Clinical effectiveness and treatment satisfaction between two triple‐therapy regimens in treating neuropathic pain: A real‐world data

Ibrain Pub Date : 2023-12-10 DOI:10.1002/ibra.12143
Nithya Raju, Samyuktha Villavan, Saranya Ravi, Roja Murugesan, Panneerselvam Theivendren, Vennila Jaganathan, Redlin Jani Rajan, K. Karunanithi
{"title":"Clinical effectiveness and treatment satisfaction between two triple‐therapy regimens in treating neuropathic pain: A real‐world data","authors":"Nithya Raju, Samyuktha Villavan, Saranya Ravi, Roja Murugesan, Panneerselvam Theivendren, Vennila Jaganathan, Redlin Jani Rajan, K. Karunanithi","doi":"10.1002/ibra.12143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Triple‐therapy regimens involving Pregabalin or Gabapentin with nortriptyline and Methylcobalamin have been shown to be efficacious in treating neuropathic pain in clinical trials. This study aims to compare the clinical effectiveness and treatment satisfaction of two triple‐therapy regimens in treating neuropathic pain in a real‐world setting. This prospective, single‐center, observational study compared the efficacy, safety, and treatment satisfaction of triple therapy in Pregabalin triple therapy versus Gabapentin triple therapy for patients with neuropathic pain. The primary outcome measured the reduction in mean Self‐Administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain score value from the baseline to 12 weeks posttreatment. The secondary outcome measured the treatment satisfaction for both therapies using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version 1.4. Of 264 patients who received either treatment group, during the third follow‐up, it became evident that Group A Pregabalin triple therapy yielded a significantly more substantial reduction in neuropathic pain (60.61%) when compared to Group B Gabapentin triple therapy (12.88%). Furthermore, patients expressed markedly higher levels of satisfaction and convenience with the Pregabalin treatment (p ≤ 0.001). Our study's findings, encompassing both clinical effectiveness and treatment satisfaction, unequivocally demonstrate that Group A surpasses Group B in ameliorating neuropathic symptoms and signs. Pregabalin is a more effective and convenient treatment for neuropathic pain than Gabapentin, with no significant difference in side effects. Clinicians should consider Pregabalin as a first‐line treatment option for neuropathic pain, especially for patients not responding to Gabapentin or who seek a more convenient option.","PeriodicalId":94030,"journal":{"name":"Ibrain","volume":"3 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ibrain","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ibra.12143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Triple‐therapy regimens involving Pregabalin or Gabapentin with nortriptyline and Methylcobalamin have been shown to be efficacious in treating neuropathic pain in clinical trials. This study aims to compare the clinical effectiveness and treatment satisfaction of two triple‐therapy regimens in treating neuropathic pain in a real‐world setting. This prospective, single‐center, observational study compared the efficacy, safety, and treatment satisfaction of triple therapy in Pregabalin triple therapy versus Gabapentin triple therapy for patients with neuropathic pain. The primary outcome measured the reduction in mean Self‐Administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain score value from the baseline to 12 weeks posttreatment. The secondary outcome measured the treatment satisfaction for both therapies using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version 1.4. Of 264 patients who received either treatment group, during the third follow‐up, it became evident that Group A Pregabalin triple therapy yielded a significantly more substantial reduction in neuropathic pain (60.61%) when compared to Group B Gabapentin triple therapy (12.88%). Furthermore, patients expressed markedly higher levels of satisfaction and convenience with the Pregabalin treatment (p ≤ 0.001). Our study's findings, encompassing both clinical effectiveness and treatment satisfaction, unequivocally demonstrate that Group A surpasses Group B in ameliorating neuropathic symptoms and signs. Pregabalin is a more effective and convenient treatment for neuropathic pain than Gabapentin, with no significant difference in side effects. Clinicians should consider Pregabalin as a first‐line treatment option for neuropathic pain, especially for patients not responding to Gabapentin or who seek a more convenient option.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种三联疗法治疗神经病理性疼痛的临床疗效和治疗满意度:真实世界数据
在临床试验中,包括普瑞巴林或加巴喷丁与去甲替林和甲钴胺的三联治疗方案已被证明对神经性疼痛有效。本研究旨在比较现实世界中两种三联疗法治疗神经性疼痛的临床疗效和治疗满意度。这项前瞻性、单中心、观察性研究比较了普瑞巴林三联疗法与加巴喷丁三联疗法对神经性疼痛患者的疗效、安全性和治疗满意度。主要结局测量了自基线至治疗后12周的平均自我给予的利兹神经性症状和体征评估疼痛评分值的减少。次要结局采用1.4版药物治疗满意度问卷测量两种疗法的治疗满意度。在接受任何一种治疗组的264名患者中,在第三次随访期间,很明显,A组普瑞巴林三联治疗比B组加巴喷丁三联治疗(12.88%)在神经性疼痛的减少(60.61%)上取得了更显著的效果。此外,患者对普瑞巴林治疗的满意度和便利性也明显提高(p≤0.001)。我们的研究结果,包括临床疗效和治疗满意度,明确表明A组在改善神经性症状和体征方面优于B组。普瑞巴林治疗神经性疼痛比加巴喷丁更有效、更方便,副作用无显著差异。临床医生应考虑将普瑞巴林作为神经性疼痛的一线治疗选择,特别是对加巴喷丁无效或寻求更方便选择的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Identification of immune infiltration and PANoptosis-related molecular clusters and predictive model in Alzheimer's disease based on transcriptome analysis The application of eXplainable artificial intelligence in studying cognition: A scoping review Neuroscience of cancer: Research progress and emerging of the field Calcium accumulation or iron deposition: Delving into the temporal sequence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis pathophysiology in the primary motor cortex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1