CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00407745Updated Jan 25, 2021Results posted

A 17-Week Trial To Assess Pregabalin For The Treatment Of Nerve Pain Due To Spinal Cord Injury

A Phase 3 interventional study of placebo and pregabalin in Neuralgia and Spinal Cord Injuries, sponsored by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc.. Completed at 67 sites in 10 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-01-25.

Sponsored by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
220
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate if pregabalin relieves nerve pain associated with spinal cord injury compared to placebo (pill that contains no active medicine). This study will also evaluate the safety of pregabalin in this patient population.

02

Conditions studied

  • Neuralgia
  • Spinal Cord Injuries

Keywords

  • Pain
  • central neuropathic pain
03

In context

Spinal Cord Injuries

1,948 studies on the registry are indexed under Spinal Cord Injuries; 505 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 220 is above the median of 24 across 1,566 interventional studies indexed under Spinal Cord Injuries.

Browse Spinal Cord Injuries studies →

Lead sponsor

Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. is the lead sponsor of 431 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Of its 9 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 8 (89%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Subjects with nerve pain after Spinal cord injury (traumatic, diving, ischemic and after removal of benign tumors (except meningioma and fibromas)
  • Pain has to be chronic(continuous for at least 3 months or intermittent for at least 6 months
  • Pain score at least 4 in 4 of 7 days prior to receive treatment.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Pregabalin use in the last 60 days, prior intolerance to pregabalin
  • Creatinine clearance \<60 mL/min.
  • White blood cell count \<2500/mm3; neutrophil count \<1500/mm3; platelet count \<100 x 103/ mm3.
  • Abuse of drugs or alcohol
  • Unstable medial conditions
  • Clinically significant abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG).
  • Presence of severe pain associated with conditions other than spinal cord injury that could confound the assessment or self-evaluation of pain due to spinal cord injury.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Investigator)
Enrollment
220 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Placebo comparator
    matched placebo

    Drug: placebo

  • Experimental
    pregabalin

    flexible dosing over 4 weeks followed by 12 weeks maintenance and one week taper period

    Drug: pregabalin

Interventions

  • Drugplacebo

    Placebo

  • Drugpregabalin

    Pregabalin capsules taken twice daily up to 17 weeks (150-600 mg/day)

    Also known as: Lyrica

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Duration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC) of Mean Pain Score

    DAAC was derived from participant's daily pain diary, where pain was measured on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-Pain)ranging from 0 (did not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interfered \[unable to sleep due to pain\]). The DAAC was calculated as the mean of all daily pain diary rating post baseline minus the baseline score then multiplied by the proportion of the planned study duration completed by the participant.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Pain Score

    Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  2. Number of Participants With >=30% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline

    Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  3. Number of Participants With Categorical Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) (Full Scale)

    The PGIC is a participant-rated instrument measuring change in the participant's overall status on a 7-point scale: 1=very much improved, 2=much improved, 3=minimally improved, 4=no change, 5=minimally worse, 6=much worse, 7=very much worse.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  4. Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Sleep Interference Score

    Pain-related sleep interference was assessed on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (did not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interfered \[unable to sleep due to pain\]).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  5. Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Pain Score by Week

    Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 1 through16

  6. Number of Participants With >=50% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline

    Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  7. Change From Baseline in Modified Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale (10-Item) (mBPI-10) Total Score

    The Modified Brief Pain Inventory (mBPI-10) Interference Scale is a self administered questionnaire that assessed pain interference with functional activities over the past week. The items were measured on an 11 point scale, ranging from "does not interfere" (0) to "completely interferes" (10). A composite score, the pain interference index, was calculated by averaging the 10 items that comprised the scale.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  8. Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP) - Static Mechanical Allodynia

    Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (static mechanical allodynia - gentle constant mechanical pressure) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  9. Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP) - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia

    Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (dynamic mechanical allodynia - gentle stroking with foam brush) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  10. Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Punctata Hyperalgesia

    Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Punctata hyperalgesia - pinprick) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  11. Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Temporal Summation to Tactile Stimuli

    Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Temporal summation to tactile stimuli - repeated touching/tapping) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  12. Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Cold Allodynia

    Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Cold allodynia - touch with cool metal rod 13-17 degrees celsius was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  13. Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales

    Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Cold hyperalgesia - touch with cold metal rod 4 degrees celsius) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  14. Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - 12 Items Total Intensity Score

    Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  15. Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Burning Spontaneous Pain

    Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  16. Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Pressing Spontaneous Pain

    Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  17. Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Paroxysmal Pain

    Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  18. Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Evoked Pain

    Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  19. Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia

    Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  20. Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Individual Item (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Score

    Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  21. Number of Participants With Improved Duration of Brief Pain Attacks Based on NPSI - Duration (Item 4)

    NPSI - Temporal item which assesses the duration (number of hours during the last 24 hours) of spontaneous ongoing pain. Improved duration would be a decrease in the number of hours of spontaneous ongoing pain during the last 24 hours compared to baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  22. Number of Participants With Improvement in the Number of Attacks Based on NPSI - Number of Attacks (Item 7)

    NPSI - Temporal item which assesses the paroxysmal pain (number of pain attacks during the last 24 hours). Improvement in the number of attacks would be a decrease in the number of paroxysms during the last 24 hours compared to baseline.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  23. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)- 9-Item Overall Sleep Problems Index

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  24. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Disturbance

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  25. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Adequacy

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  26. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Snoring

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  27. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Awaken Short of Breath or With a Headache

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  28. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Quantity

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  29. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Somnolence

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  30. Number of Participants Having Optimal Sleep Based on Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)

    Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  31. Change From Baseline in Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) - Anxiety

    HADS: participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

  32. Change From Baseline in Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) - Depression

    HADS: participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms.

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 16

Other outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Sleep Interference Score by Week

    Pain related sleep interference was assessed on an 11 point numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (did not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interfered \[unable to sleep due to pain\]).

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 1 through 16

07

Results

Posted Dec 8, 2011

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestonePregabalinPlacebo
Started112108
Treated112107
Completed9391
Not completed1917
Withdrew: Lack of efficacy12
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject33
Withdrew: Protocol violation53
Withdrew: Adverse event88
Withdrew: Other20
Withdrew: Randomized, unknown if treated01

Outcome measures

PrimaryDuration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC) of Mean Pain Score

DAAC was derived from participant's daily pain diary, where pain was measured on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-Pain)ranging from 0 (did not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interfered \[unable to sleep due to pain\]). The DAAC was calculated as the mean of all daily pain diary rating post baseline minus the baseline score then multiplied by the proportion of the planned study duration completed by the participant.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Least squares mean · score on scale
Duration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC) of Mean Pain Score
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Duration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC) of Mean Pain Score-1.66 ± 0.157-1.07 ± 0.149
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0032 (Significance was declared if the 2-tailed test for the difference between treatment groups was significant at the 0.05 level.) · Ls mean difference: -0.59 · 95% CI -0.98 to -0.20
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Weekly Mean Pain Score

Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Pain Score
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline6.5 ± 1.456.5 ± 1.41
Change from baseline at endpoint-1.9 ± 1.91-1.2 ± 1.78
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0066 (Serial gate-keeping multiple testing procedure was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in a hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value was significant at 0.05 level (\<=0.05).) · Ls mean difference: -0.70 · 95% CI -1.20 to -0.20ANCOVA model included baseline severity (pain) and baseline PCS as covariates and effects for treatment and pooled center as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryNumber of Participants With >=30% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline

Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Number · participants
Number of Participants With >=30% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline
participantsPregabalinPlacebo
Number of Participants With >=30% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline4833
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Regression, Logistic · p = 0.0390 (Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.) · Odds ratio (or): 1.85 · 95% CI 1.032 to 3.328Logistic regression model used terms for baseline pain score and baseline PCS total score as covariate, and pooled center and treatment as cofactor.
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Categorical Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) (Full Scale)

