加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林治疗腰椎管狭窄症神经源性跛行疗效:一项双盲随机安慰剂对照试验。

IF 2.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Chatupon Chotigavanichaya, Korawish Mekariya, Borriwat Santipas, Sirichai Wilartratsami, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Panya Luksanapruksa
{"title":"加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林治疗腰椎管狭窄症神经源性跛行疗效:一项双盲随机安慰剂对照试验。","authors":"Chatupon Chotigavanichaya, Korawish Mekariya, Borriwat Santipas, Sirichai Wilartratsami, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Panya Luksanapruksa","doi":"10.31616/asj.2025.0096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin (GBA) and pregabalin (PGB) versus placebo in managing neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC), functional outcomes, and quality of life in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>GBA and PGB are frequently prescribed for NIC associated with LSS. However, evidence supporting their efficacy, either in comparison with placebo or in direct comparison between the two gabapentinoids in LSS, remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>LSS patients with predominant NIC symptoms for ≥3 months were randomized (1:1:1) to receive GBA (1,800 mg/day), PGB (300 mg/day), or placebo in addition to standard conservative management, including physical therapy and naproxen. GBA and PGB were both titrated to the effective dose over 14 days. The primary outcome was NIC pain measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS), self-paced shuttle walk test (SPSWT; time to NIC symptoms and walking distance), Euro-QoL Group's 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and adverse effects. All outcomes were assessed monthly over 4 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety patients (mean age, 63.14 years; symptoms duration, 19.38 months) were included. All groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, SSS, SPSWT, and EQ-5D-5L at 4 months. At 1 and 2 months, PGB showed greater EQ-5D-5L improvement compared to GBA (mean differences: 0.07 [p=0.045] and 0.08 [p=0.001], respectively). No significant differences in other outcomes were observed between groups at any time point. Adverse effects, including dizziness and sedation, were more common in the GBA and PGB groups compared to placebo (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GBA and PGB did not demonstrate superior efficacy over placebo in reducing NIC and improving functional outcomes in LSS. Moreover, their use was associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects. These findings suggest limited utility for gabapentinoids as adjunctive treatments for LSS.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of neurogenic claudication in lumbar spinal stenosis: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Chatupon Chotigavanichaya, Korawish Mekariya, Borriwat Santipas, Sirichai Wilartratsami, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Panya Luksanapruksa\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2025.0096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin (GBA) and pregabalin (PGB) versus placebo in managing neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC), functional outcomes, and quality of life in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>GBA and PGB are frequently prescribed for NIC associated with LSS. However, evidence supporting their efficacy, either in comparison with placebo or in direct comparison between the two gabapentinoids in LSS, remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>LSS patients with predominant NIC symptoms for ≥3 months were randomized (1:1:1) to receive GBA (1,800 mg/day), PGB (300 mg/day), or placebo in addition to standard conservative management, including physical therapy and naproxen. GBA and PGB were both titrated to the effective dose over 14 days. The primary outcome was NIC pain measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS), self-paced shuttle walk test (SPSWT; time to NIC symptoms and walking distance), Euro-QoL Group's 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and adverse effects. All outcomes were assessed monthly over 4 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety patients (mean age, 63.14 years; symptoms duration, 19.38 months) were included. All groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, SSS, SPSWT, and EQ-5D-5L at 4 months. At 1 and 2 months, PGB showed greater EQ-5D-5L improvement compared to GBA (mean differences: 0.07 [p=0.045] and 0.08 [p=0.001], respectively). No significant differences in other outcomes were observed between groups at any time point. Adverse effects, including dizziness and sedation, were more common in the GBA and PGB groups compared to placebo (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GBA and PGB did not demonstrate superior efficacy over placebo in reducing NIC and improving functional outcomes in LSS. Moreover, their use was associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects. These findings suggest limited utility for gabapentinoids as adjunctive treatments for LSS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:双盲随机安慰剂对照试验。目的:评价加巴喷丁(GBA)和普瑞巴林(PGB)与安慰剂在治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)患者神经源性间歇性跛行(NIC)、功能结局和生活质量方面的有效性和安全性。文献综述:GBA和PGB常用于与LSS相关的NIC。然而,无论是与安慰剂比较,还是与两种加巴喷丁类药物在LSS中的直接比较,支持其疗效的证据仍然有限。方法:在标准保守治疗(包括物理治疗和萘普生)的基础上,以NIC症状为主要症状≥3个月的LSS患者随机(1:1:1)接受GBA (1800 mg/天)、PGB (300 mg/天)或安慰剂治疗。GBA和PGB均在14天内滴定至有效剂量。主要终点是用视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量NIC疼痛。次要结局包括瑞士椎管狭窄症评分(SSS)、自定速度穿梭行走测试(SPSWT;到NIC症状的时间和步行距离)、Euro-QoL组的5维5级(EQ-5D-5L)和不良反应。所有结果在4个月内每月评估一次。结果:纳入90例患者,平均年龄63.14岁,症状持续时间19.38个月。4个月时各组VAS、SSS、SPSWT、EQ-5D-5L均有显著改善。在1个月和2个月时,与GBA相比,PGB的EQ-5D-5L改善更大(平均差异分别为0.07 [p=0.045]和0.08 [p=0.001])。各组在任何时间点的其他结果均无显著差异。与安慰剂相比,GBA和PGB组的不良反应,包括头晕和镇静,更常见(p结论:GBA和PGB在减少NIC和改善LSS功能结局方面没有表现出优于安慰剂的疗效。此外,它们的使用与较高的不良反应发生率有关。这些发现表明加巴喷丁类药物作为LSS辅助治疗的效用有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of neurogenic claudication in lumbar spinal stenosis: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Study design: A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin (GBA) and pregabalin (PGB) versus placebo in managing neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC), functional outcomes, and quality of life in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Overview of literature: GBA and PGB are frequently prescribed for NIC associated with LSS. However, evidence supporting their efficacy, either in comparison with placebo or in direct comparison between the two gabapentinoids in LSS, remains limited.

Methods: LSS patients with predominant NIC symptoms for ≥3 months were randomized (1:1:1) to receive GBA (1,800 mg/day), PGB (300 mg/day), or placebo in addition to standard conservative management, including physical therapy and naproxen. GBA and PGB were both titrated to the effective dose over 14 days. The primary outcome was NIC pain measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Score (SSS), self-paced shuttle walk test (SPSWT; time to NIC symptoms and walking distance), Euro-QoL Group's 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and adverse effects. All outcomes were assessed monthly over 4 months.

Results: Ninety patients (mean age, 63.14 years; symptoms duration, 19.38 months) were included. All groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, SSS, SPSWT, and EQ-5D-5L at 4 months. At 1 and 2 months, PGB showed greater EQ-5D-5L improvement compared to GBA (mean differences: 0.07 [p=0.045] and 0.08 [p=0.001], respectively). No significant differences in other outcomes were observed between groups at any time point. Adverse effects, including dizziness and sedation, were more common in the GBA and PGB groups compared to placebo (p<0.001).

Conclusions: GBA and PGB did not demonstrate superior efficacy over placebo in reducing NIC and improving functional outcomes in LSS. Moreover, their use was associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects. These findings suggest limited utility for gabapentinoids as adjunctive treatments for LSS.

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
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信