4.4 Review

Gabapentin for neuropathic pain: Systematic review of controlled and uncontrolled literature

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 284-295

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00002508-200112000-00002

关键词

effectiveness; efficacy; gabapentin; meta-analysis; neuropathic pain; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the efficacy/effectiveness and side effects of gabapentin for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Design: Systematic review of the literature. Methods: Extensive search of several electronic databases located both controlled and uncontrolled studies. Efficacy was assessed through meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas the effectiveness of gabapentin in uncontrolled studies was assessed via a novel system of dichotomous classification of bad versus .good results. Findings: Thirty-five papers involving 727 patients with multiple neuropathic pain conditions met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the 2 high-quality, placebo-controlled RCTs showed positive effect of gabapentin in diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. The addition of 2 low-quality, placebo-controlled RCTs did not alter the magnitude or direction of observed effect. The uncontrolled studies demonstrated positive effect on pain in different neuropathic syndromes, as well as benefit on different types of neuropathic pain, highest dose administered and rate-of-dose escalation showed wide variability between prescribers. Fewer and less severe side effects were reported in the uncontrolled studies. Conclusions: Gabapentin seems to be effective in multiple painful neuropathic conditions. The variable prescribing patterns of the uncontrolled studies raise the suspicion that effectiveness may be reduced if one limits administration of the drug to very low doses, whereas rapid dose escalation may be associated with increased central nervous system side effects. Well-designed controlled trials may provide insight into differential symptom sensitivity to the drug.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据