Outpatient Off-Label Gabapentin Use for Psychiatric Indications Among U.S. Adults, 2011–2016
Abstract
Objective:
Gabapentin is widely prescribed off label in medical practice, including psychiatry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned of risks associated with gabapentin combined with central nervous system depressant (CNS-D) drugs, which are commonly prescribed in psychiatric treatment. This study examined off-label outpatient gabapentin use for psychiatric indications and concomitant CNS-D medication use.
Methods:
National Ambulatory Care Medical Survey data (2011–2016) were used to identify encounters involving gabapentin (gabapentin visits) for adults (ages ≥18) (N=5,732). FDA-approved uses and off-label psychiatric use indications were identified with ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. CNS-D drugs examined were opioids, benzodiazepines, sedatives-hypnotics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, first-generation antihistamines, and skeletal muscle relaxants. Concomitance was prescription of one or more CNS-D medications at the same visit. Visits were stratified by provider type and specialty.
Results:
Between 2011 and 2016, 2.8% of visits listed gabapentin prescriptions (weighted estimate of 129.6 million visits). A small proportion (<1%) listed an FDA-approved indication. Among off-label gabapentin visits, 5.3% listed a depressive disorder, 3.5% an anxiety disorder, and 1.8% bipolar disorder. Over 6 years, 58.4% of off-label gabapentin visits listed one or more concomitant CNS-D medications, most frequently antidepressants (24.3%), opioids (22.9%), and benzodiazepines (17.3%). Most gabapentin visits were with primary care providers (34.9%) and other provider specialties (i.e., not primary care, neurology, or psychiatry) (48.1%).
Conclusion:
In this nationally representative sample, <1% of outpatient gabapentin use was for approved indications. High concomitant use of CNS-D drugs and off-label gabapentin for psychiatric diagnoses underlines the need for improved communication about safety.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Gabapentin, an anticonvulsant medication, has a long history of being prescribed off label for various indications, including psychiatric indications.
•
A recent FDA warning advised against concomitant use of gabapentin and central nervous system depressants—drug classes commonly prescribed in psychiatric treatment regimens.
•
Outpatient prescription of gabapentin for FDA-approved indications (i.e., partial-onset seizures and postherpetic neuralgia) was less than 1%, and depression and anxiety disorders were the most frequent psychiatric diagnoses among off-label users.
•
For more than half of gabapentin users, at least one concomitant central nervous system depressant drug was prescribed at the same visit.
Gabapentin is an anticonvulsant medication that received approval in 1993. As of 2019, gabapentin was ranked the fourth most prescribed medication in the United States (1, 2). Gabapentin was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as adjuvant therapy for partial-onset seizures with and without secondary generalization, first for adults and subsequently for pediatric patients (3). It was later approved for adults for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Notwithstanding these FDA-approved indications, there are more than 20 documented off-label indications for which gabapentin is also prescribed, and this is a key factor in its recent surge in use (4, 5). Upon initial FDA approval, off-label experimentation with gabapentin commenced for neuropathic pain, bipolar disorder, and migraine prophylaxis (6). The sustained upward trend in off-label prescribing of gabapentin is concerning, considering the minimal high-quality evidence for many off-label uses.
Recent attention to off-label use of gabapentin is largely attributable to a renewed interest in this medication as a chronic pain treatment in the wake of the opioid epidemic. However, recent case reports suggest that gabapentin is increasingly being prescribed for psychiatric indications, predominantly anxiety and depression (7, 8). Conflicting evidence suggests that gabapentin’s use in psychiatry has decreased over time, despite renewed interest in its potential for alcohol use disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (9–12). The pharmacological evidence cited for gabapentin’s use in various psychiatric disorders is based on an incomplete understanding of its mechanism of action. It was once believed that gabapentin had anxiolytic properties and increased gamma-aminobutyric acid levels in the brain, but evidence remains inconclusive (13). However, gabapentin appears to affect calcium channels, and its mechanism is hypothesized to reduce neurotransmitter release in the brain and spinal cord (13).
