The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Drugs Outcomes Research and Policies
Volume 16 - 2025 |
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1483770
Does pregabalin offer potential as a first-line therapy for generalized anxiety disorder? A meta-analysis of efficacy, safety, and costeffectiveness
Provisionally accepted- 1 Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
- 2 Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
- 3 San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain
- 4 Gobierno del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain
- 5 University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
- 6 Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Asturias, Spain
- 7 Viatris Spain, Madrid, Spain
Introduction: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is a mental health condition with a recent increase in prevalence. GAD is often underdiagnosed, leading to negative consequences for individuals, healthcare systems, and society. The economic burden and impaired quality of life associated with GAD underscores the need for effective treatment. Pregabalin has shown promise in reducing anxiety symptoms; however, further research is needed to evaluate its efficacy and compare it with other treatment options. This study aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and optimal pregabalin dosage for the treatment of GAD.Methods: This meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Pregabalin-treated patients comprised the intervention group, whereas the comparator group received benzodiazepines, SSRIs, SNRIs, or placebo.Efficacy and safety were evaluated using various scales and adverse events (AEs). Randomized clinical trials were included in the study. Four major databases were used for this study. Outcome measures included the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (CGI-I), discontinuation rates, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 software, employing odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed based on follow-up and dosage.Results: Fourteen studies involving 4,822 patients were analyzed. Pregabalin demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing HAM-A global scores at two weeks (MD -1.23, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.66), four weeks (MD -1.12, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.63), eight weeks (MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.79), twelve weeks (MD 0.99, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.63), and 6 months to 1 year (MD -3.31, 95% CI -4.30 to -2.31). Pregabalin also showed a higher response rate to HAM-A (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.31 1.75). CGI-I scores favored pregabalin (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12), with a higher response rate (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55). The discontinuation rates were lower with pregabalin (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70, 0.91). Adverse events favored pregabalin over SSRIs/SNRIs and benzodiazepines at different doses. Pregabalin was associated with higher cost-effectiveness (MD 0.02, 95% CI 0.01, 0.03).Pregabalin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for generalized anxiety disorder, showing superior efficacy and safety compared with first-line medications.
Keywords: pregabalin, Benzodiazepines, SSRIs, SNRIs Generalized anxiety disorder, efficacy, Safety
Received: 20 Aug 2024; Accepted: 10 Jan 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Cardoner, Gutiérrez-Rojas, Saiz, Lahera, Alvarez-Mon, Alonso Ortega and Perez-Paramo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Narcis Cardoner, Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.