Efficacy and Safety of Gabapentinoids in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
Saara Raatikainen, Kati Jaatinen, Teemu Karjalainen, Vieda Lusa
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Gabapentinoids in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Saara Raatikainen, Kati Jaatinen, Teemu Karjalainen, Vieda Lusa","doi":"10.1142/S2424835525500328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The off-label use of gabapentinoids for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is increasing despite limited evidence of efficacy and known risks of adverse effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of the benefits and harms of oral gabapentinoids in treating CTS. <b>Methods:</b> We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCT). Based on the search results, we formed three comparisons assessing the effect of oral gabapentinoid interventions against (1) placebo (primary comparison), (2) open label no-treatment (with co-interventions in both arms) or (3) splinting. The primary outcome was symptom severity. The secondary outcomes were pain, function, clinical improvement, health-related quality of life, adverse effects and need for surgery. We adhered to the Cochrane and GRADE methodology throughout conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis. <b>Results:</b> Gabapentinoids probably do not improve CTS symptoms (moderate certainty) compared with placebo. The benefit was 0.08 points better (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33 better to 0.17 worse; two studies, 286 randomised participants) expressed on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (1-5 points, lower is better; minimal clinically important difference [MCID] 1.14 points) with gabapentinoids at 8 weeks. Secondary comparison to no treatment aligned with this finding. Gabapentinoids probably cause more fatigue (risk ratio [RR] 1.67 [95% CI 1.06-2.63]) and may cause more dizziness (RR 1.96 [95% CI 0.93-4.13]) compared to placebo. When compared to no-treatment at short term, gabapentinoids may provide minor benefits for pain but not for hand function. <b>Conclusions:</b> Current evidence does not support the use of oral gabapentinoids for CTS. There were no clinically important benefits in symptom relief when compared to placebo or no-treatment, and gabapentinoids caused adverse effects, particularly fatigue and maybe also dizziness. <b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level II (Therapeutic).</p>","PeriodicalId":51689,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835525500328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The off-label use of gabapentinoids for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is increasing despite limited evidence of efficacy and known risks of adverse effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of the benefits and harms of oral gabapentinoids in treating CTS. Methods: We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCT). Based on the search results, we formed three comparisons assessing the effect of oral gabapentinoid interventions against (1) placebo (primary comparison), (2) open label no-treatment (with co-interventions in both arms) or (3) splinting. The primary outcome was symptom severity. The secondary outcomes were pain, function, clinical improvement, health-related quality of life, adverse effects and need for surgery. We adhered to the Cochrane and GRADE methodology throughout conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: Gabapentinoids probably do not improve CTS symptoms (moderate certainty) compared with placebo. The benefit was 0.08 points better (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33 better to 0.17 worse; two studies, 286 randomised participants) expressed on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (1-5 points, lower is better; minimal clinically important difference [MCID] 1.14 points) with gabapentinoids at 8 weeks. Secondary comparison to no treatment aligned with this finding. Gabapentinoids probably cause more fatigue (risk ratio [RR] 1.67 [95% CI 1.06-2.63]) and may cause more dizziness (RR 1.96 [95% CI 0.93-4.13]) compared to placebo. When compared to no-treatment at short term, gabapentinoids may provide minor benefits for pain but not for hand function. Conclusions: Current evidence does not support the use of oral gabapentinoids for CTS. There were no clinically important benefits in symptom relief when compared to placebo or no-treatment, and gabapentinoids caused adverse effects, particularly fatigue and maybe also dizziness. Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
304
×
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