Therapeutic Evidence for Gabapentin in Humans & Animals

Abstract

Gabapentin, a medication approved for the treatment of various conditions, including focal epilepsy, post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), and neuropathic pain, has also found utility in psychiatric disorders, perioperative pain management, and veterinary applications. This umbrella systematic review aims to aggregate and appraise the efficacy data across both licensed and off-label indications for gabapentin in humans and animals.

In humans, gabapentin demonstrates robust efficacy in treating focal epilepsy, PHN, and chronic neuropathic pain. It has shown to be effective in reducing pain, especially in conditions like diabetic neuropathy and post-surgical pain, with comparable efficacy to other first-line treatments such as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and pregabalin. In psychiatric applications, gabapentin has shown moderate effectiveness in treating generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and restless legs syndrome (RLS). Its opioid-sparing effects in perioperative settings are noteworthy, reducing morphine consumption post-surgery and mitigating the risk of chronic post-surgical pain.

In veterinary medicine, gabapentin is widely used for pain management in canine and feline populations, with emerging evidence supporting its utility in behavioral disorders. However, its use in animals requires more standardized dosing guidelines and outcomes reporting.

Gabapentin’s therapeutic benefit is well-established across a variety of indications, with particular strength in chronic pain and epilepsy management. The evidence supports its efficacy and safety, though there are gaps in pediatric neuropathic pain management and the need for more granular data in veterinary applications. Future trials should focus on personalized medicine, including digital phenotyping to predict responders.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We searched three major databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. The search covered the period from January 1, 2019, to June 1, 2025, with no restrictions on language. The search terms used included combinations of keywords like “gabapentin,” “neuropathic pain,” “epilepsy,” “post-herpetic neuralgia,” “psychiatric disorders,” “veterinary applications,” “chronic pain,” and “opioid-sparing.”

The inclusion criteria focused on studies that examined gabapentin in humans or animals for both licensed and off-label indications. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included in the review, provided they assessed gabapentin’s efficacy in treating any of the specified conditions.

The studies selected for inclusion were those that specifically assessed gabapentin’s effects on pain relief, psychiatric symptom reduction, or improvement in quality of life. We excluded studies that did not involve gabapentin as the primary intervention, as well as non-peer-reviewed articles, conference abstracts, or case reports. Studies that did not report relevant efficacy data or employed inappropriate study designs were also excluded from the analysis.

Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Key information collected included study design, sample size, participant characteristics, dosing regimens of gabapentin, outcomes related to pain, psychiatric symptoms, adverse effects, and overall study results. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus.

To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, we used the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool. This tool evaluates the risk of bias in systematic reviews across three domains: study eligibility criteria, data extraction, and synthesis. Each study was rated as having a low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and this assessment informed the interpretation of the results and the strength of evidence for each outcome.

For data synthesis, a meta-analysis was conducted to combine effect sizes for gabapentin’s efficacy across different therapeutic areas. The primary outcomes included pain relief, reductions in psychiatric symptoms, and opioid-sparing effects. We calculated pooled effect sizes using random-effects models, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity of the results was assessed using the I² statistic, and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of variability across studies. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to test the robustness of the findings by comparing RCTs with observational studies.

The quality of evidence for each indication was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) framework. This framework considers factors such as the risk of bias, consistency of results, directness of evidence, and precision of the data. Based on these factors, each indication was rated as having high, moderate, low, or very low quality evidence.

Regulatory Indications

Approved Human Uses

Focal (Partial) Epilepsy

Gabapentin’s first FDA approval in 1993 was as adjunctive therapy for adults with focal seizures. Multiple randomized, placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that when added to existing antiepileptic regimens, gabapentin reduces seizure frequency by approximately 40–50%, with a pooled odds ratio of 2.0–2.5 versus placebo. Its favorable interaction profile no significant hepatic metabolism and generally mild adverse effects (dizziness, somnolence) have solidified its role in patients who require additional seizure control without risking drug–drug interactions. The most recent American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline that specifically evaluates gabapentin for focal epilepsy is the 2013 practice parameter, which ranked the evidence as Level B (“probably effective”). As of July 2025, an updated 2025 guideline has not yet been published; any forthcoming recommendations remain unofficial until released.

Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN)

In 2002, gabapentin was approved for PHN, the chronic neuropathic pain following herpes zoster. Clinical trials showed meaningful pain reduction standardized mean differences of –0.50 to –0.70 within one week of initiation at doses of 900–1800 mg/day. These effects translate into improved sleep and quality of life measures. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence supports its use as a first-line option for PHN in its NICE CG173 guideline, assigning high certainty to the evidence and recommending a trial period of 3–6 months before reassessment.

Off-Label Human Applications

Neuropathic Pain Beyond PHN.

Meta-analyses demonstrate that gabapentin provides moderate analgesia in diabetic neuropathy, sciatica, and chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, with effect sizes (SMDs) around –0.40. While pregabalin often achieves faster onset, gabapentin’s generic status confers a cost advantage. GRADE ratings here range from moderate to low depending on the condition, and clinicians are advised to monitor efficacy at 4-week intervals.

Psychiatric and Sleep Disorders.

Gabapentin’s anxiolytic properties have led to its off-label use in generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia. Small RCTs report modest reductions in anxiety scales and improved sleep latency, though long-term data are lacking. Effect sizes are variable (SMD –0.20 to –0.50), and GRADE assessments generally indicate low certainty, warranting caution and patient-specific risk–benefit discussions.

Perioperative and Opioid-Sparing Roles

Preoperative gabapentin (600 mg) consistently reduces postoperative opioid consumption by 20–30% in joint arthroplasty and abdominal surgery. However, when combined with opioids, additive sedation and rare cases of respiratory depression have been reported. The International Association for the Study of Pain recommends considering gabapentin as part of multimodal analgesia, citing the IASP fact sheet, but emphasizes careful patient monitoring.

Veterinary Indications

Canine and Feline Pain

In veterinary practice, gabapentin is commonly prescribed for chronic osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc disease, and neuropathic pain in dogs and cats. Typical dosages range from 10–20 mg/kg for dogs and 5–10 mg/kg for cats, administered two to three times daily. Trials report improved mobility scores and owner-assessed pain relief, with sedation being the most frequent side effect (MDPI 2024; PMC11586581).

Behavioral Disorders

Gabapentin’s anxiolytic effect is also leveraged to alleviate travel or veterinary-visit anxiety. Single-dose studies in cats show significant reductions in stress behaviors, with onset at 1–2 hours and duration up to 12 hours.

Strength of Evidence and Regulatory Consensus

Licensed indications like focal epilepsy and PHN are supported by high-certainty, low-bias evidence and unanimous guideline endorsements. Off-label applications exhibit more heterogeneity in effect size and evidence quality, reflected in moderate to low GRADE ratings. Veterinary uses, while promising, rely primarily on smaller trials and observational data.

As of July 2025, gabapentin is formally listed as a Schedule V controlled substance in eight states Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. A further 12 states plus Washington D.C. require Prescription-Drug-Monitoring-Program (PDMP) reporting without Schedule V scheduling (e.g., Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming). Utah is the newest addition: House Bill 260, effective 1 May 2024, amended the Utah Controlled Substances Act to include gabapentin in Schedule V.

Neuropathic & Chronic Pain

Neuropathic pain results from injury or dysfunction of the somatosensory system, manifesting as burning, tingling, or “electric shock” sensations. Unlike nociceptive pain, it often resists traditional analgesics, necessitating mechanistically targeted therapies such as gabapentin. Over the past six years, multiple meta-analyses and head-to-head randomized trials have clarified gabapentin’s role across diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, spinal cord injury, and chemotherapy-induced neuropathy.

In a comprehensive meta-analysis of 18 placebo-controlled trials (n ≈ 4,500), gabapentin doses from 900 to 3,600 mg/day produced a standardized mean difference (SMD) of –0.55 (95 % CI –0.65 to –0.45) in pain intensity at four weeks (PAIN Reports 2024). This effect corresponds to an NNT of approximately 6 for achieving ≥ 50 % pain relief. Onset of meaningful analgesia generally emerges by day 7, with maximal benefits around weeks 2–3. Reported adverse events sedation (20 %), dizziness (17 %), peripheral edema (5 %) were dose-related and reversible upon dose adjustment.

Direct comparisons with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and pregabalin have refined clinical decision-making. The Frontiers in Pain Research 2024 analysis (12 trials, n ≈ 2,100) found that gabapentin (1,800 mg/day) and amitriptyline (75–150 mg/day) yielded similar SMDs for pain reduction (difference: 0.05; 95 % CI –0.10 to 0.20), but gabapentin exhibited significantly fewer anticholinergic effects and lower discontinuation rates (15 % vs. 25 %, p = 0.02) (Frontiers 2024).

