比较普瑞巴林和加巴喷丁对腰椎病患者的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-11 DOI:10.1111/papr.13424
Do Yun Kwon, Kwang-Ryeol Kim, Dong Hyuck Kim, Sang Gyu Kwak
{"title":"比较普瑞巴林和加巴喷丁对腰椎病患者的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Do Yun Kwon, Kwang-Ryeol Kim, Dong Hyuck Kim, Sang Gyu Kwak","doi":"10.1111/papr.13424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gabapentinoids are commonly prescribed to control neuropathic pain of lumbar radiculopathy. Few trials have compared the efficacy of gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB). Therefore, the authors conducted a meta-analysis to compare the difference in effect between GBP and PGB in lumbar radiculopathy patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Articles which were published between January 1, 1960 and May 31, 2023 were investigated via Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE. This meta-analysis was conducted on patients with lumbar radiculopathy. Gabapentin was used as an intervention, and pregabalin as a comparison. As outcomes, pain rating scales including visual analog scale (VAS) and numeric pain rating scale (NRS), and number of adverse events (dizziness and sedation) were obtained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PGB showed statistically significant improvement in pain scale (VAS and NRS) in short-term follow-up (6 weeks or less) compared to GBP. (Total mean difference of -0.31) However, in the long-term follow-up (6 weeks to 12 weeks), there was no difference in pain reduction effect between two groups. The incidence of AEs showed no difference between two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this article, the existing evidence suggests that PGB was more effective in reducing pain of lumbar radiculopathy compared to GBP at the short-term follow-up, but there was no difference in the long-term follow-up. Physicians should consider this finding in prescribing medications for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients with lumbar radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Do Yun Kwon, Kwang-Ryeol Kim, Dong Hyuck Kim, Sang Gyu Kwak\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/papr.13424\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gabapentinoids are commonly prescribed to control neuropathic pain of lumbar radiculopathy. Few trials have compared the efficacy of gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB). Therefore, the authors conducted a meta-analysis to compare the difference in effect between GBP and PGB in lumbar radiculopathy patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Articles which were published between January 1, 1960 and May 31, 2023 were investigated via Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE. This meta-analysis was conducted on patients with lumbar radiculopathy. Gabapentin was used as an intervention, and pregabalin as a comparison. As outcomes, pain rating scales including visual analog scale (VAS) and numeric pain rating scale (NRS), and number of adverse events (dizziness and sedation) were obtained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PGB showed statistically significant improvement in pain scale (VAS and NRS) in short-term follow-up (6 weeks or less) compared to GBP. (Total mean difference of -0.31) However, in the long-term follow-up (6 weeks to 12 weeks), there was no difference in pain reduction effect between two groups. The incidence of AEs showed no difference between two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this article, the existing evidence suggests that PGB was more effective in reducing pain of lumbar radiculopathy compared to GBP at the short-term follow-up, but there was no difference in the long-term follow-up. Physicians should consider this finding in prescribing medications for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13424\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13424","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:加巴喷丁类药物通常用于控制腰椎病的神经性疼痛。很少有试验比较加巴喷丁(GBP)和普瑞巴林(PGB)的疗效。因此,作者进行了一项荟萃分析,以比较GBP和PGB在腰椎病患者中的疗效差异:通过 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Embase、Google Scholar 和 MEDLINE 调查了 1960 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 5 月 31 日期间发表的文章。这项荟萃分析针对的是腰椎病患者。加巴喷丁作为干预药物,普瑞巴林作为对比药物。结果显示,包括视觉模拟量表(VAS)和数字疼痛评分量表(NRS)在内的疼痛评分量表以及不良反应(头晕和镇静)的数量均有所改善:与 GBP 相比,PGB 在短期随访(6 周或更短)中对疼痛评分表(VAS 和 NRS)的改善具有统计学意义。(但在长期随访(6 周至 12 周)中,两组在减轻疼痛效果方面没有差异。结论:根据这篇文章,现有证据表明,在短期随访中,PGB 比 GBP 更能有效减轻腰椎间盘突出症的疼痛,但在长期随访中并无差异。医生在为腰椎病患者开药时应考虑这一结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients with lumbar radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Gabapentinoids are commonly prescribed to control neuropathic pain of lumbar radiculopathy. Few trials have compared the efficacy of gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB). Therefore, the authors conducted a meta-analysis to compare the difference in effect between GBP and PGB in lumbar radiculopathy patients.

Methods: Articles which were published between January 1, 1960 and May 31, 2023 were investigated via Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE. This meta-analysis was conducted on patients with lumbar radiculopathy. Gabapentin was used as an intervention, and pregabalin as a comparison. As outcomes, pain rating scales including visual analog scale (VAS) and numeric pain rating scale (NRS), and number of adverse events (dizziness and sedation) were obtained.

Results: PGB showed statistically significant improvement in pain scale (VAS and NRS) in short-term follow-up (6 weeks or less) compared to GBP. (Total mean difference of -0.31) However, in the long-term follow-up (6 weeks to 12 weeks), there was no difference in pain reduction effect between two groups. The incidence of AEs showed no difference between two groups.

Conclusion: Based on this article, the existing evidence suggests that PGB was more effective in reducing pain of lumbar radiculopathy compared to GBP at the short-term follow-up, but there was no difference in the long-term follow-up. Physicians should consider this finding in prescribing medications for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
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