Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Pregabalin versus gabapentin in the treatment of sciatica: study protocol for a randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial (PAGPROS)

Authors: Kelvin Robertson, Laurence A. G. Marshman, Maria Hennessy, Linton Harriss, David Plummer

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is currently an absence of high-grade evidence regarding the treatment of chronic sciatica (CS). Whilst gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both currently used to treat CS, equipoise exists regarding their individual use. In particular, no head-to-head study of GBP and PGB in CS exists. Despite equipoise, most countries’ formulary regulatory authorities typically favour one drug for subsidy over the other. This hinders interchange wherever the favoured drug is either ineffective or not tolerated. The primary aim of this study is to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the efficacy of PGB versus GBP for CS based on outcomes on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

Methods/design

We are conducting a prospective, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy cross-over study. Included patients will be over 18 years old and have unilateral CS with radiological confirmation of corresponding neural compression/irritation. Pregnant women, those with major organ disease, or those with creatinine clearance < 60 ml/minute will be excluded. Patients will continue their current pain medication at study onset, conditional upon dosage consistency during the prior 30 days. Each drug will be titrated up to a target dose (GBP 400–800 mg three times daily, PGB 150–300 mg twice daily) and taken for 8 weeks. The first drug will then be ceased; however, cross-over will be deferred pending a 1-week washout period. Drug efficacy will be assessed using the VAS and ODI. Results of the Health Locus of Control Scale and side effect frequency/severity will be used to determine psychological functioning. Assuming the hypothesis that PGB will display a superior effect, the sample size required is n = 38 with 80% power and a 5% type I error rate. Results will be analysed via intention-to-treat methodology.

Discussion

This study will establish the efficacy of PGB compared with GBP in reducing pain in people with sciatica and lead to greater understanding of the treatment options available.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 12613000559718. Registered on 17 May 2013.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Pinto RZ, Maher CG, Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Hancock M, Oliveira VC, et al. Drugs for relief of pain in patients with sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e497.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pinto RZ, Maher CG, Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Hancock M, Oliveira VC, et al. Drugs for relief of pain in patients with sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e497.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Rainville J, Kent DL. What can history and physical examination tell us about low back pain? JAMA. 1992;268:760–5.CrossRefPubMed Deyo RA, Rainville J, Kent DL. What can history and physical examination tell us about low back pain? JAMA. 1992;268:760–5.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Clinical Services Advisory Group (CSAG) on low back pain. Back pain: report of a CSAG Committee on Back Pain. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO); 1994. Clinical Services Advisory Group (CSAG) on low back pain. Back pain: report of a CSAG Committee on Back Pain. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO); 1994.
4.
go back to reference Konstantinou K, Dunn KM. Sciatica: Review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine. 2008;33(22):2464–72.CrossRefPubMed Konstantinou K, Dunn KM. Sciatica: Review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine. 2008;33(22):2464–72.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Lewis R, Williams N, Matar HE, Din N, Fitzsimmons D, Phillips C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(39). Lewis R, Williams N, Matar HE, Din N, Fitzsimmons D, Phillips C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(39).
6.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Neuropathic pain – pharmacological management: the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain in adults in non-specialist settings. NICE Clinical Guideline 173. London: NICE; 2010. p. 155. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Neuropathic pain – pharmacological management: the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain in adults in non-specialist settings. NICE Clinical Guideline 173. London: NICE; 2010. p. 155.
7.
go back to reference Robertson K, Marshman LA, Plummer D. Pregabalin and gabapentin for the treatment of sciatica. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;26:1–7.CrossRefPubMed Robertson K, Marshman LA, Plummer D. Pregabalin and gabapentin for the treatment of sciatica. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;26:1–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Finnerup NB, Sindrup SH, Jensen TS. The evidence for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Pain. 2010;150(3):573–81.CrossRefPubMed Finnerup NB, Sindrup SH, Jensen TS. The evidence for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Pain. 2010;150(3):573–81.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Grice G, Mertens M. Gabapentin as a potential option for treatment of sciatica. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(3):397–402.CrossRefPubMed Grice G, Mertens M. Gabapentin as a potential option for treatment of sciatica. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(3):397–402.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Robertson KL, Marshman LA. Gabapentin superadded to a pre-existent regime containing amitriptyline for chronic sciatica. Pain Med. 2016;17(11):2095–9.CrossRefPubMed Robertson KL, Marshman LA. Gabapentin superadded to a pre-existent regime containing amitriptyline for chronic sciatica. Pain Med. 2016;17(11):2095–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin J, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols and clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin J, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols and clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Dworkin RH, O’Connor AB, Backonja M, Farrar JT, Finnerup NB, Jensen TS, et al. Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: evidence-based recommendations. Pain. 2007;132:237–51.CrossRefPubMed Dworkin RH, O’Connor AB, Backonja M, Farrar JT, Finnerup NB, Jensen TS, et al. Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: evidence-based recommendations. Pain. 2007;132:237–51.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Mishra S, Bhatnagar S, Goyal GN, Rana SP, Upadhya SP. A comparative efficacy of amitriptyline, gabapentin, and pregabalin in neuropathic cancer pain: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2012;29(3):177–82.CrossRefPubMed Mishra S, Bhatnagar S, Goyal GN, Rana SP, Upadhya SP. A comparative efficacy of amitriptyline, gabapentin, and pregabalin in neuropathic cancer pain: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2012;29(3):177–82.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Pregabalin versus gabapentin in the treatment of sciatica: study protocol for a randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial (PAGPROS)
Authors
Kelvin Robertson
Laurence A. G. Marshman
Maria Hennessy
Linton Harriss
David Plummer
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2400-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue