Enhancement of Zika virus infection by antibodies from West Nile virus seropositive individuals with no history of clinical infection.

BACKGROUND: Recent outbreaks of Zika Virus (ZIKV) infection and associated microcephaly has raised multiple scientific questions. The close antigenic relatedness between flaviviruses makes diagnosis of specific infection difficult. This relatedness also raises the potential of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) via cross reactive antibodies to flaviviruses like West Nile Virus (WNV) and Dengue Virus (DENV). Asymptomatic WNV infections are endemic throughout the US creating a large proportion of the population that is seropositive for WNV antibodies. Whether these sero-positive individuals potentially carry ZIKV enhancing antibodies remains unknown. RESULTS: Serum samples obtained from human subjects with symptomatic or asymptomatic WNV infection from a WNV endemic region in Texas were tested for their ability to enhance or neutralize ZIKV infection. Sero-surveillance data demonstrated a ~ 7% prevalence for WNV antibodies in the population. Sera from both symptomatic and asymptomatic WNV seropositive donors effectively neutralized WNV and to some extent DENV infection. Interestingly, WNV+ sera failed to inhibit ZIKV while significantly enhancing infection. Conversely, ZIKV specific sera effectively neutralized ZIKV, with ADE only evident at lower concentrations. The enhancement of ZIKV via WNV antibody positive sera was likely due to non-neutralizing Envelope (E) antibodies as seen with monoclonal ZIKV E antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings suggest that WNV antibodies in the sera significantly enhance ZIKV infection in Fc receptor positive cells with limited neutralization activity. Further studies in more relevant models of ADE will be needed to confirm the relevance of these findings in vivo.

Integrating data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies to predict the response to pregabalin in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: More patient-specific medical care is expected as more is learned about variations in patient responses to medical treatments. Analytical tools enable insights by linking treatment responses from different types of studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Given the importance of evidence from both types of studies, our goal was to integrate these types of data into a single predictive platform to help predict response to pregabalin in individual patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN). METHODS: We utilized three pivotal RCTs of pregabalin (398 North American patients) and the largest observational study of pregabalin (3159 German patients). We implemented a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patient clusters in the Observational Study to which RCT patients could be matched using the coarsened exact matching (CEM) technique, thereby creating a matched dataset. We then developed autoregressive moving average models (ARMAXs) to estimate weekly pain scores for pregabalin-treated patients in each cluster in the matched dataset using the maximum likelihood method. Finally, we validated ARMAX models using Observational Study patients who had not matched with RCT patients, using t tests between observed and predicted pain scores. RESULTS: Cluster analysis yielded six clusters (287-777 patients each) with the following clustering variables: gender, age, pDPN duration, body mass index, depression history, pregabalin monotherapy, prior gabapentin use, baseline pain score, and baseline sleep interference. CEM yielded 1528 unique patients in the matched dataset. The reduction in global imbalance scores for the clusters after adding the RCT patients (ranging from 6 to 63% depending on the cluster) demonstrated that the process reduced the bias of covariates in five of the six clusters. ARMAX models of pain score performed well (R 2 : 0.85-0.91; root mean square errors: 0.53-0.57). t tests did not show differences between observed and predicted pain scores in the 1955 patients who had not matched with RCT patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of cluster analyses, CEM, and ARMAX modeling enabled strong predictive capabilities with respect to pain scores. Integrating RCT and Observational Study data using CEM enabled effective use of Observational Study data to predict patient responses.

Using Random Forest Models to Identify Correlates of a Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Diagnosis from Electronic Health Record Data.

Objective: To identify variables correlated with a diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) using random forest modeling applied to electronic health records. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: Humedica de-identified electronic health records database. Subjects: Subjects ≥ 18 years old with type 2 diabetes from January 1, 2008-September 30, 2013 having continuous data for 1 year pre- and postindex with DPN (n = 35,050) and without DPN (n = 288,328) were identified. Methods: Demographic, clinical, and health care resource utilization variables (e.g., inpatient and outpatient encounters, medications, and procedures) were input into a random forest model to identify the most important correlates of a DPN diagnosis. Random forest modeling is a computationally extensive, robust data mining technique that accommodates large sets of variables to identify associated factors using an ensemble of classifications trees. Accuracy of the model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). Results: The final random forest model consisted of the following variables (importance) associated with a DPN diagnosis: Charlson Comorbidity Index score (100%), age (37.1%), number of pre-index procedures and services (29.7%), number of pre-index outpatient prescriptions (24.2%), number of pre-index outpatient visits (18.3%), number of pre-index laboratory visits (16.9%), number of pre-index outpatient office visits (12.1%), number of inpatient prescriptions (5.9%), and number of pain-related medication prescriptions (4.4%). ROC analysis confirmed model performance, with an area under the curve of 0.824 and accuracy of 89.6% (95% confidence interval 89.4%, 89.8%). Conclusions: Random forest modeling can determine likelihood of a DPN diagnosis. Further validation of the random forest model may help facilitate earlier diagnosis and enhance management strategies.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Formularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin. METHODS: A structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits. RESULTS: Search criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN. CONCLUSION: PA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Does Duration of Neuropathic Pain Impact the Effectiveness of Pregabalin?

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic pain conditions such as neuropathic pain frequently experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. Ideally, all patients should be treated in a timely manner, but in those patients with more established disease it is important to know that approved treatments remain effective. METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of 19 randomized placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for peripheral neuropathic pain conditions, including diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-traumatic/postsurgical pain. Patients were divided into 5 pain duration categories based on time since onset of pain (< 6 months, 6 months to < 1 year, 1 year to < 2 years, 2 years to < 5 years, and ≥ 5 years). Mean change in pain score at endpoint, vs. placebo, was assessed for each category, together with changes in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responders ("very much" or "much" improved at endpoint). RESULTS: The analysis included 5,783 patients (n = 3,619 pregabalin; n = 2,164 placebo). Mean baseline pain scores were similar across the pain duration categories (range 6.3 to 6.5). Pregabalin significantly improved pain score at endpoint, vs. placebo, in all patients together (treatment difference [95% confidence interval], -0.59 [-0.67, -0.52], P < 0.0001) and similarly in each pain duration category (P < 0.0001 for each). There were significantly more PGIC responders with pregabalin, vs. placebo, for all patients (45.0% vs. 30.9%, P < 0.0001) and each category separately (P < 0.001 for each). There were no consistent, significant differences in treatment response between the different pain duration categories. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin significantly improves pain irrespective of the length of time since onset of neuropathic pain.

Effects of Pregabalin in Patients with Neuropathic Pain Previously Treated with Gabapentin: A Pooled Analysis of Parallel-Group, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis compared the therapeutic response of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) who had been previously treated with gabapentin to the therapeutic response in patients who had not received gabapentin previously. METHODS: Data were pooled from 18 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin in patients with NeP. Pregabalin-mediated changes in pain and pain-related sleep interference scores, patient global impression of change scores at endpoint, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between patients who had received gabapentin previously (+GBN) and patients who had not received gabapentin previously (-GBN). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts with regard to the extent of pain relief and relief of pain-related sleep interference for any dose of pregabalin (150, 300, 600, or 150 to 600 mg/day) at any time point (6, 8, or 12 weeks). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the distribution of patient global impression of change scores at study endpoint, or the occurrence of adverse events, between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts. DISCUSSION: The findings presented here support the idea that pregabalin may be used successfully to treat patients with NeP who may be refractory, respond inadequately, or are intolerant to gabapentin. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring treatment of NeP based on individual patient response to different treatments, including the trial of multiple agents within the same mechanistic class.

Examining the Time to Improvement of Sleep Interference With Pregabalin in Patients With Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy and Postherpetic Neuralgia.

Pregabalin has been shown to be a safe, effective treatment for neuropathic pain associated with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) or postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), with average time to reduction in pain of 2 days. Pain-related sleep interference is commonly reported in both painful DPN and PHN. These post hoc analyses examined the time to improvement in sleep with pregabalin in patients with painful DPN or PHN, measured by reduction in daily sleep interference (DSI) scores on an 11-point numeric rating scale. A total of 4527 patients from 16 placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for treatment of painful DPN or PHN were included in the analysis. In these trials, there were a total of 16 pregabalin treatment arms for painful DPN (75-600 mg/d), 10 for PHN (150-600 mg/d), and 3 for painful DPN/PHN (150-600 mg/d). Time to improvement in DSI scores was calculated for all treatment arms that demonstrated statistically significant reductions in DSI scores during the first 14 days of treatment compared with placebo (23 of 29; 79.3%) and was defined as the first day DSI scores for that day and the following day were significantly lower than placebo (P < 0.001). Mean (SD) time to improvement in DSI scores was 1.6 (1.3) days. Sustained improvement (≥1-point improvement in mean DSI score) was seen significantly earlier for pregabalin DSI responders than patients receiving placebo. These findings demonstrate that statistically significant and sustained improvement in sleep occurs rapidly (within 1 day for some patients) in response to treatment with pregabalin.

A retrospective, matched cohort study of potential drug-drug interaction prevalence and opioid utilization in a diabetic peripheral neuropathy population initiated on pregabalin or duloxetine.

BACKGROUND: Anticipating and controlling drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in older patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropaty (pDPN) presents a significant challenge to providers. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of newly initiated pregabalin or duloxetine treatment on Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan pDPN patients' encounters with potential drug-drug interactions, the healthcare cost and utilization consequences of those interactions, and opioid utilization. METHODS: Study subjects required a pregabalin or duloxetine pharmacy claim between 07/01/2008-06/30/2012 (index event), ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient medical claims with pDPN diagnosis between 01/01/2008-12/31/2012, and ≥12 months pre- and ≥6 post-index enrollment. Propensity score matching was used to balance the pregabalin and duloxetine cohorts on pre-index demographics and comorbidities. Potential DDIs were defined by Micromedex 2.0 and identified by prescription claims. Six-month post-index healthcare utilization (HCU) and costs were calculated using pharmacy and medical claims. RESULTS: No significant differences in pre-index demographics or comorbidities were found between pregabalin subjects (n = 446) and duloxetine subjects (n = 446). Potential DDI prevalence was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) among duoxetine subjects (56.7%) than among pregabalin subjects (2.9%). There were no significant differences in HCU or costs between pregablin subjects with and without a potential DDI. By contrast, duloxetine subjects with a potential DDI had higher mean all-cause costs ($13,908 vs. $9,830; p = 0.001), more subjects with ≥1 inpatient visits (35.6% vs 25.4%; p = 0.02), and more subjects with ≥1 emergency room visits (32.8% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.005) in comparison to duloxetine subjects without a potential DDI. There was a trend toward a difference between pregabalin and duloxetine subjects in their respective pre-versus-post differences in milligrams (mg) of morphine equivalents/30 days used (60.2 mg and 176.9 mg, respectively; p = 0.058). CONCLUSION: The significantly higher prevalence of potential DDIs and potential cost impact found in pDPN duloxetine users, relative to pregabalin users, underscore the importance of considering DDIs when selecting a treatment.

A comprehensive drug safety evaluation of pregabalin in peripheral neuropathic pain.

Pregabalin is a commonly used therapy currently recommended as first-line treatment for a number of neuropathic pain (NeP) conditions. Since licensure, a number of clinical trials of pregabalin in different NeP conditions have been completed from which additional data on safety and tolerability can be drawn. In this analysis, patient-level data from 31 randomized clinical trials of pregabalin in peripheral NeP sponsored by Pfizer were pooled and assessed for incidence of adverse events (AEs). Incidence by age, disease condition, and race, together with risk differences and time to onset and resolution of AEs, was assessed. In total, 7,510 patients were included: 4,884 on pregabalin (representing 805 patient-years treatment) and 2,626 on placebo. Pregabalin vs. placebo risk analysis identified 9 AEs with a risk difference, for which the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was > 1%: dizziness (risk difference [95% CI]: (17.0 [15.4 to 18.6]), somnolence (10.8 [9.5 to 12.1]), peripheral edema (5.4 [4.3 to 6.4]), weight increase (4.7 [3.9 to 5.5]), dry mouth (2.9 [2.1 to 3.8]), constipation (2.3 [1.5 to 3.2]), blurred vision (2.2 [1.6 to 2.9]), balance disorder (2.0 [1.5 to 2.5]), and euphoric mood (1.6 [1.2 to 2.0]). The most common AEs, dizziness and somnolence, typically emerged within the first 1 to 2 weeks of treatment and resolved 1 to 2 weeks later, without resulting in cessation of treatment. The data from this review provide information, indicating which AEs may be expected in patients treated with pregabalin, and suggest that careful dose titration to the highest tolerable dose is the most appropriate approach in clinical practice.

