Treatments for physical dependence and associated withdrawal symptoms following the abrupt discontinuation of prescription drugs (such as opioids and benzodiazepines), nicotine, alcohol, and cannabinoids are available, but there is still a need for new and more effective therapies. This review examines evidence supporting the potential use of pregabalin, an α2δ voltage-gated calcium channel subunit ligand, for the treatment of physical dependence and associated withdrawal symptoms. A literature search of the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to and including 11 December 2015 was conducted. The search term used was ‘(dependence OR withdrawal) AND pregabalin’. No other date limits were set and no language restrictions were applied. Works cited in identified articles were cross-referenced and personal archives of references also searched. Articles were included based on the expert opinions of the authors. There is limited evidence supporting the role of pregabalin for the treatment of physical dependence and accompanying withdrawal symptoms associated with opioids, benzodiazepines, nicotine, cannabinoids, and alcohol, although data from randomized controlled studies are sparse. However, the current evidence is promising and provides a platform for future studies, including appropriate randomized, placebo- and/or comparator-controlled studies, to further explore the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for the treatment of withdrawal symptoms. Given the potential for pregabalin misuse or abuse, particularly in individuals with a previous history of substance abuse, clinicians should exercise caution when using pregabalin in this patient population.

AimTo compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of celecoxib, naproxen and placebo in Asian patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.MethodPatients of Asian descent with knee OA, aged ≥ 45 years, in a flare state with a functional capacity classification of I–III, received celecoxib 200 mg once daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily or placebo, for 6 weeks. The change in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (week 6 vs. baseline) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints, including Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments of Arthritis, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), use of complementary and alternative medicines, incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and measurements of upper gastrointestinal tolerability, were also assessed.ResultsThree hundred and sixty‐seven patients were randomized: 145 to celecoxib, 144 to naproxen and 78 to placebo. Celecoxib was as effective as naproxen in reducing OA pain (least squares mean change from baseline in visual analogue scale score [standard error] −37.1 [2.0] for celecoxib and −37.5 [2.0] for naproxen). Patient's and Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis, WOMAC scores, Pain Satisfaction Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 showed statistically significant improvement in active treatment groups versus placebo, with the exception of naproxen WOMAC scores. Treatment‐related TEAEs occurred in 19 (13%), 34 (24%) and six (8%) patients in the celecoxib, naproxen and placebo groups, respectively.ConclusionCelecoxib and naproxen were comparable in their effects to reduce the signs and symptoms of knee OA in Asian patients. Celecoxib was shown to be safe and well tolerated in this patient population.

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a brief high-level overview of NeP for primary healthcare providers that includes a discussion of mechanisms, prevalence, burden, assessment, and treatment. The information provided here should help primary care providers better understand this type of chronic pain.

Failure to meet the co-primary objectives may be related to carryover effect from period 1 to period 2, lower pregabalin dose (150 to 300 mg/d), and/or placebo response in painful DPN.

BackgroundCelecoxib is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, information on its efficacy and safety profile in different racial/ethnic groups is limited. Noticeable differences among racial groups are found in other disease states, but a thorough investigation of OA is lacking. The objective of this study was to determine if celecoxib 200 mg once daily is as effective as naproxen 500 mg twice daily in the treatment of OA of the knee in Hispanic patients.MethodsHispanic patients aged ≥45 years with knee OA were randomized to receive celecoxib 200 mg once daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily, or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain at 6 weeks compared with baseline. Secondary variables were change in Patient’s and Physician’s Global Assessments of Arthritis from baseline to week 6/early termination, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) from baseline to week 6/early termination, change in American Pain Society pain score, Pain Satisfaction Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and measurements of upper gastrointestinal tolerability.ResultsIn total, 239 patients completed the trial (96 celecoxib, 96 naproxen, 47 placebo). Celecoxib was as effective as naproxen in reducing OA pain (least squares mean change from baseline [standard error] −39.7 [2.7] for celecoxib and −36.9 [2.6] for naproxen). Patient’s and Physician’s Global Assessments of Arthritis, WOMAC scores, upper gastrointestinal tolerability, Pain Satisfaction Scale, and PHQ-9 showed no statistically significant differences between the celecoxib and naproxen groups. The incidence of adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were similar among the treatment groups.ConclusionCelecoxib 200 mg once daily was as effective as naproxen 500 mg twice daily in the treatment of signs and symptoms of knee OA in Hispanic patients. Celecoxib was shown to be safe and well tolerated in this patient population.