***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND The efficacy of pregabalin was demonstrated in a r and omized double-blind placebo-controlled 13-week trial in 371 Japanese patients with postherpetic neuralgia ( PHN ) . In this study , we evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of pregabalin for relief of PHN . METHODS 126 patients were enrolled from the preceding double-blind study into the 52-week open-label study . Patients were given pregabalin 150 to 600 mg x day(-1 ) . Pain intensity was measured using the Short-Form McGill Pain Question naire ( SF-MPQ : total score , visual analogue scale and present pain intensity ) . RESULTS The efficacy parameter SF-MPQ showed a decrease over the treatment-term . The changes of visual analogue scale and present pain intensity at the endpoint were -28.3 mm and -1.1 score , respectively . The commonly reported adverse events were dizziness , somnolence , peripheral edema and weight gain , and most of them were mild to moderate in intensity . No new adverse events were observed due to long-term pregabalin administration . CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that long-term treatment of pregabalin may be beneficial in patients with PHN & NA ; The current analysis compares changes in pain with changes in function and health status in individuals with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy ( DPN ) . The post hoc analysis is based on a 12 week , multinational , placebo‐controlled trial of pregabalin in which 401 patients were r and omized to treatment . Study measures included the Brief Pain Inventory short‐form ( BPI‐sf ) , EQ‐5D and other patient‐reported outcomes . Cutpoints were derived on the BPI‐sf 0–10 average pain numeric rating scale [ NRS ] to classify pain grade s of “ mild ” ( 1–3 ) , moderate ( 4–6 ) and severe ( 7–10 ) , adjusting for geographical regions where data were collected . Two different metrics were used to classify the importance of change in pain severity from baseline to 12 weeks : changes in pain severity grade s ( defined by cutpoint categories ) and percent reduction in the NRS ( categories ranging from 0–9 % to ≥50 % ) . An improvement in one pain grade or a ≥30 % reduction in the NRS served as determinants of a clinical ly important difference . Patients with a one‐ grade reduction in pain severity , either from “ severe‐to‐moderate ” or “ moderate‐to‐mild , ” had a 3‐point improvement the BPI‐sf Pain Interference Index ( PII ; a composite measure of function ) ; a reduction from “ severe‐to‐mild ” pain corresponded to a 6‐point improvement in the PII . Similarly , a reduction in the NRS of ≥30 % and ≥50 % corresponded to a 3‐point and a 5‐point improvement in the PII , respectively . Changes in pain were also associated with changes in health status . Results suggest that patients whose pain is not reduced to a mild level of severity can still experience clinical ly important changes in function and health status Background Fibromyalgia ( FM ) is a common pain condition characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and tenderness . Pregabalin is an approved treatment for adults in the United States , but there are no approved treatments for adolescents with FM . Methods This was a 15-week , r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled study and 6-month open-label safety trial of flexible-dose pregabalin ( 75–450 mg/day ) for the treatment of adolescents ( 12–17 years ) with FM . Primary outcome was change in mean pain score at endpoint ( scored from 0–10 , with 24-h recall ) . Secondary outcomes included global assessment s and measures of pain , sleep , and FM impact . Results A total of 107 subjects were r and omized to treatment ( 54  pregabalin  , 53  placebo ) and 80 completed the study ( 44  pregabalin  , 36 placebo ) . Improvement in mean pain score at endpoint with pregabalin versus placebo was not statistically significant , treatment difference ( 95 % CI ) , −0.66 ( −1.51 , 0.18 ) , P = 0.121 . There were significant improvements with pregabalin versus placebo in secondary outcomes of change in pain score by week ( P < 0.05 for 10 of 15 weeks ) ; change in pain score at week 15 ( 1-week recall ) , treatment difference ( 95 % CI ) , −0.87 ( −1.68 , −0.05 ) , P = 0.037 ; and patient global impression of change , 53.1 % versus 29.5 % very much or much improved ( P = 0.013 ) . Trends toward improvement with pregabalin in other secondary outcomes measuring pain , sleep , and FM impact were not significant . Safety was consistent with the known profile of pregabalin in adults with FM . Conclusion Pregabalin did not significantly improve the mean pain score in adolescents with FM . There were significant improvements in secondary outcomes measuring pain and impression of change . Trial registration sNCT01020474 ; NCT01020526 Abstract Background Treatment of neuropathic pain in children is challenging , and requires a multimodal approach of pharmacologic , physical , and psychological therapies ; however there is little evidence to guide practice . Amitriptyline and gabapentin are first-line drugs for treating neuropathic pain in adults , yet no studies have examined their efficacy , or compared them directly , to determine which might be better for pain relief and sleep disturbance in children . Methods After informed consent was obtained , 34 patients aged 7–18 years diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome type I ( CRPS I ) or a neuropathic pain condition were r and omly allocated to receive either amitriptyline or gabapentin . Patients were followed for 6 weeks and assessed for pain intensity , sleep quality and adverse events . We blinded study personnel , including health-care providers , participants , parents , the research coordinator and the data analyst . Patients then completed quantitative sensory testing ( QST ) and a psychosocial pain assessment with the team psychologist , within 1–3 days of the start of the trial . Results At the end of the 6-week trial , patients on both drugs had important reductions in pain , having surpassed the minimally important difference ( MID ) of 1 . The difference between the groups however was not statistically significant . For the secondary outcomes , we found no statistically significant difference between the two drugs in sleep score or adverse events suggesting that both drugs improve sleep score to a similar degree and are equally safe . Conclusions Amitriptyline and gabapentin significantly decreased pain intensity scores and improved sleep . There were no significant differences between the two drugs in their effects on pain reduction or sleep disability . Implication s Although larger , multi-centred trials are needed to confirm our findings , including longterm follow-up , both drugs appear to be safe and effective in treating paediatric patients in the first-line treatment of CRPS I and neuropathic pain over 6-weeks & NA ; Chronic pain is associated with a range of other problems , including disturbed sleep , depression , anxiety , fatigue , reduced quality of life , and an inability to work or socialise . We investigated whether good symptom control of pain ( using definitions of moderate and substantial benefit ) is associated with improvement in other symptoms . Individual patient data from four r and omised trials in fibromyalgia ( 2575 patients ) lasting 8–14 weeks were used to calculate  percentage  pain reduction  for each completing patient ( 1858 ) , divided into one of five groups according to pain reduction , irrespective of treatment : substantial benefit – ≥50 % pain reduction ; moderate – 30 % to < 50 % ; minimal – 15 % to < 30 % ; marginal – 0 % to < 15 % ; worse – < 0 % ( increased pain intensity ) . We then calculated change from baseline to end of trial for measures of fatigue , function , sleep , depression , anxiety , ability to work , general health status , and quality ‐adjusted life year ( QALY ) gain over a 12‐month period . Substantial and moderate pain intensity reductions were associated with statistically significant reduction from baseline by end of trial in all measures , with values by trial end at or approaching normative values . Substantial pain intensity reduction result ed in 0.11 QALYs gained , and moderate pain intensity reduction in 0.07 QALYs gained over a 12‐month period . Substantial and moderate pain intensity reduction predicts broad beneficial outcomes and improved quality of life that do not occur without pain relief . Pain intensity reduction is a simple and effective predictor of which patients should continue treatment , and which should discontinue and try an alternative therapy BACKGROUND There is no head on comparison of amitriptyline ( AMT ) and pregabalin ( PG ) in relieving pain and disability in chronic low backache ( CLBA ) . This r and omized controlled trial reports the efficacy and safety of AMT and PG in CLBA . METHODS Patients with CLBA , 15 - 65 years of age without specific cause and significant neurological deficit were included . Severity of pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale ( VAS ) and disability by Oswestry Disability Index ( ODI ) . Patients were followed up at 6 and 14 weeks and their VAS score , ODI and side effect were noted . Primary outcome was pain relief ( > 50 % improvement in VAS score ) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI ( > 20 % ) and side effects . RESULTS 200 patients with CLBA were r and omized to AMT ( n=103 ) and PG ( n=97 ) using r and om numbers . The VAS score and ODI improved significantly following AMT and PG at 6 and 14 weeks compared to baseline . The improvement in pain ( 57.3 % Vs 39.2 % ; P=0.01 ) and disability ( 65 % Vs 49.5 % ; P=0.03 ) however was more in AMT group . The composite side effects were similar in both groups . CONCLUSION AMT and PG are effective in CLBA but AMT reduced pain and disability significantly compared to PG The effect of the anticonvulsant gabapentin on neuropathic pain was studied in six male patients with Fabry disease , aged 15–45 years . After 4 weeks of treatment , pain , as measured using the Brief Pain Inventory , was decreased compared with baseline . Treatment was generally well tolerated . This study indicates that gabapentin should be considered as a treatment option for the neuropathic pain of Fabry disease AIM The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the analgesic efficacy of placebo and diazepam in patients with temporom and ibular disorder . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-five patients were recruited with a diagnosis of temporom and ibular disorder based on st and ard clinical diagnostic criteria for temporom and ibular disorder . The patients were put in to one of the two groups : placebo or diazepam at r and om . The average pain intensity was recorded with visual analog scale ( VAS ) at pretreatment , at weekly interval till the completion of a three-week trial and at post-treatment visit on the eighth week from baseline . The secondary outcome measures were changes in masticatory muscle tenderness , viz . massater muscle , lateral pterygoid muscle , medial pterygoid muscle and temporalis muscle and changes in mouth opening . STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Intra-group comparison for analgesic efficacy and mouth opening was carried out by Wilcoxon 's signed ranked test . Inter-group comparison for analgesic efficacy was also carried out using Mann-Whitney 's test . RESULTS A statistically significant ( P<0.01 ) decrease in temporom and ibular disorder pain in the placebo group ( 65 % ) and statistically highly significant ( P<0.001 ) decrease in the diazepam group ( 72 % ) were observed on VAS after three weeks of treatment . The inter-group comparison demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the groups . CONCLUSION This study suggests that the placebo can give near similar results as diazepam can . So the role of placebo should also be considered as one of the important management strategies . In the short term , reduction in the masticatory muscle tenderness and significant improvement in the mouth opening in both the groups were observed 
    Output:
    
This review identified only two small studies , with insufficient data for analysis .As we could undertake no meta- analysis , we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents .
We know from adult r and omised controlled trials that some antiepileptics , such as gabapentin and pregabalin , can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions .
We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents