Department of Pharmacy, Medical Services Group, The Townsville Hospital, Douglas, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;76(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.3077.
Optimal pharmacologic treatment for chronic sciatica (CS) is currently unclear. While gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are both used to treat CS, equipoise exists. Nevertheless, pharmaceutical regulation authorities typically subsidize one drug over the other. This hinders interchange wherever the favored drug is either ineffective or ill-tolerated.
To assess GBP vs PGB head to head for the treatment of CS.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A preplanned interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial of PGB vs GBP for management of CS at half the estimated final sample size was performed in a single-center, tertiary referral public hospital. A total of 20 patients underwent randomization from March 2016 to March 2018, and 2 were excluded with 1 lost to follow-up and the other requiring urgent surgery unrelated to the study. Patients attending a specialist neurosurgery clinic with unilateral CS were considered for trial recruitment. Chronic sciatica was defined as pain lasting for at least 3 months radiating into 1 leg only to, at, or below the knee level. Imaging (magnetic resonance imaging with or without computed tomography) corroborating a root-level lesion concordant with symptoms and/or signs was determined by the trial clinician. Inclusion criteria included patients who had not used GBP and PGB and were 18 years or older. Analyses were intention to treat and began February 2018.
Randomly assigned participants received GBP (400 mg to 800 mg 3 times a day) then PGB (150 mg to 300 mg twice daily) or vice versa, each taken for 8 weeks. Crossover followed a 1-week washout.
The primary outcome was pain intensity (10-point visual analog scale) at baseline and 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability (using the Oswestry Disability Index) and severity/frequency of adverse events.
The total trial population (N = 18) consisted mostly of men (11 [61%]) with a mean (SD) age of 57 (16.5) years. A third of the cohort were smokers (5 [28%]), and more than half consumed alcohol (12 [67%]). Gabapentin was superior to PGB, with fewer and less severe adverse events. Both GBP (mean [SD], 7.54 [1.39] to 5.82 [1.72]; P < .001) and PGB (mean [SD], 7.33 [1.30] to 6.38 [1.88]; P = .002) displayed significant visual analog pain intensity scale reduction and Oswestry Disability Index reduction (mean [SD], 59.22 [16.88] to 48.54 [15.52]; P < .001 for both). Head to head, GBP showed superior visual analog pain intensity scale reduction (mean [SD], GBP: 1.72 [1.17] vs PGB: 0.94 [1.09]; P = .035) irrespective of sequence order; however, Oswestry Disability Index reduction was unchanged. Adverse events for PGB were more frequent (PGB, 31 [81%] vs GBP, 7 [19%]; P = .002) especially when PGB was taken first.
Pregabalin and GBP were both significantly efficacious. However, GBP was superior with fewer and less severe adverse events. Gabapentin should be commenced before PGB to permit optimal crossover of medicines.
anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12613000559718.
慢性坐骨神经痛(CS)的最佳药物治疗目前尚不清楚。加巴喷丁(GBP)和普瑞巴林(PGB)均用于治疗 CS,但疗效相当。尽管如此,药品监管机构通常会补贴其中一种药物而不是另一种。这在首选药物无效或耐受性差的情况下会阻碍药物的转换。
评估 GBP 与 PGB 头对头治疗 CS 的效果。
设计、设置和参与者:对 PGB 与 GBP 治疗 CS 的随机、双盲、双模拟交叉试验进行了预先计划的中期分析,该试验的最终样本量估计为一半,在一家单一中心的三级转诊公立医院进行。共有 20 名患者于 2016 年 3 月至 2018 年 3 月进行了随机分组,其中 2 名患者被排除在外,1 名失访,另 1 名需要进行与研究无关的紧急手术。参加神经外科专家诊所的单侧 CS 患者被考虑入组。慢性坐骨神经痛定义为疼痛持续至少 3 个月,仅放射到 1 条腿,直到或低于膝关节水平。由试验临床医生通过磁共振成像(有或没有计算机断层扫描)确定与症状和/或体征相符的神经根病变。纳入标准包括未使用过 GBP 和 PGB 且年龄在 18 岁或以上的患者。分析采用意向治疗,于 2018 年 2 月开始。
随机分配的参与者接受 GBP(400 至 800mg,每日 3 次),然后接受 PGB(150 至 300mg,每日 2 次),或反之亦然,每种药物治疗 8 周。交叉治疗后有 1 周的洗脱期。
主要结局是基线和 8 周时的疼痛强度(10 点视觉模拟量表)。次要结局包括残疾(使用 Oswestry 残疾指数)和不良事件的严重程度/频率。
整个试验人群(N=18)主要由男性(11[61%])组成,平均(标准差)年龄为 57(16.5)岁。三分之一的患者吸烟(5[28%]),超过一半的患者饮酒(12[67%])。与 PGB 相比,GBP 的不良事件更少且更轻微。GBP(平均[标准差],7.54[1.39]至 5.82[1.72];P<.001)和 PGB(平均[标准差],7.33[1.30]至 6.38[1.88];P=.002)均显著降低视觉模拟疼痛强度量表评分和 Oswestry 残疾指数评分(平均[标准差],59.22[16.88]至 48.54[15.52];均 P<.001)。头对头比较,GBP 显示出更显著的视觉模拟疼痛强度量表评分降低(平均[标准差],GBP:1.72[1.17]比 PGB:0.94[1.09];P=.035),与给药顺序无关;然而,Oswestry 残疾指数评分没有变化。PGB 的不良事件更频繁(PGB,31[81%]比 GBP,7[19%];P=.002),尤其是当先服用 PGB 时。
PGB 和 GBP 均有显著疗效。然而,GBP 的不良反应更少且更轻微。为了实现药物的最佳交叉,应先服用 GBP 再服用 PGB。
anzctr.org.au 标识符:ACTRN12613000559718。