-
International Journal of Molecular... May 2020Post-burn pruritus is the pruritus that occurs after burn during the rehabilitation and healing process of burn wounds. The post-burn pruritus is a common and serious... (Review)
Review
Post-burn pruritus is the pruritus that occurs after burn during the rehabilitation and healing process of burn wounds. The post-burn pruritus is a common and serious complication of burn injury, which severely lowers the quality of life of the patient. Many potential treatments are available for pruritus but there is no consensus of the best single treatment yet. The precise mechanism of post-burn pruritus has not been elucidated, but it appears to have pruritogenic and neuropathic aspects. Clinically, post-burn pruritus tends to be intractable to conventional treatment but rather responds to neuroleptic agents, such as gabapentin and pregabalin. During wound healing, various neuropeptides secreted from the nerves of the skin control epidermal and vascular proliferation and connective tissue cells. When keratinocytes are activated by an itch-inducing substance, they secrete a variety of inflammatory substances that increase the susceptibility of the itch receptor. There are two mechanisms underlying post-burn neuropathic pruritus. The first one is peripheral sensitization. The second one is the intact nociceptor hypothesis. An effective treatment for post-burn pruritus will also be effective in other neuropathic and intractable itching. In this review, we summarized the interaction and mechanism of keratinocytes, immune cells, and nerve fibers related to post-burn pruritus.
Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Burns; Gabapentin; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Inflammation; Keratinocytes; Narcotic Antagonists; Neuropeptides; Ondansetron; Pregabalin; Pruritus; Receptors, Opioid; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32485929
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21113880 -
JAMA Network Open May 2022Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fatigue; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 35587348
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12939 -
Journal of Neuroinflammation Sep 2022Radiation-induced brain injury (RIBI) is the most serious complication of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck tumors, which seriously affects the quality of...
BACKGROUND
Radiation-induced brain injury (RIBI) is the most serious complication of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck tumors, which seriously affects the quality of life. Currently, there is no effective treatment for patients with RIBI, and identifying new treatment that targets the pathological mechanisms of RIBI is urgently needed.
METHODS
Immunofluorescence staining, western blotting, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR), co-culture of primary neurons and microglia, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick-end labeling (TUNEL) assay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene editing techniques were employed to investigate the protective effects and underlying mechanisms of pregabalin that ameliorate microglial activation and neuronal injury in the RIBI mouse model.
RESULTS
Our findings showed that pregabalin effectively repressed microglial activation, thereby reducing neuronal damage in the RIBI mouse model. Pregabalin mitigated inflammatory responses by directly inhibiting cytoplasmic translocation of high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), a pivotal protein released by irradiated neurons which induced subsequent activation of microglia and inflammatory cytokine expression. Knocking out neuronal HMGB1 or microglial TLR2/TLR4/RAGE by CRISPR/Cas9 technique significantly inhibited radiation-induced NF-κB activation and pro-inflammatory transition of microglia.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate the protective mechanism of pregabalin in mitigating microglial activation and neuronal injury in RIBI. It also provides a therapeutic strategy by targeting HMGB1-TLR2/TLR4/RAGE signaling pathway in the microglia for the treatment of RIBI.
Topics: Animals; Brain Injuries; Cytokines; DNA Nucleotidylexotransferase; HMGB1 Protein; Mice; Microglia; NF-kappa B; Neurons; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Signal Transduction; Toll-Like Receptor 2; Toll-Like Receptor 4
PubMed: 36131309
DOI: 10.1186/s12974-022-02596-7 -
Indian Journal of Pharmacology 2021Diabetic neuropathy affects 10.5%-32.2% of diabetic population posing clinical burden onto society. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
CONTEXT
Diabetic neuropathy affects 10.5%-32.2% of diabetic population posing clinical burden onto society.
