Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial of gabapentin enacarbil for migraine prophylaxis. Gabapentin in the prophylaxis of migraine: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. [Effectiveness and safety of gabapentin in the preventive treatment of migraine]. Efficacy of gabapentin in migraine prophylaxis. Nifedipine versus propranolol for the initial prophylaxis of migraine. Efficacy and tolerability of gastric-retentive gabapentin for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Gabapentin extended-release tablets for the treatment of patients with postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Gabapentin as add-on therapy in refractory partial epilepsy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The US Gabapentin Study Group No. 5. Efficacy and tolerability of acetazolamide in migraine prophylaxis: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.
The objective of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin enacarbil (GEn) for migraine prophylaxis.
                In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with International Headache Society-defined migraine who met criteria suggesting the need for prophylactic therapy were randomized 2:1:2:2:1 to one of the following five groups, designated according to target daily dose of study medication during the 20-week treatment period: placebo, GEn 1200 mg, GEn 1800 mg, GEn 2400 mg, or GEn 3000 mg.
                The intent-to-treat population included 523 patients (n = 128 placebo, n = 66 GEn 1200 mg, n = 134 GEn 1800 mg, n = 133 GEn 2400 mg, n = 62 GEn 3000 mg). No statistically significant difference between active treatment (the average of 1800 mg and 2400 mg treatment groups) and placebo was found for change from baseline in the number of migraine headache days during the last four weeks of treatment prior to taper (the primary endpoint). Results of analyses of the primary endpoint using the per protocol population, analyses using imputation methods different from those of the primary analysis, and nonparametric analyses were consistent with the primary analysis in showing no difference between active treatment and placebo. The pattern of results was similar for the secondary efficacy endpoints. Pharmacokinetic data demonstrate that patients had adequate estimated exposure to GEn. The adverse event profile of GEn was consistent with that in previous studies.
                GEn did not significantly differ from placebo for migraine headache prophylaxis. A high placebo effect should be considered when interpreting these results. Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug of new generation that increases brain GABA levels. We report the results of a three-month randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study on the effects of gabapentin in the prophylaxis of patients with migraine meeting the IHS criteria.
                We treated 63 patients suffering from migraine with or without aura. Patients treated their attack at home using symptomatic drugs and clinical assessment was recorded on a diary. After a washout of 8 week from any other prophylactic treatment, all patients were treated with 1200 mg/day of gabapentin; this is our therapeutic plan: 400 mg/day from 1st to 3rd day, 800 mg/day from 4th to 6th day and 1200 mg/day from 7th day.
                No patients withdrew, gabapentin was well tolerated; adverse events (somnolence, dizziness, tremor, fatigue and ataxia) generally were transient and mild to moderate in severity and in 13 patients (27%) only occurred. At the end of treatment, in such case, we reported a significative reduction of frequency and intensity of migraine in 30 patients treated with gabapentin.
                Our observations indicate that gabapentin is well tolerated by patients and that reduces headache frequency and use of symptomatic drugs in both groups. Gabapentin shows to have an effective therapeutic action in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Migraine is a frequent and disabling pathological condition with important socioeconomic repercussions. Recent studies have explored the use of antiepileptic drugs in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Preliminary studies have shown that gabapentin is a drug that is effective and well tolerated by patients. AIM. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gabapentin in the prophylactic treatment of migraine.
                A prospective, open, multicentre, random clinical study, carried out according to IHS criteria, which compares the effectiveness and safety of gabapentin in 1,200 mg/day and 2,000 mg/day doses as a preventive treatment for migraine over a 16 week period.
                Significant differences were found in patients treated with gabapentin, as compared with their basal state, in the following: a lower number of attacks (reduction in weeks 4, 10 and 16: 2.4 2.8, 2.9 2.9 and 3.1 2.9 attacks/month on a basal rate of 5.3 3.5 attacks/month), lower intensity (on a scale of 0 3 of increasing pain intensity: basal rate: 2.7 0.4, week 4: 1.8 0.9, week 10: 1.7 0.9, week 16: 1.4 1.0) and how long the pain lasts (basal rate 390 hours/month, week 4: 180 hours/month, week 10: 180 hours/month, week 16: 120 hours/month). No statistically significant differences were found between doses of 1,200 or 2,000 mg/day. Mild adverse effects were seen in 62 patients (37.8%): drowsiness (22.6%), asthenia (7.9%), dizziness (4.9%), abdominal pain (3.7%) and dazedness (3.7%). No serious adverse events occurred.
