear responses of dogs during a thunderstorm event. METHODS: Eighteen dogs suffering from storm phobia completed our double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Each dog's behaviour was evaluated twice by his owner: once under placebo, once under gabapentin. The treatment was orally administered at least 90 min before the exposure. Gabapentin was given at a dose ranging from 25 to 30 mg/kg. RESULTS: Our results indicate a significant reduction of the fear responses of dogs under gabapentin. The adverse effects were rare, and the most frequent amongst them was ataxia. CONCLUSION: In this trial, gabapentin appears to be an efficient and safe molecule that should be considered as part of the treatment plan of storm phobia in dogs.

The Clinical Difference between Gabapentin and Pregabalin: Data from a Pilot Comparative Trial.

BACKGROUND: Similar anticonvulsants, such as gabapentin and pregabalin are recommended in neuropathic pain management, however little is known about their clinical differences in cases of low back pain. This paper aims to highlight some of the possible clinical differences between gabapentin and pregabalin in low back pain. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe low back pain were recruited. Eligible patients were randomised to receive either pregabalin (300 mg/day)or gabapentin (800 mg/day) for six weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity according to the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) at baseline and at six weeks. The secondary outcome measures were: anxiety, insomnia, fatigue and the self-rated (GCI), measured at baseline, second, fourth, and the sixth week. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients, pregabalin group (n=28), gabapentin group (n=36) completed the study. While pregabalin group showed a significantly lower pain score (p=0.039). The gabapentin group showed significant improvement in anxiety (p=0.001), insomnia (p=0.001), general fatigue (p=0.009), physical fatigue (p=0.001), reduce activity (p=0.001), and mental fatigue (p=0.014) higher than that of pregabalin. No difference in (GCI) was seen at six weeks. CONCLUSION: This is the first trial aimed at comparing gabapentin with pregabalin in NLBP. Although the results are preliminary, in our pilot study pregabalin was found to be superior in pain reduction, gabapentin demonstrated better effect on anxiety, insomnia and fatigue symptoms. The results are preliminary and studies with a larger sample size are still required.

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.

Drug treatment for spinal muscular atrophy types II and III.

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.

Inhibition of PDE4/PDE4B improves renal function and ameliorates inflammation in cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury.

Nephrotoxicity is a known clinical complication of cisplatin that limits the use of this potent antitumor drug. Cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases (PDEs) play complex roles in physiology and pathology. PDE4, which is a member of the PDE family, has four subtypes (PDE4A-PDE4D), and PDE4B plays an important role in inflammation. Thus, in the present study, we investigated the effect of PDE4/PDE4B inhibition on renal function and inflammation in a cisplatin nephrotoxicity model. In mice, cisplatin enhanced mRNA and protein expression of PDE4B in renal tubules. After treatment with the PDE4 inhibitor cilomilast, cisplatin-induced renal dysfunction, renal tubular injury, tubular cell apoptosis, and inflammation were all improved. Next, after silencing PDE4B in vivo, we observed a protective effect against cisplatin nephrotoxicity similar to that of the PDE4 inhibitor. In vitro, cisplatin-induced renal tubular cell death was strikingly ameliorated by the PDE4 inhibitor and PDE4B knockdown along with the blockade of the inflammatory response. Considering the known roles of some cell survival pathways in antagonizing insults, we examined levels of PDE4-associated proteins sirtuin 1, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and phosphorylated AKT in cisplatin-treated renal tubular cells with or without cilomilast treatment. Strikingly, cisplatin treatment downregulated the expression of the above proteins, and this effect was largely abolished by the PDE4 inhibitor. Together, these findings indicate the beneficial role of PDE4/PDE4B inhibition in treating cisplatin nephrotoxicity, possibly through antagonizing inflammation and restoring cell survival signaling pathways.

Perioperative Gabapentin in Pediatric Thoracic Surgery Patients-Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 4 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of perioperative gabapentin reduces postoperative pain and anxiety, decreases ropivacaine consumption and side effects, and improves patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial. BLINDING: Participants, care providers, investigators, data analysts. SETTING: Department of Thoracic Surgery of the Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Rabka Zdrój Branch, Poland. SUBJECTS: Forty patients undergoing the Ravitch procedure. METHODS: Patients aged nine to 17 years were randomized into a gabapentin (preoperative 15 mg/kg, treatment) or placebo group. Postoperative analgesia included gabapentin (7.5 mg/kg) or placebo two times per day for three days, epidural ropivacaine + fentanyl, paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and metamizol as a "rescue drug." Pain, anxiety, analgesic consumption, side effects, and patient satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in median pain scores (numerical rating scale < 1/10) or incidence of adverse side effects between the gabapentin group (N = 20) and the placebo group (N = 20). Postoperative anxiety scores were significantly lower than before surgery in the gabapentin group (6 [4-8] vs 7 [6-8.5], P < 0.01) and remained unchanged in the placebo group (6 [5-6.5] vs 6 [5-7], P = 0.07). Gabapentin-treated patients received a lower number of doses of ondansetron when compared with the placebo group (6 [5-6] vs 7 [6-9], P = 0.02). A significant negative association was found between patient satisfaction and postoperative state anxiety in the gabapentin group (R = -0.51, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative administration of gabapentin resulted in a decrease of postoperative anxiety in pediatric patients undergoing the Ravitch procedure.

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2013.Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 20 March 2018), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 March 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 March 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 20 March 2018). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials representing 2607 randomised participants. We combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall RR for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-quality evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-quality evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There were no significant differences for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the studies were rated at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall quality of evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types.

The efficacy of gabapentin in reducing pain intensity and morphine consumption after breast cancer surgery: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to determine the efficacy and safety of the preoperative use of gabapentin for the treatment of acute and chronic postoperative pain following breast cancer surgery. METHODS: In November 2017, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google databases. RCTs comparing gabapentin with placebo in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery were retrieved. The primary endpoint was the visual analog scale (VAS) after surgery and 24 hours after surgery and total morphine consumption. The secondary outcomes were incidence of chronic pain and complications (the incidence of nausea). Software Stata 12.0 was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Finally, 9 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that gabapentin was associated with reduced pain scores after surgery and 24 hours after surgery. Meanwhile, oral gabapentin was associated with a reduction of the total morphine consumption after breast cancer surgery. Similarly, gabapentin was associated with a reduction in the incidence of chronic pain and the incidence of nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative use of gabapentin was able to reduce acute and chronic postoperative pain, total morphine consumption and the occurrence of nausea following breast cancer surgery. Further studies should determine the optimal dose of gabapentin for pain control after breast cancer surgery.