普瑞巴林治疗难治性神经病理性疼痛的疗效与耐受性评估

目的评估普瑞巴林治疗难治性神经病理性疼痛的疗效与耐受性。方法采用队列研究,对连续收治的44例难治性神经病理性疼痛患者,予以普瑞巴林可变剂量150～300mg/d(基于药物的反应性和耐受性)治疗4周。采用数字等级评分(NRS)评价基线、第2周、第4周时疼痛强度以及疼痛对睡眠的干扰,应用汉密尔顿抑郁量表(17项)、汉密尔顿焦虑量表和患者总体印象改变(PGIC)进行情绪及总体疗效评定,同时观察普瑞巴林的不良反应。结果 43例患者完成研究,平均普瑞巴林剂量(272.1±59.1)mg。经治疗,疼痛评分由6.3±1.0下降至2周时的4.4±1.4和4周时的3.1±1.6(-50.9%,P<0.01);睡眠干扰评分、汉密尔顿抑郁评分和焦虑评分均明显改善(P<0.01)。24例(55.9%)患者的PGIC为"极为好转"或"明显好转"。不良反应少,仅1例(2.3%)患者因头晕而退出研究。结论普瑞巴林(150～300mg/d)能有效改善难治性神经病理性疼痛以及相关的睡眠及情绪障碍,且耐受性良好。     

普瑞巴林联合神经妥乐平治疗脊髓损伤患者神经病理性疼痛的疗效观察

目的:探讨神经妥乐平对于脊髓损伤后神经病理性疼痛的临床疗效,同时比较单独使用神经妥乐平与联合使用普瑞巴林和神经妥乐平对神经病理性疼痛的缓解程度、对患者情绪以及睡眠状况的改善情况。方法:选取符合入组标准的脊髓损伤伴神经病理性疼痛患者62例,电脑随机分2组,分别为神经妥乐平组、普瑞巴林联合神经妥乐平组,神经妥乐平组起始剂量为4U bid,普瑞巴林联合神经妥乐平组起始剂量为普瑞巴林75mg bid+神经妥乐平4U bid,间隔3d调整药物剂量,疗程为4周。采用视觉模拟评分量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)、医院焦虑抑郁量表(hospital anxiety and depression scale,HAD)、匹茨堡睡眠质量指数量表(Pittsburgh sleep quality index,PSQI)对患者进行疼痛、情绪和睡眠质量的评估。由专业的康复治疗师对患者服药前和疗程结束后的疗效分别进行评估。结果:单独使用神经妥乐平可以缓解脊髓损伤患者神经病理性疼痛,同时改善患者睡眠质量,治疗前后比较差异有显著性意义(P0.05);而联合使用普瑞巴林和神经妥乐平治疗后,患者的VAS和HAD评分均较神经妥乐平组明显降低,差异有显著性意义(P0.05)。结论:神经妥乐平可以缓解脊髓损伤患者的疼痛症状,联合使用普瑞巴林和神经妥乐平不仅明显缓解脊髓损伤神经病理性疼痛患者的疼痛症状,同时显著改善了患者的焦虑抑郁情绪,提高患者睡眠质量,进而提升患者生存质量,是一种有效的临床治疗方法。     

普瑞巴林与羟考酮联合干预对癌性神经痛患者睡眠结构及负性情绪的影响

目的观察普瑞巴林与羟考酮联合干预对癌性神经痛患者睡眠结构及负性情绪的影响。方法选取我院住院的82例癌性神经痛患者患者,随机分为对照组和观察组41例。对照组单纯给予盐酸羟考酮缓释片口服,观察组在对照组基础上加用普瑞巴林口服。对比两组患者治疗前后疼痛程度及负性情绪改变情况,对比两组患者睡眠情况。结果治疗后观察组NRS评分、SAS评分、SDS评分显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),观察组觉醒次数、觉醒时间、浅睡眠时间/TST显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),观察组深睡眠时间/TST、快速动眼时间/TST,显著高于高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论普瑞巴林与羟考酮联合干预对缓解癌性神经痛患者疼痛有较好疗效,可改善患者的睡眠质量和负性情绪。     

普瑞巴林治疗神经病理性疼痛的疗效与安全性分析

目的：探讨普瑞巴林治疗神经病理性疼痛的疗效其安全性。方法将58例神经病理性疼痛患者随机分为普瑞巴林组和卡马西平组各29例,分别给予普瑞巴林和卡马西平治疗,所有入组患者均在治疗前及治疗1、2、3、4周时应用疼痛视觉模拟评分法（VAS）、睡眠干扰评分法、汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）及汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）进行疗效评定,同时观察两组不良反应情况。结果两组患者治疗后VAS评分、睡眠干扰评分、HAMD、HAMA评分较治疗前均有所降低（P＜0.05）;相同治疗时间内普瑞巴林组比卡马西平组评分降低明显（P＜0.05）;治疗过程中普瑞巴林组不良反应发生率较卡马西平组低（P＜0.05）。结论普瑞巴林治疗神经病理性疼痛疗效好,不良反应发生率低。     

