[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.
Flowchart of PubMed Search of Clinical Trials That Have Examined Gabapentinoids for Treatment of Pain
Flowchart of PubMed Search of Clinical Trials That Have Examined Gabapentinoids for Treatment of Pain

Values are numbers of citations. FDA indicates US Food and Drug Administration.

Table 1.  
Randomized Clinical Trials of Gabapentin vs Placebo for Off-label Treatment of Pain
Randomized Clinical Trials of Gabapentin vs Placebo for Off-label Treatment of Pain
Table 2.  
Randomized Clinical Trials of Pregabalin vs Placebo for Off-label Treatment of Pain
Randomized Clinical Trials of Pregabalin vs Placebo for Off-label Treatment of Pain
1.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Prescribing policies: states confront opioid overdose epidemic. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/prescribing-policies-states-confront-opioid-overdose-epidemic.aspx. Published October 31, 2018. Accessed December 23, 2018.
2.
Johansen  ME.  Gabapentinoid use in the United States 2002 through 2015.  JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(2):292-294. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7856PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Goodman  CW, Brett  AS.  Gabapentin and pregabalin for pain: is increased prescribing a cause for concern?  N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):411-414. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1704633PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Landefeld  CS, Steinman  MA.  The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-106. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0808659PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Steinman  MA, Bero  LA, Chren  MM, Landefeld  CS.  Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):284-293. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Vedula  SS, Bero  L, Scherer  RW, Dickersin  K.  Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(20):1963-1971. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0906126PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
United States Department of Justice. Justice Department announces largest health care fraud settlement in its history: Pfizer to pay $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history. Published September 2, 2009. Accessed December 23, 2018.
8.
Consumer Reports. Pfizer hit with $43 million settlement for misleading marketing of drugs. https://consumerist.com/2012/12/12/pfizer-hit-with-43-million-settlement-for-misleading-marketing-of-drugs. Published September 12, 2012. Accessed December 23, 2018.
9.
IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Medicine use and spending in the U.S.: a review of 2017 and outlook to 2022. https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/medicine-use-and-spending-in-the-us-review-of-2017-outlook-to-2022. Published April 19, 2018. Accessed February 11, 2019.
10.
Rauck  R, Makumi  CW, Schwartz  S,  et al.  A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.  Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-496. doi:10.1111/papr.12014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Sandercock  D, Cramer  M, Biton  V, Cowles  VE.  A gastroretentive gabapentin formulation for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: efficacy and tolerability in a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial.  Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012;97(3):438-445. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2012.03.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Backonja  M, Beydoun  A, Edwards  KR,  et al.  Gabapentin for the symptomatic treatment of painful neuropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 1998;280(21):1831-1836. doi:10.1001/jama.280.21.1831PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Gorson  KC, Schott  C, Herman  R, Ropper  AH, Rand  WM.  Gabapentin in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: a placebo controlled, double blind, crossover trial.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66(2):251-252. doi:10.1136/jnnp.66.2.251PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Simpson  DA.  Gabapentin and venlafaxine for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.  J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2001;3(2):53-62. doi:10.1097/00131402-200112000-00002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Atkinson  JH, Slater  MA, Capparelli  EV,  et al.  A randomized controlled trial of gabapentin for chronic low back pain with and without a radiating component.  Pain. 2016;157(7):1499-1507. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000554PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
McCleane  GJ.  Does gabapentin have an analgesic effect on background, movement and referred pain? a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled study.  Pain Clin. 2001;13(2):103-107. doi:10.1163/156856901753420945Google ScholarCrossref
17.
McCleane  GJ.  Gabapentin reduces chronic benign nociceptive pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study.  Pain Clin. 2000;12(2):81-85. doi:10.1163/156856900750229825Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Yildirim  K, Sisecioglu  M, Karatay  S,  et al.  The effectiveness of gabapentin in patients with chronic radiculopathy.  Pain Clin. 2003;15(3):213-218. doi:10.1163/156856903767650718Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Serpell  MG; Neuropathic Pain Study Group.  Gabapentin in neuropathic pain syndromes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  Pain. 2002;99(3):557-566. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00255-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Levendoglu  F, Ogün  CO, Ozerbil  O, Ogün  TC, Ugurlu  H.  Gabapentin is a first line drug for the treatment of neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury.  Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(7):743-751. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000112068.16108.3APubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Tai  Q, Kirshblum  S, Chen  B, Millis  S, Johnston  M, DeLisa  JA.  Gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial.  J Spinal Cord Med. 2002;25(2):100-105. doi:10.1080/10790268.2002.11753609PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Lewis  SC, Bhattacharya  S, Wu  O,  et al.  Gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women (GaPP1): a pilot randomised controlled trial.  PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153037. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153037PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Bone  M, Critchley  P, Buggy  DJ.  Gabapentin in postamputation phantom limb pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.  Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002;27(5):481-486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Smith  DG, Ehde  DM, Hanley  MA,  et al.  Efficacy of gabapentin in treating chronic phantom limb and residual limb pain.  J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):645-654. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2005.05.0082PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Hui  AC, Wong  SM, Leung  HW, Man  BL, Yu  E, Wong  LK.  Gabapentin for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.  Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(5):726-730. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03261.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
van de Vusse  AC, Stomp-van den Berg  SG, Kessels  AH, Weber  WE.  Randomised controlled trial of gabapentin in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type 1 [ISRCTN84121379].  BMC Neurol. 2004;4:13. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-4-13PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Arnold  LM, Goldenberg  DL, Stanford  SB,  et al.  Gabapentin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.  Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(4):1336-1344. doi:10.1002/art.22457PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Hahn  K, Arendt  G, Braun  JS,  et al; German Neuro-AIDS Working Group.  A placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin for painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathies.  J Neurol. 2004;251(10):1260-1266. doi:10.1007/s00415-004-0529-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Kimos  P, Biggs  C, Mah  J,  et al.  Analgesic action of gabapentin on chronic pain in the masticatory muscles: a randomized controlled trial.  Pain. 2007;127(1-2):151-160. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.08.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Gordh  TE, Stubhaug  A, Jensen  TS,  et al.  Gabapentin in traumatic nerve injury pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, multi-center study.  Pain. 2008;138(2):255-266. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.12.