Cited by 82Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsAnesthesia and Pain Management

Effect of Gabapentin vs Pregabalin on Pain Intensity in Adults With Chronic Sciatica: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Robertson, Kelvin, Marshman, Laurence A. G., Plummer, David, Downs, Elena·2019·JAMA Neurology

Abstract

Importance: 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. Objective: 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. Interventions: 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions and Relevance: 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. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12613000559718.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.3077

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robertson, K., Marshman, L. A. G., Plummer, D., & Downs, E.
Affiliations
  • Townsville Hospital (AU)
  • James Cook University (AU)
Corresponding author
Robertson, Kelvin
Venue
JAMA Neurology
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
28
ISSN
2168-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2896026881
Cited by
82
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • JAMA Neurology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
chronic sciatica, gabapentin, pregabalin, pain intensity, neuropathic pain, drug comparison, adverse events, disability, crossover trial, visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, drug tolerability, drug efficacy
MeSH terms
Pregabalin, Gabapentin, Adult, Aged, Analgesics, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sciatica, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Cross-Over Studies, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review