脑卒中后抑郁患者睡眠障碍的临床研究

目的探讨脑卒中后抑郁患者(poststrokedepression,PSD)睡眠行为及睡眠进程的变化,并针对此变化提出PSD患者临床护理措施。方法自编睡眠调查表及多导睡眠仪对28例PSD患者的睡眠行为障碍进行调查和检测,并与28例无抑郁的脑卒中患者进行对照。结果抑郁组患者入睡困难、睡眠维持困难、睡眠过度及晨醒时伴心境恶劣倾向的发生率高于对照组(P<0.01);与对照组比较,抑郁组存在潜伏期长、觉醒时间长、觉醒次数多、睡眠效率低、睡眠维持率低和REM潜伏期短(P<0.01)。结论睡眠障碍是PSD的重要临床症状,睡眠行为与睡眠进程中各种检测指标的异常与PSD的病程发展及发病机理相关,临床上应高度重视睡眠障碍对PSD患者卒中康复的影响,并积极采取针对性护理措施提高PSD患者的睡眠质量。     

普瑞巴林术前给药对肛肠病患者术后疼痛的影响

目的探讨普瑞巴林术前给药对肛肠病患者术后疼痛及睡眠质量的影响。方法选择肛肠病手术患者60例,随机分为P组(普瑞巴林)、S组(塞来昔布)和C组为(安慰剂)。比较3组术后4、8、12、24、48 h的VAS评分、血流动力学指标及并发症情况。结果与S组和C组相比,P组在术后24 h内各个时点创口VAS评分均显著较低(P0.01)。S组和C组术后24 h内各时点血压、心率均显著升高(P0.05);S组和C组在术后8、12和24 h血压、心率均显著高于P组(P0.05)。P组夜间睡眠障碍发生情况显著优于S组和C组。结论普瑞巴林超前镇痛可有效缓解肛肠病患者术后疼痛,减少应激反应,提高患者生活质量。     

睡眠障碍患者焦虑抑郁症状调查分析

目的探讨睡眠障碍患者的焦虑、抑郁症状特点。方法对60例睡眠障碍患者,58例焦虑症患者,63例抑郁症患者采用焦虑自评量表、抑郁自评量表进行评定,并与国内常模比较。结果睡眠障碍患者的焦虑发生率高于抑郁发生率,差异无显著性（P〉0．05）;不同性别间焦虑、抑郁发生率无显著性差异（F〉0．05）;≥60a者抑郁发生率高于〈60a者,≥60a者焦虑发生率低于〈60a者,差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。睡眠障碍组焦虑、抑郁症状均高于国内常模,但其严重程度均低于焦虑症组和抑郁症组患者,差异有极显著性（P〈0．01）。结论睡眠障碍患者焦虑、抑郁症状发生率较高。在治疗的同时应给予抗抑郁剂药物治疗和心理治疗。     

伐昔洛韦联合普瑞巴林对老年急性带状疱疹神经痛患者疼痛程度及睡眠质量的影响

目的 围绕老年急性带状疱疹神经痛（post herpetic neuralgia,PHN）患者,采用伐昔洛韦与普瑞巴林相联合方案来治疗,分析其对患者疼痛程度、睡眠质量所产生的影响。方法 对老年急性PHN患者进行选取（选取时间：2019年1月至2022年12月,选取地点：盐城市第三人民医院,选取例数66例）,然后进行分组（分组方法：随机数字表法,每组例数：33例）,其中,A组采用普瑞巴林治疗,B组以此为基础,加用伐昔洛韦,就两组患者的临床疗效、疼痛程度[采用疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）行此评定]实施对比,另比较两组睡眠质量[以匹兹堡睡眠质量指数（PSQI）]、神经递质指标[P物质（SP）与β-内啡肽（β-EP）]与不良反应发生情况。结果 B组治疗总有效率（96.97%）较A组（72.73%）更高（P <0.05）。B组治疗后的VAS、PSQI评分均较A组更低（P <0.05）。B组治疗后SP水平较A组更低（P <0.05）,而β-EP水平较A组更高（P <0.05）。在不良反应发生率上,两组经比较,差异未见统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 针对老年急性PHN患...     

Effectiveness and time to onset of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND: The data from a previously published 12-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin were analyzed for time to onset of analgesic action with neuropathic pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 338 patients with postherpetic neuralgia or painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy were treated with flexible or fixed regimens of pregabalin at daily doses of up to 600 mg/day (n=141 and 132, respectively) or placebo (n=65). RESULTS: Under fixed dose treatment, a decrease of one full point on the 11-point numerical rating pain scale was reached on day 1, two full points on day 13, and three full points on day 23 (under flexible dose pregabalin: on days 6, 17 and 30). In both treatment arms, pain reduction was statistically significant (P=0.001, P=0.002 vs placebo, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic neuropathic pain, the analgesic effect of both pregabalin treatment regimens was high and associated with a rapid time to onset.     

