Comparison of Vortioxetine Versus Other Antidepressants With Pregabalin Augmentation in Burning Mouth Syndrome

August 29, 2023 updated by: Daniela Adamo, Federico II University

Comparative Evaluation of Vortioxetine Versus Other Antidepressants With Pregabalin Augmentation in Treatment-resistant Burning Mouth Syndrome: a Prospective Longitudinal Clinical Trial With Treatment Response Prediction

Background: The treatment of Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) presents a challenge in tailoring appropriate medication for individual patients. Antidepressants have demonstrated efficacy in alleviating symptoms in most cases; however, a subset of patients exhibit limited or no response to these treatments. The augmentation with pregabalin to conventional treatment has shown promising outcomes in relieving pain and improving quality of life in chronic pain conditions. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of vortioxetine with other antidepressants (SSRIs/SNRIs) in combination with pregabalin in a cohort of unresponsive BMS patients and to predict treatment response using clinical data.

Methods: A 52-week randomized, open-label, active-controlled study was conducted, enrolling 203 BMS patients previously treated with one antidepressant for 12 weeks and non-responder to the treatment. The study sample have included two groups: Group A (136) received vortioxetine, while Group B (67) received SSRIs/SNRIs. Pregabalin (75mg/day) was added to both groups, with a potential dosage increase to 150mg/day for inadequate responders after 12 weeks.

Treatment response was assessed by measuring reduction in VAS and SF-MPQ scores (>50 or 1-2) and HAM-A and HAM-D scores (>50% or ≤7) at 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks. Classical logistic regression with a stepwise algorithm and Random Forest machine learning models were used to predict treatment response.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

203

Phase

  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Italia
      • Napoli, Italia, Italy, 80131
        • Recruiting
        • University of Naples Federico II
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • patients with a confirmed diagnosis of BMS based on the International Classification of Orofacial Pain, 1st edition [International Classification of Orofacial Pain, 1st edition (ICOP) Cephalalgia, 2020]
  • patients of any race or gender; complaining of oral burning recurring daily for >2 h per day for >3 months;
  • normal blood test findings (including blood count, blood glucose levels, glycated hemoglobin, serum iron, ferritin and transferrin).
  • BMS patients previously treated with one antidepressant for 12 weeks and non-responder to the treatment

Exclusion Criteria:

  • the presence of any disease that could be recognized as a causative factor of BMS,
  • a history of a psychiatric disorder or a neurological or organic brain disorder,
  • a history of alcohol or substance abuse,
  • the presence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS)
  • uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes, HIV, narrow-angle glaucoma, or participants enrolled in other investigational studies.
  • participants requiring continued treatment with medications that adversely interact with the study medications (eg, quinolone antibiotics, warfarin, agents inhibiting serotonin reuptake) or with hereditary problems of fructose intolerance, glucose galactose malabsorption, or sucrose isomaltase insufficiency
  • pregnancy and lactation were exclusion criteria, and women of childbearing potential were required to receive a highly effective form of contraception.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Vortioxetine+Pregabalin
VO group(20mg)+ PGB (75mg) N= 136 Vortioxetine 20 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily, then pregabalin 75 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily. Pregabalin (75mg/day) was added, with a potential dosage increase to 150mg/day for inadequate responders after 12 weeks
Encapsulated vortioxetine immediate release tablets, once daily
Other Names:
  • Brintellix
Encapsulated pregabalin tablets, once daily
Active Comparator: Paroxetine+Pregabalin
P group (20mg) + PGB (75mg); N= 10 Paroxetine 20 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily, then pregabalin 75 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily. Pregabalin (75mg/day) was added, with a potential dosage increase to 150mg/day for inadequate responders after 12 weeks
Encapsulated pregabalin tablets, once daily
Encapsulated paroxetine tablets, once daily
Active Comparator: Sertraline+Pregabalin
S group (50mg) + PGB (75mg); N= 8 Sertraline 50 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily, then pregabalin 75 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily. Pregabalin (75mg/day) was added, with a potential dosage increase to 150mg/day for inadequate responders after 12 weeks
Encapsulated pregabalin tablets, once daily
Encapsulated sertraline tablets, once daily
Active Comparator: Citalopram+Pregabalin
C group (20mg)+ PGB (75mg) N= 8 Citalopram 20 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily, then pregabalin 75 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily. Pregabalin (75mg/day) was added, with a potential dosage increase to 150mg/day for inadequate responders after 12 weeks
Encapsulated pregabalin tablets, once daily
Encapsulated citalopram tablets, once daily
Active Comparator: Escitalopram+Pregabalin
E group (10mg) + PGB (75mg); N= 8 Escitalopram 10 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily, then pregabalin 75 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily. Pregabalin (75mg/day) was added, with a potential dosage increase to 150mg/day for inadequate responders after 12 weeks
Encapsulated pregabalin tablets, once daily
Encapsulated escitalopram tablets, once daily
Active Comparator: Duloxetine+Pregabalin
D group (60mg)+ PGB (75mg) N= 33 Duloxetine 60 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily, then pregabalin 75 mg, encapsulated tablets, orally, once daily. Pregabalin (75mg/day) was added, with a potential dosage increase to 150mg/day for inadequate responders after 12 weeks
Encapsulated pregabalin tablets, once daily
Encapsulated duloxetine tablets, once daily