Prediction of pregabalin-mediated pain response by severity of sleep disturbance in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive value of disturbed sleep on the ability of pregabalin to reduce pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). DESIGN: A post-hoc analysis of data pooled from 16 placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin in patients with DPN or PHN. METHODS: Pain relief at endpoint was compared in patients with mild, moderate, or severe levels of baseline sleep disturbance. Sleep disturbance was based on a scale from 0-10 and scores <4, 4 to 7, and ≥7 were classified as mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. RESULTS: Pregabalin significantly reduced mean pain scores in the DPN (N = 3,056) and PHN (N = 1,471) cohorts (mean placebo-adjusted reductions were -0.73 and -1.08 for patients with DPN/PHN, respectively; both P < 0.05). The greatest extent of pain relief occurred in patients with severe sleep interference scores at baseline. Data analyses using the pooled DPN/PHN population identified a subset of patients (N = 707) exhibiting marked levels of pain relief at endpoint (mean placebo-adjusted reduction of -2.88), all of whom had severe sleep interference scores at baseline. Baseline sleep interference scores were a moderately good predictor of global patient improvement in response to pregabalin treatment in both patient cohorts. Finally, path analysis showed a high degree of association between improvements in sleep and pain relief in patients with DPN/PHN. CONCLUSION: Overall, these data suggest that the presence of comorbid sleep disturbance in patients with DPN/PHN might, in part, predict substantial pain relief in response to pregabalin treatment.

Burden of illness associated with peripheral and central neuropathic pain among adults seeking treatment in the United States: a patient-centered evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported burden associated with peripheral and central neuropathic pain (NeP) by pain severity and NeP condition. DESIGN: Six hundred twenty-four subjects with one of six NeP conditions were recruited during routine office visits. Subjects consented to retrospective chart review and completed a one-time questionnaire (including EuroQol-5 dimensions, 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and demographic and clinical characteristics). Pain severity scores were used to stratify subjects by mild, moderate, and severe pain. Summary statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Differences by severity level were compared using Kruskal-Wallis (continuous variables) and chi-square or Fisher's exact test (categorical variables). Effect size was computed with Cohen's d (mild vs severe). RESULTS: Subjects' mean age was 55.5. The majority (80.8%) had moderate or severe pain. Patient-reported outcomes (health status, physical and mental health, pain interference with function, sleep, anxiety, and depression) were significantly worse among subjects with greater pain severity (all P < 0.0001). Severe pain subjects were negatively impacted by ≥30% in each outcome compared with mild pain subjects; standardized effect size was moderate for anxiety (0.59) and large (>0.95) for all others. The observed burden was most substantial among chronic low back pain-NeP, although the pattern of disease burden was similar across the six NeP conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects across NeP conditions exhibited high pain levels, which were significantly associated with poor function, compromised health status and sleep, and increased anxiety and depression. Results indicate substantial patient burden across broad NeP, particularly among subjects with severe pain.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in primary care settings: recommendations for dosing and titration.

Pregabalin is one of the first-line treatments approved for the management of neuropathic pain (NeP). While many patients benefit from treatment with pregabalin, they are often treated with suboptimal doses, possibly due to unfamiliarity around prescribing the drug and/or side effects that can occur with up-titration. This narrative review discusses key aspects of initiating, titrating, and managing patients prescribed pregabalin therapy, and addresses concerns around driving and the potential for abuse, as well as when to seek specialist opinion. To ensure that patients derive maximum therapeutic benefit from the drug, we suggest a 'low and slow' dosing approach to limit common side effects and optimize tolerability alongside patients' expectations. When requiring titration to higher doses, we recommend initiating 'asymmetric dosing,' with the larger dose in the evening. Fully engaging patients in order for them to understand the expected timeline for efficacy and side effects (including their resolution), can also help determine the optimal titration tempo for each individual patient. The 'low and slow' approach also recognizes that patients with NeP are heterogeneous in terms of their optimal therapeutic dose of pregabalin. Hence, it is recommended that general practitioners closely monitor patients and up-titrate according to pain relief and side effects to limit suboptimal dosing or premature discontinuation.

Weight effects associated with antipsychotics: a comprehensive database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Available data on atypical antipsychotic-induced weight gain are limited by a number of methodological factors. The objective of this report is to evaluate short-term (N=1742) and long-term (N=1649) weight effects in patients receiving standard doses of amisulpride, haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, and placebo based on 21 randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies from an integrated clinical trial database. METHOD: Analyses of the integrated ziprasidone schizophrenia trials database were performed to estimate the weighted average of weight change and the percentage of subjects experiencing weight gain (or weight loss) across studies for each agent studied, based on fixed- and random-effects models. Durations of treatment exposure in long-term trials were controlled by well-defined time windows (6 month: 150 to 210 days; 1 year: 330 to 390 days). Weight gain or loss was defined using a 7% change from baseline threshold. RESULTS: During long-term therapy with 1-year treatment duration, incidence of weight gain for subjects treated with ziprasidone (17%) was not significantly different from the placebo (13%) or haloperidol (41%) groups based on 95% confidence interval. In contrast, significantly greater weight gain incidence was observed for the olanzapine (57%) and risperidone (39%) groups compared to placebo. Median weight change of +0.49, -0.18, +1.50 and +0.55 lb/month was observed for haloperidol, ziprasidone, olanzapine and risperidone subjects, respectively, indicating differential weight change patterns compared to placebo (-0.32). Similar results were observed for the short-term (4-12 weeks) and 6-month treatment exposure cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm significant differences in long-term weight effects among atypical antipsychotics, consistent with findings from prior meta-analysis of antipsychotic-induced weight gain [Allison, D.B., Mentore, J.L., Heo, M., Chandler, L.P., Capelleri, J.C., Infante, M.C., Weiden, P.J., 1999. Antipsychotic induced weight gain: a comprehensive research synthesis. Am J Psychiatry 156, 1686-1696] and the CATIE schizophrenia study [Lieberman, J.A., Stroup, T.S., McEvoy, J.P., et al., 2005. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 353, 1209-1223].

The efficacy of pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathic pain in Japanese subjects with moderate or severe baseline pain.

PURPOSE: Although analyses of pooled clinical trial data have reported how international populations respond to pregabalin by baseline neuropathic pain (NeP) severity, no studies have evaluated this specifically in patients from Japan. Thus, this post hoc pooled analysis evaluated the efficacy of pregabalin in Japanese subjects for treating moderate or severe baseline NeP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from three placebo-controlled trials enrolling Japanese subjects with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and spinal cord injury (SCI). The efficacy of pregabalin was evaluated by baseline pain severity (moderate or severe NeP). The trials on PHN and DPN included a 1-week titration of pregabalin from 150 mg/day to 300 or 600 mg/day; the SCI trial included a 4-week dose optimization phase (150 mg/day, titrated up to 600 mg/day). Treatment durations were 13-16 weeks (excluding 1-week taper periods), and pregabalin was administered in two divided doses per day. RESULTS: Mean baseline pain scores and demographic characteristics were comparable between treatment cohorts. Pregabalin treatment significantly reduced pain scores from baseline to endpoint compared with placebo in subjects with both moderate (P<0.001) and severe (P<0.05) baseline pain. Significant improvements in mean sleep scores from baseline to endpoint were associated with pregabalin compared with placebo in subjects with both moderate and severe baseline pain (both P<0.0001). A greater proportion of subjects in both pain cohorts achieved a ≥30% reduction in pain from baseline with pregabalin vs placebo (P<0.05). Higher proportions of pregabalin-treated vs placebo-treated subjects shifted to a less severe pain category at endpoint. Consistent with the known safety profile of pregabalin, common adverse events included dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral edema. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin demonstrated efficacy for pain relief and sleep improvement with a consistent safety profile in Japanese subjects with either moderate or severe baseline pain severity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT0039490130, NCT0055347522, NCT0040774524.

Effectiveness of pregabalin for treatment of chronic cervical radiculopathy with upper limb radiating pain: an 8-week, multicenter prospective observational study in Japanese primary care settings.

