{"title":"Evaluation of Carbamazepine and Gabapentin's Safety and Efficacy in Trigeminal Neuralgia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yang Yan, Haitao Shang, Tao Han","doi":"10.2174/0113862073353707250204061916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of carbamazepine in treating trigeminal neuralgia in contrast to gabapentin. Hence, a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials had been carried out.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The relevant studies were searched in PubMed and filtered according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Independently, two reviewers chose the studies, evaluated the quality of the investigations, and retrieved the data. RevMan was used for analysis when the data were collected and entered into the data extraction sheet. In addition to heterogeneity, the overall estimate measures were computed as mean differences with a 95% confidence interval for continuous data and relative risk for dichotomous data. To investigate the impact of outliers on the result, a sensitivity analysis was performed. A funnel plot was used to qualitatively evaluate the publishing bias. A total of 1,650 participants from 19 randomised controlled trials were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis revealed that the group receiving gabapentin therapy had a similar overall effective rate to the group receiving carbamazepine therapy (OR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.46, 2.57, P = 0.32). Additionally, our meta-analysis revealed that the group receiving gabapentin therapy witnessed a significantly lower risk of adverse reactions than the group receiving carbamazepine therapy (OR= 0.29, 95% CI 0.22, 0.387, P<0.00001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In summary, the current trials comparing carbamazepine and gabapentin have had inadequate methodological quality. It is not possible to conclude that gabapentin is more effective than carbamazepine in terms of adverse effects based on the evidence that is currently available.</p>","PeriodicalId":10491,"journal":{"name":"Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0113862073353707250204061916","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of carbamazepine in treating trigeminal neuralgia in contrast to gabapentin. Hence, a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials had been carried out.
Methods: The relevant studies were searched in PubMed and filtered according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Independently, two reviewers chose the studies, evaluated the quality of the investigations, and retrieved the data. RevMan was used for analysis when the data were collected and entered into the data extraction sheet. In addition to heterogeneity, the overall estimate measures were computed as mean differences with a 95% confidence interval for continuous data and relative risk for dichotomous data. To investigate the impact of outliers on the result, a sensitivity analysis was performed. A funnel plot was used to qualitatively evaluate the publishing bias. A total of 1,650 participants from 19 randomised controlled trials were evaluated.
Results: The meta-analysis revealed that the group receiving gabapentin therapy had a similar overall effective rate to the group receiving carbamazepine therapy (OR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.46, 2.57, P = 0.32). Additionally, our meta-analysis revealed that the group receiving gabapentin therapy witnessed a significantly lower risk of adverse reactions than the group receiving carbamazepine therapy (OR= 0.29, 95% CI 0.22, 0.387, P<0.00001).
Conclusion: In summary, the current trials comparing carbamazepine and gabapentin have had inadequate methodological quality. It is not possible to conclude that gabapentin is more effective than carbamazepine in terms of adverse effects based on the evidence that is currently available.
期刊介绍:
Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening (CCHTS) publishes full length original research articles and reviews/mini-reviews dealing with various topics related to chemical biology (High Throughput Screening, Combinatorial Chemistry, Chemoinformatics, Laboratory Automation and Compound management) in advancing drug discovery research. Original research articles and reviews in the following areas are of special interest to the readers of this journal:
Target identification and validation
Assay design, development, miniaturization and comparison
High throughput/high content/in silico screening and associated technologies
Label-free detection technologies and applications
Stem cell technologies
Biomarkers
ADMET/PK/PD methodologies and screening
Probe discovery and development, hit to lead optimization
Combinatorial chemistry (e.g. small molecules, peptide, nucleic acid or phage display libraries)
Chemical library design and chemical diversity
Chemo/bio-informatics, data mining
Compound management
Pharmacognosy
Natural Products Research (Chemistry, Biology and Pharmacology of Natural Products)
Natural Product Analytical Studies
Bipharmaceutical studies of Natural products
Drug repurposing
Data management and statistical analysis
Laboratory automation, robotics, microfluidics, signal detection technologies
Current & Future Institutional Research Profile
Technology transfer, legal and licensing issues
Patents.