                Gabapentin can be considered an effective and safe drug in the preventive treatment of migraine. To compare gabapentin with placebo for use as a prophylactic agent in patients with migraine (with or without aura). STUDY DESIGN AND TREATMENT: After screening, a 4-week, single-blind, placebo baseline period was followed by a 12-week, double-blind, treatment period. The 12-week treatment period consisted of a 4-week titration phase and an 8-week stable-dosing phase. During the 4-week titration phase, patients were started on one 300-mg capsule of gabapentin or matching placebo. Patients were titrated weekly from 900 mg/day (end of week 1) to 2400 mg/day (end of week 4) and had to be receiving a stable dose of study medication by the end of the titration period. Study medication was to be given on a three-times-a-day dosing regimen.
                The study hypothesis was defined a priori as a lower 4-week migraine rate during the second stabilization period for the gabapentin-treated patients as compared with the placebo-treated patients. The analyses were performed with the 4-week migraine rate at baseline as a covariate and center as a blocking factor.
                At seven participating centers, 143 patients with migraine were randomized in a 2:1 ratio and received either gabapentin (n = 98) or matching placebo (n = 45). Thirty-three patients (24.1%) discontinued prematurely from the study, including 24 (24.5%) of 98 gabapentin-treated patients and 9 (20.0%) of 45 placebo-treated patients; the majority of patients discontinued due to adverse events (16 [16.3%] of 98 gabapentin-treated patients; 4 [8.9%] of 45 placebo-treated patients). Patients included in the analysis were evenly balanced for age, sex, race, weight, and height. The majority of these patients were white (80 [92.0%] of 87) and women (72 [82.8%] of 87), with a mean age of approximately 39.4 years and a history of migraine episodes for a mean of about 21 years. At the end of the 12-week treatment phase, the median 4-week migraine rate was 2.7 for the gabapentin-treated patients maintained on a stable dose of 2400 mg/day and 3.5 for the placebo-treated patients (P =.006), compared with 4.2 and 4.1, respectively, during the baseline period. Additionally, 26 (46.4%) of 56 patients receiving a stable dose of 2400 mg/day gabapentin and 5 (16.1%) of 31 patients receiving placebo showed at least a 50% reduction in the 4-week migraine rate (P =.008). The average number of days per 4 weeks with migraine was also statistically significant and favored gabapentin (P =.006) during stabilization period 2. The median change in 4-week headache rate was statistically significant as well (P =.013). The most frequently reported adverse events for both treatment groups were asthenia, dizziness, somnolence, and infection. Adverse events determined by the investigator to be associated with study drug resulted in patient withdrawal in 13 (13.3%) of 98 gabapentin-treated patients and 3 (6.7%) of 45 placebo-treated patients. Somnolence and dizziness accounted for many of the premature withdrawals among those taking gabapentin.
                Gabapentin is an effective prophylactic agent for patients with migraine. In addition, gabapentin appears generally well tolerated with mild to moderate somnolence and dizziness. We conducted a randomized open-labeled study of nifedipine versus propranolol for the initial prophylaxis of migraine. Propranolol was effective in 67% of patients (12/18) and well tolerated. Nifedipine was effective in only 30% of patients (6/20). The lack of overall efficacy of nifedipine was attributable to a high incidence of side effects, including an unusual symptom complex resembling erythromelalgia. These side effects led 45% (9/20) of the nifedipine patients to withdraw from the study within two weeks. By contrast, no patient (0/18) withdrew from the study within the first 2 weeks of propranolol therapy. We conclude that nifedipine is not an agent of first choice for the prophylaxis of migraine. To determine the efficacy and safety of a gastric-retentive, extended-release gabapentin (gabapentin ER) taken once or twice daily for treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.
                Using an enrichment design, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 158 patients who had experienced pain for at least 3 months after healing of acute herpes zoster skin rash and who had a baseline average daily pain (ADP) score of > or =4 on a 0 to 10 Numerical Rating Scale. Patients received gabapentin ER either once daily (1800 mg PM) or twice daily (600 mg AM, 1200 mg PM) or placebo for 4 weeks. Efficacy measures included changes from baseline to end point in ADP score and average daily sleep interference score.
                Mean (SEM) changes for ADP score were -1.93 (0.28), -2.24 (0.29), and -1.29 (0.29) in the gabapentin ER once daily, twice daily, and placebo groups, respectively (P=0.089 and 0.014 for gabapentin ER once daily and twice daily, respectively, vs. placebo), with 25.5%, 28.8%, and 11.8% of patients, respectively, reporting > or =50% decrease from baseline in ADP score. Mean (SEM) changes in sleep interference scores were -1.94 (0.30), -2.28 (0.30), and -1.16 (0.30), respectively (P=0.048 and 0.006 for gabapentin ER once daily and twice daily, respectively, vs. placebo). Common adverse events in the gabapentin ER once daily, twice daily, and placebo groups, respectively, were dizziness (22.2%, 11.3%, and 9.8%) and somnolence (9.3%, 7.5%, and 7.8%).
