Effectiveness and Safety of Gabapentin versus Pregabalin in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
British journal of hospital medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-30 Epub Date: 2024-12-09 DOI:10.12968/hmed.2024.0485
Yi Shi, Chunhong Song
{"title":"Effectiveness and Safety of Gabapentin versus Pregabalin in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Yi Shi, Chunhong Song","doi":"10.12968/hmed.2024.0485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aims/Background</b> Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common chronic pain disease that persists after the rash (clusters of clear blisters on the surface of the skin) has healed, adversely affecting the quality of life of affected patients. Gabapentin (GPT) and pregabalin (PGB) are two commonly used drugs for the treatment of PHN, but there have been broad concerns regarding their efficacy and safety. Thus, this retrospective cohort study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of GPT versus PGB in the treatment of PHN. <b>Methods</b> A total of 150 patients with PHN receiving routine antiviral and neurotrophic therapies, admitted between January 2022 and November 2023, were selected. 71 patients who were treated with GPT were included in the control group, while the remaining 79 patients who were given PGB were categorized in the observation group. Information on clinical effectiveness, safety (xerostomia, drowsiness, blurred vision, ataxia, and dizziness), analgesic effect (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] and time to pain relief), sleep quality (Sleep Quality Scale [SQS] and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]), and adverse emotions (Self-rating Anxiety/Depression Scale [SAS/SDS]) was collected for analysis. <b>Results</b> Compared to the control group, the observation group exhibited significantly higher clinical effectiveness of PGB in the treatment of PHN (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In other aspects, the overall incidence of adverse events such as xerostomia, drowsiness, blurred vision, ataxia, and dizziness (<i>p</i> > 0.05) was equivalent in these two groups. In addition, significantly lower VAS, SQS, PSQI, SAS, and SDS scores were observed in the observation group after treatment, compared with the control group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The observation group showed evidently shorter time to pain relief than the other group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). <b>Conclusion</b> PGB is an effective and safe medication for the treatment of PHN, by improving the analgesic effect and sleep quality, and alleviating negative emotions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9256,"journal":{"name":"British journal of hospital medicine","volume":"85 12","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2024.0485","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims/Background Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common chronic pain disease that persists after the rash (clusters of clear blisters on the surface of the skin) has healed, adversely affecting the quality of life of affected patients. Gabapentin (GPT) and pregabalin (PGB) are two commonly used drugs for the treatment of PHN, but there have been broad concerns regarding their efficacy and safety. Thus, this retrospective cohort study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of GPT versus PGB in the treatment of PHN. Methods A total of 150 patients with PHN receiving routine antiviral and neurotrophic therapies, admitted between January 2022 and November 2023, were selected. 71 patients who were treated with GPT were included in the control group, while the remaining 79 patients who were given PGB were categorized in the observation group. Information on clinical effectiveness, safety (xerostomia, drowsiness, blurred vision, ataxia, and dizziness), analgesic effect (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] and time to pain relief), sleep quality (Sleep Quality Scale [SQS] and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]), and adverse emotions (Self-rating Anxiety/Depression Scale [SAS/SDS]) was collected for analysis. Results Compared to the control group, the observation group exhibited significantly higher clinical effectiveness of PGB in the treatment of PHN (p < 0.05). In other aspects, the overall incidence of adverse events such as xerostomia, drowsiness, blurred vision, ataxia, and dizziness (p > 0.05) was equivalent in these two groups. In addition, significantly lower VAS, SQS, PSQI, SAS, and SDS scores were observed in the observation group after treatment, compared with the control group (p < 0.05). The observation group showed evidently shorter time to pain relief than the other group (p < 0.05). Conclusion PGB is an effective and safe medication for the treatment of PHN, by improving the analgesic effect and sleep quality, and alleviating negative emotions.

加巴喷丁与普瑞巴林治疗带状疱疹后神经痛的有效性和安全性:一项回顾性队列研究。
目的/背景带状疱疹后神经痛(PHN)是一种常见的慢性疼痛疾病,在皮疹(皮肤表面的透明水疱簇)愈合后持续存在,对患者的生活质量产生不利影响。加巴喷丁(GPT)和普瑞巴林(PGB)是治疗PHN的两种常用药物,但其疗效和安全性一直受到广泛关注。因此,本回顾性队列研究旨在探讨GPT与PGB治疗PHN的有效性和安全性。方法选择2022年1月至2023年11月收治的150例接受常规抗病毒和神经营养治疗的PHN患者。采用GPT治疗的患者71例为对照组,采用PGB治疗的患者79例为观察组。收集临床疗效、安全性(口干、嗜睡、视力模糊、共济失调和头晕)、镇痛效果(视觉模拟量表[VAS]和疼痛缓解时间)、睡眠质量(睡眠质量量表[SQS]和匹兹堡睡眠质量指数[PSQI])和不良情绪(焦虑/抑郁自评量表[SAS/SDS])的信息进行分析。结果观察组PGB治疗PHN的临床疗效显著高于对照组(p < 0.05)。在其他方面,两组患者口干、嗜睡、视力模糊、共济失调、头晕等不良事件的总体发生率相当(p < 0.05)。治疗后观察组患者VAS、SQS、PSQI、SAS、SDS评分均显著低于对照组(p < 0.05)。观察组疼痛缓解时间明显短于对照组(p < 0.05)。结论PGB可改善患者的镇痛效果和睡眠质量,减轻患者的负性情绪,是治疗PHN的一种安全有效的药物。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
British journal of hospital medicine
British journal of hospital medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Hospital Medicine was established in 1966, and is still true to its origins: a monthly, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary review journal for hospital doctors and doctors in training. The journal publishes an authoritative mix of clinical reviews, education and training updates, quality improvement projects and case reports, and book reviews from recognized leaders in the profession. The Core Training for Doctors section provides clinical information in an easily accessible format for doctors in training. British Journal of Hospital Medicine is an invaluable resource for hospital doctors at all stages of their career. The journal is indexed on Medline, CINAHL, the Sociedad Iberoamericana de Información Científica and Scopus.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信