Pregabalin for Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To date, published neuropathic pain randomized controlled trials of pregabalin have involved primarily diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). This multicenter trial evaluated pregabalin in a broader range of neuropathic pain etiologies. METHODS: In this enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trial, 256 patients received single blind, flexible dose pregabalin for 4 weeks; stable concomitant analgesics were allowed. One hundred sixty-five (65%) had a ≥30% pain improvement and 157 were randomized and treated, double blind, to either continue pregabalin (n=80) or to receive placebo (n=77) for 5 weeks. RESULTS: Of the single blind responders randomized, 81% on placebo and 86% on pregabalin completed the double-blind phase. At the double-blind endpoint, mean (SD) pain scores were 2.9 (1.9) in the pregabalin group and 3.5 (1.7) in the placebo group (P=0.002). These modest yet significant pregabalin-placebo differences were observed within each of the subgroups of patients with a diagnosis of either DPN or PHN (P=0.03), and with other diagnoses (P=0.02). Significant differences were also observed in sleep interference, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety and Depression subscales, and other secondary measures. In total, 28 out of 80 (35.0%) in the pregabalin group and 28 out of 77 (36.4%) in the placebo group had either a meaningful increase in pain or discontinued the double-blind phase. Adverse events were consistent with the known tolerability profile of pregabalin and led to discontinuation of 9 during the single-blind phase, and 5 and 2 patients from the placebo and pregabalin groups, respectively. DISCUSSION: These results support previous evidence of pregabalin efficacy but further demonstrate efficacy and tolerability in a broader range of peripheral neuropathic pain conditions beyond just DPN and PHN.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".