AIMS
We aimed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin plus pregabalin, and methylcobalamin plus duloxetine in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
It is a prospective, randomized, open-label, interventional, and parallel-group study done in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 100 patients were recruited and randomized to three study groups A, B, and C on methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin and pregabalin, and methylcobalamin and duloxetine, respectively. Patients were assessed at day 0 and 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The tuning fork test, monofilament test, Thermal Sensitivity testing, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used to analyze vibration, pressure, thermal sensitivity, and pain.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Appropriate statistical methods were used to calculate P value (<0.05 - significant).
RESULTS
The increase in number of patients with vibration perception is 11.6%, 37.9%, and 41.4%; pressure sensation is 7.6%, 37.9%, and 37.9%; and thermal sensitivity is 15.4%, 31.1%, and 37.9% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively. The decrease in VAS scores is 0.58 ± 0.14, 3.82 ± 0.05, and 4.17 ± 0.48 in Groups A, B, and C correspondingly. The adverse effects reported in Groups A, B, and C are 0%, 6.9%, and 10.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Group C is more efficacious when compared to Groups A and B while Group B is safer.
Topics: Analgesics; Diabetic Neuropathies; Drug Therapy, Combination; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pregabalin; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin B 12
PubMed: 34854403
DOI: 10.4103/ijp.ijp_1159_20 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.
DESIGN
A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.
SETTING
Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.
OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.
RESULTS
A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].
LIMITATIONS
Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.
FUTURE WORK
Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS
The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pregabalin; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Amitriptyline; Quality of Life; Neuralgia; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 36259684
DOI: 10.3310/RXUO6757 -
JAMA Neurology Jan 2019Optimal pharmacologic treatment for chronic sciatica (CS) is currently unclear. While gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both used to treat CS, equipoise exists.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Optimal pharmacologic treatment for chronic sciatica (CS) is currently unclear. While gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both used to treat CS, equipoise exists. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical regulation authorities typically subsidize one drug over the other. This hinders interchange wherever the favored drug is either ineffective or ill-tolerated.
OBJECTIVE
To assess GBP vs PGB head to head for the treatment of CS.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A preplanned interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial of PGB vs GBP for management of CS at half the estimated final sample size was performed in a single-center, tertiary referral public hospital. A total of 20 patients underwent randomization from March 2016 to March 2018, and 2 were excluded with 1 lost to follow-up and the other requiring urgent surgery unrelated to the study. Patients attending a specialist neurosurgery clinic with unilateral CS were considered for trial recruitment. Chronic sciatica was defined as pain lasting for at least 3 months radiating into 1 leg only to, at, or below the knee level. Imaging (magnetic resonance imaging with or without computed tomography) corroborating a root-level lesion concordant with symptoms and/or signs was determined by the trial clinician. Inclusion criteria included patients who had not used GBP and PGB and were 18 years or older. Analyses were intention to treat and began February 2018.
INTERVENTIONS
Randomly assigned participants received GBP (400 mg to 800 mg 3 times a day) then PGB (150 mg to 300 mg twice daily) or vice versa, each taken for 8 weeks. Crossover followed a 1-week washout.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was pain intensity (10-point visual analog scale) at baseline and 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability (using the Oswestry Disability Index) and severity/frequency of adverse events.