The PGIC is a participant-rated instrument measuring change in the participant's overall status on a 7-point scale: 1=very much improved, 2=much improved, 3=minimally improved, 4=no change, 5=minimally worse, 6=much worse, 7=very much worse.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Number · participants
Number of Participants With Categorical Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) (Full Scale)
participantsPregabalinPlacebo
1-Very much improved72
2-Much improved3325
3-Minimally improved3824
4-No change1940
5-Minimally worse25
6-Much worse03
7-Very much worse10
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0006 (Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.)Modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test was used with adjusting for pooled center.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Weekly Mean Sleep Interference Score

Pain-related sleep interference was assessed on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (did not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interfered \[unable to sleep due to pain\]).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Sleep Interference Score
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 105, 105)4.9 ± 2.485.2 ± 2.24
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 105, 104)-2.0 ± 2.35-1.0 ± 1.77
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = <0.0001 (Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.) · Ls mean difference: -1.08 · 95% CI -1.60 to -0.56ANCOVA model included baseline sleep interference score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Weekly Mean Pain Score by Week

Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 1 through16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Pain Score by Week
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 111, 108)6.44 ± 1.446.51 ± 1.40
Change at Week 1 (n = 111, 107)-0.85 ± 1.04-0.38 ± 0.89
Change at Week 2 (n = 110, 105)-1.26 ± 1.21-0.62 ± 1.30
Change at Week 3 (n = 107, 105)-1.35 ± 1.35-0.86 ± 1.35
Change at Week 4 (n = 107, 103)-1.64 ± 1.61-1.03 ± 1.53
Change at Week 5 (n = 105, 101)-1.87 ± 1.73-1.07 ± 1.50
Change at Week 6 (n = 105, 99)-1.89 ± 1.90-1.22 ± 1.72
Change at Week 7 (n = 103, 98)-2.02 ± 1.86-1.34 ± 1.75
Change at Week 8 (n = 101, 97)-1.96 ± 1.82-1.32 ± 1.82
Change at Week 9 (n = 98, 97)-1.99 ± 1.81-1.37 ± 1.75
Change at Week 10 (n = 97, 91)-2.03 ± 1.75-1.32 ± 1.81
Change at Week 11 (n = 96, 90)-2.04 ± 1.82-1.43 ± 1.84
Change at Week 12 (n = 96, 91)-1.90 ± 1.83-1.44 ± 1.93
Change at Week 13 (n = 93, 91)-2.02 ± 1.76-1.39 ± 1.92
Change at Week 14 (n = 93, 92)-2.00 ± 1.76-1.34 ± 1.89
Change at Week 15 (n = 93, 92)-2.09 ± 1.80-1.41 ± 1.85
Change at Week 16 (n = 89, 90)-2.17 ± 1.78-1.36 ± 1.87
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0295 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.49 · 95% CI -0.94 to -0.05
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0033 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.67 · 95% CI -1.11 to -0.22
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0185 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.54 · 95% CI -0.98 to -0.09
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0040 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.66 · 95% CI -1.10 to -0.21
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0004 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.81 · 95% CI -1.26 to -0.36
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0018 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.72 · 95% CI -1.17 to -0.27
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0027 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.69 · 95% CI -1.14 to -0.24
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0041 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.66 · 95% CI -1.11 to -0.21
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0058 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.64 · 95% CI -1.09 to -0.18
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0031 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.69 · 95% CI -1.14 to -0.23
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0076 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.62 · 95% CI -1.08 to -0.17
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0328 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.50 · 95% CI -0.95 to -0.04
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0150 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.57 · 95% CI -1.02 to -0.11
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0048 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.66 · 95% CI -1.11 to -0.20
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0030 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.69 · 95% CI -1.15 to -0.24
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0011 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.76 · 95% CI -1.22 to -0.30
SecondaryNumber of Participants With >=50% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline

Mean weekly score was calculated as the average of the available daily diary pain score values for the week. Pain score was measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS): 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Number · participants
Number of Participants With >=50% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline
participantsPregabalinPlacebo
Number of Participants With >=50% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline3116
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Regression, Logistic · p = 0.0256 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Odds ratio (or): 2.24 · 95% CI 1.103 to 4.546Logistic regression used terms for treatment, baseline pain score as covariate, baseline PCS total score, and pooled center as cofactor.
Other pre-specifiedChange From Baseline in Weekly Mean Sleep Interference Score by Week

Pain related sleep interference was assessed on an 11 point numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (did not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interfered \[unable to sleep due to pain\]).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 1 through 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Weekly Mean Sleep Interference Score by Week
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 111, 107)4.86 ± 2.465.18 ± 2.23
Change at Week 1 (n = 111, 106)-0.96 ± 1.45-0.26 ± 0.85
Change at Week 2 (n = 110, 104)-1.29 ± 1.63-0.49 ± 1.17
Change at Week 3 (n = 107, 104)-1.36 ± 1.68-0.61 ± 1.27
Change at Week 4 (n = 107, 102)-1.59 ± 1.85-0.90 ± 1.45
Change at Week 5 (n = 105, 100)-1.81 ± 2.05-0.91 ± 1.38
Change at Week 6 (n = 105, 98)-1.86 ± 2.14-0.99 ± 1.48
Change at Week 7 (n = 103, 97)-1.98 ± 2.19-1.10 ± 1.50
Change at Week 8 (n = 101, 96)-1.97 ± 2.18-1.11 ± 1.59
Change at Week 9 (n = 98, 96)-2.03 ± 2.13-1.11 ± 1.72
Change at Week 10 (n = 97, 90)-2.18 ± 2.06-1.12 ± 1.74
Change at Week 11 (n = 96, 89)-2.08 ± 2.15-1.20 ± 1.85
Change at Week 12 (n = 96, 90)-2.07 ± 2.21-1.20 ± 1.75
Change at Week 13 (n = 93, 90)-2.08 ± 2.21-1.19 ± 1.82
Change at Week 14 (n = 93, 91)-2.09 ± 2.13-1.18 ± 1.83
Change at Week 15 (n = 93, 91)-2.15 ± 2.10-1.11 ± 1.83
Change at Week 16 (n = 89, 89)-2.25 ± 2.24-1.17 ± 1.82
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0004 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.79 · 95% CI -1.23 to -0.35
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.87 · 95% CI -1.31 to -0.43
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0004 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.80 · 95% CI -1.24 to -0.36
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0008 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.76 · 95% CI -1.20 to -0.32
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.94 · 95% CI -1.38 to -0.49
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.93 · 95% CI -1.37 to -0.48
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.91 · 95% CI -1.35 to -0.47
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.90 · 95% CI -1.35 to -0.46
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.94 · 95% CI -1.39 to -0.50
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -1.08 · 95% CI -1.53 to -0.63
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.94 · 95% CI -1.39 to -0.49
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.92 · 95% CI -1.37 to -0.47
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.92 · 95% CI -1.38 to -0.47
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.96 · 95% CI -1.41 to -0.51
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -1.08 · 95% CI -1.53 to -0.63
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -1.06 · 95% CI -1.51 to -0.61
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Modified Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale (10-Item) (mBPI-10) Total Score

The Modified Brief Pain Inventory (mBPI-10) Interference Scale is a self administered questionnaire that assessed pain interference with functional activities over the past week. The items were measured on an 11 point scale, ranging from "does not interfere" (0) to "completely interferes" (10). A composite score, the pain interference index, was calculated by averaging the 10 items that comprised the scale.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Modified Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale (10-Item) (mBPI-10) Total Score
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline4.7 ± 2.184.9 ± 2.21
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 99)-1.6 ± 2.19-1.1 ± 2.02
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0438 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.55 · 95% CI -1.08 to -0.02ANCOVA model included terms of baseline mBPI-10 Total Score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP) - Static Mechanical Allodynia

Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (static mechanical allodynia - gentle constant mechanical pressure) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP) - Static Mechanical Allodynia
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 83, 82)2.9 ± 3.162.6 ± 2.95
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 79, 75)-1.0 ± 2.69-0.3 ± 2.48
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.7103 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.17 · 95% CI -1.06 to 0.72ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0747 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.61 · 95% CI -1.28 to 0.06ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP) - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia

Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (dynamic mechanical allodynia - gentle stroking with foam brush) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP) - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 83, 82)2.7 ± 2.812.3 ± 2.84
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 79, 75)-0.6 ± 2.35-0.3 ± 2.32
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.5689 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.22 · 95% CI -0.97 to 0.54ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.4764 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.23 · 95% CI -0.87 to 0.41ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Punctata Hyperalgesia

Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Punctata hyperalgesia - pinprick) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Punctata Hyperalgesia
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n=83,82)3.9 ± 3.413.4 ± 3.19
Change from baseline at endpoint (n=79,75)-1.0 ± 2.36-0.4 ± 2.15
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3362 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.46 · 95% CI -1.40 to 0.48ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3113 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.33 · 95% CI -0.96 to 0.31ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Temporal Summation to Tactile Stimuli

Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Temporal summation to tactile stimuli - repeated touching/tapping) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Temporal Summation to Tactile Stimuli
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 83, 82)4.1 ± 3.543.9 ± 3.48
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 79, 75)-0.5 ± 2.21-0.8 ± 2.37
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.2721 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.60 · 95% CI -1.67 to 0.48ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.4906 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: 0.23 · 95% CI -0.43 to 0.90ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Cold Allodynia

Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Cold allodynia - touch with cool metal rod 13-17 degrees celsius was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Cold Allodynia
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 83, 82)2.5 ± 2.972.7 ± 3.13
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 79, 72)-0.1 ± 2.120.4 ± 2.66
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3123 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.48 · 95% CI -1.42 to 0.46ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.1360 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.55 · 95% CI -1.28 to 0.18ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales

Participant rated pain scale. The pain produced by the applied stimulus (Cold hyperalgesia - touch with cold metal rod 4 degrees celsius) was rated on an 11 point numerical rating scale (0=no pain, 10=worst possible pain).

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Quantitative Assessment of Neuropathic Pain (QANeP)- Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 83, 82)2.8 ± 3.182.8 ± 3.25
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 79, 72)-0.1 ± 2.600.4 ± 2.82
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.4257 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.44 · 95% CI -1.53 to 0.65ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.2005 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.53 · 95% CI -1.34 to 0.28ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - 12 Items Total Intensity Score

Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - 12 Items Total Intensity Score
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 104, 106)0.4 ± 0.200.4 ± 0.22
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 99, 99)-0.1 ± 0.21-0.1 ± 0.17
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.1377 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.04 · 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - 12 Items Total Intensity Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Burning Spontaneous Pain

Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Burning Spontaneous Pain
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline0.5 ± 0.320.5 ± 0.30
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 99)-0.1 ± 0.34-0.1 ± 0.28
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3312 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.04 · 95% CI -0.11 to 0.04ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Burning Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Pressing Spontaneous Pain

Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Pressing Spontaneous Pain
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline0.4 ± 0.310.4 ± 0.31
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 99)-0.1 ± 0.28-0.0 ± 0.26
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0440 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.07 · 95% CI -0.13 to 0.00ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Pressing Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Paroxysmal Pain

Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Paroxysmal Pain
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline0.4 ± 0.290.3 ± 0.30
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 99)-0.1 ± 0.31-0.1 ± 0.26
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.1370 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.05 · 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paroxysmal Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Evoked Pain

Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Evoked Pain
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline0.4 ± 0.290.4 ± 0.29
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 99)-0.1 ± 0.24-0.1 ± 0.22
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.8911 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: 0.00 · 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Evoked pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia

Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 104, 106)0.5 ± 0.280.5 ± 0.28
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 99, 99)-0.1 ± 0.29-0.1 ± 0.27
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3731 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.03 · 95% CI -0.10 to 0.04ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Individual Item (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Score

Participant rated questionnaire used to evaluate different symptoms of neuropathic pain (dimensions: burning \[superficial\] spontaneous pain, pressing \[deep\] spontaneous pain, paroxysmal pain, evoked pain, and paresthesia/dyesthesia \[P/D\]). Includes 10 descriptors quantified on a 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (worst symptoms imaginable) and 2 temporal items assessing duration of spontaneous ongoing and paroxysmal pain. Questionnaire generates a score in each of the relevant dimensions and a total score of 0-100. Higher score indicates a greater intensity of pain.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) - Individual Item (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Score
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
1- Burning pain (n = 100, 99)-1.39 ± 3.420-1.00 ± 2.825
2- Squeezing pain (n = 100, 99)-1.04 ± 3.181-0.41 ± 3.110
3- Pain like pressure (n = 100, 99)-0.73 ± 3.429-0.20 ± 3.326
5- Electric shocks (n = 100, 99)-1.77 ± 3.426-0.68 ± 3.664
6- Stabbing pain (n = 100, 99)-1.13 ± 3.541-0.52 ± 2.804
8- By light touching (n = 100, 99)-0.78 ± 3.080-0.94 ± 2.683
9- By pressure (n = 100, 99)-1.22 ± 2.784-1.10 ± 2.675
10- By something cold (n = 100, 99)-0.89 ± 3.372-0.52 ± 2.459
11- Pins and needles (n = 99, 99)-1.01 ± 3.125-0.62 ± 3.269
12- Tingling (n = 99, 99)-0.99 ± 3.559-0.83 ± 3.034
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3312 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.37 · 95% CI -1.13 to 0.38ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0976 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.63 · 95% CI -1.37 to 0.12ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0538 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.76 · 95% CI -1.54 to 0.01ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3239 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.38 · 95% CI -1.15 to 0.38ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.1912 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.49 · 95% CI -1.23 to 0.25ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.6720 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: 0.15 · 95% CI -0.55 to 0.85ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.7821 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.09 · 95% CI -0.74 to 0.56ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.6851 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.14 · 95% CI -0.84 to 0.55ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3610 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.35 · 95% CI -1.12 to 0.41ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.4915 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.28 · 95% CI -1.07 to 0.52ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Improved Duration of Brief Pain Attacks Based on NPSI - Duration (Item 4)

NPSI - Temporal item which assesses the duration (number of hours during the last 24 hours) of spontaneous ongoing pain. Improved duration would be a decrease in the number of hours of spontaneous ongoing pain during the last 24 hours compared to baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Number · participants
Number of Participants With Improved Duration of Brief Pain Attacks Based on NPSI - Duration (Item 4)
participantsPregabalinPlacebo
Number of Participants With Improved Duration of Brief Pain Attacks Based on NPSI - Duration (Item 4)3928
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0536 (p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.)
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Improvement in the Number of Attacks Based on NPSI - Number of Attacks (Item 7)

NPSI - Temporal item which assesses the paroxysmal pain (number of pain attacks during the last 24 hours). Improvement in the number of attacks would be a decrease in the number of paroxysms during the last 24 hours compared to baseline.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Number · participants
Number of Participants With Improvement in the Number of Attacks Based on NPSI - Number of Attacks (Item 7)
participantsPregabalinPlacebo
Number of Participants With Improvement in the Number of Attacks Based on NPSI - Number of Attacks (Item 7)4838
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.3107 (p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.)
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)- 9-Item Overall Sleep Problems Index

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)- 9-Item Overall Sleep Problems Index
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 105, 103)45.7 ± 18.0245.9 ± 19.00
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 95)-10.8 ± 16.70-5.8 ± 16.21
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0262 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -4.89 · 95% CI -9.19 to -0.59ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS 9-item Sleep Problems Index as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Disturbance

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Disturbance
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 105, 104)51.9 ± 25.8851.2 ± 26.68
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 97)-17.3 ± 25.25-8.0 ± 21.70
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0041 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -8.67 · 95% CI -14.55 to -2.78ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep disturbance as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Adequacy

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Adequacy
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 105, 104)42.3 ± 25.9243.8 ± 26.92
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 97)11.6 ± 27.265.7 ± 28.83
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0998 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: 5.78 · 95% CI -1.11 to 12.66ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Adequacy as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Snoring

