Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain – A Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after whi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pain physician 2023-10, Vol.26 (6), p.E687-E693
1. Verfasser: Gill, Jatinder
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page E693
container_issue 6
container_start_page E687
container_title Pain physician
container_volume 26
creator Gill, Jatinder
description BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after which a fixed dosing regimen is prescribed. We propose that autonomous short-term dose variations per patient could have rapid clinically significant effects in the management of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the frequency at which patients take gabapentin on a fixed vs variable schedule and how the pattern of gabapentin use correlates with efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Single institution, cross-sectional observational survey study with data collection performed over 2 phases as a pilot for proof of concept. SETTING: Remote contact via telephone with researchers calling from a quiet, private location within the hospital complex conducive for confidential conversation. METHODS: Patients recently prescribed gabapentin were queried on the patterns of use and self-perceived efficacy, satisfaction, and side effects in accordance to a standardized oral script. Patients selected met the criteria of being new patients freshly prescribed gabapentin who have been consistently on the medication for at least a month, while having chronic pain symptoms for over 3 months. Responses were collected in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients, 92 patients agreed to participate in the survey for a response rate of 41.4. Of these, 51% had terminated the medication for various reasons. Of the patients still taking gabapentin, 73% were on a fixed schedule, while 27% were on a variable dosing schedule. Variable dosing cohort reported better efficacy (P = 0.027) and satisfaction (P = 0.036), while the side-effect profile between the 2 groups was similar. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its nature of being a pilot, single-institution study performed on a relatively small sample size. None of the patients we surveyed had been given the autonomy to adjust gabapentin doses by their providers and this could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who would be encouraged to run a variable dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that a significant portion of patients choose to administer variable doses of gabapentin and associate this wi
doi_str_mv 10.36076/ppj.2023.26.E687
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2878710191</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2878710191</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c258t-af74340eaa2f4c1955f7b0298fb0a0379c09f46b830a736bb1f997b9d338e66f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkctKAzEUhoMoWKsP4C7gxs3UXGZyWZa21kLBItZtyKSJTZnOjMlU6ErfwTf0SUyrK1fn5-fjwDkfANcYDShDnN217WZAEKEDwgYTJvgJ6BFcoAzjXJ6CHi4ozSgu5Dm4iHGDEGVS0h74GDXbVgfd-XcLxzaa4NtjHta62kcfYePgYp2S8bqGLzbEXYSLxNu6y8Y-WNPZFZzqUrep8TVcRv1q4ayGo3Voam8SnNrvzy84hItgK7_1tQ57-GTbJnSX4MzpKtqrv9kHy_vJ8-ghmz9OZ6PhPDOkEF2mHc9pjqzWxOUGy6JwvEREClcijSiXBkmXs1JQpDllZYmdlLyUK0qFZczRPrj93duG5m1nY6e2PhpbVbq2zS4qIrjgGGGJE3rzD900u5DecaCElIIWkiQK_1ImNDEG61Qb_DYdpjBSRyUqKVEHJYowdVBCfwCsMYEw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2889983592</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain – A Preliminary Report</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Gill, Jatinder</creator><creatorcontrib>Gill, Jatinder</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after which a fixed dosing regimen is prescribed. We propose that autonomous short-term dose variations per patient could have rapid clinically significant effects in the management of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the frequency at which patients take gabapentin on a fixed vs variable schedule and how the pattern of gabapentin use correlates with efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Single institution, cross-sectional observational survey study with data collection performed over 2 phases as a pilot for proof of concept. SETTING: Remote contact via telephone with researchers calling from a quiet, private location within the hospital complex conducive for confidential conversation. METHODS: Patients recently prescribed gabapentin were queried on the patterns of use and self-perceived efficacy, satisfaction, and side effects in accordance to a standardized oral script. Patients selected met the criteria of being new patients freshly prescribed gabapentin who have been consistently on the medication for at least a month, while having chronic pain symptoms for over 3 months. Responses were collected in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients, 92 patients agreed to participate in the survey for a response rate of 41.4. Of these, 51% had terminated the medication for various reasons. Of the patients still taking gabapentin, 73% were on a fixed schedule, while 27% were on a variable dosing schedule. Variable dosing cohort reported better efficacy (P = 0.027) and satisfaction (P = 0.036), while the side-effect profile between the 2 groups was similar. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its nature of being a pilot, single-institution study performed on a relatively small sample size. None of the patients we surveyed had been given the autonomy to adjust gabapentin doses by their providers and this could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who would be encouraged to run a variable dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that a significant portion of patients choose to administer variable doses of gabapentin and associate this with better efficacy and satisfaction. A larger study is needed to confirm this supposition. Based upon this pilot study, the variable dosing option may be an option for improved therapeutic efficacy or as an alternative to those whose lifestyles do not allow for fixed dosing regimens. Discussion of the risks of gabapentin, including respiratory depression, and clear dosage parameters of use, would need to be outlined when considering a variable dose regimen. KEY WORDS: Gabapentin, chronic pain, physician directed, patient directed</description><identifier>ISSN: 1533-3159</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2150-1149</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.36076/ppj.2023.26.E687</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Paducah: American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</publisher><subject>Chronic pain ; Drug dosages ; Drug use ; Pain management ; Patient compliance ; Patient satisfaction ; Pilot projects ; Prescription drugs</subject><ispartof>Pain physician, 2023-10, Vol.26 (6), p.E687-E693</ispartof><rights>2023. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gill, Jatinder</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain – A Preliminary Report</title><title>Pain physician</title><description>BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after which a fixed dosing regimen is prescribed. We propose that autonomous short-term dose variations per patient could have rapid clinically significant effects in the management of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the frequency at which patients take gabapentin on a fixed vs variable schedule and how the pattern of gabapentin use correlates with efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Single institution, cross-sectional observational survey study with data collection performed over 2 phases as a pilot for proof of concept. SETTING: Remote contact via telephone with researchers calling from a quiet, private location within the hospital complex conducive for confidential conversation. METHODS: Patients recently prescribed gabapentin were queried on the patterns of use and self-perceived efficacy, satisfaction, and side effects in accordance to a standardized oral script. Patients selected met the criteria of being new patients freshly prescribed gabapentin who have been consistently on the medication for at least a month, while having chronic pain symptoms for over 3 months. Responses were collected in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients, 92 patients agreed to participate in the survey for a response rate of 41.4. Of these, 51% had terminated the medication for various reasons. Of the patients still taking gabapentin, 73% were on a fixed schedule, while 27% were on a variable dosing schedule. Variable dosing cohort reported better efficacy (P = 0.027) and satisfaction (P = 0.036), while the side-effect profile between the 2 groups was similar. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its nature of being a pilot, single-institution study performed on a relatively small sample size. None of the patients we surveyed had been given the autonomy to adjust gabapentin doses by their providers and this could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who would be encouraged to run a variable dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that a significant portion of patients choose to administer variable doses of gabapentin and associate this with better efficacy and satisfaction. A larger study is needed to confirm this supposition. Based upon this pilot study, the variable dosing option may be an option for improved therapeutic efficacy or as an alternative to those whose lifestyles do not allow for fixed dosing regimens. Discussion of the risks of gabapentin, including respiratory depression, and clear dosage parameters of use, would need to be outlined when considering a variable dose regimen. KEY WORDS: Gabapentin, chronic pain, physician directed, patient directed</description><subject>Chronic pain</subject><subject>Drug dosages</subject><subject>Drug use</subject><subject>Pain management</subject><subject>Patient compliance</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Pilot projects</subject><subject>Prescription drugs</subject><issn>1533-3159</issn><issn>2150-1149</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkctKAzEUhoMoWKsP4C7gxs3UXGZyWZa21kLBItZtyKSJTZnOjMlU6ErfwTf0SUyrK1fn5-fjwDkfANcYDShDnN217WZAEKEDwgYTJvgJ6BFcoAzjXJ6CHi4ozSgu5Dm4iHGDEGVS0h74GDXbVgfd-XcLxzaa4NtjHta62kcfYePgYp2S8bqGLzbEXYSLxNu6y8Y-WNPZFZzqUrep8TVcRv1q4ayGo3Voam8SnNrvzy84hItgK7_1tQ57-GTbJnSX4MzpKtqrv9kHy_vJ8-ghmz9OZ6PhPDOkEF2mHc9pjqzWxOUGy6JwvEREClcijSiXBkmXs1JQpDllZYmdlLyUK0qFZczRPrj93duG5m1nY6e2PhpbVbq2zS4qIrjgGGGJE3rzD900u5DecaCElIIWkiQK_1ImNDEG61Qb_DYdpjBSRyUqKVEHJYowdVBCfwCsMYEw</recordid><startdate>20231001</startdate><enddate>20231001</enddate><creator>Gill, Jatinder</creator><general>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231001</creationdate><title>Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain – A Preliminary Report</title><author>Gill, Jatinder</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c258t-af74340eaa2f4c1955f7b0298fb0a0379c09f46b830a736bb1f997b9d338e66f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Chronic pain</topic><topic>Drug dosages</topic><topic>Drug use</topic><topic>Pain management</topic><topic>Patient compliance</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Pilot projects</topic><topic>Prescription drugs</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gill, Jatinder</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gill, Jatinder</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain – A Preliminary Report</atitle><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle><date>2023-10-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>E687</spage><epage>E693</epage><pages>E687-E693</pages><issn>1533-3159</issn><eissn>2150-1149</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after which a fixed dosing regimen is prescribed. We propose that autonomous short-term dose variations per patient could have rapid clinically significant effects in the management of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the frequency at which patients take gabapentin on a fixed vs variable schedule and how the pattern of gabapentin use correlates with efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Single institution, cross-sectional observational survey study with data collection performed over 2 phases as a pilot for proof of concept. SETTING: Remote contact via telephone with researchers calling from a quiet, private location within the hospital complex conducive for confidential conversation. METHODS: Patients recently prescribed gabapentin were queried on the patterns of use and self-perceived efficacy, satisfaction, and side effects in accordance to a standardized oral script. Patients selected met the criteria of being new patients freshly prescribed gabapentin who have been consistently on the medication for at least a month, while having chronic pain symptoms for over 3 months. Responses were collected in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients, 92 patients agreed to participate in the survey for a response rate of 41.4. Of these, 51% had terminated the medication for various reasons. Of the patients still taking gabapentin, 73% were on a fixed schedule, while 27% were on a variable dosing schedule. Variable dosing cohort reported better efficacy (P = 0.027) and satisfaction (P = 0.036), while the side-effect profile between the 2 groups was similar. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its nature of being a pilot, single-institution study performed on a relatively small sample size. None of the patients we surveyed had been given the autonomy to adjust gabapentin doses by their providers and this could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who would be encouraged to run a variable dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that a significant portion of patients choose to administer variable doses of gabapentin and associate this with better efficacy and satisfaction. A larger study is needed to confirm this supposition. Based upon this pilot study, the variable dosing option may be an option for improved therapeutic efficacy or as an alternative to those whose lifestyles do not allow for fixed dosing regimens. Discussion of the risks of gabapentin, including respiratory depression, and clear dosage parameters of use, would need to be outlined when considering a variable dose regimen. KEY WORDS: Gabapentin, chronic pain, physician directed, patient directed</abstract><cop>Paducah</cop><pub>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</pub><doi>10.36076/ppj.2023.26.E687</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1533-3159
ispartof Pain physician, 2023-10, Vol.26 (6), p.E687-E693
issn 1533-3159
2150-1149
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2878710191
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Chronic pain
Drug dosages
Drug use
Pain management
Patient compliance
Patient satisfaction
Pilot projects
Prescription drugs
title Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain – A Preliminary Report
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T21%3A49%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20Descriptive%20Analysis%20of%20Physician%20Versus%20Patient-Directed%20Gabapentin%20Usage%20In%20Chronic%20Pain%20%E2%80%93%20A%20Preliminary%20Report&rft.jtitle=Pain%20physician&rft.au=Gill,%20Jatinder&rft.date=2023-10-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=E687&rft.epage=E693&rft.pages=E687-E693&rft.issn=1533-3159&rft.eissn=2150-1149&rft_id=info:doi/10.36076/ppj.2023.26.E687&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2878710191%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2889983592&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true