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

IF 4.4 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":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12190071/pdf/","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
加巴喷丁类药物在神经损伤后减轻疼痛和改善睡眠是否有效?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:加巴喷丁类药物越来越多地被用于减少周围神经损伤相关疼痛的强度和改善睡眠。然而,比较加巴喷丁类药物和安慰剂的随机对照试验(rct)显示出不同的结果,其中一些试验中使用的交叉设计有很大的非盲风险。考虑到加巴喷丁类药物的副作用很常见,滥用也在增加,我们汇总了盲法数据,以提供加巴喷丁类药物与安慰剂相比疗效的最佳证据。问题/目的:在这项对周围神经损伤患者的随机对照试验的荟萃分析中,我们问道:加巴喷丁类药物在(1)减轻疼痛或(2)减轻睡眠中断方面是否优于安慰剂?方法:检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆2000年1月至2022年1月的随机对照试验。仅包括报道神经损伤的研究,用VAS或数字评定量表测量疼痛强度。我们检索了1862篇文章:1218篇来自Embase, 559篇来自PubMed, 85篇来自Cochrane图书馆。我们排除了338个重复研究,剩下1524个研究。在最初的标题和摘要筛选之后,我们又排除了1512项研究。我们总共分析了12篇全文,并将4项研究纳入我们的荟萃分析,共涉及919名患者:402名患者接受加巴喷丁或普瑞巴林治疗,394名患者接受安慰剂治疗,123名患者同时接受两项交叉试验。在指定患者群体性别分布的4项研究中的3项中,在治疗组和安慰剂组中,女性分别占57%(250人中143人)和47%(250人中118人)。治疗组和安慰剂组的平均±SD年龄为52±13岁。用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险,所有纳入的研究偏倚风险均较低。我们通过排除交叉后(非盲)结果来解决交叉试验中解盲的高风险。使用分级推荐评估、发展和评价(GRADE)方法的证据确定性为中等。所有纳入的研究都缺乏客观一致的诊断周围神经损伤的参考试验,因此导致可用结果的间接性。结果:与安慰剂相比,加巴喷丁类药物在1个月时没有减轻疼痛(-0.21[95%可信区间(CI) -0.72至0.29];p = 0.40)和2至4个月时(-0.38 [95% CI -0.76至0.00];P = 0.05)。此外,与安慰剂相比,加巴喷丁类药物在2至4个月的睡眠干扰方面没有临床重要差异(-0.56 [95% CI -0.91至-0.22];P < 0.01),最低临床重要差异为-1.5。结论:目前由四项随机对照试验组成的最佳证据表明,加巴喷丁类药物不应用于减轻周围神经损伤患者的疼痛强度或睡眠中断,特别是考虑到其巨大的副作用和滥用的可能性。证据等级:一级,治疗性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Letter to the Editor: Does Insertional Reattachment for Acute Sleeve Avulsion Fracture of the Achilles Tendon Provide Sustained Function and Sports Participation? Is Preoperative Moderate to Severe Varus Alignment Associated With Survivorship and Outcome Scores at a Minimum of 5 Years After Mobile-bearing Total Ankle Arthroplasty With the Hintegra Device? CORR Insights®: Do Published Orthopaedic RCTs Match Their Registered Protocols? A 6-year Analysis of Leading Orthopaedic Journals. Value-based Healthcare: The Medicare Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) Brings Orthopaedic Surgeons a Step Closer to Owning the Total Cost of Care. Do Patients Who Undergo Conversion of Failed Osteoarticular Allografts to Megaprostheses Have Worse Outcomes Than Patients Treated With Primary Megaprostheses at Initial Resection?
×
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:604180095
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