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Time Frame: 4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (Hayes and Patterson, 1921) is a well-validated unidimensional instrument for the measure of pain intensity (Hawker et al., 2011). The score is determined by measuring the distance on the line between the "no pain" and the mark of a patient mark, providing a range of scores from 0 to 10 (0 = no oral symptoms and 10 = the worst imaginable discomfort).
4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ)
Time Frame: 4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) is a measure of the quality of pain and is a multidimensional pain questionnaire, which measures the sensory, affective, and evaluative aspects of the perceived pain (Hawker et al., 2011). It comprises 15 items from the original MPQ, each scored from 0 (none) to 3 (severe). The SF-MPQ score is obtained by summing the item scores (range 0-45). There are no established critical cutoff points for the interpretation of the scores and, as for the MPQ, a higher score indicates the worse pain.
4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Hamilton rating scale for Depression (HAM-D)
Time Frame: 4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
The HAM-D is a clinician-administered depression assessment scale; it contains 21 items pertaining to the affective field. The scores can range from 0 to 54. A score > 7 indicates an impairment. The scores in the range of 7-17 indicate a mild depression, the scores between 18 and 24 indicate a moderate depression, and the scores >24 indicate a severe depression
4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
Hamilton rating scale for Anxiety (HAM-A)
Time Frame: 4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
The HAM-A (Hamilton, 1959) is a clinician-administered anxiety assessment scale. It comprises 14 items to measure both psychic anxiety and somatic anxiety. Each item is scored on a scale of 0-4, a total score <17 indicates a mild severity, 18-24 mild to moderate, and 25-30 moderate to severe (Hamilton, 1967).
4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)
Time Frame: 4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
The PSQI (Buysse et al., 1989) explores the quality of sleep over a 1-month time interval generating seven "component" scores (0-3): subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication and daytime dysfunction (Carpenter and Andrykowski, 1998). The total score is obtained by the sum of all the sub-scores and ranges between 0 and 21. A total score greater than five discriminates poor sleepers from good sleepers with a high sensitivity (90%-99%) and specificity (84%-87%) (Curcio et al., 2013).
4 times evaluation: time 0: 0 week; time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Clinical Global Impression Scale - Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S)
Time Frame: 3 times evaluation: time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks
CGI-I scale assesses the participant's improvement (or worsening) as assessed by the clinician relative to Baseline on a 7-point scale: 1, very much improved; 2, much improved; 3, minimally improved; 4, no change; 5, minimally worse; 6, much worse; or 7, very much worse. Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score-by-week as fixed effects.
3 times evaluation: time 1: 12 weeks; time 2: 24 weeks; time 3: 36 weeks; time 4: 52 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 1, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

October 30, 2023

Study Completion (Estimated)

July 24, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 29, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 29, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

September 6, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 6, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 29, 2023

Last Verified

August 1, 2023

More Information

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Burning Mouth Syndrome

Clinical Trials on Vortioxetine 20Mg Tab

Subscribe