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Snoring
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 105, 104)31.2 ± 34.0735.6 ± 35.47
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 97)2.2 ± 25.88-4.7 ± 27.50
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.1048 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: 5.70 · 95% CI -1.20 to 12.61ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Snoring as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Awaken Short of Breath or With a Headache

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Awaken Short of Breath or With a Headache
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 105, 105)15.0 ± 23.0012.8 ± 23.23
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 98)-6.2 ± 22.33-0.2 ± 22.52
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0347 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -5.14 · 95% CI -9.91 to -0.37ANCOVA model included baseline MOS - Awaken Short of Breath or with headache as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Quantity

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Sleep Quantity
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 104,105)5.9 ± 1.456.2 ± 1.64
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 98)0.6 ± 1.420.2 ± 1.29
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0436 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: 0.38 · 95% CI 0.01 to 0.76ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Quantity as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Somnolence

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) - Somnolence
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline (n = 105, 105)36.3 ± 19.8139.7 ± 23.43
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 97)-0.8 ± 20.64-4.9 ± 22.31
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.2761 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: 3.02 · 95% CI -2.44 to 8.49ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Somnolence as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryNumber of Participants Having Optimal Sleep Based on Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)

Participant rated questionnaire to assess sleep quality and quantity. Consists of a 9-item overall sleep problems index (length of time to fall asleep, how many hours of sleep each night during past 4 weeks); 7 subscales rated 1 (all the time) to 6 (none of the time): sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath (SOB) or with a headache, somnolence adequacy, and sleep quantity. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range multiplied by 100); total score range = 0 to 100; higher score indicates greater intensity of attribute.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Number · participants
Number of Participants Having Optimal Sleep Based on Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)
participantsPregabalinPlacebo
Number of Participants Having Optimal Sleep Based on Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)4930
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · Regression, Logistic · p = 0.0024 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Odds ratio (or): 2.81 · 95% CI 1.443 to 5.491Logistic Regression Model included Pooled Center and Treatment as the categorical factors, and Optimal Sleep Score at Baseline as the covariate.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) - Anxiety

HADS: participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) - Anxiety
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline6.7 ± 4.416.9 ± 4.12
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 99)-1.4 ± 3.21-0.8 ± 3.55
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.1164 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.68 · 95% CI -1.54 to 0.17ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Anxiety as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) - Depression

HADS: participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Time frame:
Baseline, Week 16
Reported as:
Mean · score on scale
Change From Baseline in Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) - Depression
score on scalePregabalinPlacebo
Baseline5.2 ± 3.966.3 ± 3.99
Change from baseline at endpoint (n = 100, 99)-1.0 ± 3.44-0.5 ± 3.56
Statistical analysis
  • Pregabalin vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.0279 (Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05) · Ls mean difference: -0.99 · 95% CI -1.87 to -0.11ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Depression as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.

Adverse events

Collected over Baseline up to and including 28 calendar days after the last administration of the study treatment. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Pregabalin—9/112 (8%)78/112 (69.6%)
Placebo—10/107 (9.3%)56/107 (52.3%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 23
Most frequent serious events
EventPregabalinPlacebo
PneumoniaInfections and infestations3/1120/107
Ear haemorrhageEar and labyrinth disorders0/1121/107
CholecystitisHepatobiliary disorders0/1121/107
Osteomyelitis chronicInfections and infestations0/1121/107
Pyelonephritis acuteInfections and infestations0/1121/107
Urinary tract infectionInfections and infestations0/1121/107
FallInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/1121/107
Head injuryInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/1121/107
Back painMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders0/1121/107
PeriarthritisMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders0/1121/107
Most frequent other events
Showing 10 of 15
Most frequent other events
EventPregabalinPlacebo
SomnolenceNervous system disorders37/11214/107
DizzinessNervous system disorders22/1126/107
Urinary tract infectionInfections and infestations12/11217/107
Oedema peripheralGeneral disorders15/1125/107
NasopharyngitisInfections and infestations13/1128/107
FatigueGeneral disorders10/1123/107
Dry mouthGastrointestinal disorders9/1123/107
HeadacheNervous system disorders8/1125/107
Vision blurredEye disorders7/1120/107
InsomniaPsychiatric disorders7/1124/107

