Dataset Information

Gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia: discrepancies between direct and indirect meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous systematic reviews concluded that tricyclics antidepressants are superior to gabapentin for neuropathic pain, but were based on indirect comparisons from placebo-controlled trials.

Purpose

To evaluate gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia, using direct and indirect comparisons.

Data sources

MEDLINE (1966 to March Week 4 2008), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (1st quarter 2008), and reference lists.

Study selection

We selected randomized trials directly comparing gabapentin versus tricyclic antidepressants or comparing either of these medications versus placebo.

Data extraction

Studies were reviewed, abstracted, and quality-rated by two independent investigators using predefined criteria.

Data synthesis

We performed a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials using a random effects model and compared the results to an adjusted indirect analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

Results

In three head-to-head trials, there was no difference between gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants for achieving pain relief (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). In adjusted indirect analyses, gabapentin was worse than tricyclic antidepressants for achieving pain relief (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). The discrepancy between direct and indirect analyses was statistically significant (p = 0.008). Placebo-controlled tricyclic trials were conducted earlier than the gabapentin trials, reported lower placebo response rates, had more methodological shortcomings, and were associated with funnel plot asymmetry.

Conclusions

Though direct evidence is limited, we found no difference in likelihood of achieving pain relief between gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants for diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. Indirect analyses that combine data from sets of trials conducted in different eras can be unreliable.

SUBMITTER: Chou R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2628998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesThere are limited data examining the real-world use of gabapentin and pregabalin for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). This study examines dosing patterns, therapy outcomes, healthcare utilization and costs of patients with PHN who initiate treatment with gabapentin or pregabalin.MethodsThis was a retrospective administrative claims data analysis from July 2005 to February 2010. Patients with PHN initiating gabapentin or pregabalin (index therapy) from January 2006 to February 2009 were identified and were observed for 12 months after index therapy initiation. Outcomes were mean daily dosages of the index therapy, attainment of minimally effective dosages of gabapentin (≥ 1,800 mg/day) or pregabalin (≥ 150 and ≥ 300 mg/day) persistence, discontinuation, index therapy switching, addition of neuropathic pain medications to index therapy, and healthcare resource use and costs.Results1,645 patients were identified. The mean daily dosage was 826 mg for gabapentin and 187 mg for pregabalin. Only 52.6 % of patients initiating gabapentin and 56.9 % initiating pregabalin obtained a refill during the post-index period. Approximately 14 % of patients treated with gabapentin reached the target dosage (1,800 mg/day). For pregabalin, 87 % reached ≥ 150 mg/day and 27 % reached ≥ 300 mg/day. On average, patients took 10 weeks to reach 1,800 mg/day gabapentin, and 5.0 and 9.2 weeks to reach ≥ 150 mg/day and ≥ 300 mg/day pregabalin, respectively. Approximately one-third of patients in both index therapy cohorts added a pain medication; more than half added opioids. The percentage of patients switching from either drug (57 %) or adding a therapy (34 %) were similar between index therapy cohorts; opioids were the most common therapy patients switched to or added.ConclusionIt appears that gabapentin and pregabalin are not used effectively to treat PHN. Suboptimal dosing and discontinuation may be associated with supplementary use of other analgesics, especially opioids.

Project description:BackgroundGabapentin and pregabalin are commonly prescribed medications to treat pain in patients with diabetic neuropathy. Gabapentin and pregabalin can cause fluid retention, which is hypothesized to be associated with cardiovascular diseases. However, whether long-term use of gabapentin and pregabalin is associated with adverse cardiovascular diseases remains unknown. This study aims to examine the association between gabapentin use, pregabalin use and several adverse cardiovascular events.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used propensity score matching within patient electronic health records (EHRs) from a multicenter database with 106 million patients from 69 health care organizations in the US. The study population comprised 210,064 patients who had a diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy and were prescribed diabetic neuropathy medications in their EHRs. The exposure cohort comprised patients who were prescribed gabapentin or pregabalin to treat diabetic neuropathy. The comparison cohort comprised patients who were not prescribed either gabapentin or pregabalin but were prescribed other drugs to treat diabetic neuropathy. The outcomes of interest were myocardial infarcts, strokes, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and venous thromboembolic events. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 3-month and 5-year risk for adverse cardiovascular events between the propensity score-matched cohorts.ResultsBoth gabapentin and pregabalin were associated with increased risk of 5-year adverse cardiovascular events compared with the comparison group. In patients prescribed gabapentin, the highest risk was observed for deep venous thrombosis (HR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.37-1.82), followed by pulmonary embolism (HR: 1.5, 95% CI 1.27-1.76), peripheral vascular disease (HR: 1.37, 95% CI 1.27-1.47), stroke (HR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.2-1.43), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.38) and heart failure (HR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). In patients prescribed pregabalin, the highest risk was observed for deep venous thrombosis (HR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.31-1.88), followed by peripheral vascular disease (HR: 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.49), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.13-1.47), pulmonary embolism (HR: 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.59), stroke (HR: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12-1.42), and heart failure (HR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.11-1.3). There were significant associations between short-term (3 month) gabapentin use and heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. Short-term (3 month) pregabalin use was associated with deep venous thrombosis, peripheral vascular disease.ConclusionIn patients with diabetic neuropathy who were prescribed gabapentin and pregabalin, there is an increased risk for heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, stroke, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism with long-term use. Our findings suggest that increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events, along with other side effects, the efficacy of pain control and the degree of tolerance of the patient, should be considered when prescribing gabapentin and pregabalin long-term in patients with diabetic neuropathy.

Project description:BackgroundMigraine, ranked as the 7th-highest specific cause of disability worldwide, has caused an enormous burden on the economy and society. Tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) is one of the most commonly drugs for migraine prevention. However, evidence about the efficacy and tolerability of TCAs in the prophylaxis of migraine in adults is somewhat confusing.MethodsA computerized literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from inception to July 2016 was conducted. We reviewed all randomized controlled trials that assigned adults with a clinical diagnosis of migraine to TCAs or other treatments (placebo or other antidepressants). Reduction in migraine frequency or index and response rates to treatment were defined as the efficacy outcomes. Rates of dropout due to adverse effects were defined as the tolerability outcomes.ResultsIn total 12 trials consisting of 1006 participants were identified: 9 trials compared TCAs with placebo, and the other 3 compared amitriptyline with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). A significant advantage of TCAs compared with placebo in the prevention of migraine in adults was observed (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.05 to -.46; P?<?.00001). Participants receiving TCAs were more likely to experience an ?50% reduction in their headache burden than those receiving placebo (risk ratio [RR] =1.40; 95% CI = 0.89-2.20; P?=?.14). In addition, the efficacy between amitriptyline and SSRIs or SNRIs did not differ for migraine prevention in adults (SMD = -.01; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.28; P?=?.94) based on the available limited trials. However, TCAs were less well tolerated than placebo (RR = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.00-2.99; P?=?.05) and SSRI or SNRI (RR = 2.85; 95% CI = 0.97-8.41; P?=?.06) on account of adverse events.ConclusionsThis research reveals that TCAs were more effective than placebo, but no more than SSRI or SNRI in ameliorating the headache burden in adults with migraine. However, TCAs appeared to be less tolerated than placebo and SSRIs or SNRIs for some side effects.