A placebo-controlled trial of lamotrigine for painful HIV-associated neuropathy. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of lamotrigine in combination with other medications for neuropathic pain. Efficacy of lamotrigine in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, N01C3. Lamotrigine reduces painful diabetic neuropathy: a randomized, controlled study. Lamotrigine extended-release as adjunctive therapy for partial seizures. 200 mg daily of lamotrigine has no analgesic effect in neuropathic pain: a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Lamotrigine (lamictal) in refractory trigeminal neuralgia: results from a double-blind placebo controlled crossover trial. Lamotrigine for central poststroke pain: a randomized controlled trial. Lamotrigine for treatment of pain associated with diabetic neuropathy: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in patients with partial seizures. U.S. Lamotrigine Protocol 0.5 Clinical Trial Group. Randomized double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine and amitriptyline in painful diabetic neuropathy.
To investigate the analgesic efficacy of lamotrigine in the treatment of painful HIV-associated distal sensory polyneuropathy (DSP).
                The pathogenesis of HIV-associated DSP is unknown and there is no effective treatment. A novel anticonvulsant, lamotrigine, blocks voltage-sensitive sodium channels and inhibits the release of glutamate and aspartate. There have been anecdotal reports of efficacy of lamotrigine in the treatment of painful neuropathy and trigeminal neuralgia.
                In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, lamotrigine was initiated at 25 mg per day and slowly titrated over 7 weeks to 300 mg per day. Study duration was 14 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change in pain on the modified Gracely scale with secondary outcome measures including change in neurologic examination, use of concomitant analgesic medications, and global pain relief.
                Of 42 enrolled subjects, 13 did not complete the 14-week study endpoint. In five of these, rash was the cause for dropout. In the remaining 29 evaluable subjects, 20 patients received placebo and 9 received lamotrigine. The pain scores at baseline were not significantly different. The reduction in average pain from baseline to week 14 was greater (p = 0.03) in the lamotrigine group (-0.55) than in the placebo group (-0.18), adjusting for baseline levels of pain. There was no difference between the groups on the change in peak worst pain.
                In this small trial, lamotrigine showed promise in the treatment of pain associated with HIV-related DSP. The frequency of rash was greater than in lamotrigine studies in epilepsy. A larger controlled study of lamotrigine is warranted. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine added to gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic in patients whose neuropathic pain was inadequately controlled with these medications. Patients with neuropathic pain from diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic/surgical nerve injury, incomplete spinal cord injury, trigeminal neuralgia, multiple sclerosis, or HIV-associated peripheral neuropathy, who had a mean weekly pain score > or =4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale, were randomized to receive a flexible dose of lamotrigine 200, 300, or 400mg daily (n=111) or placebo (n=109) for up to 14 weeks (including eight weeks of dose escalation) in addition to their prestudy regimen of gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic. No statistically significant difference in the mean change in pain-intensity score from baseline to Week 14 (primary endpoint) was detected between lamotrigine and placebo (P=0.67). Differences between lamotrigine and placebo were not statistically significant for secondary efficacy assessments, including mean changes from baseline in the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Neuropathic Pain Scale, rescue medication use, and the percentages of patients rated as much improved or very much improved at the end of treatment on the Clinician Global Impression of Change scale and the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. Lamotrigine was generally well tolerated. Lamotrigine (up to 400 mg/day) added to gabapentin, a tricyclic antidepressant, or a nonopioid analgesic did not demonstrate efficacy as an adjunctive treatment of neuropathic pain but was generally safe and well tolerated. Lamotrigine, an antiepileptic agent, has been reported as being effective in reducing symptoms of neuropathy associated with various etiologies. Based on such data, a multicenter double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of lamotrigine on pain and other neuropathic symptoms due to chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).
                Patients with symptomatic CIPN with symptom scores of either 1) >3 on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) or 2) >1 on the 0-3 the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) neuropathy scale (ENS) were eligible (higher numbers corresponding to greater severity of symptoms in both scales). Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (target dose of 300 mg/day) or placebo for 10 weeks. Endpoints were measured biweekly.
                In all, 131 patients were enrolled. Both groups were well matched at baseline. Over the 10-week period of the trial, the average pain scores (NRS) for the lamotrigine and placebo arms declined in both arms, with no statistically significant difference noted between the changes in the 2 groups (0.3 and 0.5 unit reduction from baseline, respectively; P=.56). Similarly, decreases in the ENS with therapy were not statistically different (0.4 and 0.3, respectively; P=.3). Changes in other subjective symptom scales were also not found to be statistically different between the 2 groups. Toxicities were mild and similar in each group.
                The results suggest that lamotrigine is not effective for relieving neuropathic symptoms in patients because of CIPN.
                Copyright (c) 2008 American Cancer Society. To study the efficacy of lamotrigine in relieving the pain associated with diabetic neuropathy.
                The authors randomly assigned 59 patients to receive either lamotrigine (titrated from 25 to 400 mg/day) or placebo over a 6-week period. Primary outcome measure was self-recording of pain intensity twice daily with a 0 to 10 numerical pain scale (NPS). Secondary efficacy measures included daily consumption of rescue analgesics, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Pain Disability Index (PDI), and global assessment of efficacy and tolerability.
                Twenty-four of 29 patients (83%) receiving lamotrigine and 22 of 30 (73%) patients receiving placebo completed the study. Daily NPS in the lamotrigine-treated group was reduced from 6.4 +/- 0.1 to 4.2 +/- 0.1 and in the control group from 6.5 +/- 0.1 to 5.3 +/- 0.1 (p < 0.001 for lamotrigine doses of 200, 300, and 400 mg). The results of the MPQ, PDI, and BDI remained unchanged in both groups. The global assessment of efficacy favored lamotrigine treatment over placebo, and the adverse events profile was similar in both groups.
                Lamotrigine is effective and safe in relieving the pain associated with diabetic neuropathy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily adjunctive lamotrigine extended-release (XR) for partial seizures in epilepsy.
                Patients more than 12 years old diagnosed with epilepsy with partial seizures and taking one to two baseline antiepileptic drugs were randomized to adjunctive once-daily lamotrigine XR or placebo in a double-blind, parallel-group trial. The study comprised a baseline phase, a 7-week double-blind escalation phase, and a 12-week double-blind maintenance phase during which doses of study medication and concomitant antiepileptic drugs were maintained.
                Of the 243 randomized patients, 239 (118 lamotrigine XR, 121 placebo) entered the escalation phase and received study medication. Lamotrigine XR was more effective than placebo with respect to median percent reduction from baseline in weekly partial seizure frequency (primary endpoint-entire 19-week treatment phase: 46.6% vs 24.5%, p = 0.0001 [corrected] via Wilcoxon test; escalation phase: 29.8% vs 15.6%, p = 0.027; maintenance phase: 58.4% vs 26.8%, p [corrected] < 0.0001). The percentage of patients with >or=50% reduction in partial seizure frequency (44.0% vs 20.8%, p = 0.0002) [corrected] and time to >or=50% reduction in partial seizure frequency (p = 0.0001) [corrected] also favored lamotrigine XR over placebo. A similar pattern of results was observed for secondarily generalized seizures. The most common adverse events were headache (lamotrigine XR 16%, placebo 18%) [corrected] and dizziness (lamotrigine XR 19%, [corrected] placebo 5%). Differences between lamotrigine XR and placebo on health outcomes measures were not significant.
                Once-daily adjunctive lamotrigine extended-release compared with placebo effectively reduced partial seizure frequency and was well tolerated in this double-blind study. Results support the clinical utility of this new once-daily formulation. Anticonvulsant drugs are commonly used in neuropathic pain. There is anecdotal evidence of an analgesic effect of the anticonvulsant lamotrigine in neuropathic pain, but this is verified by few randomised controlled trials. This randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of examined the effect of lamotrigine in a dose increasing to 200 mg in 100 patients with neuropathic pain. Eight patients failed to attend for review, 18 withdrew early and 74 provided results. There was no statistical difference in age, sex or duration pre-treatment pain in the two groups. Total pain, the character of the pain, sensitivity, numbness, paraesthesia, sleep, mobility, mood, quality of life and analgesic consumption were measured. There was a correlation between burning and numbness (P<0. 01), shooting pain and total pain (P<0.01) and between analgesic consumption and mobility (P<0.05) throughout the study period. There were no correlation between any other measured variable. There was no significant change in any variable measured over the eight week period when lamotrigine was used. It is concluded that at the dose used and using the dose escalation regime described, lamotrigine had no effect on either pain, component pain symptoms or quality of life variables. Lamotrigine is a chemically novel antiepileptic drug which has not been adequately assessed for its antineuralgic properties. It was used in a double-blind placebo controlled crossover trial in 14 patients with refractory trigeminal neuralgia. Patients continued to take a steady dose of carbamazepine or phenytoin throughout the trial over a 31-day period. Each arm of the trial lasted 2 weeks with an intervening 3-day washout period. The maintenance dose of lamotrigine was 400 mg. Lamotrigine was superior to placebo (P = 0.011) based on analysis of a composite efficacy index which compared the numbers of patients assigned greater efficacy on lamotrigine with those assigned greater efficacy on placebo. Efficacy for one treatment over another was determined according to a hierarchy of: (i) use of escape medication; (ii) total pain scores; or (iii) global evaluations. Eleven of the 13 patients eligible for inclusion in the composite efficacy index showed better efficacy on lamotrigine compared with placebo. Global evaluations further suggested that patients did better on lamotrigine than placebo (P = 0.025). The adverse reactions with both lamotrigine and placebo were predominantly dose-dependent effects on the central nervous system. A 14th patient withdrew from the study due to severe pain during the placebo arm of the trial. It would appear that lamotrigine has antineuralgic properties. Central poststroke pain (CPSP) is usually difficult to treat. Amitriptyline, the only oral preparation shown to be effective in a randomized controlled trial, is often associated with a range of side effects related to the many mechanisms of actions of tricyclic antidepressants. We investigated the effect of lamotrigine, a drug that reduces neuronal hyperexcitability, on poststroke pain.
                Thirty consecutive patients with CPSP (median age 59 years, range 37 to 77; median pain duration 2.0 years, range 0.3 to 12) from two centers participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study. The study consisted of two 8-week treatment periods separated by 2 weeks of wash-out. The primary endpoint was the median value of the mean daily pain score during the last week of treatment while treated with 200 mg/d lamotrigine. Secondary endpoints were median pain scores while on lamotrigine 25 mg/d, 50 mg/d, and 100 mg/d; a global pain score; assessment of evoked pain; areas of spontaneous pain; and allodynia/dysesthesia.
                Lamotrigine 200 mg/d reduced the median pain score to 5, compared to 7 during placebo (p = 0.01) in the intent-to-treat population of 27 patients. No significant effect was obtained at lower doses. Twelve patients (44%) responded to the treatment. There was a uniform tendency to reduction of all secondary outcome measures, but lamotrigine only had significant effects on some of the secondary outcome measures. Lamotrigine was well tolerated with few and transient side effects. Two mild rashes occurred during lamotrigine treatment, one causing withdrawal from study.
                Oral lamotrigine 200 mg daily is a well tolerated and moderately effective treatment for central poststroke pain. Lamotrigine may be an alternative to tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of CPSP. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in pain associated with diabetic neuropathy, two replicate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were conducted. Patients (n=360 per study) with painful diabetic neuropathy were randomized to receive lamotrigine 200, 300, or 400 mg daily or placebo during the 19-week treatment phase, including a 7-week dose-escalation phase and a 12-week, fixed-dose maintenance phase. The mean reduction in pain-intensity score from baseline to week 19 (primary endpoint) was greater (p < or = 0.05) in patients receiving lamotrigine 400 mg than placebo in Study 2 (observed scores, -2.7 versus -1.6 on a 0- to 10-point scale). This finding was not replicated in Study 1. Lamotrigine 200 and 300 mg did not significantly differ from placebo at week 19 in either study. Lamotrigine 300 and 400 mg were only occasionally more effective than placebo for secondary efficacy endpoints. The 200-mg dose did not separate from placebo. In a post hoc analysis of pooled data including only patients who reached their target dose, lamotrigine 400 mg conferred greater (p0.05) mean reduction in pain-intensity score from baseline to week 19 than placebo (-2.5 for 300 mg and -2.7 for 400mg versus -2.0 for placebo). Adverse events were reported in 71-82% of lamotrigine-treated patients compared with 63-70% of placebo-treated patients. The most common adverse events with lamotrigine were headache and rash. Compared with placebo, lamotrigine (300 and 400 mg daily) was inconsistently effective for pain associated with diabetic neuropathy but was generally safe and well tolerated. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine (300 and 500 mg/day) as add-on therapy in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study of 216 patients with refractory partial seizures. During 6 months of treatment, median seizure frequency decreased by 8% with placebo, 20% with 300 mg lamotrigine, and 36% with 500 mg lamotrigine. Seizure frequency decreased by > or = 50% in one-third of the 500-mg group and one-fifth of the 300-mg group. Reductions in seizure frequency and seizure days were statistically significant, compared with placebo, for the 500-mg group but not the 300-mg group. Most adverse events were minor and resolved over time. Nine percent of patients on lamotrigine withdrew because of adverse experiences. Lamotrigine plasma concentrations appeared to be a linear function of dose, and the drug did not affect plasma concentrations of concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Lamotrigine was safe, effective, and well tolerated as add-on therapy for refractory partial seizures. To compare the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine and amitriptyline in controlling chronic painful peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients.
                A randomized, double-blind, crossover, active-control, clinical trial with variable dose titration was carried out (n = 53). Amitriptyline orally, at doses of 10, 25 and 50 mg at night-time, each dose for 2 weeks, and lamotrigine orally, at doses of 25, 50 and 100 mg twice daily, each dose for 2 weeks, by optional titration were used. There was a placebo washout period for 2 weeks between the two drugs. Assessment for pain relief, overall improvement and adverse events were carried out.
                Good, moderate and mild pain relief were noted in 19 (41%), six (13%) and seven (15%) patients on lamotrigine and 13 (28%), five (11%) and 15 (33%) patients on amitriptyline, respectively, by patient's global assessment of efficacy and safety. Patient and physicians global assessment, McGill pain questionnaire and Likert pain scale showed no significant difference between the treatments, although improvement with both treatments was seen from 2 weeks. Of the 44 adverse events reported, 33 (75%) were with amitriptyline, sedation being the commonest [in 19 (43%) patients]. Lamotrigine caused adverse events in 11 (25%), of which rash in three (7%) and elevations of creatinine in four (9%) were the most common. The preferred lamotrigine dose was 25 mg twice daily.
                As there are few differences between the two treatments in efficacy, lamotrigine 25 mg twice daily might be the first choice as it is associated with fewer adverse effects in our population.
The additional studies tripled participant numbers providing data for analysis, and new, more stringent criteria for outcomes and analysis were used; conclusions about lamotrigine's lack of efficacy in chronic pain did not change. Given availability of more effective treatments including antiepileptics and antidepressant medicines, lamotrigine does not have a significant place in therapy based on available evidence.