Background: Despite high prevalence of chronic neck pain in Japan and the negative impact pain has on patient's quality of life (QoL), the therapeutic value of pregabalin for chronic neck pain with a neuropathic pain (NeP) component has not been assessed in a typical Japanese health care setting. Methods: An 8-week, non-interventional, multicenter, observational study of Japanese adults (≥20 years) with chronic refractory cervical pain including a NeP element (for ≥12 weeks) and sleep disturbance on the Pain-Related Sleep-Interference Scale (PRSIS) ≥1 (from 0 "does not interfere with sleep" to 10 "completely interferes"). Patients received either usual care with conventional analgesics or pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) for 8 weeks. "Usual care" with analgesics or other treatment(s) was determined based on physician's best clinical judgment. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in PRSIS. Secondary endpoints included: change from baseline to week 4 in PRSIS, and to week 4 and 8 in pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS; from 0 "no pain" to 10 "worst possible pain"), and on the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Other assessments of QoL were undertaken. Safety was monitored. Results: Overall, 369 patients received pregabalin (n=145) or usual care (n=224). The median (range) dose of pregabalin was 49.6 (25.0-251.5) mg/day. Least-squares mean change in PRSIS from baseline to week 8 favored pregabalin (-1.167 vs -0.269; treatment difference -0.898 [95% CI -1.262, -0.535], P<0.001). Similar observations were seen at week 4 in favor of pregabalin versus usual care (P<0.001). Pregabalin significantly improved pain NRS and NDI scores at weeks 4 and 8 (all P<0.001). Improvements in QoL versus usual care were also observed. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated. Conclusion: In this open-label study, pregabalin improved PRSIS and resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in pain in Japanese patients with NeP associated with chronic cervical pain. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02868359.

The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and early treatment responses to pregabalin: an exploratory post-hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Euphoria is a complex, multifactorial problem that is reported as an adverse event in clinical trials of analgesics including pregabalin. The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and pregabalin early treatment responses was examined in this exploratory post-hoc analysis. METHODS: Data were from patients with neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain enrolled in 40 randomized clinical trials, who received pregabalin (75-600 mg/day) or placebo. Reports of treatment-emergent euphoria events were based on the Medical Dictionary of Regulatory Activities preferred term "euphoric mood". Prevalence rates of euphoria events overall and by indication were assessed. Post-treatment endpoints included ≥30% improvements in pain and sleep scores up to 3 weeks as well as a ≥1-point improvement in daily pain score up to 11 days after treatment. RESULTS: 13,252 patients were analyzed; 8,501 (64.1%) and 4,751 (35.9%) received pregabalin and placebo, respectively. Overall, 1.7% (n=222) of patients reported euphoria events. Among pregabalin-treated patients, a larger proportion who reported euphoria events achieved an early pain response compared with those who did not report euphoria (30% pain responders in week 1 with euphoria events [43.0%], without euphoria events [24.2%]). Results were similar for weeks 2 and 3. For Days 2-11, a larger proportion of pregabalin-treated patients with (relative to without) euphoria events were 1-point pain responders. Findings were similar in pregabalin-treated patients for sleep endpoints (30% sleep responders in week 1 with euphoria events [50.7%], without euphoria events [36.1%]). Similar results were found for weeks 2 and 3. Patients who received placebo showed similar patterns, although the overall number of them who reported euphoria events was small (n=13). CONCLUSION: In patients who received pregabalin for neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain, those who experienced euphoria events may have better early treatment responses than those who did not report euphoria events.

Integrating Machine Learning With Microsimulation to Classify Hypothetical, Novel Patients for Predicting Pregabalin Treatment Response Based on Observational and Randomized Data in Patients With Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

PURPOSE: Variability in patient treatment responses can be a barrier to effective care. Utilization of available patient databases may improve the prediction of treatment responses. We evaluated machine learning methods to predict novel, individual patient responses to pregabalin for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, utilizing an agent-based modeling and simulation platform that integrates real-world observational study (OS) data and randomized clinical trial (RCT) data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The best supervised machine learning methods were selected (through literature review) and combined in a novel way for aligning patients with relevant subgroups that best enable prediction of pregabalin responses. Data were derived from a German OS of pregabalin (N=2642) and nine international RCTs (N=1320). Coarsened exact matching of OS and RCT patients was used and a hierarchical cluster analysis was implemented. We tested which machine learning methods would best align candidate patients with specific clusters that predict their pain scores over time. Cluster alignments would trigger assignments of cluster-specific time-series regressions with lagged variables as inputs in order to simulate "virtual" patients and generate 1000 trajectory variations for given novel patients. RESULTS: Instance-based machine learning methods (k-nearest neighbor, supervised fuzzy c-means) were selected for quantitative analyses. Each method alone correctly classified 56.7% and 39.1% of patients, respectively. An "ensemble method" (combining both methods) correctly classified 98.4% and 95.9% of patients in the training and testing datasets, respectively. CONCLUSION: An ensemble combination of two instance-based machine learning techniques best accommodated different data types (dichotomous, categorical, continuous) and performed better than either technique alone in assigning novel patients to subgroups for predicting treatment outcomes using microsimulation. Assignment of novel patients to a cluster of similar patients has the potential to improve prediction of patient outcomes for chronic conditions in which initial treatment response can be incorporated using microsimulation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRIES: www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00156078, NCT00159679, NCT00143156, NCT00553475.

Correction: Using time series analysis approaches for improved prediction of pain outcomes in subgroups of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207120.].

Epidemiology of physician-diagnosed neuropathic pain in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Estimate the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NeP) among chronic pain patients attending Brazilian hospitals and pain clinics in São Paulo, Ceara, and Bahia and explore clinical characteristics by subtypes: painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), central neuropathic pain (CNP), chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component (CLBP-NeP), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), post-traumatic neuropathic pain (PTN), and post-surgical neuropathic pain (PSN). METHODS: Physicians screened patients reporting chronic pain for ≥3 months (n=2,118) for probable NeP, using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire and physician assessment, and reported their NeP subtype(s), symptoms, and medications. Identified NeP patients completed a questionnaire including treatment experiences, quality of life EuroQol 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]), pain severity and interference (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scales. Descriptive analyses were performed by NeP subtype. RESULTS: The prevalence of probable NeP was 14.5% (n=307). NeP patients were mostly female (80.5%), middle-aged (mean [M]=52.5, SD=13.9), and Pardo (44.3%). Of those diagnosed with an NeP subtype (n=209), the largest proportions were CLBP-NeP (36.8%), followed by pDPN (18.7%), CNP (17.7%), PTN (17.2%), PSN (13.4%), and PHN (3.3%). Across subtypes, the most widely reported symptoms were numbness (range: 62.2%-89.7%) and hyperalgesia (range: 32.1%-76.9%) and the most commonly prescribed pain analgesics were NSAID (range: 18.2%-57.1%), opioids (range: 0.0%-39.3%), and antiepileptics (range: 18.2%-57.1%). PTN and PSN patients reported the least favorable EQ-5D index scores (M=0.42, SD=0.19) and BPI-Pain Severity scores (M=7.0, SD=1.9), respectively. Those diagnosed with CNP had the least favorable BPI-Pain Interference scores (M=6.0, SD=2.7). Patients with PHN reported the least impairment based on EQ-5D index scores (M=0.60, SD=0.04). Those with pDPN had the most favorable BPI scores (BPI-Pain Severity: M=4.6, SD=2.3; BPI-Pain Interference: M=4.7, SD=2.7). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of chronic pain patients in Brazil yielded a 14.5% probable NeP prevalence. NSAIDs and opioids were commonly used, and there was a high incidence of NeP-related symptoms with varying levels of dysfunction across subtypes.

The Epidemiology of Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in China: Results from a Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined the epidemiology of herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in China. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of HZ and PHN in China, and to examine the clinical characteristics of patients identified with PHN. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in 24 hospitals in seven cities in China. Prevalence of HZ and PHN was determined by physician (n = 100) chart review of patients (n = 36,170) aged ≥ 40 years seeking medical care over a 30- to 60-day period. The health history of patients identified with PHN was obtained and included time since diagnosis of HZ or PHN, time since onset of PHN-related pain, and the methods used for diagnosing HZ and PHN. RESULTS: The prevalence rates of HZ and PHN were 7.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.5-8.0] and 2.3% (95% CI 2.2-2.5), respectively. Of patients with HZ, 29.8% developed PHN. Rates of HZ and PHN increased with age and were highest in patients aged ≥ 70 years (10.6% and 4.1%, respectively). The majority of patients with PHN were diagnosed with HZ (80.9%) and PHN (83.8%) for < 1 year, and had experienced PHN-related pain for < 1 year (80.5%). Patient description and clinical examination were most commonly used to diagnose HZ and PHN. CONCLUSION: These results provide current estimates of the prevalence of HZ and PHN in the general adult population in urban China. These rates are similar to previously reported rates in China and worldwide, and highlight the global nature of HZ and PHN. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.