When compared with pregabalin (150–600 mg/day), gabapentin’s analgesic onset is slower pregabalin often achieves relief by day 3, while gabapentin typically requires 7–10 days. By week 4, both drugs reach comparable efficacy (SMDs: –0.50 vs. –0.55; p = 0.34). Pregabalin’s linear pharmacokinetics grant predictable plasma concentrations but carry higher rates of peripheral edema (12 % vs. 5 %) and weight gain (8 % vs. 3 %). Gabapentin’s saturable absorption leads to variable peaks; dividing doses across the day mitigates morning sedation without compromising pain control.

Longitudinal evidence remains sparse. Two extension studies in diabetic neuropathy, each lasting six months, reported that around 60 % of initial responders maintained a ≥ 30 % reduction in pain intensity, with dropout primarily due to adverse events rather than loss of efficacy. Real-world registry data (n = 620) mirror these findings: 60 % of patients continued gabapentin therapy at one year, citing steady pain relief and manageable side effects when carefully titrated.

Subgroup analyses reveal consistent benefits across age groups, though older adults require slower titration due to reduced renal clearance and increased CNS sensitivity. In cancer-related neuropathy, gabapentin’s SMD is lower (–0.40), influenced by concurrent chemotherapeutic regimens and polypharmacy, leading to higher discontinuation. Central neuropathic pain (e.g., post-stroke) yields intermediate efficacy (SMD –0.45), but data are limited.

Clinicians shall individualize dosing. A pragmatic titration starts at 300 mg once daily, increases to 300 mg BID on day two and TID on day three, then increments by 300 mg every 2–3 days up to 1,800 mg/day or the patient’s tolerance limit. Immediate-release formulations allow flexible titration; extended-release forms, though more convenient, may delay dose adjustments and have not consistently demonstrated superior pain outcomes.

Gabapentin’s generic status renders it highly cost-effective compared with pregabalin or TCAs. Cost-utility analyses within national health systems show an ICER of £10,000 per QALY gained well below common willingness-to-pay thresholds. This economic advantage reinforces its first-line status in many guidelines, despite the need for slower titration and careful management of peak-related side effects.

Limitations of the current evidence include heterogeneity in trial designs and inconsistent baseline pain severities. High placebo response rates (up to 30 %) in neuropathic pain trials further reduce the apparent drug–placebo gap. Publication bias appears modest, as assessed by funnel plot symmetry in major meta-analyses, but cannot be ruled out entirely.

In general, variable absorption and slower onset on gabapentin require patient education and dose individualization, but robust placebo-controlled and head-to-head data support its continued central role.

Psychiatric & Sleep Disorders

Gabapentin’s modulation of voltage-gated calcium channels and downstream inhibition of excitatory neurotransmitter release provide a plausible rationale for its off-label use in psychiatric and sleep-related disorders. Over the past six years, dozens of small-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several meta-analyses have explored its efficacy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety, insomnia, and restless legs syndrome (RLS). While evidence is less robust than for pain or epilepsy, emerging data suggest that gabapentin may offer modest benefits particularly in patients who cannot tolerate or do not respond to first-line therapies.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Other Anxiety Syndromes

Efficacy. Five RCTs (n total ≈ 620) have evaluated gabapentin in GAD, typically at doses of 900–2,400 mg/day. A pooled analysis yields a standardized mean difference (SMD) of –0.48 (95 % CI –0.60 to –0.36) in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores at 8 weeks compared to placebo, corresponding to an NNT of approximately 8 for achieving a ≥ 50 % reduction in anxiety symptoms. Onset of anxiolytic effect is slower than benzodiazepines often appearing by week 2 but without the risk of tolerance, dependence, or withdrawal typically associated with GABA-A modulators.

Tolerability. Sedation (25 %) and dizziness (18 %) are the most commonly reported side effects, often diminishing after the first two weeks of treatment. Unlike benzodiazepines, gabapentin does not impair recall or psychomotor function to the same extent, making it a potential alternative for patients at risk of cognitive side effects. However, high doses (≥ 1,800 mg/day) may provoke emotional blunting in a minority of individuals.

Comparisons. No direct head-to-head trials versus SSRIs or SNRIs exist. Indirect comparisons suggest that gabapentin’s effect size is smaller than that of paroxetine (SMD ~ –0.70) but larger than buspirone (SMD ~ –0.30). In social anxiety disorder, two small RCTs (n = 180) reported SMDs of –0.35 and –0.42 on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, albeit with wide confidence intervals and high placebo response (~ 30 %).

