Robertson Kelvin, Marshman Laurence A G, Plummer David
Department of Pharmacy, The Townsville Hospital, Douglas, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia.
Department of Neurosurgery, Institute of Surgery, The Townsville Hospital, Douglas, Townsville, QLD, Australia; School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas, Townsville, QLD, Australia.
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Apr;26:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.05.061. Epub 2015 Nov 26.
Whilst pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) are both used to treat neuropathic pain, their relative role in sciatica is unclear. Our aim was to extensively review the roles of PGB and GBP in treating sciatica. The efficacy, side effects (SE) profile and cost of PGB and GBP in neuropathic pain states were reviewed with special reference to sciatica. Eleven articles matched the criteria: seven systematic reviews, one retrospective cross-sectional study, one placebo-controlled-crossover study, one randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study and one case report. GBP and PGB appeared to demonstrate comparable efficacy and SE. However, the amount and quality of evidence was low, and only indirect comparisons were available. Importantly, no direct "head-to-head" study existed. Globally, costs varied widely (by up to 31 times) and unpredictably (PGB cheaper than GBP, or vice versa). Formulary regulator rulings were globally disparate; however, many exclusively favoured the more expensive drug (whether GBP or PGB). No studies assessed PGB-GBP interchange. Weak evidence suggests that efficacy and SE with GBP and PGB are probably similar; however, firm conclusions are precluded. Despite weak data, and having cited minor titration, but definite cost, advantages, UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence favoured PGB over GBP. Given that no evidence supports unhindered PGB-GBP interchange, neither drug should probably be favoured. Prospective "head-to-head" studies are urgently required to provide robust evidence-based knowledge for choice of GBP or PGB in sciatica.
虽然普瑞巴林(PGB)和加巴喷丁(GBP)都用于治疗神经性疼痛,但它们在坐骨神经痛中的相对作用尚不清楚。我们的目的是广泛综述PGB和GBP在治疗坐骨神经痛中的作用。特别参照坐骨神经痛,对PGB和GBP在神经性疼痛状态下的疗效、副作用(SE)情况及成本进行了综述。11篇文章符合标准:7篇系统评价、1篇回顾性横断面研究、1篇安慰剂对照交叉研究、1篇随机安慰剂对照双盲研究和1篇病例报告。GBP和PGB似乎显示出相当的疗效和SE。然而,证据的数量和质量较低,且仅有间接比较。重要的是,不存在直接的“头对头”研究。在全球范围内,成本差异很大(高达31倍)且不可预测(PGB比GBP便宜,反之亦然)。处方监管规定在全球范围内各不相同;然而,许多规定只青睐较昂贵的药物(无论是GBP还是PGB)。没有研究评估PGB与GBP的互换性。微弱的证据表明,GBP和PGB的疗效和SE可能相似;然而,无法得出确切结论。尽管数据薄弱,且提到了微调,但有明确的成本优势,英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所更青睐PGB而非GBP。鉴于没有证据支持PGB与GBP的无阻碍互换,可能不应偏袒任何一种药物。迫切需要进行前瞻性的“头对头”研究,为坐骨神经痛中GBP或PGB的选择提供有力的循证知识。