Saara Raatikainen, Kati Jaatinen, Teemu Karjalainen, Vieda Lusa
{"title":"加巴喷丁类药物治疗腕管综合征的疗效和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景:尽管有限的疗效证据和已知的不良反应风险,加巴喷丁类药物治疗腕管综合征(CTS)的适应症外使用正在增加。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在综合证明口服加巴喷丁类药物治疗CTS的益处和危害。方法:检索Medline和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库,检索随机对照试验(RCT)。根据搜索结果,我们形成了三个比较,评估口服加巴喷丁类干预与(1)安慰剂(主要比较),(2)开放标签无治疗(两组联合干预)或(3)夹板的效果。主要结局为症状严重程度。次要结局是疼痛、功能、临床改善、健康相关生活质量、不良反应和手术需求。在进行系统评价和荟萃分析的过程中,我们坚持采用Cochrane和GRADE方法。结果:与安慰剂相比,加巴喷丁类药物可能不能改善CTS症状(中等确定性)。获益提高0.08点(95%置信区间[CI] 0.33好至0.17差;两项研究,286名随机受试者)在波士顿腕管综合征问卷(BCTQ)症状严重程度量表上表达(1-5分,越低越好;最小临床重要差异[MCID] 1.14分)。与未治疗的二次比较与这一发现一致。与安慰剂相比,加巴喷丁类药物可能会导致更多的疲劳(风险比[RR] 1.67 [95% CI 1.06-2.63]),并可能导致更多的头晕(RR 1.96 [95% CI 0.93-4.13])。与短期不治疗相比,加巴喷丁类药物可能对疼痛有轻微的好处,但对手部功能没有好处。结论:目前的证据不支持口服加巴喷丁类药物治疗CTS。与安慰剂或不治疗相比,在症状缓解方面没有临床上重要的益处,加巴喷丁类药物会产生副作用,尤其是疲劳,可能还有头晕。证据等级:II级(治疗性)。
Efficacy and Safety of Gabapentinoids in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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).