Special Investigation of Pregabalin for Fibromyalgia (Regulatory Post Marketing Commitment Plan)

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to LYRICA Capsules in a participant who received LYRICA Capsules. A serious ADR was an ADR resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Relatedness to LYRICA Capsules was assessed by the physician.

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to LYRICA Capsules in a participant who received LYRICA Capsules. Expectedness of the adverse event was determined according to the Japanese package insert. Relatedness to LYRICA Capsules was assessed by the physician.

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to LYRICA Capsules in a participant who received LYRICA Capsules. Relatedness to LYRICA Capsules was assessed by the physician. Occurrence of ADRs related to peripheral edema or other edema-related events was evaluated.

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to LYRICA Capsules in a participant who received LYRICA Capsules. Relatedness to LYRICA Capsules was assessed by the physician. Occurrence of ADRs related to dizziness, somnolence, loss of consciousness, syncope, and potential for accidental injury was evaluated.

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to LYRICA Capsules in a participant who received LYRICA Capsules. Relatedness to LYRICA Capsules was assessed by the physician. Occurrence of ADRs related to vision-related events was evaluated.

The pain from fibromyalgia experienced during the past 24 hours was rated by participants at the time of getting up in the morning on an 11-grade scale, ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the most severe pain possible). Mean change from baseline in the pain score at Week 52 was presented along with standard deviation.

The quality of sleep experienced during the past 24 hours was rated by participants at the time of getting up in the morning on an 11-grade scale, ranging from 0 (the best sleep possible) to 10 (the worst sleep possible). Mean change from baseline in quality of sleep score at Week 52 was presented along with standard deviation.

The patient's impression (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) at Week 52, as compared to the baseline condition (including the first day of treatment), was rated by participants on a 7-grade scale.

The physician's impression (clinical global impression of change [CGIC]) at Week 52, as compared to the baseline condition (including the first day of treatment), was rated by the physician on a 7-grade scale.

The problems associated with depression-related symptoms experienced during the last 2 weeks were rated by participants ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) in total 0 to 27(the higher the more severe) consisting the following 9 items: 1) little interest or pleasure in doing things; 2) depressed, or hopeless; 3) trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much; 4) feeling tired or having little energy; 5) poor appetite or overeating; 6) feeling bad about yourself - or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down; 7) trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television; 8) moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed. Or the opposite - being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual; and 9) thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself. Mean change from baseline in the evaluation score was presented along with standard deviation.

Health status (EQ-5D) was evaluated based on the following 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activity (e.g., work, study, housework, family, or leisure activities), pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension was rated in the three levels of response alternatives "no problems," "some problems," or "extreme problems." For the analysis of EQ-5D, the response outcome for the five dimensions was converted to a utility value using tariff value set based on the Japanese version of EQ-5D. The utility value was not assigned if there was no response in any one of the five dimensions. 1 for full health and 0 for being dead: a positive (negative) number implies that the health state is better (worse) than dead. Mean change from baseline in the evaluation score was presented along with standard deviation.

FAS-31 (ranged from 0 to 31) is calculated as the combined score of the widespread pain index (WPI, ranged from 0 to 19) and the symptom severity (SS) scale (ranged from 0 to 12). The WPI is a measure of the number of painful body regions. The SS is the scale of the severity in the three symptoms (fatigue, waking unrefreshed, and cognitive symptoms; ranged from 0 to 3 each) and general physical symptoms (ranged from 0 to 3). WPI ranged from 0 to 19 the higher score indicates more severe of activity, SS ranged from 0-12 also higher score shows more severe symptoms observed. Mean change from baseline in the evaluation score was presented along with standard deviation.

JFIQR is a Japanese version of the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR), which was established for overall evaluation of the influence of fibromyalgia on patient's health. It consists of three linked sets of domains: "function (9 questions)," "overall impact (2 questions)," and "symptoms (10 questions)." Participants responded to the questions based on an 11-grade scale, ranging from 0 to 10, with 10 being the worst. For the analysis of JFIQR, the score for each domain was modified as follows: The summed score for "function" (ranged from 0 to 90) was divided by 3 and the summed score for "symptoms" (ranged from 0 to 100) was divided by 2. The summed score for "overall impact" (ranged from 0 to 20) was not modified. The total score, the sum of the three modified domain scores (ranged from 0 to 100, the lower score represents a better outcome), was used for the analysis. Mean change from baseline in the evaluation score was presented along with standard deviation.