Evaluation of the protein biomarkers and the analgesic response to systemic methylene blue in patients with refractory neuropathic pain: a double-blind, controlled study

Adriana A Miclescu,1 Martin Svahn,1 Torsten E Gordh1,2 1Multidisciplinary Pain Clinic, Uppsala University Hospital, 2Pain Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Aim: This study was carried out in patients with neuropathic pain in order to assess the analgesic effects and changes in protein biomarkers after the administration of methylene blue (MB), a diaminophenothiazine with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, and with inhibitory effects on nitric oxide.Materials and methods: Ten patients with chronic refractory neuropathic pain were randomized to receive either MB (10 mg/mL Methylthioninium chloride) 2 mg/kg (MB group) or MB 0.02 mg/kg (control group) infused over 60 minutes. Sensory function and pain (Numerical Rating Scale) were evaluated at baseline and at 60 minutes after the start of the infusion. The patients kept a pain diary during the next 24 hours and for the following 4 days. Plasma and urinary concentrations of 8-isoprostane-prostaglandin F2α (8-iso-PGF2α) and plasma protein biomarkers prior to and after the infusions were measured with radioimmunoassay and with proximity extension assay.Results: A decrease of the Numerical Rating Scale at 60 minutes in comparison with baseline was observed in the MB (P=0.047) group. The decrease was significant between the MB and the control group on the day of and day after MB infusion (P=0.04 and P=0.008, respectively). There was no difference in systemic protein expressions between groups except for prolactin (PRL) (P=0.02). Three patients demonstrated diminished dynamic mechanical allodynia.Conclusion: MB decreased the pain levels in patients with chronic therapy-resistant neuropathic pain on the first 2 days after administration. Known as an endocrine modulator on the anterior pituitary gland, MB infusion produced a decrease of PRL. The detailed role of PRL effects in chronic neuropathic pain remains undetermined.Keywords: methylene blue, nitric oxide, neuropathic pai

Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin® litigation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous studies have documented strategies to promote off-label use of drugs using journal publications and other means. Few studies have presented internal company communications that discussed financial reasons for manipulating the scholarly record related to off-label indications. The objective of this study was to build on previous studies to illustrate implementation of a publication strategy by the drug manufacturer for four off-label uses of gabapentin (Neurontin®, Pfizer, Inc.): migraine prophylaxis, treatment of bipolar disorders, neuropathic pain, and nociceptive pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included in this study internal company documents, email correspondence, memoranda, study protocols and reports that were made publicly available in 2008 as part of litigation brought by consumers and health insurers against Pfizer for fraudulent sales practices in its marketing of gabapentin (see <url>http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=saris/pdf/ucl%20opinion.pdf</url> for the Court’s findings).</p> <p>We reviewed documents pertaining to 20 clinical trials, 12 of which were published. We categorized our observations related to reporting biases and linked them with topics covered in internal documents, that is, deciding what should and should not be published and how to spin the study findings (re-framing study results to explain away unfavorable findings or to emphasize favorable findings); and where and when findings should be published and by whom.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We present extracts from internal company marketing assessments recommending that Pfizer and Parke-Davis (Pfizer acquired Parke-Davis in 2000) adopt a publication strategy to conduct trials and disseminate trial findings for unapproved uses rather than an indication strategy to obtain regulatory approval. We show internal company email correspondence and documents revealing how publication content was influenced and spin was applied; how the company selected where trial findings would be presented or published; how publication of study results was delayed; and the role of ghost authorship.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Taken together, the extracts we present from internal company documents illustrate implementation of a strategy at odds with unbiased study conduct and dissemination. Our findings suggest that Pfizer and Parke-Davis’s publication strategy had the potential to distort the scientific literature, and thus misinform healthcare decision-makers.</p