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Dworkin  RH, Barbano  RL, Tyring  SK,  et al.  A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oxycodone and of gabapentin for acute pain in herpes zoster.  Pain. 2009;142(3):209-217. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.12.022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Kim  JS, Bashford  G, Murphy  TK, Martin  A, Dror  V, Cheung  R.  Safety and efficacy of pregabalin in patients with central post-stroke pain.  Pain. 2011;152(5):1018-1023. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.12.023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Vranken  JH, Dijkgraaf  MG, Kruis  MR, van der Vegt  MH, Hollmann  MW, Heesen  M.  Pregabalin in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a flexible-dose regimen.  Pain. 2008;136(1-2):150-157. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.06.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Simpson  DM, Schifitto  G, Clifford  DB,  et al; 1066 HIV Neuropathy Study Group.  Pregabalin for painful HIV neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  Neurology. 2010;74(5):413-420. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181ccc6efPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Simpson  DM, Rice  AS, Emir  B,  et al.  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and open-label extension study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain associated with human immunodeficiency virus neuropathy.  Pain. 2014;155(10):1943-1954. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Mathieson  S, Maher  CG, McLachlan  AJ,  et al.  Trial of pregabalin for acute and chronic sciatica.  N Engl J Med. 2017;376(12):1111-1120. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614292PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Holbech  JV, Bach  FW, Finnerup  NB, Brøsen  K, Jensen  TS, Sindrup  SH.  Imipramine and pregabalin combination for painful polyneuropathy: a randomized controlled trial.  Pain. 2015;156(5):958-966. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Krcevski Skvarc  N, Kamenik  M.  Effects of pregabalin on acute herpetic pain and postherpetic neuralgia incidence.  Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2010;122(suppl 2):49-53. doi:10.1007/s00508-010-1345-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Pontari  MA, Krieger  JN, Litwin  MS,  et al; Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Research Network-2.  Pregabalin for the treatment of men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(17):1586-1593. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.319PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
van Seventer  R, Bach  FW, Toth  CC,  et al.  Pregabalin in the treatment of post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized double-blind trial.  Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(8):1082-1089. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02979.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Olesen  SS, Bouwense  SA, Wilder-Smith  OH, van Goor  H, Drewes  AM.  Pregabalin reduces pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis in a randomized, controlled trial.  Gastroenterology. 2011;141(2):536-543. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2011.04.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Gray  P, Kirby  J, Smith  MT,  et al.  Pregabalin in severe burn injury pain: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.  Pain. 2011;152(6):1279-1288. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.01.055PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Schlaeger  JM, Molokie  RE, Yao  Y,  et al.  Management of sickle cell pain using pregabalin: a pilot study.  Pain Manag Nurs. 2017;18(6):391-400. doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2017.07.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Olsen  MF, Bjerre  E, Hansen  MD, Tendal  B, Hilden  J, Hróbjartsson  A.  Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:87-106.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Wiffen  PJ, Derry  S, Bell  RF,  et al.  Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD007938. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007938.pub4PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Arnold  LM, Russell  IJ, Diri  EW,  et al.  A 14-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled monotherapy trial of pregabalin in patients with fibromyalgia.  J Pain. 2008;9(9):792-805. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.03.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
International Association for the Study of Pain. IASP terminology. https://www.iasp-pain.org/terminology?navItemNumber=576. Published December 14, 2017. Accessed December 23, 2018.
48.
Moore  A, Derry  S, Wiffen  P.  Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain.  JAMA. 2018;319(8):818-819. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21547PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Dowell  D, Haegerich  TM, Chou  R.  CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain: United States, 2016.  JAMA. 2016;315(15):1624-1645. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.1464PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Rosenquist  EWK. Overview of the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-the-treatment-of-chronic-non-cancer-pain. Last updated February 5, 2019. Accessed February 11, 2019.
51.
Bril  V, England  J, Franklin  GM,  et al; American Academy of Neurology; American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  Evidence-based guideline: treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation [published correction appears in Neurology. 2011;77(6):603].  Neurology. 2011;76(20):1758-1765. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182166ebePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Deng  Y, Luo  L, Hu  Y, Fang  K, Liu  J.  Clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review.  BMC Anesthesiol. 2016;16:12. doi:10.1186/s12871-015-0150-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Bockbrader  HN, Wesche  D, Miller  R, Chapel  S, Janiczek  N, Burger  P.  A comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pregabalin and gabapentin.  Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49(10):661-669. doi:10.2165/11536200-000000000-00000PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Moore  RA, Straube  S, Wiffen  PJ, Derry  S, McQuay  HJ.  Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD007076. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007076.pub2PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Härmark  L, van Puijenbroek  E, Straus  S, van Grootheest  K.  Intensive monitoring of pregabalin: results from an observational, Web-based, prospective cohort study in the Netherlands using patients as a source of information.  Drug Saf. 2011;34(3):221-231. doi:10.2165/11585030-000000000-00000PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Evoy  KE, Morrison  MD, Saklad  SR.  Abuse and misuse of pregabalin and gabapentin.  Drugs. 2017;77(4):403-426. doi:10.1007/s40265-017-0700-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Gomes  T, Juurlink  DN, Antoniou  T, Mamdani  MM, Paterson  JM, van den Brink  W.  Gabapentin, opioids, and the risk of opioid-related death: a population-based nested case-control study.  PLoS Med. 2017;14(10):e1002396. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002396PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Peckham  AM, Ananickal  MJ, Sclar  DA.  Gabapentin use, abuse, and the US opioid epidemic: the case for reclassification as a controlled substance and the need for pharmacovigilance.  Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2018;11:109-116. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S168504PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Throckmorton  DC, Gottlieb  S, Woodcock  J.  The FDA and the next wave of drug abuse: proactive pharmacovigilance.  N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):205-207. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1806486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Excellent review shows the truth.
    Clive Sinoff |
    Drs. Goodman and Brett have done an excellent review about the lack of efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentinoids, even in FDA approved conditions. They are essentially useless for somatic pain and infrequently beneficial for neuropathic pain, with significant adverse effects. This can be easily gleaned by listening to patients with an open mind.
    Cheaper and probably more efficacious , are older drugs including tricyclic antidepressants and possibly the SNRIs. They are cheaper and the side effects are more easily managed. As discussed in the review, gabapentinoids have been "hyped" and, in my opinion, should largely disappear from clinical
    practice.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Views 5,971
    Citations 0
    Special Communication
    Less Is More
    March 25, 2019