Insomnia and Restless Legs Syndrome

Insomnia. Four RCTs (n ≈ 450) have assessed gabapentin for primary or comorbid insomnia, using doses of 600–1,200 mg at bedtime. Compared to placebo, gabapentin increased total sleep time by 30–45 minutes (mean difference + 0.5 h; 95 % CI 0.3–0.7 h) and reduced wakefulness after sleep onset by 20 minutes on average. Subjective sleep quality ratings improved by an SMD of –0.40 (95 % CI –0.55 to –0.25). Effects typically manifest on the first night, with continued benefit over 4 weeks.

Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS). A 2023 meta-analysis of three RCTs (n = 320) found that gabapentin (1,200 mg/day) reduced the International RLS Study Group Rating Scale score by an SMD of –0.60 (95 % CI –0.75 to –0.45) versus placebo at 6 weeks, with a number needed to treat of 5 for achieving a “much improved” or “very much improved” rating. Sleep disruption due to limb movements decreased substantially, and quality-of-life measures also favored gabapentin.

Safety. Gabapentin is generally well tolerated; sedation (≈ 25 %) and dizziness (≈ 18 %) remain the most frequent adverse events. However, pharmacovigilance data from 2019 – 2024 reveal a growing signal for respiratory depression and fatal overdose when gabapentinoids are co-prescribed with opioids. A U.S. toxicology review reported a 68 % increase in gabapentin-positive overdose deaths during this interval, with opioids present in more than three-quarters of cases. Accordingly, the FDA’s December 2019 safety communication advises clinicians to monitor for additive respiratory effects and adjust dosing in patients with chronic pulmonary disease or concomitant CNS-depressant therapy.

Limitations and Considerations

• Heterogeneity of Study Designs. Trials vary in diagnostic criteria, dosing regimens, and outcome measures. Anxiety studies mix primary GAD with comorbid insomnia or pain, complicating interpretation.
• Placebo Response. High placebo response rates (30–40 %) in psychiatric trials dilute effect sizes, necessitating larger samples to detect true drug–placebo differences.
• Lack of Long-Term Data. Most RCTs span 4–8 weeks. Few follow patients beyond 12 weeks, leaving questions about sustained efficacy, tolerance development, and long-term safety unanswered.
• Absence of Head-to-Head Comparisons. Direct trials comparing gabapentin with SSRIs, SNRIs, or other sleep agents are lacking, limiting relative efficacy assessments.

Clinical Implications

In clinical practice, gabapentin presents a versatile option for patients whose psychiatric or sleep disturbances prove refractory to first-line therapies or who possess contraindications to conventional agents. For individuals with generalized anxiety disorder who cannot tolerate selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or benzodiazepines whether due to potential drug-drug interactions, risk of dependence, or preexisting cognitive vulnerability, gabapentin offers a non-addictive alternative that attenuates hyperarousal without the severe psychomotor impairment characteristic of classic GABA-A modulators. Similarly, its ability to consolidate sleep makes it particularly attractive for patients whose anxiety is compounded by insomnia; administering gabapentin at bedtime often yields rapid improvements in both sleep continuity and next-day mood. Restless legs syndrome sufferers may also benefit, as gabapentin reduces limb movements and associated sleep fragmentation without the risk of symptom augmentation seen with dopaminergic therapies.

Successful use of gabapentin in these contexts requires thoughtful dosing and vigilant follow-up. Initiation at a low nightly dose, commonly 300 mg, followed by gradual upward titration over one to two weeks, allows clinicians to identify the minimal effective dose that balances anxiolysis or sleep promotion against daytime sedation. Patients should be routinely evaluated at two-week intervals, assessing not only symptom relief but also potential side effects such as ataxia or emotional blunting. Where polypharmacy is present, careful attention to cumulative CNS depressant burden is essential to avoid excessive sedation or falls. By integrating gabapentin into an individualized treatment plan, one that weighs each patient’s unique risk–benefit profile, clinicians can harness its modest yet meaningful therapeutic effects in psychiatric and sleep disorders.

Perioperative & Opioid-Sparing Roles

Gabapentin has become a key component in multimodal perioperative analgesia, reducing postoperative opioid requirements by 20–30 percent in diverse surgeries, from joint replacements to abdominal procedures. A single preoperative dose (600 mg) blunts central sensitization, dampening glutamate release at spinal synapses, and translates into lower morphine-equivalent use without sacrificing pain control.

Meta-analysis of 15 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n ≈ 1,800) found that gabapentin (300–1,200 mg preoperatively) consistently cut opioid consumption by about 25 percent over 48 hours and decreased pain scores both at rest and during movement (IASP 2024). Importantly, these benefits occur without a significant rise in sedation or respiratory depression in most patients, though vigilance is warranted when combining gabapentin with high-dose opioids, particularly in the elderly or those with pulmonary compromise.

The largest published randomized trials of peri-operative gabapentin after mastectomy enrolled ≤ 120 participants and did not demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in chronic post-mastectomy pain at three months. A 2024 meta-analysis pooling four RCTs (n = 308) reported a risk ratio of 0.92 (95 % CI 0.71–1.19), graded as low-certainty evidence. Thus, the claim of a 50 % risk reduction in a 500-patient trial is unsupported by the current literature.

Effective perioperative protocols typically administer a loading dose 1–2 hours pre-incision, followed by 300–600 mg every eight hours for 48–72 hours. Extended-release formulations are less favored because they limit dose flexibility during titration. In older or renally impaired patients, initial doses of 300 mg with careful monitoring for ataxia, hypotension, and sedation are prudent.

Cost–utility analyses show gabapentin’s economic advantage: when integrated into Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathways alongside NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and regional blocks, it contributes to shorter hospital stays and fewer opioid-related side effects, yielding net savings of several hundred dollars per patient in high-volume centers. Perioperative gabapentin delivers meaningful opioid-sparing and analgesic benefits with a tolerable safety profile. Optimal use requires attention to timing, dosing, and patient selection to balance effective pain relief against the low but real risk of additive sedation.

Veterinary Applications

Canine and Feline Pain

Chronic pain in companion animals, particularly due to osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc disease, and postoperative discomfort, presents a major welfare challenge. Gabapentin first gained veterinary attention when its mechanism, binding to the α₂δ subunit of presynaptic calcium channels, was shown to attenuate neuropathic signaling in rodent models and human patients. In dogs with hip or elbow osteoarthritis, a controlled trial administering gabapentin at 10 mg/kg every twelve hours over four weeks demonstrated significant improvements in both owner-assessed pain scores and objective gait parameters. Mean mobility indices increased by 25 percent compared to baseline, and lameness grades improved by at least one scale point in nearly two-thirds of treated animals, with only mild sedation reported early in therapy.

Postoperative applications have also proven valuable. In a randomized study of dogs undergoing hemilaminectomy for intervertebral disc disease, perioperative gabapentin (10 mg/kg pre-anesthesia and every eight hours for 48 hours) reduced supplemental opioid requirements by 30 percent in the first 24 hours. Pain scoring with the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale revealed lower distress and faster return to voluntary ambulation in the gabapentin group. Importantly, these benefits occurred without significant respiratory depression or prolonged recovery, highlighting gabapentin’s safety when combined with multimodal analgesia.

Feline patients face unique challenges, as cats often mask discomfort and are sensitive to handling stress. In a double-blind trial of older cats with degenerative joint disease, gabapentin at 5 mg/kg every twelve hours led to marked increases in voluntary activity, measured by collar-mounted accelerometers, within two weeks of initiation. Improved grooming behavior and reductions in vocalization and hiding were documented via the Feline Musculoskeletal Pain Index. The low incidence of sedation in this study suggests that cats tolerate lower mg/kg dosing well, likely reflecting differences in drug distribution and receptor sensitivity compared to dogs (MDPI 2024 animal study; PMC article).

Behavioral Disorders

Beyond analgesia, gabapentin’s anxiolytic properties have found application in alleviating situational stress and transport-related agitation in both species. Cats administered a single dose of 100–150 mg gabapentin 90 minutes before carrier transport exhibited significantly lower stress scores, assessed by reductions in vocalization, panting, and hiding behaviors. Physiologic parameters heart rate and respiratory rate, also reflected decreased stress, and the effect lasted up to eight hours without residual ataxia. Similarly, dogs prone to separation anxiety or veterinary-visit stress responded to 5–10 mg/kg administered 1–2 hours prior to the event. Owners reported calmer behavior, fewer attempts to escape, and less destructive activity, without the paradoxical excitement sometimes seen with benzodiazepines.

These behavioral outcomes align with gabapentin’s central actions, damping hyperexcitable neural circuits involved in fear and arousal. The animal studies above employed standardized stress-behavior scoring systems and objective measures (accelerometry, physiologic monitoring), lending credibility to the findings. Nevertheless, most data derive from small cohorts or single-dose studies, underscoring the need for larger, controlled trials to establish optimal protocols and long-term safety in anxious or neurotic animals.

Species-Specific Dosing

Interpreting gabapentin’s efficacy and tolerability requires attention to species differences in pharmacokinetics. In dogs, the elimination half-life of gabapentin ranges from four to seven hours, supporting dosing intervals of every eight to twelve hours. Starting at 10 mg/kg BID allows assessment of clinical response before titrating upward to a maximum of 20 mg/kg TID in refractory cases, with dose adjustments for renal insufficiency. For cats, the half-life is shorter, approximately three to four hours, necessitating more frequent administration, typically 5 mg/kg every eight hours. Cats also demonstrate lower peak plasma concentrations relative to dogs at equivalent mg/kg doses, which may contribute to their lower sedation rates but requires careful dose escalation to achieve analgesia.

In both species, gradual titration minimizes adverse effects. Initiating treatment at the lower end of the dosing range and increasing only after two to three days of tolerability assessment helps avoid early sedation and ataxia. Renal function should guide long-term maintenance dosing, with more conservative regimens in geriatric or renally compromised animals. Although extended-release formulations are available for humans, they are not widely used in veterinary medicine due to cost and lack of species-specific pharmacokinetic data. As research advances, tailored veterinary formulations may allow more precise control of gabapentin exposure, optimizing both pain relief and behavioral stabilization.

Comparative Effectiveness & Cost-Utility

The clinical positioning of gabapentin within the broader armamentarium of neuropathic analgesics and anxiolytics depends not only on its absolute efficacy but also on how it measures against established alternatives in both therapeutic outcomes and economic impact. Two principal comparators dominate this landscape: pregabalin, a close structural analogue with linear pharmacokinetics, and the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), long-standing agents in neuropathic pain. Evaluating gabapentin in this context requires a nuanced synthesis of head-to-head trial results, real-world adherence patterns, and cost–utility analyses that incorporate both direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains.

Early comparative trials reveal a consistent pattern: pregabalin achieves more rapid onset of analgesia, often within three days of initiation, compared to gabapentin’s typical 7–10-day titration period. In week-two assessments, pregabalin’s standardized mean difference (SMD) for pain relief frequently edges out gabapentin by 0.05 to 0.10 units, though the clinical significance of this modest advantage remains debated (Frontiers 2024). By week four, however, outcome convergence is evident: meta-analytic synthesis yields SMDs of approximately –0.50 for gabapentin versus –0.55 for pregabalin, a non-significant difference (p = 0.34). Both drugs outperform TCAs such as amitriptyline, which typically demonstrate SMDs around –0.45 but incur higher rates of anticholinergic side effects and treatment discontinuation.

Adverse-effect profiles distinctly shape comparative tolerability. Gabapentin’s nonlinear absorption produces variable peak concentrations, leading to early-dose sedation or dizziness in up to 20 percent of patients; these effects often wane with dose fractionation or gradual titration. Pregabalin delivers more predictable plasma levels, but carries a greater burden of peripheral edema and weight gain, observed in 12 percent and 8 percent of patients, respectively, compared to gabapentin’s 5 percent and 3 percent. TCAs, while efficacious, are limited by dry mouth, constipation, and cardiac conduction effects, restricting their use in the elderly and medically complex.

Cost-utility analyses further inform drug choice, particularly in resource-constrained settings. In the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, a model comparing gabapentin and pregabalin over a one-year horizon estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of approximately £12,000 per QALY for pregabalin relative to gabapentin. This figure exceeds commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds and underscores gabapentin’s economic advantage, given its generic price point, often less than £0.10 per 300-mg tablet versus £1.50 for pregabalin. Similar findings emerge in Canadian and Australian contexts, where gabapentin’s cost advantage contributes to its primary recommendation in first-line neuropathic pain guidelines.

Adherence patterns also differ: pregabalin’s once- or twice-daily dosing supports convenience but does not necessarily translate into improved long-term persistence; observational cohorts report one-year continuation rates of around 55 percent for both gabapentin and pregabalin, suggesting that tolerability and perceived benefit, rather than dosing frequency alone, drive adherence. TCAs, with once-daily dosing, show poorer persistence approximately 40 percent at one year often due to intolerable side effects.

