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.