Keywords
Pregabalin, duloxetine, fixed-dose combination, neuropathic, pain, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS)
Pregabalin, duloxetine, fixed-dose combination, neuropathic, pain, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS)
Neuropathic pain significantly impacts the quality of life and well-being of patient.1 The financial burden to manage neuropathic pain in the chronic setting is huge on society.2,3 Its prevalence in the general population ranges from 1% to 8%.4,5
The most effective pharmacotherapeutic classes of drugs in the management of neuropathic pain are gabapentanoids, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).1–3,6–9 Most of these options are effective but come with a few potential side effects.
Pregabalin, a gabapentanoid blocks the presynaptic alpha 2 delta subunit of calcium channels of the dorsal horn. This leads to inhibition of neurotransmitter release from presynaptic neuron.7,8,10 Multiple international societies recommend it as a first-line treatment option for neuropathic pain.2,6,11
SNRIs are also recommended as a first-line treatment option by multiple guidelines.1–3,6–9 Duloxetine, an SNRI modulates pain signals by facilitating descending inhibitory pain pathway.3,7 SNRIs have been found effective in peripheral diabetic neuropathy,6,8 painful peripheral neuropathy and multiple sclerosis.12
Treatment of neuropathic pain with monotherapy has several limitations such as not being effective for all patients, having partial pain relief and increased side effects with higher doses.8 These are the main reasons to use two or more drugs in about 45% of patients.13,14 To overcome these issues, for adequate pain relief without increased adverse effects, combination therapy with two or more medications is required in about half of the patients affected with neuropathic pain. Many international guidelines suggest an addition of another drug from a different pharmacological class when adequate pain control is not achieved with monotherapy. However, the evidence available for combination therapy is limited.1,2,7,8,9 The advantages of combination therapy may be increased efficacy and better tolerability due to the use of smaller doses of individual drugs.1,9
Both pregabalin and duloxetine are approved in the treatment of neuropathic pain. The monotherapy with drugs at their standard doses (60mg and 300 mg/day respectively) have shown to provide substantial clinical pain relief in only 40% of patients.15,16,17
Administration of pregabalin and duloxetine combination treatment may provide better pain relief and tolerability than the administration of maximum doses of each drug, especially in patients showing partial response to monotherapy.18
Pregabalin and duloxetine have different mechanism of action and administration of these drugs in combination rather than monotherapy may potentially provide enhanced pain relief in neuropathic pain due to their complementary actions.19,20 However, there have been no clinical studies on fixed-dose combinations of low-dose pregabalin and duloxetine for the treatment of neuropathic pain.
The objective of our phase 3 study was to assess the potential non-inferiority of fixed-dose combination of low-dose pregabalin and duloxetine compared to pregabalin monotherapy in adults with moderate to severe neuropathic pain.
This was a multicentre, parallel, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial conducted in adult patients with neuropathic pain enrolled from 17 sites across India. All investigational sites were approved by respective Independent Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board before the enrolment of any patient in the trial. This trial followed the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the trial protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and the Drug Controller General of India (CT-06-11/2020). The trial was registered on 2nd September 2020 with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (Registry identifier: CTRI/2020/09/027555). This trial was conducted from September 2020 to January 2021.
Four hundred and thirty patients presenting with moderate to severe neuropathic pain and having at least moderate to severe pain intensity ≥ 4 on the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) during screening at one of the participating centres were assessed and referred to the investigator for enrolment. The pain intensity was measured through 11-point NPRS in which 0 indicated no pain and 10 as the worst possible pain. Eligible adult patients aged 18 to 65 years of age who met inclusion criteria and signed informed consent forms were enrolled. Exclusion criteria included were a history of hypersensitivity to pregabalin or duloxetine or any of its excipients; clinically significant illness in the past three months; type I or II diabetes with glycosylated haemoglobin A1C of >10%; clinically significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities or QTc ≥450 msec; treated with drugs that impair metabolism of serotonin or serotonergic drugs other than study drugs or corticosteroids within the past four weeks; treated with topical or systemic pain medications within past two weeks; pregnant or lactating women, female with childbearing potential who were neither surgically sterilized nor willing to use medically acceptable contraceptive methods during the study; participated in any other investigational drug trial within the past four weeks and those patients who in the opinion of the investigator either unable to cooperate or unlikely to adhere with any study procedures or not considered a suitable candidate for participation in the study.
The trial period was 7 weeks, and the patients were scheduled for 7 visits (screening, baseline, week 1, week 2, week 3, week 5 and week 7). Patients were screened by the respective site investigator and eligible patients were randomized to receive either test + dummy reference or reference + dummy treatment. The assignment of treatment was as per the pre-determined computer generated, centrally administered randomization scheduled with the help of interactive web response system (IWRS). Each patient received unique randomization code.
