Roger Chou1, Susan Carson, Benjamin K S Chan. 1. Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail code: BICC, Portland, OR 97239, USA. chour@ohsu.edu
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: A M Glenny; D G Altman; F Song; C Sakarovitch; J J Deeks; R D'Amico; M Bradburn; A J Eastwood Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: M Backonja; A Beydoun; K R Edwards; S L Schwartz; V Fonseca; M Hes; L LaMoreaux; E Garofalo Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-12-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kathleen Hempenstall; Turo J Nurmikko; Robert W Johnson; Roger P A'Hern; Andrew S C Rice Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-07-26 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Philip J Wiffen; Sheena Derry; Rae F Bell; Andrew Sc Rice; Thomas Rudolf Tölle; Tudor Phillips; R Andrew Moore Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-06-09
Authors: Monica Tontodonati; Tamara Ursini; Ennio Polilli; Francesco Vadini; Francesco Di Masi; Damiano Volpone; Giustino Parruti Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2012-10-17