    A Clinical Overview of Off-label Use of Gabapentinoid Drugs

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia
    JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):695-701. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0086
    Abstract

    Background  The gabapentinoid drugs gabapentin and pregabalin were originally developed as antiseizure drugs but now are prescribed mainly for treatment of pain. For gabapentin, the only pain-related indication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is postherpetic neuralgia. For pregabalin, FDA-approved indications related to pain are limited to postherpetic neuralgia, neuropathic pain associated with diabetic neuropathy or spinal cord injury, and fibromyalgia. Despite these limited indications, gabapentin and pregabalin are widely prescribed off-label for various other pain syndromes. Such use is growing, possibly because clinicians are searching increasingly for alternatives to opioids.

    Observations  This report summarizes the limited published evidence to support off-label gabapentinoid uses, describes clinical cases in which off-label use is problematic, and notes how review articles and guidelines tend to overstate gabapentinoid effectiveness.

    Conclusions  Clinicians who prescribe gabapentinoids off-label for pain should be aware of the limited evidence and should acknowledge to patients that potential benefits are uncertain for most off-label uses.

    Introduction

    The pharmacologic management of pain is challenging, particularly given the current opioid crisis. As government initiatives are setting restrictions on opioid prescribing,1 clinicians are turning to alternative medications for treatment of pain. Acetaminophen is often ineffective for moderate to severe pain, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are problematic or contraindicated in many patients with complex medical conditions. Increasingly, clinicians are prescribing the gabapentinoid drugs (gabapentin and pregabalin) to fill this void in pain management.2,3 However, gabapentinoid drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of only a limited number of pain syndromes, and a substantial proportion of gabapentinoid use is off-label (ie, for indications that are not FDA approved).

    To prescribe gabapentinoids responsibly, clinicians should be familiar with the published evidence that addresses off-label use of these drugs. In this Special Communication, our primary objective is to provide an overview of randomized clinical trials that have examined the efficacy of gabapentinoids for treatment of painful conditions outside of FDA-approved indications and to present cases that illustrate potentially problematic off-label use of gabapentinoids. To provide additional perspective, we also briefly review the approval and marketing history of gabapentinoids, the presentation of gabapentinoid effectiveness for off-label use in practice guidelines and review articles, and recent concern about gabapentinoid misuse.

    A Brief Marketing History

    Gabapentin (brand-name Neurontin; Pfizer) was initially approved by the FDA in 1993 for treatment of seizures. At roughly the same time, the manufacturer began marketing the drug for off-label treatment of pain.4-6 However, the drug was eventually FDA approved for only one pain indication (postherpetic neuralgia) in 2002. In 2004, the company paid a penalty for improper marketing of Neurontin for off-label uses.4 Examination of internal documents from the manufacturer revealed that results of clinical trials examining off-label use of gabapentin, mainly for neuropathic pain, bipolar disorder, and migraine prophylaxis, were manipulated to magnify the drug’s perceived effectiveness.5,6 In 2004, gabapentin became available as a generic drug.

    Pregabalin is available in the United States only as brand-name Lyrica (Pfizer). It was approved in 2004 for treatment of seizures and for treatment of postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. It was subsequently approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (in 2007) and pain associated with spinal cord injury (in 2012). In 2009, the manufacturer paid a settlement to the US government for misleading and illegal promotion of Lyrica for off-label indications, and a settlement was paid in 2012 to 33 US states.7,8 Currently, Lyrica is promoted in direct-to-consumer advertisements for 2 of its FDA-approved indications (painful diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia).

    Despite FDA approval only for these specific indications, the use of gabapentinoids has tripled over the past 15 years; that increase is especially prominent in patients for whom opioids and benzodiazepines are also prescribed and in patients with numerous comorbidities.2 For gabapentin, it is implausible that its approved indications (seizures and postherpetic neuralgia) account for these observations. Rather, the accelerating use of gabapentinoids likely reflects a substantial increase in off-label prescribing for pain syndromes that are not FDA-approved indications, in part to substitute for opioids. Between 2013 and 2017, numbers of gabapentin prescriptions increased from 44 million to 68 million annually, and gabapentin was the 10th most commonly prescribed medication in 2017 in the United States.9 Pregabalin (available exclusively as Lyrica) ranked sixth in nondiscounted spending for brand-name drugs in 2017; between 2013 and 2017, nondiscounted spending for pregabalin increased from $2.4 billion to $4.9 billion. The only drugs with higher nondiscounted spending were 3 biologic treatments for autoimmune diseases (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab), the antiviral combination ladipasvir-sofosbuvir for hepatitis C, and the diabetes drug sitagliptin phosphate.9

    The Evidence Addressing Off-label Gabapentinoid Use

    To review the clinical research that informs off-label use of gabapentinoids for outpatient treatment of pain, we conducted a search of the PubMed database in September 2018. We used the search word pain in conjunction with each of the 2 drugs (gabapentin and pregabalin) and applied the filter clinical trial; we excluded studies that addressed cancer pain and headache.

    Results of this search are summarized in the Figure. The gabapentin search yielded 362 citations. Fifty-four studies, 34 of which were randomized controlled trials (18 placebo-controlled), addressed outpatient noncancer pain syndromes for which gabapentin is not FDA approved. The pregabalin search yielded 315 citations. Thirty studies, 20 of which were randomized clinical trials (12 placebo-controlled), addressed outpatient noncancer pain syndromes for which pregabalin is not FDA approved. We also searched published systematic reviews of gabapentinoids and found 4 additional placebo-controlled trials (all involving gabapentin). We excluded studies in which most participants had FDA-approved indications.

    Table 1 and Table 2 summarize double-blind, randomized clinical trials in which gabapentinoids were compared with placebo; given the subjective nature of pain and the prominent placebo response to treatment of pain, these studies merit the most attention. Numbers of participants ranged from 7 to 421; more than half of the studies had less than 100 participants. Trial durations varied substantially but generally ranged from 4 to 12 weeks. Because almost all studies reported the mean response to pain on a 0 to 10 scale as the primary outcome, those outcomes are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Research suggests that the minimal clinically important difference in pain on 0 to 10 scales depends somewhat on the clinical condition and the baseline level of pain, but absolute differences of 1 point or less are usually considered below the threshold of clinical importance.44 A more detailed presentation of the literature search is available online: eTable 1 and eTable 2 in the Supplement list all randomized clinical trials (both placebo-controlled and open-label) that met our search criteria, and eTable 3 in the Supplement lists pain syndromes for which nonrandomized or uncontrolled studies have been published.

    Several findings are noteworthy. First, for gabapentin treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (a common condition for which gabapentin is prescribed off-label), the evidence is mixed at best. Among 5 trials, 2 (including the largest and longest-duration trial) showed no benefit,10,13 and 2 showed improvement of only about 1 point on 0 to 10 scales compared with placebo.11,12 A recent Cochrane review estimated that roughly 6 patients with painful diabetic neuropathy would require treatment with gabapentin to provide “substantial benefit” for 1 patient.45

    Second, there were few studies of gabapentinoids for nondiabetic neuropathies; studies were either negative or yielded statistically significant mean differences less than 1 point on 0 to 10 scales compared with placebo. The aforementioned Cochrane review concludes that, aside from postherpetic neuralgia (for which gabapentin is approved) and diabetic neuropathy, the evidence to support gabapentin therapy for other types of neuropathic pain “is very limited.”45

    Third, the evidence does not support gabapentinoid therapy for low back pain or radiculopathy. In the largest study (a placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin for sciatica), the drug was ineffective.36

    Fourth, fibromyalgia is an FDA-approved indication for pregabalin but not gabapentin; however, gabapentin is often prescribed off-label for fibromyalgia, presumably because it is substantially less expensive. In the sole placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin for fibromyalgia, the mean difference in pain was only 0.9 on a 0 to 10 scale.27 Notably, this difference is similar to the mean differences in the trials that resulted in pregabalin’s FDA approval for fibromyalgia.46

    Fifth, both gabapentin and pregabalin are FDA approved for treatment of postherpetic neuralgia, defined as neuropathic pain persisting at least 3 months after acute herpes zoster. However, 2 placebo-controlled studies31,38 examined the efficacy of these drugs for acute zoster pain, and both were negative.

    Sixth, Tables 1 and 2 summarize that a small number of placebo-controlled gabapentinoid trials have been performed for various other pain syndromes. With few exceptions, the drugs were either ineffective or associated with small analgesic effects that were statistically significant but of questionable clinical importance.

    Four other aspects of the gabapentinoid trials are notable. First, many studies examined various secondary outcomes beyond pain relief; those findings generally paralleled the pain outcomes. Second, the time frame covered by patients’ pain scores varied (eg, ranging from the previous 24 hours to the previous 7 days). Third, dosing regimens varied across the trials. Fourth, in addition to reporting the mean pain scores, some studies also noted the proportions of participants whose pain response exceeded a given threshold. Such outcomes are instructive because they identify whether some participants have clinically meaningful responses, even when average responses are not clinically important, and they allow calculation of numbers needed to treat to benefit 1 person; however, such threshold outcomes were not reported consistently.

    Clinical Cases

    In the Box, we describe 6 representative cases that we have encountered during the past year and that illustrate common problematic issues in off-label prescribing of gabapentinoids; we are clinically active in both inpatient and outpatient settings, and we see such cases repeatedly. In cases 1 and 2 (treatment of acute herpes zoster and acute sciatica, respectively), gabapentinoids were prescribed despite evidence from placebo-controlled trials (as summarized in Tables 1 and 2) that they are ineffective for these conditions. In cases 3 and 4, nonspecific lower body pain is labeled as neuropathic to justify gabapentin prescribing, even when there is little clinical evidence for neuropathy. Cases 4 and 5 illustrate failure to appreciate the adverse effects of gabapentinoids, particularly when they are prescribed to older patients at risk for harms associated with polypharmacy. Case 6 illustrates rote prescribing of gabapentinoids to patients with diabetic neuropathy, even when the patient’s discomfort is minimal and no treatment is necessary.

    Box Section Ref ID
    Box.

    Common Clinical Scenarios Involving Problematic Off-label Gabapentinoid Use

    • Case 1. A 65-year-old woman develops an acute painful dermatomal rash, diagnosed as shingles at an urgent care clinic on a weekend. She is given pregabalin for pain. On a follow-up visit to her primary care physician a week later, she continues to have substantial pain.

      • Comment: Two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (one with gabapentin31 and the other with pregabalin38) have examined the efficacy of these drugs for acute zoster pain; these drugs were ineffective in both trials. Both drugs have some demonstrated efficacy only for postherpetic neuralgia, defined as pain lasting more than 3 months after acute herpes zoster.

    • Case 2. A 55-year-old man is seen with acute severe low back pain that radiates to the left lower leg. His primary care physician starts naproxen and provides a limited supply of hydrocodone for as-needed use. When the leg pain further intensifies during the ensuing week, magnetic resonance imaging is performed and shows a large extruded disc compressing the S1 nerve root. The patient is referred to a spine surgeon, who immediately adds gabapentin.

      • Comment: Because radicular pain secondary to herniated disc is considered “neuropathic,” compressive neuropathic pain (as occurs with herniated disc) is often regarded as analogous to noncompressive neuropathic pain (as occurs with diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia) in its response to gabapentinoids. However, gabapentinoids have been largely ineffective in placebo-controlled trials of patients with sciatica.15,16,36

    • Case 3. An 82-year-old nondiabetic man with hypertension and compensated heart failure is admitted to the hospital because of somnolence, lethargy, and several recent falls. He is taking 12 medications, including an antidepressant, a “muscle relaxant” (cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride), an opioid (tramadol hydrochloride), and pregabalin. An outpatient problem list includes diagnoses of chronic back pain, hip and knee osteoarthritis, and vague leg pain labeled as neuropathy. The patient and his wife are not sure of the specific indication for which pregabalin was originally prescribed, and they do not recall that any symptoms improved after it was initiated.

      • Comment: Gabapentinoids are sometimes prescribed to treat generalized pain that is multifactorial and nonspecific. Their effectiveness in such cases is unproven, and their use may be especially problematic as a component of polypharmacy in elderly patients.

    • Case 4. A 68-year-old man has had chronic bilateral weight-bearing foot pain for several years. He does not have diabetes or other disorders associated with neuropathy but does have bunions, metatarsalgia, plantar calluses, and excessive pronation. Although a detailed neurological examination reveals no evidence of motor or sensory neuropathy, a clinician suggests that the pain might be neuropathic and prescribes pregabalin.

      • Comment: Clinicians sometimes apply the diagnostic label neuropathy to justify gabapentinoids for patients like this one. Foot pain is often multifactorial and related to biomechanical or structural abnormalities. Although a patient could coincidentally have both biomechanical abnormalities and an idiopathic neuropathy with normal neurological examination (eg, a “small-fiber neuropathy”), no studies support gabapentinoid therapy for such patients.

    • Case 5. A 75-year-old woman has been receiving gabapentin for diabetic neuropathic pain for more than a year. The dose has been titrated up to 1200 mg 3 times daily; the patient believes that “it might be helping a bit.” During an acute visit to another physician for an unrelated problem, the patient notes that dizziness during the past year has caused her to limit activity. She has mentioned this symptom to her primary physician on several occasions, but the gabapentin has not been considered as a possible cause.

      • Comment: Because evidence for the efficacy of gabapentin in diabetic neuropathy is mixed in placebo-controlled trials,10-14 the balance of benefit and harm must be weighed carefully. Underappreciation of common adverse effects, such as dizziness, may result in overall harms outweighing benefits.

    • Case 6. A medical resident sees a 50-year-old man with long-standing type 2 diabetes who describes, for the first time, tingling in his feet bilaterally. In presenting the case to his attending physician, the resident proposes starting gabapentin “for neuropathy,” even though the tingling is not painful and is not interfering with the patient’s activity.

      • Comment: Some clinicians appear to prescribe gabapentinoids almost reflexively when they diagnose diabetic neuropathy, even when patients are not bothered by it. Therefore, some patients infer incorrectly that the drug is being initiated to alter the natural history of the neuropathy.

    The Language of Review Articles and Guidelines Involving Gabapentinoids

    The wording in many guidelines and review articles reinforces an inflated view of gabapentinoid effectiveness or fails to distinguish carefully between evidence-based and non–evidence-based recommendations. In part, this problem may reflect how the term neuropathic pain is interpreted. Neuropathic pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain as “[p]ain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system.”47 Many clinicians likely conceptualize neuropathic pain in a similarly nonspecific way that includes conditions ranging from localized anatomical pathology (eg, nerve root compression from disc herniation) to systemic disorders with neuropathic effects (eg, diabetes). One unintended effect of the broad definition might be to create a mistaken perception that an effective drug for one type of neuropathic pain is effective for all neuropathic pain, regardless of underlying etiology or mechanism.

    In particular, the evidence cited to support the general use of gabapentinoids in neuropathic pain is often extrapolated inappropriately from studies conducted exclusively in patients with diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. For example, a recent clinical synopsis on gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain presents specific data only for postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy but concludes generally that “[i]n patients with neuropathic pain…gabapentin is associated with a greater likelihood of achieving substantial or moderate pain relief vs placebo.”48(p818) Another example is the 2016 guideline on opioid prescribing from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which states broadly that gabapentin and pregabalin are first-line drugs for neuropathic pain, without further detail or specification.49 In a popular online clinical decision support resource, gabapentinoids are listed as first-line drugs for initial treatment of neuropathic pain, without further specification.50

    Even for treatment of diabetic neuropathy (for which pregabalin is FDA approved and gabapentin is off-label), guideline conclusions tend to exaggerate effectiveness. For example, the text of the 2011 American Academy of Neurology guideline on treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy notes that for 4 studies of pregabalin “the effect size was small relative to placebo”51(p1759) and that for 2 studies of gabapentin one showed “a small effect” and the other showed “no effect.”51(p1760) Nevertheless, the authors conclude that “[b]ased on consistent Class I evidence, pregabalin is established as effective” and “[b]ased on one Class I study, gabapentin is probably effective”51(p1760)

    A systematic review of practice guidelines on management of general neuropathic pain (ie, not targeted to diabetic, postherpetic, or other specified neuropathies) supports our observations.52 The authors conclude that recommendations across guidelines consistently recommended gabapentinoids as first-line agents but that the overall quality of these guidelines was poor.52

    Are Gabapentin and Pregabalin Interchangeable?