                Gabapentin ER administered twice daily is effective and safe for the treatment of pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia. Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a neuropathic pain syndrome that may develop subsequent to healing of herpes zoster rash.
                This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gabapentin extended-release (gabapentin ER) tablets for the treatment of patients with PHN and to determine whether optimal benefits might be achieved with once-daily (QD) or divided-dose (DD) administration.
                This was a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial comparing gabapentin ER (total daily dose 1800 mg) either QD or as an asymmetrical DD with placebo in 407 patients with post-zoster pain for >or=3 months and a baseline average daily pain score (ADP)>or=4 on a 0-10 Likert numerical rating scale. The primary efficacy outcome was the ADP score mean change from baseline to week 10 using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF). Secondary efficacy outcomes included changes to week 10 in last observation carried forward (LOCF) ADP score, LOCF average daily sleep interference score, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire score, Neuropathic Pain Scale score, and Brief Pain Inventory score.
                Of 407 randomized patients, 400 were included in the intent-to-treat population (gabapentin ER QD, n=134; gabapentin ER DD, n=135; placebo, n=131). Between-group differences in the least squares (LS) mean changes in BOCF ADP scores did not reach statistical significance (gabapentin ER QD -1.85 [p=0.110 vs placebo]; gabapentin ER DD -1.72 [p=0.255 vs placebo]; placebo -1.42). In the LOCF analysis, the LS mean ADP score for the gabapentin ER QD group, but not for the DD group, improved compared with placebo (gabapentin ER QD, -2.28; p=0.032 vs placebo). Improvements compared with placebo were also observed in the gabapentin ER QD group, but not for the DD group, for mean daily sleep interference scores (gabapentin ER QD, -2.49; placebo, -1.63; p<0.001). Most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate. Among gabapentin-treated patients, 12% and 11% withdrew due to AEs, most commonly for dizziness (2% and 3%), in the gabapentin ER QD and DD groups, respectively. Treatment-related AEs in the gabapentin ER-treated groups occurred in 31% of patients. The most common AEs in the gabapentin ER QD and DD groups included dizziness (10% and 15%), headache (4% and 7%), somnolence (3% and 7%) and peripheral oedema (5% and 5%), respectively.
                The primary efficacy endpoint for this study of gabapentin ER was not met, most likely due to the unexpectedly large placebo response. Outcomes on secondary endpoints suggest the potential efficacy of gabapentin ER QD. Gabapentin ER was well tolerated in this study. [Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00335933]. Gabapentin, administered as add-on therapy, was safe and effective in this 12-week, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 306 patients with refractory partial epilepsy. For patients in each gabapentin treatment group (600, 1,200, or 1,800 mg/d), the mean response ratio was significantly better than that of a placebo group. The percentage of patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency was 8% among placebo-treated patients and ranged from 18% to 26% for patients who received gabapentin. Adverse events were generally mild and transient and occurred at a slightly higher frequency among patients receiving gabapentin than among those receiving placebo. Gabapentin did not affect the serum concentrations of concurrent antiepileptic drugs and was not regularly associated with any deviations in clinical laboratory values. Gabapentin's low inherent toxicity and its lack of drug interactions make it an ideal candidate for use as add-on therapy in patients with refractory partial epilepsy. Familial hemiplegic migraine and episodic ataxia type 2 (EA2) are allelic disorders with distinct types of mutations in the CACNA1A gene. EA2 attacks are remarkably sensitive to acetazolamide, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. The effectiveness of acetazolamide in migraine prophylaxis is unknown.
                To evaluate the efficacy and the tolerability of acetazolamide in migraine prophylaxis.
                We compared daily oral 500 mg acetazolamide and placebo in patients with migraine in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial of 12 weeks duration after a run-in period of 4 weeks without treatment. Frequency of attacks at the last trial period of 4 weeks was the primary efficacy criterion. Secondary efficacy criteria were the frequency of attacks per 4 weeks, the severity and duration of attacks, the number of hours with migraine as well as the number of responders with more than 50% reduction in attack frequency.
                53 patients had been enrolled when the study was prematurely stopped because of a high number of withdrawals (34%), primarily linked to acetazolamide related side effects. Considering the primary and secondary efficacy criteria, among the 53 included patients (27 in the placebo group and 26 in the acetazolamide group), no difference between the 2 study groups could be demonstrated. The most frequent adverse events related to acetazolamide were paresthesias and asthenia.
                In this trial, migraine sufferers poorly tolerated acetazolamide given in an oral dose of 500 mg daily. No obvious prophylactic beneficial effect of acetazolamide appeared on migraine attacks.
The pooled evidence derived from trials of gabapentin suggests that it is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Since adverse events were common among the gabapentin-treated patients, it is advocated that gabapentin should not be used in routine clinical practice. Gabapentin enacarbil is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. There is no published evidence from controlled trials of pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.