Prescribing practice of pregabalin/gabapentin in pain therapy: an evaluation of German claim data.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the prevalence and incidence of pregabalin and gabapentin (P/G) prescriptions, typical therapeutic uses of P/G with special attention to pain-related diagnoses and discontinuation rates. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. SETTING: Primary and secondary care in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Four million patients in the years 2009-2015 (anonymous health insurance data). INTERVENTION: None. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: P/G prescribing rates, P/G prescribing rates associated with pain therapy, analysis of pain-related diagnoses leading to new P/G prescriptions and the discontinuation rate of P/G. RESULTS: In 2015, 1.6% of insured persons received P/G prescriptions. Among the patients with pain first treated with P/G, as few as 25.7% were diagnosed with a typical neuropathic pain disorder. The remaining 74.3% had either not received a diagnosis of neuropathic pain or showed a neuropathic component that was pathophysiologically conceivable but did not support the prescription of P/G. High discontinuation rates were observed (85%). Among the patients who had discontinued the drug, 61.1% did not receive follow-up prescriptions within 2 years. CONCLUSION: The results show that P/G is widely prescribed in cases of chronic pain irrespective of neuropathic pain diagnoses. The high discontinuation rate indicates a lack of therapeutic benefits and/or the occurrence of adverse effects.

Differences between patients with chronic widespread pain and local chronic low back pain in primary care--a comparative cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a common reason for consultation in general practice. Current research distinguishes between chronic localized pain (CLP) and chronic widespread pain (CWP). The aim of this study was to identify differences between CWP and chronic low back pain (CLBP), a common type of CLP, in primary care settings. METHODS: Fifty-eight German general practitioners (GPs) consecutively recruited all eligible patients who consulted for chronic low back pain during a 5-month period. All patients received a questionnaire on sociodemographic data, pain characteristics, comorbidities, psychosomatic symptoms, and previous therapies. RESULTS: GPs recruited 647 eligible patients where of a quarter (n = 163, 25.2%) met the CWP criteria according to the American College of Rheumatology. CWP patients had significantly more comorbidities and psychosomatic symptoms, showed longer pain duration, and suffered predominantly from permanent pain instead of distinguishable pain attacks. CWP patients were more often females, are less working and reported a current pension application or a state-approved grade of disability more frequently. We found no other differences in demographic parameters such as age, nationality, marital status, number of persons in household, education, health insurance status, or in health care utilization data. CONCLUSIONS: This project is the largest study performed to date which analyzes differences between CLBP and CWP in primary care settings. Our results showed that CWP is a frequent and particularly severe pain syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register, DRKS00003123.

The association between a journal's source of revenue and the drug recommendations made in the articles it publishes.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that pharmaceutical companies influence the publication and content of research papers. Most German physicians rely on journals for their continuing medical education. We studied the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on the drug recommendations made in articles published in 11 German journals that focus on continuing medical education. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all of the issues of 11 journals published in 2007. Only journals frequently read by general practitioners were chosen. Issues were screened for pharmaceutical advertisements and recommendations made in the editorial content for a specified selection of drugs. Each journal was rated on a five-point scale according to the strength with which it either recommended or discouraged the use of these drugs. We looked for differences in these ratings between free journals (i.e., those financed entirely by pharmaceutical advertising), journals with mixed sources of revenue and journals financed solely by subscription fees. The journals were also screened for the simultaneous appearance of advertisements and recommendations for the same drug within a certain period, which was adjusted for both journal and class of drug. RESULTS: We identified 313 issues containing at least one advertisement for the selected drugs and 412 articles in which drug recommendations were made. Free journals were more likely to recommend the specified drugs than journals with sources of revenue that were mixed or based solely on subscriptions. The simultaneous appearance of advertisements and recommendations for the same drug in the same issue of a journal showed an inconsistent association. INTERPRETATION: Free journals almost exclusively recommended the use of the specified drugs, whereas journals financed entirely with subscription fees tended to recommend against the use of the same drugs. Doctors should be aware of this bias in their use of material published in medical journals that focus on continuing medical education.