An open-label, long-term study examining the safety and tolerability of pregabalin in Japanese patients with central neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies of pregabalin for the treatment of central neuropathic pain have been limited to double-blind trials of 4-17 weeks in duration. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term safety and tolerability of pregabalin in Japanese patients with central neuropathic pain. The efficacy of pregabalin was also assessed as a secondary measure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a 53-week, multicenter, open-label trial of pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) in Japanese patients with central neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or cerebral stroke. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients received pregabalin (post-stroke =60; spinal cord injury =38; and multiple sclerosis =5). A majority of patients (87.4%) experienced one or more treatment-related adverse events, most commonly somnolence, weight gain, dizziness, or peripheral edema. The adverse event profile was similar to that seen in other indications of pregabalin. Most treatment-related adverse events were mild (89.1%) or moderate (9.2%) in intensity. Pregabalin treatment improved total score, sensory pain, affective pain, visual analog scale (VAS), and present pain intensity scores on the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and ten-item modified Brief Pain Inventory (mBPI-10) total score at endpoint compared with baseline. Improvements in SF-MPQ VAS and mBPI-10 total scores were evident in all patient subpopulations. Mean changes from baseline in SF-MPQ VAS and mBPI-10 scores at endpoint were -20.1 and -1.4, respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that pregabalin is generally well tolerated and provides sustained efficacy over a 53-week treatment period in patients with chronic central neuropathic pain.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".