Are Gabapentinoids Effective at Reducing Pain and Improving Sleep After Nerve Injury? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1097/CORR.0000000000003415
Ebubechi K Adindu, Nienke A Krijnen, Sierra N Short, Teun Teunis
{"title":"Are Gabapentinoids Effective at Reducing Pain and Improving Sleep After Nerve Injury? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ebubechi K Adindu, Nienke A Krijnen, Sierra N Short, Teun Teunis","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gabapentinoids are increasingly prescribed off-label to reduce the intensity of peripheral nerve injury-related pain and improve sleep. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing gabapentinoids to placebo show differing results, and the crossover design used in some of these trials carries a significant risk of unblinding. Considering that side effects of gabapentinoids are common and misuse is increasing, we pooled the blinded data to provide the best available evidence on the efficacy of gabapentinoids compared with placebo.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with peripheral nerve injuries, we asked: Are gabapentinoids superior to placebo in terms of (1) pain reduction or (2) mitigating sleep disruption?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for RCTs from January 2000 up to January 2022. Only studies reporting on nerve injuries, measuring pain intensity with a VAS or numeric rating scale, were included. Our search yielded 1862 articles: 1218 from Embase, 559 from PubMed, and 85 from the Cochrane Library. We excluded 338 duplicate studies, leaving 1524 remaining studies. After an initial title and abstract screen, we excluded an additional 1512 studies. In all, 12 full texts were analyzed, and 4 studies were included in our meta-analysis, which involved 919 total patients: 402 were treated with either gabapentin or pregabalin, 394 with placebo, and 123 with both in two crossover trials. In the 3 of 4 studies wherein gender distribution of the patient populations was specified, women represented 57% (143 of 250) and 47% (118 of 250) of the patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively. The mean ± SD age was 52 ± 13 years for both the treatment and placebo groups. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and was low for all included studies. We addressed the high risk of unblinding in the crossover trials by excluding the after crossover (unblinded) results. Certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was moderate. All included studies lacked an objective consensus reference test to diagnose peripheral nerve injury, therefore leading to indirectness of available results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gabapentinoids did not reduce pain compared with placebo at 1 month (-0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.29]; p = 0.40) nor at 2 to 4 months (-0.38 [95% CI -0.76 to 0.00]; p = 0.05) after treatment. Additionally, gabapentinoids showed no clinically important difference in sleep interference compared with placebo at 2 to 4 months (-0.56 [95% CI -0.91 to -0.22]; p < 0.01), with a minimum clinically important difference of -1.5.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The best available evidence, now consisting of four RCTs, suggests that gabapentinoids should not be used to reduce pain intensity or sleep disruption in patients with peripheral nerve injuries, especially given their substantial side effects and potential for misuse.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I, therapeutic study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003415","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Gabapentinoids are increasingly prescribed off-label to reduce the intensity of peripheral nerve injury-related pain and improve sleep. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing gabapentinoids to placebo show differing results, and the crossover design used in some of these trials carries a significant risk of unblinding. Considering that side effects of gabapentinoids are common and misuse is increasing, we pooled the blinded data to provide the best available evidence on the efficacy of gabapentinoids compared with placebo.

Questions/purposes: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with peripheral nerve injuries, we asked: Are gabapentinoids superior to placebo in terms of (1) pain reduction or (2) mitigating sleep disruption?

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for RCTs from January 2000 up to January 2022. Only studies reporting on nerve injuries, measuring pain intensity with a VAS or numeric rating scale, were included. Our search yielded 1862 articles: 1218 from Embase, 559 from PubMed, and 85 from the Cochrane Library. We excluded 338 duplicate studies, leaving 1524 remaining studies. After an initial title and abstract screen, we excluded an additional 1512 studies. In all, 12 full texts were analyzed, and 4 studies were included in our meta-analysis, which involved 919 total patients: 402 were treated with either gabapentin or pregabalin, 394 with placebo, and 123 with both in two crossover trials. In the 3 of 4 studies wherein gender distribution of the patient populations was specified, women represented 57% (143 of 250) and 47% (118 of 250) of the patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively. The mean ± SD age was 52 ± 13 years for both the treatment and placebo groups. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and was low for all included studies. We addressed the high risk of unblinding in the crossover trials by excluding the after crossover (unblinded) results. Certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was moderate. All included studies lacked an objective consensus reference test to diagnose peripheral nerve injury, therefore leading to indirectness of available results.

Results: Gabapentinoids did not reduce pain compared with placebo at 1 month (-0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.29]; p = 0.40) nor at 2 to 4 months (-0.38 [95% CI -0.76 to 0.00]; p = 0.05) after treatment. Additionally, gabapentinoids showed no clinically important difference in sleep interference compared with placebo at 2 to 4 months (-0.56 [95% CI -0.91 to -0.22]; p < 0.01), with a minimum clinically important difference of -1.5.

Conclusion: The best available evidence, now consisting of four RCTs, suggests that gabapentinoids should not be used to reduce pain intensity or sleep disruption in patients with peripheral nerve injuries, especially given their substantial side effects and potential for misuse.

Level of evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.90%
发文量
722
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® is a leading peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of new and important orthopaedic knowledge. CORR® brings readers the latest clinical and basic research, along with columns, commentaries, and interviews with authors.
期刊最新文献
Is Proximal Femur Reconstruction With a Vascularized Fibula and Allograft Successful at Reconstructing a Tumor Resection in Children 6 Years of Age or Younger? Are Gabapentinoids Effective at Reducing Pain and Improving Sleep After Nerve Injury? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. What Are the Minimum Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for the Modified Harris Hip Score and International Hip Outcome Tool 12 Among Patients Who Undergo Periacetabular Osteotomy? Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: How Does Shame Relate to Clinical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Knee Osteoarthritis? Artificial Intelligence Shows Limited Success in Improving Readability Levels of Spanish-language Orthopaedic Patient Education Materials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1