OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of gabapentin with placebo for neuropathic pain at the individual and population levels. DESIGN: This study used an n-of-1 trial methodology with three double-blind, randomized, crossover comparisons of gabapentin with placebo. SETTING: This study was carried out at specialist outpatient clinics at two Australian hospitals. Patients. The patients are adults with chronic neuropathic pain. INTERVENTIONS: Following a dose-finding period, participants underwent three comparisons of 2-week periods on gabapentin (600-1,800 mg per day) and placebo. The dose-finding period was commenced by 112 patients, of whom 39 had no response so they did not enroll, leaving 73 trial participants. Of these, 48 completed and 7 partially completed their trials, and 18 withdrew. OUTCOME MEASURES: The five outcome measures were the visual analog scale (0-10) of pain, sleep interference and functional limitation; frequency of adverse events and medication preference. The aggregate response was determined by weighting the response to each measure equally. RESULTS: Of the 55 participants who completed at least one cycle, the aggregate response to gabapentin was better than placebo in 16 (29%), of whom 15 continued gabapentin posttrial. No difference was shown in 38 (69%), and 1 (2%) showed a better response to placebo. Fifteen of these 39 continued gabapentin posttrial. Meta-analysis of the mean scores showed lower mean (standard deviation) scores for gabapentin by 0.8 (0.2) for pain, 0.6 (0.2) for sleep interference, and 0.6 (0.2) for functional limitation. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate and mean reduction in symptoms with gabapentin were small. Gabapentin prescribing posttrial was significantly influenced by the trial results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy ofgabapentin with placebo for neuropathic pain at the individual and population levels. DESIGN: This study used an n-of-1 trial methodology with three double-blind, randomized, crossover comparisons ofgabapentin with placebo. SETTING: This study was carried out at specialist outpatient clinics at two Australian hospitals. Patients. The patients are adults with chronic neuropathic pain. INTERVENTIONS: Following a dose-finding period, participants underwent three comparisons of 2-week periods on gabapentin (600-1,800 mg per day) and placebo. The dose-finding period was commenced by 112 patients, of whom 39 had no response so they did not enroll, leaving 73 trial participants. Of these, 48 completed and 7 partially completed their trials, and 18 withdrew. OUTCOME MEASURES: The five outcome measures were the visual analog scale (0-10) ofpain, sleep interference and functional limitation; frequency of adverse events and medication preference. The aggregate response was determined by weighting the response to each measure equally. RESULTS:Of the 55 participants who completed at least one cycle, the aggregate response to gabapentin was better than placebo in 16 (29%), of whom 15 continued gabapentin posttrial. No difference was shown in 38 (69%), and 1 (2%) showed a better response to placebo. Fifteen of these 39 continued gabapentin posttrial. Meta-analysis of the mean scores showed lower mean (standard deviation) scores for gabapentin by 0.8 (0.2) for pain, 0.6 (0.2) for sleep interference, and 0.6 (0.2) for functional limitation. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate and mean reduction in symptoms with gabapentin were small. Gabapentin prescribing posttrial was significantly influenced by the trial results.
Authors: Paul A Scuffham; Jane Nikles; Geoffrey K Mitchell; Michael J Yelland; Norma Vine; Christopher J Poulos; Peter I Pillans; Guy Bashford; Chris del Mar; Philip J Schluter; Paul Glasziou Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Philip J Wiffen; Sheena Derry; Rae F Bell; Andrew Sc Rice; Thomas Rudolf Tölle; Tudor Phillips; R Andrew Moore Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-06-09
Authors: Shivani Shinde; Pamela Gordon; Prashant Sharma; James Gross; Mellar P Davis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jennifer S Gewandter; Michael P McDermott; Hua He; Shan Gao; Xueya Cai; John T Farrar; Nathaniel P Katz; John D Markman; Stephen Senn; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Lyndonna Marrast; Joseph Conigliaro; Camille Chan; Eun Ji Kim; Joan Duer-Hefele; Michael A Diefenbach; Karina W Davidson Journal: Per Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Joyce P Samuel; Joshua A Samuels; Lauren E Brooks; Cynthia S Bell; Claudia Pedroza; Donald A Molony; Jon E Tyson Journal: Trials Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.279