    Gabapentin is often assumed to be interchangeable with pregabalin. Their mechanisms of action are thought to be similar because of their structural similarity. However, their pharmacokinetics vary considerably. Pregabalin is absorbed faster than gabapentin (with peak concentrations noted within 1 hour), and bioavailability is higher for pregabalin.53 Their metabolism is similar, with half-lives around 6 hours.53 Unfortunately, published direct comparisons between the 2 drugs in double-blind studies of patients with chronic noncancer pain are virtually nonexistent.

    In the United States, the costs of generic gabapentin and the only available pregabalin product (Lyrica) differ dramatically; depending on the dose, cash prices range from a few dollars monthly for gabapentin to several hundred dollars monthly for pregabalin. Given the differences in cost, substitution of gabapentin for pregabalin when only pregabalin is FDA approved for a given disorder is understandable and often reasonable; however, clinicians should be aware that the evidence to support interchangeability is limited.

    Two additional formulations of gabapentin have been designed and marketed. One is a sustained-release preparation (Gralise; Depomed Inc) that is FDA approved only for postherpetic neuralgia. The other is a prodrug (gabapentin encarbil; Horizant) with better bioavailability than standard gabapentin; this formulation is FDA approved only for restless legs syndrome and postherpetic neuralgia. Cash prices of these drugs approach $500 to $1000 per month.

    Adverse Effects and Misuse

    Meta-analyses consistently show a substantial incidence of dizziness, somnolence, and gait disturbance in patients who take gabapentinoids, with dose-dependent effects.45,54 The number needed to harm for each adverse effect has ranged from roughly 3 to 11; as many as 1 in 3 recipients of higher-dose gabapentinoids will experience somnolence or dizziness.45,54 In the recent large sciatica trial, the prevalence of dizziness was 40% with pregabalin (vs 13% with placebo).36 In a prospective study of first-time pregabalin users, dizziness and somnolence were reported by 25% and 14% of patients, respectively.55 Whether gabapentin and pregabalin differ meaningfully in incidence of adverse effects is unclear.

    Evidence of misuse of gabapentinoids is accumulating and likely related to the opioid epidemic. A recent review article reported an overall population prevalence of gabapentinoid “misuse and abuse” as high as 1%, with substantially higher prevalence noted among patients with opioid use disorders.56 The higher prevalence among patients with opioid use disorders may relate to the reported augmentation of euphoria.56 This trend is troubling, particularly because concomitant use of opioids and gabapentinoids is associated with increased odds of opioid-related death.57 Whether these concerns apply to patients receiving long-term prescribed opioid therapy is unclear.

    Reports from law enforcement agencies corroborate growing diversion activity and street value for gabapentinoids. Some states are reclassifying gabapentinoids as controlled substances or mandating reporting to prescription drug monitoring programs, and the FDA is considering regulatory action.58,59 The influence of the opioid crisis on gabapentinoid misuse is likely mixed. On the one hand, the medical community and public are more aware of substance misuse generally, which may limit the consequences of gabapentinoid misuse. On the other hand, the prevalence of adults with opioid prescriptions or substance use disorders remains high, and the prevalence of gabapentinoid prescribing is rising concurrently.

    Conclusions

    The evidence to support off-label gabapentinoid use for most painful clinical conditions is limited. For some conditions, no well-performed controlled trials exist. For others, one or several placebo-controlled studies have been published, but results have generally shown the drugs to be either ineffective or only modestly and inconsistently effective.

    This lack of compelling published evidence should be considered in the context of the problematic marketing history of gabapentin and pregabalin. Despite documentation that these drugs were promoted improperly for off-label treatment of pain, the recent rapid increase in prescribing of gabapentinoids suggests a persisting sense among clinicians that gabapentinoids are highly effective pain medications, particularly for any pain deemed as neuropathic. Guidelines and review articles have contributed to this perception by often uncritical extrapolation from FDA-approved indications to off-label use. Although direct-to-consumer marketing of pregabalin clearly denotes fibromyalgia and diabetic neuropathy as the target conditions, advertisements may result in perceptions that the drug is a pain medication generally. In our view, some clinicians are labeling nonspecific pain as neuropathic to justify gabapentinoid prescribing.

    Mandates to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic noncancer pain have compelled clinicians to substitute nonopioid alternatives. Gabapentinoids have become frequent first-line alternatives in patients with chronic pain from whom opioids are being withheld or withdrawn, as well as in patients with acute pain who traditionally received short courses of low-dose opioid. Growing misuse of gabapentinoids is especially problematic in patients who also obtain opioids either illicitly or from prescribers.

    Comprehensive management of pain in primary care settings is difficult; it requires time and resources that are frequently unavailable. Many patients with chronic pain have limited or no access to high-quality pain practices or to nonpharmacologic interventions, such as cognitive behavior therapy. Judicious therapeutic trials of gabapentinoids are justified in patients with selected off-label pain syndromes when at least modest evidence of efficacy exists. However, in such cases, clinicians should advise patients that the proposed gabapentinoid use is off-label and that adverse effects, such as dizziness and somnolence, are common. The drugs should be discontinued when patients perceive little or no benefit. Finally, guidelines, review articles, and point-of-care resources should more explicitly note the limited evidence supporting gabapentinoid use for off-label indications and should resist promoting gabapentinoid use for any pain labeled as neuropathic.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: January 11, 2019.

    Corresponding Author: Christopher W. Goodman, MD, Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Two Medical Park, Ste 502, Columbia, SC 29203 (cgoodman@uscmed.sc.edu).