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)PregabalinPlaceboTotal
Mean46.1 ± 12.745.6 ± 13.845.9 ± 13.3
Age, Customized
Age, Customized(participants)PregabalinPlaceboTotal
Between 18 and 44 years5253105
Between 45 and 64 years504595
>= 65 years91019
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)PregabalinPlaceboTotal
Female271643
Male8492176
08

Study locations

67 sites
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Phoenix, Arizona 85027, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Phoenix, Arizona 85050, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Fresno, California 93710, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Napa, California 94558, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Northridge, California 91324, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Pasadena, California 91105, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Miami, Florida 33125, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Miami, Florida 33136, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Orlando, Florida 32806, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46250, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Overland Park, Kansas 66211, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Detroit, Michigan 48201, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    New York, New York 10029, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    White Plains, New York 10605, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27103, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Bellevue, Ohio 44811, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15904, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Dallas, Texas 75246, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Charleston, West Virginia 25301, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Charleston, West Virginia 25304, United States
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Vina del Mar, V Region 2520024, Chile
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Beijing, Beijing 100053, China
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Beijing, 100068, China
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Brno, 66250, Czechia
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Liberec 1, 46063, Czechia
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Praha 5, 15006, Czechia
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Hong Kong, 0, Hong Kong
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500 003, India
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Bangalore, Karnataka 560 034, India
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Bangalore, Karnataka 560 052, India
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Mangalore, Karnataka 575002, India
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226 018, India
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    New Delhi, 110 070, India
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Daisen, Akita, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Iizuka, Fukuoka, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Fukuyama, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Bibai, Hokkaido, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Sasima-gun, Ibaraki, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Kikuchi-gun, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Kashiwazaki, Niigata, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Beppu, Oita, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Hanyu, Saitama, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Kitamoto, Saitama, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Kanuma, Tochigi, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Kotoku, Tokyo, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Musashimurayama-shi, Tokyo, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Higashiokitama-gun, Yamagata, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Chiba, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Tokushima, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Yamagata, Japan
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Espana, Manila 1008, Philippines
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Cebu City, Philippines
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Manila, Philippines
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Quezon City, 1100, Philippines
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    Moscow, 105203, Russian Federation
  • Pfizer Investigational Site
    St.Petersburg, 197706, Russian Federation
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Schug SA, Parsons B, Almas M, Whalen E. Effect of Concomitant Pain Medications on Response to Pregabalin in Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia or Spinal Cord Injury-Related Neuropathic Pain. Pain Physician. 2017 Jan-Feb;20(1):E53-E63. PubMed 28072797 ↗
  • Markman JD, Jensen TS, Semel D, Li C, Parsons B, Behar R, Sadosky AB. Effects of Pregabalin in Patients with Neuropathic Pain Previously Treated with Gabapentin: A Pooled Analysis of Parallel-Group, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trials. Pain Pract. 2017 Jul;17(6):718-728. doi: 10.1111/papr.12516. Epub 2016 Dec 1. PubMed 27611736 ↗
  • Cardenas DD, Nieshoff EC, Suda K, Goto S, Sanin L, Kaneko T, Sporn J, Parsons B, Soulsby M, Yang R, Whalen E, Scavone JM, Suzuki MM, Knapp LE. A randomized trial of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury. Neurology. 2013 Feb 5;80(6):533-9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318281546b. Epub 2013 Jan 23. PubMed 23345639 ↗
10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 25, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00407745
Lead sponsor
Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc.
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Dec 5, 2006
Start date
Jan 2007
Primary completion
Feb 2011
Completion
Feb 2011
Results posted
Dec 8, 2011
Last update
Jan 25, 2021

Study contacts

Pfizer CT.gov Call Center
study director · Pfizer

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2012. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion