评估用于治疗老年人群周围神经病变的一线药物的有效性和安全性--一项随机、开放标签、主动比较研究。

IF 1.8 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Annals of Neurosciences Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1177/09727531241243126
Mahesh Kumar Balasundaram, Pankaj Kumar Kannauje, Suryaprakash Dhaneria, Alok Singh
{"title":"评估用于治疗老年人群周围神经病变的一线药物的有效性和安全性--一项随机、开放标签、主动比较研究。","authors":"Mahesh Kumar Balasundaram, Pankaj Kumar Kannauje, Suryaprakash Dhaneria, Alok Singh","doi":"10.1177/09727531241243126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral neuropathy is four times more common in geriatric age group patients compared to younger ones. Most of the trials have targeted adult population, and there is scarcity of data in the geriatric age group.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A real-world study was planned on geriatric patients suffering from peripheral neuropathy to analyse the effectiveness and safety of first-line drugs used in the management of peripheral neuropathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It was a randomised, open-label, active comparator clinical trial in which first-line drugs for peripheral neuropathy were compared [amitriptyline (10 mg), duloxetine (30 mg), gabapentin (300 mg), pregabalin (75 mg)] for their effectiveness and safety. The trial duration was eight weeks. The modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were used for effectiveness. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Multiple groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis test, and post hoc analysis was performed with Dunn's test. A <i>p</i> value <.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 80 patients were recruited (20 patients in each arm) with a mean age of 65.4 years, and 56.3% were male. Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (<i>p</i> = .04) and duloxetine (<i>p</i> = .02) in reducing mTCNS. Similarly, pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (<i>p</i> = .041 and duloxetine (<i>p</i> = .009) in reducing GDS score. All drugs were comparable in reducing VRS (<i>p</i> = .17). A total of 14 adverse events were observed, out of which constipation, sedation and dizziness were common. Maximum adverse events were observed in the duloxetine arm (6/14).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline and duloxetine, whereas it was comparable to gabapentin in effectiveness. Constipation was the most common adverse event, but the central nervous system was the most involved in adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":7921,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":"09727531241243126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559800/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Effectiveness and Safety of Firstline Drugs Used in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathy Among Elderly Population-A Randomised, Open-label, Active Comparator Study.\",\"authors\":\"Mahesh Kumar Balasundaram, Pankaj Kumar Kannauje, Suryaprakash Dhaneria, Alok Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09727531241243126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral neuropathy is four times more common in geriatric age group patients compared to younger ones. Most of the trials have targeted adult population, and there is scarcity of data in the geriatric age group.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A real-world study was planned on geriatric patients suffering from peripheral neuropathy to analyse the effectiveness and safety of first-line drugs used in the management of peripheral neuropathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It was a randomised, open-label, active comparator clinical trial in which first-line drugs for peripheral neuropathy were compared [amitriptyline (10 mg), duloxetine (30 mg), gabapentin (300 mg), pregabalin (75 mg)] for their effectiveness and safety. The trial duration was eight weeks. The modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were used for effectiveness. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Multiple groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis test, and post hoc analysis was performed with Dunn's test. A <i>p</i> value <.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 80 patients were recruited (20 patients in each arm) with a mean age of 65.4 years, and 56.3% were male. Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (<i>p</i> = .04) and duloxetine (<i>p</i> = .02) in reducing mTCNS. Similarly, pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (<i>p</i> = .041 and duloxetine (<i>p</i> = .009) in reducing GDS score. All drugs were comparable in reducing VRS (<i>p</i> = .17). A total of 14 adverse events were observed, out of which constipation, sedation and dizziness were common. Maximum adverse events were observed in the duloxetine arm (6/14).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline and duloxetine, whereas it was comparable to gabapentin in effectiveness. Constipation was the most common adverse event, but the central nervous system was the most involved in adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Neurosciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"09727531241243126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559800/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Neurosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09727531241243126\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09727531241243126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:老年周围神经病变的发病率是年轻人的四倍。目的:计划对患有周围神经病变的老年患者进行一项真实世界研究,分析用于治疗周围神经病变的一线药物的有效性和安全性:这是一项随机、开放标签、主动比较临床试验,比较了治疗周围神经病的一线药物[阿米替林(10 毫克)、度洛西汀(30 毫克)、加巴喷丁(300 毫克)、普瑞巴林(75 毫克)]的有效性和安全性。试验为期八周。疗效采用改良多伦多临床神经病变评分(mTCNS)、言语评分量表(VRS)和老年抑郁评分量表(GDS)。安全性通过监测不良事件进行评估。多组比较采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验,事后分析采用 Dunn's 检验。A p 值 结果:共招募了 80 名患者(每组 20 人),平均年龄为 65.4 岁,56.3% 为男性。在减轻 mTCNS 方面,普瑞巴林优于阿米替林(p = .04)和度洛西汀(p = .02)。同样,普瑞巴林在降低 GDS 评分方面也优于阿米替林(p = .041 和度洛西汀(p = .009))。所有药物在降低 VRS 方面的效果相当(p = .17)。共观察到 14 例不良反应,其中便秘、镇静和头晕较为常见。结论:普瑞巴林优于阿莫西林:结论:普瑞巴林的疗效优于阿米替林和度洛西汀,与加巴喷丁的疗效相当。便秘是最常见的不良反应,但中枢神经系统的不良反应最多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of Effectiveness and Safety of Firstline Drugs Used in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathy Among Elderly Population-A Randomised, Open-label, Active Comparator Study.

Background: Peripheral neuropathy is four times more common in geriatric age group patients compared to younger ones. Most of the trials have targeted adult population, and there is scarcity of data in the geriatric age group.

Purpose: A real-world study was planned on geriatric patients suffering from peripheral neuropathy to analyse the effectiveness and safety of first-line drugs used in the management of peripheral neuropathy.

Methods: It was a randomised, open-label, active comparator clinical trial in which first-line drugs for peripheral neuropathy were compared [amitriptyline (10 mg), duloxetine (30 mg), gabapentin (300 mg), pregabalin (75 mg)] for their effectiveness and safety. The trial duration was eight weeks. The modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were used for effectiveness. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Multiple groups were compared with Kruskal-Wallis test, and post hoc analysis was performed with Dunn's test. A p value <.05 was considered significant.

Results: A total of 80 patients were recruited (20 patients in each arm) with a mean age of 65.4 years, and 56.3% were male. Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (p = .04) and duloxetine (p = .02) in reducing mTCNS. Similarly, pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline (p = .041 and duloxetine (p = .009) in reducing GDS score. All drugs were comparable in reducing VRS (p = .17). A total of 14 adverse events were observed, out of which constipation, sedation and dizziness were common. Maximum adverse events were observed in the duloxetine arm (6/14).

Conclusion: Pregabalin was superior to amitriptyline and duloxetine, whereas it was comparable to gabapentin in effectiveness. Constipation was the most common adverse event, but the central nervous system was the most involved in adverse events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Neurosciences
Annals of Neurosciences NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Content Validity of Teacher's Evaluation of Neurodevelopmental Delays (TEDD) Tool for Indian Preschoolers. Understanding the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: A Study on Offenders. Spectrum of Neuroimmunological Manifestations of Dengue Fever. Why Your Brain Needs a Walk in the Park: Residential Greenspaces as the Next Frontier in Brain Research and Treatment. Omicron-COVID-19-Related Knowledge in Parkinson's Disease Patients and Their Caregivers: A Cross-sectional Study.
×
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