Use of pregabalin and limaprost in the conservative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of the current evidence.

BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition and a leading cause of pain and disability in older patients. While conservative treatment options like limaprost, a prostaglandin E1 analog, and pregabalin, a neuropathic pain modulator, are increasingly used, their relative efficacy and safety remain unclear. This systematic review aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of pregabalin and limaprost in managing pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events in LSS.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane for studies published between January 2000 and March 2025. Inclusion criteria focused on RCTs and cohort studies evaluating either drug in LSS patients.

RESULTS

Nine studies (6 RCTs, 3 cohort studies) with a total of 860 participants were included. Two head-to-head trials found no significant differences between pregabalin and limaprost in improving pain, disability, or quality of life. Both agents were associated with significant within-group improvements. Pregabalin showed efficacy across outcomes when combined with NSAIDs but was consistently associated with a higher frequency of adverse events, primarily including dizziness and gastrointestinal disturbances, compared to limaprost. Limaprost demonstrated mixed results, with several studies reporting benefits primarily when combined with other agents instead of its monotherapy. Evidence on sleep quality outcomes was limited but suggests potential benefits for both drugs in this patient population.

CONCLUSION

No agent demonstrated clear superiority in the treatment of LSS, though both pregabalin and limaprost showed significant within-group benefits. Pregabalin’s greater side effect profile and cost may support preferential use of limaprost in LSS patients. Nevertheless, due to limited comparative trials and substantial heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures, further high-quality studies are needed to elucidate this non-inferiority and inform clinical guidelines.