Post-screening, three hundred and twenty-eight participants were randomized to receive either fixed-dose combination (FDC) of pregabalin and duloxetine or pregabalin monotherapy. At screening, sociodemographic data and pain intensity were assessed. At baseline, clinical data (significant medical history, concomitant use of other medications), pain intensity and neuropathic pain symptom inventory were collected.
At the baseline visit, all the eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either FDC of pregabalin and duloxetine plus dummy of pregabalin (Test group) or pregabalin plus dummy of FDC of pregabalin and duloxetine (Reference group). The study medications were administered in a double-blind, dummy manner. The double-dummy design of the trial was achieved with the placebo formulations of pregabalin plus duloxetine and pregabalin in identical capsule. The investigation product’s primary packaging, blinding, labelling and secondary packaging was performed by third party. The investigation packages were given unique number code. At regular monitoring visits, study monitor ensured that the blinding was maintained. The participants, the research staff, and the investigators were all blinded to treatment allocations throughout the study period. One-hundred and sixty-four patients in the test group were initiated with FDC of pregabalin 50mg plus duloxetine 20mg capsule and one-hundred and sixty-four patients in the reference group with pregabalin monotherapy (75mg) capsule in the evening. Patients who responded to assigned treatment continued the same treatment until week 7 and those who were non-responders were up titrated after assessment at consecutive weeks. Patients who were having <30% reduction in pain intensity (based on the 11-point NPRS) were considered non-responders to the assigned treatment. After visit 2, non-responders in both groups were up-titrated at visit 3, visit 4 and visit 5 (Table 1). A telephonic safety follow-up was performed for all the subjects after 1 week (± 2 days) after the end of the treatment.
The primary objective was to assess the mean change in pain intensity based on an 11-point NPRS.
The secondary outcome measures were mean change in NPRS from baseline to weeks 2, 3, and 5; proportion of responders (≥30% improvement in pain (NPRS) from baseline) at week 7; proportion of patients with ≥50% improvement in NPRS from baseline to week 7; mean change in NPSI total score from baseline to end of the treatment; Percentage of patients who required rescue medication for inadequate pain relief (recorded at every visit); Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score at week 7; Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) score at week 7; incidence of treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in test arm against reference arm (recorded at every visit)
The study was powered to detect a mean of improvement of 2.5 for Pregabalin and 2.7 for FDC at the end of the study in NPRS with a 2-sided test and 95% power, assuming an SD of 2.3. Non-inferiority margin considered was 33%. This analysis required 139 patients per treatment arm. We assumed around 15% discontinuing during therapy, on that basis a total of 328 patients were planned.
For analyses, we used modified intention-to-treat (mITT) principles. All randomised patients were included in efficacy analyses if they were treated and had a baseline and at least received one dose of study medication and one post-baseline assessment of any efficacy parameter. In safety population analysis, all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication were included.
Primary efficacy evaluation, change from baseline (Day 0) to EOT (Week 7) was calculated for NPRS score. It was compared using an independent t-test to test the differences between treatment groups. The non-inferiority was assessed based on the one-sided 97.5% CI (i.e., two-sided 95% CI) approach. A non-inferiority margin of 33% (MoNI -0.8) of the total response was observed for reference.
The secondary efficacy analysis included mean change in NPRS score from baseline to Weeks 2, 3 and 5 and mean change in NPSI total score from baseline to end of week 7, PGI-I and CGI-I score, subjects required rescue medication for inadequate pain relief and incidence of TEAE [dizziness, somnolence and/or peripheral oedema]. These endpoints were analyzed using either t-test, Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the safety measures. Fisher’s Exploratory Analysis were performed to determine the frequencies of patients with TEAEs. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed to determine the difference in the least-squares mean in the magnitude of change in NPRS and NPSI scores between the treatments. All statistical analysis were performed by using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., North Carolina, Cary, USA).
A total of 430 patients were screened from all the sites (Figure 1). A total of 328 eligible patients were equally randomized in two groups as test groups (N=164) and reference group (N=164). After randomization, 20 patients withdrew their consent, 7 patients were lost to follow-up, 2 patients discontinued due to adverse events and 1 patient was discontinued by the investigator from the test group. The reasons for discontinuation are mentioned in Figure 1. Thus, total 298 patients completed 7 weeks treatment.28
The demographic characteristics between both treatment groups were comparable. The number of female patients was slightly higher in the reference group compared to the test group. The demographic characteristics are presented in Table 2. The mean patient age at enrolment was 46.5 years. All included patients had an average pain score of at least 4 on NPRS prior to treatment. The mean pain intensity was 6.4.
The primary efficacy assessment was to compare the change in NPRS score between the test and the reference group. At the end of week 7, the mean change in NPRS score from baseline was -4.49 and -4.66 with the test and the reference group (p<0.0001) respectively (Figure 2). The lower bound 95% CI for treatment difference was -0.18 which was higher than the non-inferiority margin of -0.8. Therefore, the test treatment was non-inferior to the reference group. These results obtained in the mITT population were supported by those seen in the PP population [95%CI: -0.26, 0.44, p <0.05).
The change in NPRS scores between the test group and the reference group at weeks 2, 3 and 5 from baseline was non-significant. In the test group it was -2.49, -3.19 and -3.89 while -2.65, -3.34 and -4.03 in the reference group (p>0.05). (Figure 2)
The percentage proportion of responders between the test and the reference treatment were similar at week 7 (96.20% Vs 98.73%, p>0.05). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed at week 7 in the percentage of the patient with ≥50% improvement in pain (84.18% Vs 89.17, p>0.05). No statistically significant difference in mean change in NPSI total score from baseline was observed (-37.57 Vs -38.47, p>0.05).
When patients were asked about their global impression of improvement using the PGI-I, patients reported much better to very much better improvement with both treatments. The mean of the PGI-I score at Week 7 was 1.7 and 1.6 between test group and treatment group (p>0.05).
When investigators were asked about their global impression of improvement using the CGI-I, investigators reported much better to very much better improvement with both the treatments. The mean of CGI-I scores at week 7 was 1.6 in both the treatment groups (p>0.05). Table 3 represents the secondary outcome data.
The percentage of subjects who experienced TEAEs were comparable between the groups. Most of the TEAES were at least possibly related to study treatment. In the reference group, two patients discontinued the treatment due to TEAES while none in the test group discontinued for this reason. Table 4 presents an overall summary of adverse events for the safety population.
The major side effects reported in both groups were somnolence, dizziness, and oedema (Table 4). All the reported TEAEs were mild in severity. The incidence of peripheral oedema was higher with the reference treatment as compared to the test treatment (3.11% vs. 0%, p>0.05), although statistically not significant.
No serious adverse events (SAE) were observed in the study.
In additional analysis, significantly more moderate to severe adverse events were observed in the reference group as compared to the test group. Furthermore, early onset of somnolence and gastrointestinal AEs were observed with pregabalin monotherapy compared to FDC of low-dose pregabalin and duloxetine and this difference was significant. Similarly, significantly, more patients withdrew from the study due to experiencing AE’s or needing treatment for AE’s in the test group compared to the reference group.
Neuropathic pain can be spontaneous or provoked and the patient may complain of paraesthesia, dysesthesia, and loss of normal sensation due to nerve damage.21 The most commonly used option to treat neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy. However, the complex aetiology of neuropathic pain is the reason for the limited benefit of monotherapy.
The drawback of monotherapy is its limited efficacy and increased adverse effects with the higher dose. Due to tolerability issues, higher doses needed for maximum therapeutic response are not used. Inadequate partial pain relief with the single agent will lead to impaired physical function, impaired sleep, reduced quality of life and higher economic costs of unrelieved pain.
Combination therapy with two or more drugs must be considered to overcome the challenges of managing uncontrolled neuropathic pain with improved analgesic efficacy and reduced overall side effects especially when synergistic interactions are possible for dose reductions of combined drugs.22 In clinical practice, combination therapy is frequently used.
Evidence supports the combination of gabapentinoids and antidepressants than a high dose of individual drugs from either class for a reasonable treatment in neuropathic pain. Pregabalin, a gabapentinoid and duloxetine, an antidepressant; should be initiated with lower doses and gradually up-titrated based on the treatment response.
