scholarly journals Gabapentin and pregabalin in bipolar disorder, anxiety states, and insomnia: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and rationale

Author(s):  
James S. W. Hong ◽  
Lauren Z. Atkinson ◽  
Noura Al-Juffali ◽  
Amine Awad ◽  
John R. Geddes ◽  
...  

AbstractThe gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the α2δ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become widely prescribed drugs. Many of these uses are off-label for psychiatric indications, and there is increasing concern about their safety, so it is particularly important to have good evidence to justify this usage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for three of their common psychiatric uses: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. Fifty-five double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 open-label studies were identified. For bipolar disorder, four double-blind RCTs investigating gabapentin, and no double-blind RCTs investigating pregabalin, were identified. A quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the study population, design and outcome measures. Across the anxiety spectrum, a consistent but not universal effect in favour of gabapentinoids compared to placebo was seen (standardised mean difference [SMD] ranging between -2.25 and -0.25). Notably, pregabalin (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18) and gabapentin (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.52) were more effective than placebo in reducing preoperative anxiety. In insomnia, results were inconclusive. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of the efficacy of gabapentinoids in anxiety states, but minimal evidence in bipolar disorder and insomnia and they should be used for these disorders only with strong justification. This recommendation applies despite the attractive pharmacological and genetic rationale for targeting voltage-gated calcium channels.

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 462-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Gastaldon ◽  
D. Papola ◽  
G. Ostuzzi

In the treatment of resistant schizophrenia, a number of meta-analyses attempted to quantify the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic (AP) polypharmacy v. monotherapy with contradictory results. Recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated the efficacy and tolerability of AP combination v. monotherapy in schizophrenia. It included 31 studies: 21 double-blind (considered high-quality studies) and 10 open-label (considered low-quality studies). The meta-analysis showed that, overall, the combination of two APs was more effective than monotherapy in terms of symptom reduction (standardised mean difference (SMD) = −0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.87 to −0.19); however, this result was confirmed only in the subgroup of low-quality studies. Negative symptoms improved when combining a D2 antagonist with a D2 partial agonist (SMD = −0.41, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.03) both in double-blind and open-label studies. In the present commentary, the results of this systematic review are critically discussed in terms of their clinical and research implications.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. e100009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyun Guo ◽  
Dengtang Liu ◽  
Tong Wang ◽  
Xingguang Luo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document