Enriched enrolment: definition and effects of enrichment and dose in trials of pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain. A systematic review
Open Access
- 14 July 2008
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Vol. 66 (2), 266-275
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2008.03200.x
Abstract
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Enriched enrolment (the exclusion of non‐responders or specific inclusion of responders) is believed to add both to trial sensitivity and to the measured effect of an intervention. • Enriched enrolment lacks specific definition, and the extent of any differences between results with non‐enriched recruitment and enriched enrolment is not known. • Enriched enrolment is thought to have influenced neuropathic pain trials. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • The paper suggests definitions for complete and partial enriched enrolment, and applies those definitions to trials of pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain. • The effect of enrichment was small, and especially in pregabalin trials with the best data, no difference was found between partial enrichment and no enrichment. • The effects of complete enrichment are unknown. AIMS Enriched enrolment study designs have been suggested to be useful for proof of concept when only a proportion of the diseased population responds to a treatment intervention. We aim to investigate whether this really is the case in trials of pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain. METHODS We defined ‘complete’, ‘partial’ and ‘non‐enriched’ enrolment, and examined pregabalin and gabapentin trials for the extent of enrichment and for effects of enrichment on efficacy and adverse event outcomes. RESULTS There were no studies using complete enriched enrolment; seven trials used partial enriched enrolment and 14 non‐enriched enrolment. In pregabalin trials the maximum extent of enrichment was estimated at about 12%. Partial enriched enrolment did not change estimates of efficacy or harm. Over 150–600 mg maximum daily dose there was strong dose dependence for pregabalin. CONCLUSIONS A benefit of partial over non‐enriched enrolment could not be demonstrated because the degree of enrichment was rather small, and possibly because enrichment produced little enhancement of treatment effect. Whether a greater degree of enrichment would result in important differences is unknown. Researchers reporting clinical trials with any enrichment must describe both process and extent of enrichment. As things stand, the effects of enriched enrolment remain unknown for neuropathic pain trials.Keywords
This publication has 62 references indexed in Scilit:
- (694): Fibromyalgia relapse evaluation and efficacy for durability of meaningful relief (FREEDOM) trial: A 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of treatment with pregabalinThe Journal of Pain, 2007
- Analgesic action of gabapentin on chronic pain in the masticatory muscles: A randomized controlled trialPain, 2007
- Efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily pregabalin for treating pain and related sleep interference in postherpetic neuralgia: a 13‐week, randomized trialCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, 2005
- Evaluation of Randomized Discontinuation DesignJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- The Comparative Evaluation of Gabapentin and Carbamazepine for Pain Management in Guillain-Barr?? Syndrome Patients in the Intensive Care UnitAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2005
- Mechanism of Action of α2δ Ligands: Voltage Sensitive Calcium Channel (VSCC) ModulatorsThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2004
- An evaluation of homogeneity tests in meta-analyses in pain using simulations of individual patient dataPain, 2000
- The Importance of Dose-Response in Study DesignAnesthesia & Analgesia, 1999
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Transdermal clonidine compared to placebo in painful diabetic neuropathy using a two-stage ‘enriched enrollment’ designPain, 1995