RESULTS
The total trial population (N = 18) consisted mostly of men (11 [61%]) with a mean (SD) age of 57 (16.5) years. A third of the cohort were smokers (5 [28%]), and more than half consumed alcohol (12 [67%]). Gabapentin was superior to PGB, with fewer and less severe adverse events. Both GBP (mean [SD], 7.54 [1.39] to 5.82 [1.72]; P < .001) and PGB (mean [SD], 7.33 [1.30] to 6.38 [1.88]; P = .002) displayed significant visual analog pain intensity scale reduction and Oswestry Disability Index reduction (mean [SD], 59.22 [16.88] to 48.54 [15.52]; P < .001 for both). Head to head, GBP showed superior visual analog pain intensity scale reduction (mean [SD], GBP: 1.72 [1.17] vs PGB: 0.94 [1.09]; P = .035) irrespective of sequence order; however, Oswestry Disability Index reduction was unchanged. Adverse events for PGB were more frequent (PGB, 31 [81%] vs GBP, 7 [19%]; P = .002) especially when PGB was taken first.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Pregabalin and GBP were both significantly efficacious. However, GBP was superior with fewer and less severe adverse events. Gabapentin should be commenced before PGB to permit optimal crossover of medicines.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12613000559718.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gabapentin; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pregabalin; Sciatica
PubMed: 30326006
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.3077 -
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2023There are increasing concerns regarding the abusive potential of gabapentinoids putting at risk patients with neuropathic pain requiring long-term pain management. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There are increasing concerns regarding the abusive potential of gabapentinoids putting at risk patients with neuropathic pain requiring long-term pain management. The evidence to support this is rather inconcusive.
AIM
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain with a focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and categorising the side effects according to the body systems they were affecting.
METHOD
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycoINFO, and CINAHL (EBSCO), and included RCTs to identify and critically appraise studies investigating safety and therapeutic effects of gabapentionoids in adults with neuropathic pain. Data extraction was conducted using an established Cochrane form and the risk-of-bias tool was used in the assessment of quality.
RESULTS
50 studies (12,398 participants) were included. The majority of adverse events pertained to the nervous system (7 effects) or psychiatric (3 effects) disorders. There were more adverse effects reported with pregabalin (36 effects) than with gabapentin (22 effects). Six pregabalin studies reported euphoria as a side effect, while no studies reported euphoria with gabapentin. This was the only side effect that may correlate with addictive potential. Gabapentioids were reported to significantly reduce pain compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
Despite RCTs documenting the adverse events of gabapentionoids on the nervous system, there was no evidence of gabapentinoid use leading to addiction, suggesting an urgent need to design studies investigating their abusive potential.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Analgesics; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Amines; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36848024
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-022-01528-y -
Indian Journal of Dermatology,... 2018
Review
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Dermatology; Gabapentin; Humans; Pain; Pregabalin; Pruritus
PubMed: 29855453
DOI: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_480_17 -
Anesthesiology Aug 2020Widely used for acute pain management, the clinical benefit from perioperative use of gabapentinoids is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the...
BACKGROUND
Widely used for acute pain management, the clinical benefit from perioperative use of gabapentinoids is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the analgesic effect and adverse events with the perioperative use of gabapentinoids in adult patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials studying the use of gabapentinoids in adult patients undergoing surgery were included. The primary outcome was the intensity of postoperative acute pain. Secondary outcomes included the intensity of postoperative subacute pain, incidence of postoperative chronic pain, cumulative opioid use, persistent opioid use, lengths of stay, and adverse events. The clinical significance of the summary estimates was assessed based on established thresholds for minimally important differences.
RESULTS
In total, 281 trials (N = 24,682 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with controls, gabapentinoids were associated with a lower postoperative pain intensity (100-point scale) at 6 h (mean difference, -10; 95% CI, -12 to -9), 12 h (mean difference, -9; 95% CI, -10 to -7), 24 h (mean difference, -7; 95% CI, -8 to -6), and 48 h (mean difference, -3; 95% CI, -5 to -1). This effect was not clinically significant ranging below the minimally important difference (10 points out of 100) for each time point. These results were consistent regardless of the type of drug (gabapentin or pregabalin). No effect was observed on pain intensity at 72 h, subacute and chronic pain. The use of gabapentinoids was associated with a lower risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting but with more dizziness and visual disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS
No clinically significant analgesic effect for the perioperative use of gabapentinoids was observed. There was also no effect on the prevention of postoperative chronic pain and a greater risk of adverse events. These results do not support the routine use of pregabalin or gabapentin for the management of postoperative pain in adult patients.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Gabapentin; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin
PubMed: 32667154
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003428 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414