Use of Pregabalin in Patients with Painful Neuropathic Disorders under the Care of General Practitioners in the U.K

Pregabalin prescribing patterns in Australian general practice, 2012-2018: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

In 2013 pregabalin was subsidised by Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for neuropathic pain. Since the subsidy, pregabalin prescribing has been increasing in Australia and so has related harm. There are concerns it is being prescribed for indications other than neuropathic pain, which have little evidence of efficacy.

AIM

To describe pregabalin prescribing in Australian general practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

A cross-sectional study of patients attending 445 general practice sites in the national MedicineInsight database from March 2012-February 2018.

METHOD

The following aspects were calculated: the proportion of prescriptions that were for pregabalin per year; the prevalence of pain conditions in patients prescribed pregabalin; and same-day prescribing of pregabalin with opioids or benzodiazepines.

RESULTS

Prescribing increased from 13 per 10 000 to 104 per 10 000 prescriptions between 2012-2013 and 2017-2018. A total of 1 891 623 patients were identified of whom 114 123 (6.0%) were prescribed pregabalin; 49.7% (n = 56 772) had a recorded diagnosis of neuropathic pain. Among people prescribed pregabalin without a recorded diagnosis of neuropathic pain, 43.5% (n = 24 927) had a diagnosis of back problems, 8.8% (n = 5073) chronic pain, and 26.4% (n = 30 146) had no pain diagnosis. Pregabalin was prescribed the same day as an opioid to 38.1% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.1% to 39.1%) and a benzodiazepine to 13.1% of patients (95% CI = 12.5% to 13.7%). Patients with a diagnosis of chronic pain had the highest rate of same-day prescribing of pregabalin with an opioid (70.4%, 95% CI = 68.9% to 71.9%) or a benzodiazepine (25.8%, 95% CI = 24.2% to 27.4%) CONCLUSION: Substantial increases in pregabalin prescribing were identified in Australian general practice, but only half of patients had a neuropathic pain diagnosis recorded, the only approved indication for subsidy. High rates of same-day prescribing with opioids and benzodiazepines may put patients at increased risk of harm.

Characteristics, resource utilization and safety profile of patients prescribed with neuropathic pain treatments: a real-world evidence study on general practices in Europe - the role of the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster

OBJECTIVES

To identify characteristics, resource utilization, and safety profile of patients prescribed with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, pregabalin, gabapentin, amitriptyline and duloxetine when experiencing pain in the real-world setting of general practitioners (GPs) in Europe.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis on real world data from IMS Health Longitudinal Patient Database. Patients with at least one prescription of the drugs of interest during 2014 were selected and those with a non-neuropathic pain-related diagnosis were excluded. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, resource utilization data and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as described in the leaflet were extracted. The association between treatments and ADR occurrence was evaluated applying multivariate logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 70,515 patients were selected from Italy, Germany, the UK, Spain and Belgium. Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients were the oldest in Italy, the UK and Spain and the most health impaired in Italy, Spain and Belgium. No relevant differences in the number of co-prescriptions, specialist visits, examinations and hospitalizations were found. Significantly less lidocaine 5% plasters patients experienced ADRs, with odds ratios in favor of lidocaine 5% medicated plasters ranging from 3.41 (p = .036) to 52.33 (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from daily clinical practice in GP settings agrees with the findings from more controlled clinical-trial settings, with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients showing a better safety profile, but also a comparable level of resource utilization. A possible re-evaluation of the scientific value coming from this retrospective study in building up a diagnostic as well as a therapeutic algorithm is suggested.

Opioids before and after initiation of pregabalin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy

OBJECTIVES

To examine opioid prescription claims before and after initiation of pregabalin in patients with a diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis used a national commercial database of integrated inpatient, outpatient, and prescription claims to identify adults with a DPN diagnosis code within 360 days prior to the first claim for pregabalin between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2008. Prescription claims for pregabalin or opioids were analyzed in nine consecutive 60-day periods from 180 days before through 360 days after the first pregabalin claim. It was not possible to establish drug administration dates, compliance rates, indications for opioid use, or reasons for treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

Of the 8004 adults who met eligibility criteria, 6080 (76%) received an opioid within the 180 days before and/or 360 days after their first prescription for pregabalin, including 3956 (49%) both before and after, 1580 (20%) after only, and 544 (7%) before only. The percentage of patients with pregabalin claims covering ≥20 of 60 days (within 60-day periods) was 99% (day 1-60), 63% (day 61-120), 50% (day 121-180), 45% (day 181-240), 42% (day 241-300), and 39% (day 301-360). The percentage of patients with opioid claims covering ≥20 of 60 days within the 60-day periods remained stable (range, 25-30%). Among patients with opioid claims, 73-76% received only short-acting opioids, 6-7% received only long-acting opioids, and 18-20% received both short- and long-acting opioids. In the first year, 982 (12%) patients had opioid claims covering ≥20 of 60 days in every 60-day period (i.e., persistent use of opioids). Coexisting musculoskeletal (95%) or neuropathic (61%) pain conditions were frequent.

CONCLUSION

A majority of patients with DPN receive an opioid before and/or after their first pregabalin claim. Pregabalin neither interferes with nor replaces opioid use for pain management in patients with DPN. Although nearly 1 in 8 patients received opioids throughout the study period, most claims were for short-acting opioids. The majority of this DPN sample had other pain conditions, including musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions. These results highlight the frequency of opioid use with pregabalin, particularly short-acting opioids.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of pregabalin in older patients with neuropathic pain: results from a pooled analysis of 11 clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Older patients are typically underrepresented in clinical trials of medications for chronic pain. A post hoc analysis of multiple clinical studies of pregabalin in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) or postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in older patients.

METHODS

Data from 11 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies of pregabalin in patients with DPN or PHN were pooled. Efficacy outcomes included change in Daily Pain Rating Scale score, ≥30% and ≥50% responders, and endpoint pain score ≤3. Safety was based on adverse events (AEs). Primary efficacy was analyzed by analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, age category, protocol, baseline pain, and treatment-by-age category interaction.

RESULTS

2516 patients (white, n = 2344 [93.2%]; men, n = 1347 [53.5%]; PHN, n = 1003 [39.9%]; pregabalin, n = 1595) were included in the analysis. Patients were grouped by age: 18 to 64 years (n = 1236), 65 to 74 years (n = 766), and ≥75 years (n = 514). Baseline mean pain and sleep interference scores were comparable across treatment and age groups. Significant improvements in endpoint mean pain were observed for all pregabalin dosages versus placebo in all age groups (p ≤ 0.0009), except for the lowest dosage (150 mg/day) in the youngest age group. Clinically meaningful pain relief, defined as ≥30% and ≥50% pain response, was observed in all age groups. The most common AEs were dizziness, somnolence, peripheral edema, asthenia, dry mouth, weight gain, and infections. The relative risks for these AEs increased with pregabalin dose, but did not appear related to older age or type of neuropathic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) significantly reduced pain in older patients (age ≥65 years) with neuropathic pain and improvements in pain were comparable to those observed in younger patients. Titration of pregabalin to the lowest effective dose should allow for effective pain relief while minimizing AEs in older patients with neuropathic pain. Given the common use of polypharmacy in older patients, the absence of known drug-drug interactions makes pregabalin an important treatment option for older patients with pain of neuropathic origin.