Indian Journal of Palliative Care
Open access journal 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users online: 2005  
     Home | About | Feedback | Login 
  Current Issue Back Issues Editorial Board Authors and Reviewers How to Subscribe Advertise with us Contact Us Analgesic Prescription  
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  » Next article
  » Previous article 
  » Table of Contents
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (583 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 »  Introduction
 »  Patients and Methods
 »  Results
 »  Discussion
 »  Acknowledgements
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3213    
    Printed211    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded199    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 132-136

α2δ Modulators for management of compression neuropathic pain: A review of three case series


1 Relief Interventional Pain Clinic, Srinagar, India
2 Department of Anesthesia and Pain, Shere Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, India

Date of Web Publication21-Dec-2009

Correspondence Address:
Tariq A Tramboo
Relief Interventional Pain Clinic, Srinagar
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-1075.58459

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Context: The α2δ modulators gabapentin and pregabalin are effective against neuropathic pain. Numerous brands of α2δ modulators are available in India, and are expected to have equivalent clinical effects. They are routinely used for management of neuropathic pain associated with radiculopathy.
Aim: To describe clinical outcomes in three series of cases of neuropathic pain treated with three available brands of a2d modulators.
Settings and Design: Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes in patients attending an interventional pain clinic
Patients and Methods: One hundred and ninety-four consecutive patients with neuropathic pain secondary to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-documented compression radiculopathy received either LYRICA (LYR), a locally available generic brand of pregabalin (PGN), or a locally available generic brand of gabapentin (GBN), respectively. Drug treatment was continued till adequate pain relief was achieved. In each of the three groups, mean pain scores were analyzed at Days 0, 15, 60 and 90, and daytime sedation scores at Days 1, 15, 60 and 90.
Statistical Analysis u0 sed: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by pair-wise comparison using two-tailed unpaired t-test (if P value was significant).
Results: Mean pain score was significantly lower in the LYR series as compared to the PGN and GBN series at Days 15, 60 and 90. As compared to the PGN and GBN series, a greater proportion of patients in the LYR series could discontinue drug therapy following adequate pain relief, by Day 90. Daytime sedation scores were significantly lower in the LYR series as compared to the PGN and GBN series at Days 1, 15 and 60, and as compared to the PGN series at Day 90.
Conclusion: These results indicate the effectiveness of a2d modulators for management of neuropathic pain secondary to compression radiculopathy. The results also suggest a possible therapeutic superiority of LYRICA over locally available generic brands of pregabalin and gabapentin. These findings need to be further examined in randomized, controlled trials.


Keywords: Gabapentin neuropathic pain, Pregabalin, Radiculopathy


How to cite this article:
Tramboo TA, Gurkhoo S. α2δ Modulators for management of compression neuropathic pain: A review of three case series. Indian J Palliat Care 2009;15:132-6

How to cite this URL:
Tramboo TA, Gurkhoo S. α2δ Modulators for management of compression neuropathic pain: A review of three case series. Indian J Palliat Care [serial online] 2009 [cited 2020 Aug 6];15:132-6. Available from: http://www.jpalliativecare.com/text.asp?2009/15/2/132/58459



 » Introduction Top


Pain arising as a result of compression of spinal nerve roots comprises both - nociceptive and neuropathic components. In case of herniated disc compressing a nerve root for example, physiological activation of peripheral nociceptors on the affected nerve root will give rise to nociceptive pain, while ectopic impulse generation in the affected root will give rise to neuropathic pain. Gabapentin and pregabalin, which belong to a new class of drugs referred to as α2δ modulators, have been shown to be effective in the management of neuropathic pain associated with multiple conditions including diabetic peripheral neuropathy, [1],[2],[3],[4] herpes zoster, [4],[5],[6],[7] spinal cord injury [8] and cancer. [9] Given their efficacy in multiple types of neuropathic pain, these drugs are also likely to be effective in neuropathic pain associated with nerve root compression though no randomized controlled study has examined their efficacy specifically in this condition.

Despite a similar mechanism of action, pregabalin offers numerous advantages over gabapentin. It was more potent than gabapentin in pre-clinical studies. [10] Its bioavailability (> 90%) is higher than that of gabapentin (< 60%) and unlike gabapentin, is not dose-dependent. Also unlike gabapentin, there is little inter-individual variability in its pharmacokinetics, and blood levels achieved are predictable. [11],[12] In clinical studies, pregabalin offered higher responder rates than gabapentin (NNT = 4.2 vs. 5.1). [13] At the same time, it is better tolerated than gabapentin at therapeutic doses (discontinuation due to adverse events = 10.8% vs. 16%). [11],[12] In contrast to gabapentin, treatment with pregabalin can be safely initiated at effective doses. [11],[12] Unlike gabapentin, pregabalin has demonstrated significant pain relief within three days of starting treatment. [5]

In India, multiple brands of gabapentin and pregabalin are available. LYRICA, the innovator brand of pregabalin, is available at a premium over its generic versions. While NEURONTIN, the innovator brand of gabapentin is not available in India, many of its generic versions are available. Given the substantial price differential between LYRICA and the generic brands of gabapentin and pregabalin, generic prescribing is often adopted as a strategy to contain the treatment cost of neuropathic pain. Since generic brands have the same chemical entity as the innovator brand, and since these brands are required to demonstrate equivalent bioavailability (similar blood concentration profile over time) to the innovator brand, they are expected to have exactly the same clinical effects as the innovator brands.

In the current paper, we report the clinical outcome in three series of cases of neuropathic pain secondary to compression radiculopathy treated with three different brands of α2δ modulators namely: LYRICA (LYR), a locally available generic brand of pregabalin (PGN), and a locally available generic brand of gabapentin (GBN), respectively.


 » Patients and Methods Top


Patients

We recruited 194 consecutive patients attending our interventional pain clinic with neuropathic pain secondary to MRI-documented compression radiculopathy without any associated motor involvement. The pain had not been not adequately relieved by prior gabapentin treatment. Those patients who were receiving or were likely to require multiple neuropathic pain medications were excluded. Similarly, patients having concomitant peripheral painful neuropathies were excluded.

Drug administration

We divided the patients into three series. Sixty-seven patients continued to receive gabapentin, while 62 patients were started on LYRICA, and 65 on generic pregabalin. LYRICA and pregabalin were administered in dosages ranging from 150-600 mg daily, while the target dose for gabapentin was 3000 mg daily. All three drugs were administered in dosages based on patient response and tolerability. We continued treatment till the patients had adequate pain relief, in the event of which, therapy was discontinued.

Assessment

Pain scores were assessed on an 11-point numerical rating scale (ranging from 0 = 'no pain' to 10 = 'worst possible pain') on Days 0, 15, 60 and 90, irrespective of whether the patient was still receiving therapy or not. Intensity of daytime sedation experienced by the patients was assessed using a 4-point scale (ranging from 0 = 'no sedation' to 3 = maximum sedation') on Days 1, 15, 60 and 90.

Statistical analysis

Pain as well as daytime sedation scores were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by pair-wise comparison using two-tailed unpaired t-test (if P value was significant).


 » Results Top


Patients

Of the 194 patients, the majority (191) had neuropathic pain secondary to radiculopathy associated with disc prolapse, while three patients had radiculopathy associated with canal stenosis. Patient distribution per the level of disc prolapse in each of the three series is depicted in [Figure 1].

Mean pain scores

An analysis of mean pain scores is summarized in [Table 1], while [Figure 2] graphically depicts the change in these scores over time. Baseline pain scores were equivalent in the three series. However, at Days 15, 60 and 90, the mean pain score in the LYR series was significantly lower than that in the PGN and GBN series. Further, as summarized in [Table 2], patients in the LYR series received lower mean drug doses than patients in the PGN series. The mean pain score in the GBN series was significantly lower than that in the PGN series at Days 15, 60 and 90.

Duration of drug therapy

Discontinuation due to adverse events was low in all three series. As depicted in [Table 3], a greater proportion of patients in the LYR series could discontinue drug therapy following adequate pain relief than in the PGN and GBN series.

Daytime sedation

An analysis of mean daytime sedation scores is summarized in [Table 4], while [Figure 3] graphically depicts the change in these scores over time. On Days 1, 15, and 60, daytime sedation scores were significantly lower in the LYR series than in the PGN and GBN series. On Day 90, the scores in the LYR series were significantly lower as compared to the PGN series, but not the GBN series. On Days 15, 60 and 90, daytime sedation scores were significantly lower in the GBN series as compared to the PGN series.


 » Discussion Top


Our analysis points to the effectiveness of α2δ modulators in relieving neuropathic pain secondary to nerve root compression. The results of our analysis also suggest superior efficacy and tolerability for LYRICA as compared to locally available generic brands of pregabalin and gabapentin. Mean pain scores at all time points measured were significantly lower in the LYR series as compared to the PGN and GBN series. Further, lower drug dosages were required in the LYR series as compared to the PGN series. With regards to tolerability, daytime sedation scores were significantly lower in the LYR series as compared to the PGN and GBN series.

Interestingly, the therapeutic outcome in the GBN series was superior to that in the PGN series. All patients in our series had received prior gabapentin, but without adequate pain relief. A decrease in mean pain scores in the GBN series during the study duration can be explained by an increase in the dosage of gabapentin; many patients had earlier received inadequate doses of gabapentin.

Duration of therapy was shorter in the LYR series as compared to the PGN and GBN series; greater proportion of patients in the LYR series had discontinued therapy by Day 90 following adequate pain relief. This could possibly explained by more effective pain relief allowing for greater physical therapy and relief of muscle spasm.

In the past, differences between innovator and generic brands with regards to therapeutic outcome in patients have been reported for other antiepileptic drugs, including phenytoin, carbamazepine and sodium valproate. [14] Though generic brands contain the same chemical entity as the innovator brand, they can differ from the innovator brand in various other aspects like the manufacturing process, purity, enantiomeric ratio, salt of active moiety, or the excepients. [14] Hence there may be differences in the appearance, taste and shelf life of generic and innovator brands, as also clinical differences in therapeutic and adverse effects. Indeed, commentators have noted that bioequivalence need not necessarily guarantee therapeutic equivalence, i.e., it does not guarantee that a drug will have the same therapeutic and adverse effects as the reference drug. [14]

Chemically, pregabalin [s-(+)-isobutyl GABA] is the s-enantiomer of isobutyl GABA. The r-enantiomer of isobutyl GABA lacks activity at α2 -δ site, and its presence in a pregabalin formulation may be regarded as an impurity. [15] Theoretically it could also possess undesirable activity that could contribute to adverse effects in vivo. It is thus, a potential impurity that could arise during synthesis of pregabalin. It is possible that different brands of pregabalin use different manufacturing processes that yield varying proportions of s- and r-enantiomers of isobutyl GABA, thereby explaining the difference in the therapeutic and adverse effects of two different brands of same molecule. This highlights the need for enantio-specific analyses of chiral drugs whose pharmacologic activity resides in one enantiomer.

While the results of our case series suggest a possible therapeutic superiority of LYRICA over generic pregabalin and gabapentin, it will not be appropriate to draw any definite conclusion from the same. We have collected data in our daily outpatient setting and analyzed the same post-hoc, rather than examine the question of the superiority of LYRICA over generic pregabalin or gabapentin in a well-designed clinical study. Hence, the need to confirm the findings of our case series in a formal randomized controlled trial. We hope that our observations will spur further research to address the important issue of therapeutic equivalence of innovator and generic brands of same molecules.


 » Acknowledgements Top


The authors wish to thank Mr. Krishnendu Biswas for statistical analysis and Dr. Neal Sule for preparation of the manuscript.

 
 » References Top

1.Lesser H, Sharma U, LaMoreaux L, Poole RM. Pregabalin relieves symptoms of painful diabetic neuropathy: A randomized controlled trial. Neurology 2004;63:2104-10.  Back to cited text no. 1  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
2.Rosenstock J, Tuchman M, LaMoreaux L, Sharma U. Pregabalin for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pain 2004;110:628-38.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
3.Richter RW, Portenoy R, Sharma U, LaMoreaux L, Bockbrader H, Knapp LE. Relief of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy with pregabalin: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Pain 2005;6:253.  Back to cited text no. 3      
4.Freynhagen R, Strojek K, Griesing T, Whalen E, Balkenohl M. Efficacy of pregabalin in neuropathic pain evaluated in a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial of flexible- and fixed-dose regimens. Pain 2005;115:254-63.  Back to cited text no. 4  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
5.Dworkin RH, Corbin AE, Young JP Jr, Sharma U, LaMoreaux L, Bockbrader H, et al. Pregabalin for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia:A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 2003;60:1274-83.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
6.Sabatowski R, Gαlvez R, Cherry DA, Jacquot F, Vincent E, Maisonobe P, et al. Pregabalin reduces pain and improves sleep and mood disturbances in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia: Results of a randomised, placebo- controlled clinical trial. Pain 2004;109:26-35.  Back to cited text no. 6      
7.van Seventer R, Feister HA, Young JP Jr, Stoker M, Versavel M, Rigaudy L. Efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily pregabalin for treating pain and related sleep interference in postherpetic neuralgia: A 13-week, randomized trial. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:375-84.  Back to cited text no. 7      
8.Siddal P, Cousins M, Otte A, Phillips K, Griesing T. Pregabalin safely and efficaciously treats chronic central neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. J Pain 2005;6:S25.  Back to cited text no. 8      
9.Caraceni A, Zecca E, Bonezzi C, Arcuri E, Tur R, Maltoni M, et al. Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: A randomized controlled trial from gabapentin cancer pain study group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2909-17.  Back to cited text no. 9      
10.Huckle R. Pregabalin. Curr Opin Invest Drugs 2004;5:82-9.  Back to cited text no. 10      
11.Lyrica Prescribing Information. Pfizer Inc., USA. 2005.  Back to cited text no. 11      
12.Neurontin Prescribing Information. Pfizer Inc., USA. 2004.  Back to cited text no. 12      
13.Finnerup NB, Otto M, McQuay HJ, Jensen TS, Sindrup SH. Algorithm for neuropathic pain treatment: An evidence based proposal. Pain 2005;118:289- 305.  Back to cited text no. 13  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
14.Crawford P, Feely M, Guberman A, Kramer G. Are there potential problems with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs? A review of issues. Seizure 2006;15:165-76.  Back to cited text no. 14      
15.Bryans J, Wustrow D. 3-substituted GABA analogs with CNS activity: A review. Med Res Rev 1999;19:149-77.  Back to cited text no. 15      


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article
Online since 1st October '05
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow