IPSIndian Journal of Pharmacology
Home  IPS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online : 24560 
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed527    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded39    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLES
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 358-363

A randomized comparative study of methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin plus pregabalin and methylcobalamin plus duloxetine in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy


1 Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Amritsar, Punjab, India
2 Department of Medicine, GMC, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Inderpal Kaur
Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Amritsar, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijp.ijp_1159_20

Rights and Permissions

CONTEXT: Diabetic neuropathy affects 10.5%–32.2% of diabetic population posing clinical burden onto society. AIMS: We aimed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin plus pregabalin, and methylcobalamin plus duloxetine in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: It is a prospective, randomized, open-label, interventional, and parallel-group study done in patients of painful diabetic neuropathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients were recruited and randomized to three study groups A, B, and C on methylcobalamin, methylcobalamin and pregabalin, and methylcobalamin and duloxetine, respectively. Patients were assessed at day 0 and 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The tuning fork test, monofilament test, Thermal Sensitivity testing, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used to analyze vibration, pressure, thermal sensitivity, and pain. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Appropriate statistical methods were used to calculate P value (<0.05 – significant). RESULTS: The increase in number of patients with vibration perception is 11.6%, 37.9%, and 41.4%; pressure sensation is 7.6%, 37.9%, and 37.9%; and thermal sensitivity is 15.4%, 31.1%, and 37.9% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively. The decrease in VAS scores is 0.58 ± 0.14, 3.82 ± 0.05, and 4.17 ± 0.48 in Groups A, B, and C correspondingly. The adverse effects reported in Groups A, B, and C are 0%, 6.9%, and 10.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Group C is more efficacious when compared to Groups A and B while Group B is safer.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Site Map | Home | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
Online since 20th July '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow