The University of Sydney (Enke, H.A. New, C.H. New), Sydney Medical School Nepean, Kingswood, Australia; Westmead Hospital (H.A. New), Westmead, Australia; The University of Sydney (Mathieson, Latimer, Maher, Lin), Sydney School of Public Health; The University of Sydney and Concord Hospital (McLachlan), Faculty of Pharmacy and Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, Sydney, Australia
The University of Sydney (Enke, H.A. New, C.H. New), Sydney Medical School Nepean, Kingswood, Australia; Westmead Hospital (H.A. New), Westmead, Australia; The University of Sydney (Mathieson, Latimer, Maher, Lin), Sydney School of Public Health; The University of Sydney and Concord Hospital (McLachlan), Faculty of Pharmacy and Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, Sydney, Australia.
CMAJ. 2018 Jul 3;190(26):E786-E793. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.171333.
The use of anticonvulsants (e.g., gabapentin, pregabalin) to treat low back pain has increased substantially in recent years despite limited supporting evidence. We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain compared with placebo.
A search was conducted in 5 databases for studies comparing an anticonvulsant to placebo in patients with nonspecific low back pain, sciatica or neurogenic claudication of any duration. The outcomes were self-reported pain, disability and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, and quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Data were pooled and treatment effects were quantified using mean differences for continuous and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes.
Nine trials compared topiramate, gabapentin or pregabalin to placebo in 859 unique participants. Fourteen of 15 comparisons found anticonvulsants were not effective to reduce pain or disability in low back pain or lumbar radicular pain; for example, there was high-quality evidence of no effect of gabapentinoids versus placebo on chronic low back pain in the short term (pooled mean difference [MD] -0.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8 to 0.7) or for lumbar radicular pain in the immediate term (pooled MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.5). The lack of efficacy is accompanied by increased risk of adverse events from use of gabapentinoids, for which the level of evidence is high.
There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that anticonvulsants are ineffective for treatment of low back pain or lumbar radicular pain. There is high-quality evidence that gabapentinoids have a higher risk for adverse events.
PROSPERO-CRD42016046363.
尽管有限的支持证据表明,近年来抗惊厥药(如加巴喷丁、普瑞巴林)用于治疗腰痛的使用量大幅增加。我们旨在确定与安慰剂相比,抗惊厥药治疗腰痛和腰椎神经根痛的疗效和耐受性。
在 5 个数据库中搜索比较非特异性腰痛、坐骨神经痛或任何持续时间的神经性跛行患者使用抗惊厥药与安慰剂的研究。结果为自我报告的疼痛、残疾和不良事件。使用物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)量表评估偏倚风险,并使用推荐评估、制定与评估分级(GRADE)评估证据质量。对数据进行汇总,并使用连续变量的平均差异和二分类变量的风险比来量化治疗效果。
9 项试验比较了托吡酯、加巴喷丁或普瑞巴林与安慰剂在 859 名独特参与者中的效果。15 项比较中的 14 项发现抗惊厥药不能有效减轻腰痛或腰椎神经根痛的疼痛或残疾;例如,在短期慢性腰痛中,加巴喷丁类药物与安慰剂相比没有效果(汇总平均差异 [MD] -0.0,95%置信区间 [CI] -0.8 至 0.7),或在即时性腰椎神经根痛中(汇总 MD -0.1,95% CI -0.7 至 0.5)。缺乏疗效伴随着使用加巴喷丁类药物增加不良事件的风险,其证据水平很高。
有中等至高质量的证据表明,抗惊厥药对腰痛或腰椎神经根痛的治疗无效。有高质量的证据表明,加巴喷丁类药物的不良事件风险更高。
PROSPERO-CRD42016046363。