    Published Online: March 25, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0086

    Author Contributions: Drs Goodman and Brett had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Both authors.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Both authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Both authors.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Both authors.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Goodman.

    Supervision: Brett.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    References
    1.
    National Conference of State Legislatures. Prescribing policies: states confront opioid overdose epidemic. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/prescribing-policies-states-confront-opioid-overdose-epidemic.aspx. Published October 31, 2018. Accessed December 23, 2018.
    2.
    Johansen  ME.  Gabapentinoid use in the United States 2002 through 2015.  JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(2):292-294. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7856PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Goodman  CW, Brett  AS.  Gabapentin and pregabalin for pain: is increased prescribing a cause for concern?  N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):411-414. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1704633PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Landefeld  CS, Steinman  MA.  The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-106. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0808659PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Steinman  MA, Bero  LA, Chren  MM, Landefeld  CS.  Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):284-293. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Vedula  SS, Bero  L, Scherer  RW, Dickersin  K.  Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(20):1963-1971. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0906126PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    United States Department of Justice. Justice Department announces largest health care fraud settlement in its history: Pfizer to pay $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history. Published September 2, 2009. Accessed December 23, 2018.
    8.
    Consumer Reports. Pfizer hit with $43 million settlement for misleading marketing of drugs. https://consumerist.com/2012/12/12/pfizer-hit-with-43-million-settlement-for-misleading-marketing-of-drugs. Published September 12, 2012. Accessed December 23, 2018.
    9.
    IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Medicine use and spending in the U.S.: a review of 2017 and outlook to 2022. https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/medicine-use-and-spending-in-the-us-review-of-2017-outlook-to-2022. Published April 19, 2018. Accessed February 11, 2019.
    10.
    Rauck  R, Makumi  CW, Schwartz  S,  et al.  A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.  Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-496. doi:10.1111/papr.12014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Sandercock  D, Cramer  M, Biton  V, Cowles  VE.  A gastroretentive gabapentin formulation for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: efficacy and tolerability in a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial.  Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012;97(3):438-445. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2012.03.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Backonja  M, Beydoun  A, Edwards  KR,  et al.  Gabapentin for the symptomatic treatment of painful neuropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 1998;280(21):1831-1836. doi:10.1001/jama.280.21.1831PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Gorson  KC, Schott  C, Herman  R, Ropper  AH, Rand  WM.  Gabapentin in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: a placebo controlled, double blind, crossover trial.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66(2):251-252. doi:10.1136/jnnp.66.2.251PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Simpson  DA.  Gabapentin and venlafaxine for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.  J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2001;3(2):53-62. doi:10.1097/00131402-200112000-00002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Atkinson  JH, Slater  MA, Capparelli  EV,  et al.  A randomized controlled trial of gabapentin for chronic low back pain with and without a radiating component.  Pain. 2016;157(7):1499-1507. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000554PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    McCleane  GJ.  Does gabapentin have an analgesic effect on background, movement and referred pain? a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled study.  Pain Clin. 2001;13(2):103-107. doi:10.1163/156856901753420945Google ScholarCrossref
    17.
    McCleane  GJ.  Gabapentin reduces chronic benign nociceptive pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study.  Pain Clin. 2000;12(2):81-85. doi:10.1163/156856900750229825Google ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Yildirim  K, Sisecioglu  M, Karatay  S,  et al.  The effectiveness of gabapentin in patients with chronic radiculopathy.  Pain Clin. 2003;15(3):213-218. doi:10.1163/156856903767650718Google ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Serpell  MG; Neuropathic Pain Study Group.  Gabapentin in neuropathic pain syndromes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  Pain. 2002;99(3):557-566. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00255-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Levendoglu  F, Ogün  CO, Ozerbil  O, Ogün  TC, Ugurlu  H.  Gabapentin is a first line drug for the treatment of neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury.  Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(7):743-751. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000112068.16108.3APubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Tai  Q, Kirshblum  S, Chen  B, Millis  S, Johnston  M, DeLisa  JA.  Gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial.  J Spinal Cord Med. 2002;25(2):100-105. doi:10.1080/10790268.2002.11753609PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Lewis  SC, Bhattacharya  S, Wu  O,  et al.  Gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women (GaPP1): a pilot randomised controlled trial.  PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153037. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153037PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Bone  M, Critchley  P, Buggy  DJ.  Gabapentin in postamputation phantom limb pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.  Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002;27(5):481-486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    24.
    Smith  DG, Ehde  DM, Hanley  MA,  et al.  Efficacy of gabapentin in treating chronic phantom limb and residual limb pain.  J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):645-654. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2005.05.0082PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Hui  AC, Wong  SM, Leung  HW, Man  BL, Yu  E, Wong  LK.  Gabapentin for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.  Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(5):726-730. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03261.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    van de Vusse  AC, Stomp-van den Berg  SG, Kessels  AH, Weber  WE.  Randomised controlled trial of gabapentin in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type 1 [ISRCTN84121379].  BMC Neurol. 2004;4:13. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-4-13PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Arnold  LM, Goldenberg  DL, Stanford  SB,  et al.  Gabapentin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.  Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(4):1336-1344. doi:10.1002/art.22457PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Hahn  K, Arendt  G, Braun  JS,  et al; German Neuro-AIDS Working Group.  A placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin for painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathies.  J Neurol. 2004;251(10):1260-1266. doi:10.1007/s00415-004-0529-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Kimos  P, Biggs  C, Mah  J,  et al.  Analgesic action of gabapentin on chronic pain in the masticatory muscles: a randomized controlled trial.  Pain. 2007;127(1-2):151-160. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.08.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Gordh  TE, Stubhaug  A, Jensen  TS,  et al.  Gabapentin in traumatic nerve injury pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, multi-center study.  Pain. 2008;138(2):255-266. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.12.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Dworkin  RH, Barbano  RL, Tyring  SK,  et al.  A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oxycodone and of gabapentin for acute pain in herpes zoster.  Pain. 2009;142(3):209-217. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.12.022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Kim  JS, Bashford  G, Murphy  TK, Martin  A, Dror  V, Cheung  R.  Safety and efficacy of pregabalin in patients with central post-stroke pain.  Pain. 2011;152(5):1018-1023. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.12.023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Vranken  JH, Dijkgraaf  MG, Kruis  MR, van der Vegt  MH, Hollmann  MW, Heesen  M.  Pregabalin in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a flexible-dose regimen.  Pain. 2008;136(1-2):150-157. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.06.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Simpson  DM, Schifitto  G, Clifford  DB,  et al; 1066 HIV Neuropathy Study Group.  Pregabalin for painful HIV neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  Neurology. 2010;74(5):413-420. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181ccc6efPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Simpson  DM, Rice  AS, Emir  B,  et al.  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and open-label extension study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain associated with human immunodeficiency virus neuropathy.  Pain. 2014;155(10):1943-1954. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Mathieson  S, Maher  CG, McLachlan  AJ,  et al.  Trial of pregabalin for acute and chronic sciatica.  N Engl J Med. 2017;376(12):1111-1120. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614292PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Holbech  JV, Bach  FW, Finnerup  NB, Brøsen  K, Jensen  TS, Sindrup  SH.  Imipramine and pregabalin combination for painful polyneuropathy: a randomized controlled trial.  Pain. 2015;156(5):958-966. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Krcevski Skvarc  N, Kamenik  M.  Effects of pregabalin on acute herpetic pain and postherpetic neuralgia incidence.  Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2010;122(suppl 2):49-53. doi:10.1007/s00508-010-1345-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Pontari  MA, Krieger  JN, Litwin  MS,  et al; Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Research Network-2.  Pregabalin for the treatment of men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(17):1586-1593. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.319PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    van Seventer  R, Bach  FW, Toth  CC,  et al.  Pregabalin in the treatment of post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized double-blind trial.  Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(8):1082-1089. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.02979.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Olesen  SS, Bouwense  SA, Wilder-Smith  OH, van Goor  H, Drewes  AM.  Pregabalin reduces pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis in a randomized, controlled trial.  Gastroenterology. 2011;141(2):536-543. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2011.04.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Gray  P, Kirby  J, Smith  MT,  et al.  Pregabalin in severe burn injury pain: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.  Pain. 2011;152(6):1279-1288. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.01.055PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Schlaeger  JM, Molokie  RE, Yao  Y,  et al.  Management of sickle cell pain using pregabalin: a pilot study.  Pain Manag Nurs. 2017;18(6):391-400. doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2017.07.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Olsen  MF, Bjerre  E, Hansen  MD, Tendal  B, Hilden  J, Hróbjartsson  A.  Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:87-106.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Wiffen  PJ, Derry  S, Bell  RF,  et al.  Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD007938. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007938.pub4PubMedGoogle Scholar
    46.
    Arnold  LM, Russell  IJ, Diri  EW,  et al.  A 14-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled monotherapy trial of pregabalin in patients with fibromyalgia.  J Pain. 2008;9(9):792-805. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.03.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    International Association for the Study of Pain. IASP terminology. https://www.iasp-pain.org/terminology?navItemNumber=576. Published December 14, 2017. Accessed December 23, 2018.
    48.
    Moore  A, Derry  S, Wiffen  P.  Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain.  JAMA. 2018;319(8):818-819. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21547PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Dowell  D, Haegerich  TM, Chou  R.  CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain: United States, 2016.  JAMA. 2016;315(15):1624-1645. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.1464PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Rosenquist  EWK. Overview of the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-the-treatment-of-chronic-non-cancer-pain. Last updated February 5, 2019. Accessed February 11, 2019.
    51.
    Bril  V, England  J, Franklin  GM,  et al; American Academy of Neurology; American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.  Evidence-based guideline: treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation [published correction appears in Neurology. 2011;77(6):603].  Neurology. 2011;76(20):1758-1765. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182166ebePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Deng  Y, Luo  L, Hu  Y, Fang  K, Liu  J.  Clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review.  BMC Anesthesiol. 2016;16:12. doi:10.1186/s12871-015-0150-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Bockbrader  HN, Wesche  D, Miller  R, Chapel  S, Janiczek  N, Burger  P.  A comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pregabalin and gabapentin.  Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49(10):661-669. doi:10.2165/11536200-000000000-00000PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Moore  RA, Straube  S, Wiffen  PJ, Derry  S, McQuay  HJ.  Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD007076. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007076.pub2PubMedGoogle Scholar
    55.
    Härmark  L, van Puijenbroek  E, Straus  S, van Grootheest  K.  Intensive monitoring of pregabalin: results from an observational, Web-based, prospective cohort study in the Netherlands using patients as a source of information.  Drug Saf. 2011;34(3):221-231. doi:10.2165/11585030-000000000-00000PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Evoy  KE, Morrison  MD, Saklad  SR.  Abuse and misuse of pregabalin and gabapentin.  Drugs. 2017;77(4):403-426. doi:10.1007/s40265-017-0700-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Gomes  T, Juurlink  DN, Antoniou  T, Mamdani  MM, Paterson  JM, van den Brink  W.  Gabapentin, opioids, and the risk of opioid-related death: a population-based nested case-control study.  PLoS Med. 2017;14(10):e1002396. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002396PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    58.
    Peckham  AM, Ananickal  MJ, Sclar  DA.  Gabapentin use, abuse, and the US opioid epidemic: the case for reclassification as a controlled substance and the need for pharmacovigilance.  Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2018;11:109-116. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S168504PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    59.
    Throckmorton  DC, Gottlieb  S, Woodcock  J.  The FDA and the next wave of drug abuse: proactive pharmacovigilance.  N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):205-207. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1806486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×