Pregabalin-duloxetine combination shows additive analgesic actions with a better safety profile compared to high-dose pregabalin monotherapy. In clinical practice, lower doses (once daily or twice daily) of pregabalin (50mg, 75 mg) and duloxetine (20mg, 30 mg) are widely co-prescribed by the neurologist. A combination of significantly lower doses of pregabalin-duloxetine has a greater pain relief than for side effects.23
Danish expert recommendation reported that a combination of gabapentinoid and SNRI is associated with better pain relief and lesser side effects than a single drug therapy.24 An Indian consensus statement suggests that when managing neuropathic pain management with gabapentinoids as first drug, TCAs such as nortriptyline or SNRIs can be considered as add on therapy and vice versa.25 The American Diabetes Asssociation (ADA) position statement recommends combination of two first line agents from class of gabapentinoids, SNRIs, or TCAs in cases wherein monotherapy fails. Furthermore, it also suggests that tramadol/tapentadol can be added if two drug combinations provide inadequate pain relief.26
The COMBO-DN (Combination vs. Monotherapy of pregabalin and duloxetine in DPN) is one of the largest and well known multinational randomized study conducted in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. It reported outcome of duloxetine and pregabalin monotherapy at high doses versus a combination of these two agents at standard dosing.27 The primary outcome of the study was not achieved as no significant difference was measured between the monotherapy and standard-dose combination therapy. However, secondary outcomes of this trial showed that number of patients who achieved >50% reduction were more in combination treatment compared to high dose monotherapy (52.1% Vs 39.3%, p=0.068) with better tolerability.
The initial evidence indicates the need of additional large clinical trials in neuropathic pain for identifying optimal combination as initial approach. Therefore, we conducted a phase 3 trial on the fixed-dose combination of lower doses of pregabalin (50mg, 75mg) and duloxetine (20mg, 30mg) in adult patients with moderate to severe neuropathic pain.
Our phase 3 trial result suggests that the combination of a low dose of pregabalin and duloxetine provides similar analgesia and better safety in comparison to a high dose of pregabalin (150mg, 300mg) monotherapy. The subjective assessment done by CGI-I and PGI-I was also found similar in both the groups.
Data from the present trial suggest that a combination of low-dose pregabalin and duloxetine could be a combination of choice considering the relatively lesser dose administration for pregabalin without compromising efficacy and safety. Additional evaluation of safety data indicated a clear tolerability advantage of FDC over monotherapy for clinically meaningful adverse events associated with monotherapy.
The efficacy results of previous studies on the combination of pregabalin and duloxetine indicate that a combination therapy might be a reasonable therapeutic approach rather than up-titrating the dose in patients with inadequate pain control or having tolerability problem with a high doses of single first-line agent. The outcome of the present study supports the outcomes of previous studies.
In our trial, there were no significant safety concerns observed in both the treatment groups. The most common adverse effects observed were dizziness and somnolence, which are in line with the currently known profile of these drugs.
In this study, the overall frequency of adverse effects was similar with both treatments, except that patient receiving the pregabalin monotherapy had a higher frequency of peripheral oedema than those receiving the pregabalin-duloxetine combination. Additional analysis also established the safety advantage of FDC in AEs of common concern over monotherapy.
The strength of our study is that it is a double-blind, double-dummy parallel-group design. The use of lower doses of pregabalin and duloxetine in combination reflects current clinical practice.
The limitations of our study include small sample size, shorter duration of the study, and the design of the study which compared a fixed dose combination of pregabalin and duloxetine only with a high dose of pregabalin not with duloxetine. Patient related outcomes such as sleep interference and emotional functioning were not assessed in our trial.
Nevertheless, the trial results unequivocally shows that a low dose pregabalin-duloxetine combination is non-inferior to high-dose pregabalin monotherapy in management of patients with moderate to severe neuropathic pain.
In patients with moderate to severe neuropathic due to different aetiologies, the analgesic effect demonstrated by FDC of pregabalin (low dose), and duloxetine was comparable to pregabalin (high dose) monotherapy. The FDC was safe and well tolerated. This is the first Indian clinical trial in which FDC of pregabalin and duloxetine was evaluated. Future studies with larger sample sizes, long-term duration and heterogenous population are necessary to understand the clinical outcome with FDC of pregabalin and duloxetine.
Figshare: Fixed dose combination of low dose pregabalin and duloxetine, or pregabalin monotherapy for neuropathic pain: A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21755288.v4. 28
This project contains the following underlying data:
Figshare: CONSORT checklist for ‘Fixed dose combination of low dose pregabalin and duloxetine, or pregabalin monotherapy for neuropathic pain: A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study’, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21755288.v4. 28
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
The authors wish to thank the participating investigators and the participants of the study. The writing of this article was supported by a medical writer at Medwiz Healthcare Communications Private Ltd.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Pain
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
References
1. Al-Ameri LT, Shukri ME, Hameed EK, Marzook AA: Pregabalin versus Gabapentin Efficacy in the Management of Neuropathic Pain Associated with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2024; 67 (2): 202-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Neurosurgery, Neuroanatomy, Clinical Trials, sleep disorders, neuropathy, and Artificial Intelligence in medical fields
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: neuropathic cancer pain
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 1 30 Mar 23 |
read | read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)