RESUMO
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.