In psychiatric and sleep indications, comparative data are scarcer, but indirect analyses suggest that gabapentin’s anxiolytic SMD of approximately –0.48 in generalized anxiety disorder is smaller than that of SSRIs (SMD –0.70) yet larger than buspirone (SMD –0.30). Its non-addictive profile and minimal cognitive impairment offer advantages over benzodiazepines, which, despite rapid anxiolysis, carry high dependence risk and withdrawal challenges.

Veterinary cost considerations further highlight gabapentin’s value. Generic formulations reduce owner expense in chronic conditions such as canine osteoarthritis, where long-term management costs accumulate. By comparison, off-label use of pregabalin in animals is both more expensive and less well studied, reinforcing gabapentin’s role as the pragmatic choice for most practitioners.

These comparative insights demonstrate that gabapentin, while sometimes slower to onset than pregabalin and less potent than certain TCAs, achieves similar long-term efficacy with a more favorable side-effect and economic profile. Its generic availability, coupled with robust evidence of cost-effectiveness, cements gabapentin’s position as a first-line agent for neuropathic and chronic pain, with additional utility in anxiety and sleep disorders where alternatives may pose greater risks or costs. Ongoing head-to-head trials, particularly those incorporating real-world adherence and quality-of-life metrics, will further refine its comparative standing in diverse patient populations.

Gaps, Biases & Future Trials

Despite the extensive evidence supporting gabapentin’s therapeutic benefits, several significant gaps remain in our understanding of its full clinical potential. These gaps, particularly in the areas of pediatric neuropathic pain and personalized medicine, underscore the need for more targeted, nuanced research to optimize its use. In this section, we will discuss these gaps and highlight areas where future trials could provide valuable insights.

One of the most notable gaps in the literature is the lack of robust evidence for the use of gabapentin in pediatric populations, particularly for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Although gabapentin is commonly prescribed off-label for children with chronic pain conditions, the available studies are limited and often methodologically weak. Most pediatric studies are small, open-label, or retrospective, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding its safety and efficacy in younger populations. The absence of large-scale, randomized controlled trials means that healthcare providers often rely on adult-based data and clinical experience when prescribing gabapentin for children. Given that children may experience different pharmacokinetics and adverse effects compared to adults, more focused research is needed to establish evidence-based dosing regimens, safety profiles, and efficacy in pediatric neuropathic pain conditions, such as complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) or post-surgical pain.

A second area that warrants attention is the emerging field of personalized medicine, particularly the potential role of digital phenotyping in predicting gabapentin responders. Gabapentin is a widely used medication, but not all patients respond to it equally. Some individuals experience substantial relief from pain, while others report minimal benefit, or are plagued by intolerable side effects. Recent advancements in digital health technologies, including wearable devices and smartphone apps, provide new opportunities to monitor patient responses in real time and collect data on pain, mood, and functional outcomes. These tools could potentially be used to identify biomarkers of treatment response, allowing clinicians to tailor gabapentin therapy to the individual. However, few studies have explored this possibility, and much remains to be done to integrate digital health technologies into gabapentin treatment protocols.

The role of gabapentin in veterinary medicine also represents an area where further research is needed.

References

1. AAN. (2025). Epilepsy and anticonvulsants: Gabapentin’s role. American Academy of Neurology. Retrieved from https://www.aan.com/Guidelines/home/GuidelineDetail/915
2. IASP. (2024). Perioperative pain management and gabapentin. International Association for the Study of Pain. Retrieved from https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/fact-sheets/prevention-of-chronic-post-surgical-pain/
3. Lippincott Journals. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis of gabapentin for chronic pain. PAIN Reports. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/2024/04000/a_systematic_review_and_meta_analysis_of.11.aspx
4. MDPI. (2024). Veterinary use of gabapentin in pain management and behavior disorders. MDPI Animals. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/10/1462
5. Moore, R. A., Derry, S., McQuay, H. J., & Wiffen, P. J. (2007). Gabapentin for acute and chronic pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005452.pub2
6. Frontiers. (2024). Head-to-head RCT meta-analysis of gabapentin and pregabalin in neuropathic pain. Frontiers in Pain Research. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pain-research/articles/10.3389/fpain.2024.1513597/full