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin in treatment refractory patients with various neuropathic pain entities in clinical routine

AIMS: Conventional approaches to the management of neuropathic pain (NeP) often yield unsatisfactory results. We aimed to investigate pregabalin, a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-analogue, in a wide range of pregabalin naive patients with treatment refractory NeP. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, 4-week, open, prospective multicentre study in tertiary care. Pregabalin was prescribed at physicians' discretion based on patients' individual responses and tolerability, with or without concomitant analgesics. Consecutive patients were requested to fill in questionnaires at baseline and after 14 and 28 days with numerical pain rating scales (0, none; 10, worst possible), sleep rating scales, parts of the Brief Pain Inventory, Pain Experience Scale, Short Questionnaire on Current Burden and the SF-12 health-related quality of life scale. RESULTS: In 55 patients, the mean pregabalin dose was 142 +/- 26 mg at day 1 and 348 +/- 161 mg at day 28. The mean pain score decreased from 6.5 +/- 1.7 to 5.5 +/- 1.9 at day 14 and to 4.9 +/- 1.8 at day 28 (-24.6%, p < 0.0001). Significant and rapid improvements were noted in the sleep interference score (p < 0.00001), Short Questionnaire on Current Burden (p < 0.01) and SF-12 (somatic score p < 0.001; psychological score p < 0.01). Pregabalin was well tolerated, and only three patients (5%) discontinued treatment prematurely. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that pregabalin is an effective and well-tolerated drug in difficult-to-treat NeP patients under daily clinical practice conditions. A flexible dosing approach appears appropriate to ensure patient compliance and treatment success.     

Cost analysis of adding pregabalin or gabapentin to the management of community-treated patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

Objective To compare the cost of adding either pregabalin or gabapentin to the management of community‐treated patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP). Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted using medical records from a Spanish health care provider claims database. Patients receiving health care for PNP, above 18 years and for which either pregabalin or gabapentin was initiated between 2006 and 2008 were included. Economic evaluation included health care resource utilization costs and costs due to sick leave. Results A total of 1163 patients with PNP were eligible for analysis: 764 were prescribed pregabalin and 399 gabapentin in addition to current pain therapy. Mean age was 59.2 years and 62.2% were female. Concomitant use of analgesics was higher in the gabapentin cohort (3.2 vs. 2.7; P = 0.003), mainly due to non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (74.9% vs. 69.5%; P = 0.018) and opioids (27.7% vs. 17.9%; P = 0.031). Adjusted total costs per patient was lower in pregabalin‐treated patients (€2514 vs. €3241; P = 0.003), due to less sick leave (€1067 vs. €1633; P = 0.018) and lower health care costs (€1447 vs. €1609; P = 0.004). The higher acquisition cost of pregabalin (€351 vs. €191; P < 0.001) was largely compensated with lower costs in medical visits, physiotherapy, hospital stays and concomitant analgesics. Conclusions In community‐treated patients with PNP, total costs were considerably less for those patients initiated with pregabalin therapy than for those patients starting gabapentin add‐on therapy. The relatively higher treatment acquisition cost of pregabalin was largely compensated by the overall lower costs for the other components of health care resources and sick leave, thus reducing the economic impact on the health care provider's budget and society.     

Superiority of capsaicin 8% patch versus oral pregabalin on dynamic mechanical allodynia in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain

Background

Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia (DMA) is a typical symptom of neuropathic pain (NP). In a recent study, the capsaicin 8% patch was noninferior to pregabalin in overall peripheral NP relief. In this study, we report the comparison of the two treatments in relieving DMA.

Methods

In a randomized, open‐label, head‐to‐head, 8‐week study, 488 patients with peripheral NP were treated with the capsaicin 8% patch (one application) or an optimized dose of pregabalin. Assessments included the area and intensity of DMA, and the number of patients achieving complete resolution of DMA.

Results

At baseline, 253 patients in the capsaicin 8% patch group and 235 patients in the pregabalin group had DMA. From baseline to end of study, the change in DMA intensity was significantly in favour of the capsaicin 8% patch versus pregabalin [?0.63 (95% CI: ?1.04, ?0.23; p = 0.002)]. Similarly, the capsaicin 8% patch was superior to pregabalin in reducing the area of DMA [?39.5 cm² (95% CI: ?69.1, ?10.0; p = 0.009)] from baseline to end of study. Overall, a greater proportion of patients had a complete resolution of allodynia with capsaicin 8% patch treatment compared with pregabalin treatment (24.1% vs. 12.3%; p = 0.001) at end of study.

Conclusion

Capsaicin 8% treatment was superior to pregabalin in reducing the intensity and area of DMA, and in the number of patients with complete resolution of DMA.

Significance

The superiority of a topical treatment over pregabalin in relieving DMA supports the view that both peripheral and central sensitization can mediate allodynia.