In December 2019, the FDA issued a safety warning advising against the combined use of gabapentin with central nervous system depressant (CNS-D) drugs, many of which are used in psychiatric treatment regimens (14). A range of short-term and long-term adverse outcomes can result from concomitant use of CNS-D drugs and gabapentin that jeopardize the previously touted favorable safety profile of gabapentin (e.g., breathing problems, sedation, and respiratory arrest) (15, 16). There is a clear need to better understand off-label gabapentin use for psychiatric conditions in order to inform prescribing and improve patient safety via care coordination between primary care and psychiatry providers. Therefore, this study aimed to examine off-label use of gabapentin for psychiatric indications in the outpatient setting and to identify concomitant use of CNS-D prescription drugs among users of prescribed gabapentin for a psychiatric indication.
Methods
Study Design and Data Source
This was a descriptive cross-sectional study using 2011–2016 data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), a publicly available deidentified data source provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The NAMCS is a survey of visits to nonfederally employed, office-based physicians primarily engaged in direct patient care (17). Data are collected by a random sample of approximately 30 visits annually from a 1-week reporting period and constitute a nationally representative sample of ambulatory care office visits. Medication data represent documentation of drugs that were ordered, supplied, administered, or continued at the visit (17, 18). Additional information on sampling methodology, details on the survey questionnaire, and data documentation are available online (17).
Sample Selection
The NAMCS captures physician-patient encounters, and thus the unit of observation is an office visit record (18). All office visit records with gabapentin documented were included, herein referred to as a “gabapentin visit.” All generic and brand-name forms of gabapentin were included. Combination drugs containing gabapentin (e.g., amitriptyline-baclofen-gabapentin) were excluded, because they are compounded topical preparations without an on-label indication and would be inappropriate for the off-label indications of interest. Office visit records that documented gabapentin enacarbil were excluded because of its differing extended-release formulation and on-label indication for restless legs syndrome, which is not approved for the original formulation.
The analysis was restricted to gabapentin visits of adults ages 18 and older. Although gabapentin’s approval for partial-onset seizures includes patients ages 3 and older, there were fewer than five pediatric patients with this diagnosis, and thus the age restriction was applied in accordance with NCHS standards (3, 19). Finally, records were excluded when the primary diagnosis code was missing or blank.
Gabapentin Use
The 2011 data have up to eight variables available that document the number of different medications that were ordered, supplied, administered, or continued by a patient attending the office visit. Data for 2012 and 2013 increased to a total of 10 medication variables, and the 2014–2016 data further increased to 30. To ensure consistency across all survey years, gabapentin use was examined if it was included in the first eight medications listed for a visit for all survey years. Drug codes are based on the Lexicon Plus, a proprietary database of all drugs available in the United States (20). (A list of specific drug codes is provided in an online supplement to this article.)
On-Label and Off-Label Indications
Data for 2011 to 2013 have three variables available that document a patient’s medical diagnoses at the office visit and are recorded as ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. Data for 2014 to 2016 have five variables available for diagnosis codes, and the 2016 data use the ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. To ensure consistency across all survey years, indications were examined with the first three diagnosis code variables listed for all survey years. ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes in any position were used to determine on-label and off-label indications.
On-label indications were defined as gabapentin’s FDA-approved indications for partial-onset seizures and PHN, which were determined by ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes based on past studies that assessed these conditions (21–23). Collectively, these are referred to as “on-label gabapentin visits.”
The remaining gabapentin visits that did not list an on-label indication were examined, and the records are referred to as “off-label gabapentin visits.” To further determine which of the off-label gabapentin visits listed a psychiatric condition for an off-label indication, indicator variables were created for prominent off-label psychiatric uses on the basis of the literature and recent case reports. The psychiatric indications of interest were anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, alcohol dependence or withdrawal, OCD, PTSD, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (12, 24). (The specific ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes used for on-label and off-label indications are provided in the online supplement.)
CNS-D Prescription Drugs
Concomitant use of CNS-D drugs was defined as at least one CNS-D medication documented in the record as a current or new prescription at the same gabapentin visit. The selected drug classes examined and the specific drugs included within each class were guided by the 2019 FDA Drug Safety Communication as well as a 2016 communication regarding risks with CNS-D drugs (14, 25). The drug classes included were antidepressants, antipsychotics, first-generation antihistamines, benzodiazepines, sedatives-hypnotics, opioids (including opioid-combination products), and skeletal muscle relaxants.
Demographic Characteristics and Covariates
The NAMCS includes patient demographic information, insurance coverage type, total number of chronic conditions, and other clinical characteristics collected at the office visit, such as vital sign measurements. Information on the health care providers surveyed is characterized by provider type, provider specialty, the practice’s geographic region, and whether the provider is the patient’s primary care physician (PCP). For this study, we described patient characteristics with age, sex, race, geographic region (i.e., Northwest, Midwest, South, or West), insurance coverage, and number of chronic conditions (separate from diagnosis codes). The NAMCS imputes values for certain variables that have a high percentage of missingness; for this analysis, only race was used with imputed values. Providers were described by specialty (i.e., primary care, neurology, psychiatry, or other specialty), PCP status of the provider, and the provider type (i.e., physician or other provider); more than one provider can be seen during a single visit.
Statistical Analyses
The NAMCS utilizes a complex survey design, in which strata are determined first by physicians and second by number of visits; strata were accounted for in statistical analyses by using survey procedures and sampling weights to obtain national-level estimates. Data were analyzed from 2011 to 2016 for each survey year and in aggregate across all years. Descriptive statistics were used to examine gabapentin utilization, on-label and off-label indications, and patient and provider characteristics with frequency counts, sample means, and proportions. Proportions were used to calculate the number of gabapentin visit records overall, with the available number of NAMCS records that met inclusion criteria for each survey year as the denominator. The proportions of on-label gabapentin visits and off-label gabapentin visits were calculated, with the total number of gabapentin visits (2011–2016) as the denominator. Frequency counts were used to describe the psychiatric off-label indications of interest. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to include all medications and diagnoses collected (i.e., 10 medications for 2012–2013, 30 medications for 2014–2016, and five diagnoses for 2014–2016). This study was exempt from institutional review board approval, because NAMCS data are publicly available and deidentified. All analyses were conducted with SAS, version 9.4.
Results
Between 2011 and 2016, a total of 249,282 office visit records were available in NAMCS. Of these, 205,417 records initially met the age and primary diagnosis code inclusion criteria. After applying the gabapentin utilization criteria, a total of 5,732 records (nationally representative weighted estimate of 129.6 million visits), or gabapentin visits, were available for analysis. Characteristics of NAMCS visit records were compared between nongabapentin visits and gabapentin visits (Table 1). The gabapentin visits differed from nongabapentin visits in age, insurance type, number of chronic conditions, and provider specialty. For the gabapentin visits, the patient was likely to be older, to have Medicare insurance coverage, to have more chronic conditions, and to visit a provider specializing in neurology.
| Total visits meeting inclusion criteria | Total nongabapentin visits | Total gabapentin visits | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Sample size | 205,417 | 82.4 | 199,685 | 80.1 | 5,732 | 2.8 |
| Weighted visits (in millions)a | 3,869.8 | 82.4 | 4,442.6 | 80.1 | 129.6 | 2.8 |
| Age (M±SD) | 55.7±18.4 | 55.6±18.4 | 59.8±15.5 | |||
| Age group | ||||||
| 18–44 | 55,435 | 29.1 | 57,458 | 28.8 | 976 | 17.0 |
| 45–64 | 70,326 | 36.5 | 71,738 | 35.9 | 2,476 | 43.2 |
| ≥65 | 68,348 | 34.4 | 70,489 | 35.3 | 2,280 | 39.8 |
| Female | 121,298 | 59.1 | 117,773 | 59.0 | 3,525 | 61.5 |
| Race (imputed)b | ||||||
| White | 177,703 | 86.5 | 172,732 | 86.5 | 4,971 | 86.7 |
| Black | 18,600 | 9.1 | 18,035 | 9.0 | 565 | 9.9 |
| Other | 9,114 | 4.4 | 8,918 | 4.5 | 196 | 3.4 |
| Regionc | ||||||
| Northeast | 30,907 | 15.0 | 30,236 | 15.1 | 671 | 11.7 |
| Midwest | 54,213 | 26.4 | 52,710 | 26.4 | 1,503 | 26.2 |
| South | 69,788 | 34.0 | 67,761 | 34.0 | 2,027 | 35.4 |
| West | 50,509 | 24.6 | 48,978 | 24.5 | 1,531 | 26.7 |
| Insurance | ||||||
| Private | 98,634 | 47.1 | 94,728 | 47.4 | 1,906 | 33.3 |
| Medicare | 66,187 | 32.2 | 63,708 | 31.9 | 2,479 | 43.3 |
| Medicaid | 14,619 | 7.1 | 14,048 | 7.0 | 571 | 9.9 |
| Other or unknownd | 27,977 | 13.6 | 27,201 | 13.6 | 776 | 13.5 |
| Chronic conditione | ||||||
| Total (M±SD) | 1.2±2.1 | 1.2±2.1 | 2.1±2.1 | |||
| ≤2 | 157,939 | 76.9 | 154,421 | 77.3 | 3,518 | 61.4 |
| >2 | 42,761 | 20.8 | 40,607 | 20.4 | 2,154 | 37.5 |
| Unknown | 4,717 | 2.3 | 4,657 | 2.3 | 60 | 1.1 |
| Provider specialty | ||||||
| Primary caref | 74,631 | 36.3 | 72,632 | 36.4 | 1,999 | 34.9 |
| Neurology | 7,169 | 3.5 | 6,467 | 3.2 | 702 | 12.3 |
| Psychiatry | 9,356 | 4.6 | 9,072 | 4.5 | 284 | 5.0 |
| Otherg | 114,261 | 55.6 | 111,514 | 55.9 | 2,747 | 47.9 |
| Provider was the patient’s primary care provider | 54,737 | 26.7 | 52,967 | 26.5 | 1,770 | 30.9 |
a
Nationally representative weighted estimates.
b
Imputed by the National Ambulatory Care Medical Survey (NAMCS).
c
Determined by NAMCS: Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT), Midwest (IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, and WI), South (AR, AL, DC, DE, FL, KY, GA, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WV), and West (AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, and WY).
d
Self-pay, workers’ compensation insurance, no charge, charity, or unknown.
e
Includes general medical and psychiatric conditions; total number that could be listed differed by survey year (2011–2012, up to 14 conditions; 2013–2014, up to 11; 2015, up to 12; and 2016, up to 10).
f
Defined by NAMCS as general and family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology.
g
Defined by NAMCS as general surgery, orthopedic surgery, cardiovascular diseases, dermatology, urology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, oncology (2011 only), and all others.
Characteristics of the gabapentin visits were similar across years (Table 1). For these visits, patients’ mean age was 59.8 years, with the greatest proportion between 45 and 64 years (43.2%). Most patients were White (86.7%) and female (61.5%). The largest proportion lived in the South (35.4%), followed by nearly equal proportions in the Midwest (26.2%) and West (26.7%). In terms of insurance, the largest proportion were Medicare beneficiaries (43.3%), followed by private insurance (33.3%). Most (61.4%) had two or fewer chronic conditions, and nearly half (47.9%) saw a provider who specialized in another specialty (i.e., not primary care, neurology, or psychiatry), followed by primary care (34.9%). For 30.9% of the visits, the provider was the patient’s PCP.
For the gabapentin visits, the proportion of on-label indications for gabapentin was exceptionally low for all 6 years, with <1% having an on-label diagnosis of either partial-onset seizures or PHN (Table 2). Survey year 2014 accounted for the lowest proportion with only 0.4% of visits having an on-label indication for gabapentin, and 2012 and 2016 had the highest proportion, with 0.8% of visits. Across all years, the proportion of gabapentin visits with any off-label indication was 99.4%. This proportion remained unchanged in the sensitivity analysis for 2011–2016, with only survey year 2016 decreasing slightly to 98.8% (see online supplement).
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Gabapentin visits | 626 | 10.9 | 1,382 | 24.1 | 1,275 | 22.2 | 1,320 | 23.0 | 788 | 13.7 | 341 | 6.0 | 5,732 | 100 |
| Weighted gabapentin visits (in millions)a | 16.2 | 10.9 | 15.8 | 10.9 | 22.0 | 22.2 | 24.4 | 23.0 | 27.4 | 13.7 | 23.8 | 6.0 | 129.6 | 100 |
| On-label and off-label useb | ||||||||||||||
| Any on-label indication | — | 0.8 | — | 0.8 | — | 0.5 | — | 0.4 | — | 0.8 | — | 0.6 | 35 | 0.6 |
| Any off-label indication | 621 | 99.2 | 1,371 | 99.2 | 1,269 | 99.5 | 1,315 | 99.6 | 782 | 99.2 | 339 | 99.4 | 5,697 | 99.4 |
| Age group | ||||||||||||||
| 18–44 | 131 | 18.9 | 239 | 16.8 | 209 | 16.7 | 226 | 16.4 | 120 | 9.3 | 51 | 15.0 | 976 | 17.0 |
| 45–64 | 278 | 41.3 | 581 | 42.2 | 536 | 41.6 | 560 | 42.3 | 362 | 53.6 | 159 | 48.8 | 2,476 | 43.2 |
| ≥65 | 217 | 39.7 | 562 | 41.0 | 530 | 41.7 | 534 | 41.3 | 306 | 37.1 | 131 | 36.1 | 2,280 | 39.8 |
| Female | 370 | 59.1 | 887 | 64.2 | 764 | 59.9 | 812 | 61.5 | 479 | 60.8 | 213 | 62.5 | ||
| Race (imputed)c | ||||||||||||||
| White | 525 | 83.9 | 1,240 | 89.7 | 1,104 | 86.5 | 1,145 | 86.7 | 678 | 86.0 | 280 | 82.1 | 4,971 | 86.7 |
| Black | 71 | 11.3 | 113 | 8.2 | 127 | 10.0 | 130 | 9.9 | 84 | 10.7 | 40 | 11.7 | 565 | 9.9 |
| Other | 30 | 4.8 | 29 | 2.1 | 45 | 3.5 | 45 | 3.4 | 26 | 3.3 | 21 | 6.2 | 196 | 3.4 |
| Regiond | ||||||||||||||
| Northeast | 137 | 21.9 | 108 | 7.8 | 120 | 9.4 | 141 | 10.7 | 114 | 14.5 | 51 | 15.0 | 671 | 11.7 |
| Midwest | 140 | 22.4 | 325 | 23.5 | 387 | 30.4 | 339 | 25.7 | 214 | 27.1 | 98 | 28.7 | 1,503 | 26.2 |
| South | 173 | 27.6 | 609 | 44.1 | 454 | 35.6 | 469 | 35.5 | 222 | 28.2 | 100 | 29.3 | 2,027 | 35.4 |
| West | 176 | 28.1 | 340 | 24.6 | 314 | 24.6 | 371 | 28.1 | 238 | 30.2 | 92 | 27.0 | 1,531 | 26.7 |
| Insurance | ||||||||||||||
| Private | 192 | 30.7 | 487 | 35.2 | 422 | 33.1 | 411 | 31.1 | 275 | 34.9 | 119 | 34.9 | 1,906 | 33.3 |
| Medicare | 264 | 42.2 | 603 | 43.7 | 574 | 45.1 | 577 | 43.7 | 322 | 40.9 | 139 | 40.8 | 2,479 | 43.2 |
| Medicaid | 71 | 11.3 | 90 | 6.5 | 114 | 8.9 | 145 | 11.0 | 104 | 13.2 | 47 | 13.8 | 571 | 10.0 |
| Other or unknowne | 99 | 15.8 | 202 | 14.6 | 165 | 12.9 | 187 | 14.2 | 87 | 11.0 | 36 | 10.5 | 776 | 13.5 |
| Chronic conditionsb,f | ||||||||||||||
| ≤2 | 373 | 59.6 | 925 | 66.9 | 816 | 64.0 | 743 | 56.3 | 470 | 59.6 | 191 | 56.0 | 3,518 | 61.4 |
| >2 | 243 | 38.8 | 436 | 31.5 | 448 | 35.1 | 572 | 43.3 | 307 | 39.0 | 148 | 43.4 | 2,154 | 37.6 |
| Unknown | — | 1.6 | 21 | 1.5 | 11 | .9 | — | .4 | 11 | 1.4 | — | .6 | 60 | 1.0 |
| Provider specialty | ||||||||||||||
| Primary careg | 210 | 33.6 | 500 | 36.2 | 462 | 36.2 | 517 | 39.2 | 178 | 22.6 | 132 | 38.7 | 1,999 | 34.9 |
| Neurology | 171 | 27.2 | 138 | 10.0 | 131 | 10.3 | 75 | 5.7 | 139 | 17.6 | 48 | 14.1 | 702 | 12.2 |
| Psychiatry | 38 | 6.1 | 77 | 5.6 | 58 | 4.6 | 48 | 3.6 | 46 | 5.8 | 17 | 5.0 | 284 | 5.0 |
| Otherh | 207 | 33.1 | 667 | 48.3 | 624 | 48.9 | 680 | 51.5 | 425 | 53.9 | 144 | 42.2 | 2,747 | 47.9 |
a
Nationally representative weighted estimates.
b
Cells with small sample sizes were suppressed per National Ambulatory Care Medical Survey (NAMCS) reporting standards.
c
Imputed by NAMCS.
d
Determined by NAMCS: Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT), Midwest (IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, and WI), South (AR, AL, DC, DE, FL, KY, GA, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WV), and West (AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, and WY).
e
Self-pay, workers’ compensation insurance, no charge, charity, or unknown.
f
Includes general medical and psychiatric conditions; total number that could be listed differed by survey year (2011–2012, up to 14 conditions; 2013–2014, up to 11; 2015, up to 12; and 2016, up to 10).
g
Defined by NAMCS as general and family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology.
h
Defined by NAMCS as general surgery, orthopedic surgery, cardiovascular diseases, dermatology, urology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, and all other.
For the off-label psychiatric indications of interest, the most frequent diagnoses across all years were depressive disorders (5.3%), followed by anxiety disorders (3.5%) and bipolar disorders (1.8%) (Table 3). By year, anxiety disorders increased in frequency from 2011 to 2016 with the exception of 2015. For depressive disorders, the frequency decreased from 2011 to 2014 but then increased slightly from 2014 to 2016. The frequency for bipolar disorders remained relatively stable, with 2015 having the highest (2.4%) and 2016 the lowest (1.2%). Other psychiatric indications of interest were less frequent, with 0.7% of patients in off-label gabapentin visits having a diagnosis of alcohol dependence or withdrawal; all remaining indications (schizophrenia spectrum disorders, PTSD, and OCD) accounted for 1.3% of visits.
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Off-label gabapentin visits | 621 | 10.9 | 1,371 | 24.1 | 1,269 | 22.3 | 1,315 | 23.0 | 782 | 13.7 | 339 | 6.0 | 5,697 | 100 |
| Weighted off-label gabapentin visits (in millions)a | 16.1 | 10.9 | 15.7 | 24.1 | 21.9 | 22.3 | 24.3 | 23.0 | 27.4 | 13.7 | 23.6 | 6.0 | 129.0 | 100 |
| Psychiatric off-label indicationsb | ||||||||||||||
| Anxiety disorder | 13 | 2.1 | 40 | 2.9 | 46 | 3.6 | 54 | 4.1 | 23 | 2.9 | 21 | 6.2 | 197 | 3.5 |
| Depressive disorder | 48 | 7.7 | 77 | 5.6 | 62 | 4.9 | 62 | 4.7 | 37 | 4.7 | 18 | 5.3 | 304 | 5.3 |
| Bipolar disorder | — | 1.5 | — | 2.0 | — | 2.1 | — | 1.3 | — | 2.4 | — | 1.2 | 102 | 1.8 |
| Alcohol use disorder | — | <1 | — | <1 | — | <1 | — | <1 | — | <1 | — | <1 | 40 | .7 |
| Otherc | — | 1.4 | — | 1.3 | — | 1.4 | — | 1.3 | — | 1.7 | — | .6 | 77 | 1.3 |
| Provider specialty | ||||||||||||||
| Primary cared | 210 | 33.8 | 495 | 36.1 | 461 | 36.3 | 515 | 39.2 | 178 | 22.8 | 131 | 38.6 | 1,990 | 34.9 |
| Neurology | 167 | 26.9 | 134 | 9.8 | 127 | 10.0 | 7 | 5.5 | 133 | 17.0 | 48 | 14.2 | 681 | 12.0 |
| Psychiatry | 38 | 6.1 | 77 | 5.6 | 58 | 4.6 | 48 | 3.7 | 46 | 5.9 | 17 | 5.0 | 284 | 5.0 |
| Othere | 206 | 33.2 | 665 | 48.5 | 623 | 49.1 | 68 | 51.7 | 425 | 54.4 | 143 | 42.2 | 2,742 | 48.1 |
| Provider typef | ||||||||||||||
| Physician (M.D. or D.O.) | 603 | 97.1 | 1,333 | 97.2 | 1,251 | 98.6 | 1,301 | 98.9 | 771 | 98.6 | 328 | 96.8 | 5,587 | 98.1 |
| Physician assistant | 48 | 7.7 | 50 | 3.7 | 67 | 5.3 | 54 | 4.1 | 32 | 4.1 | 17 | 5.0 | 268 | 4.7 |
| Nurse practitioner or nurse midwife | 18 | 2.9 | 42 | 3.1 | 30 | 2.4 | 30 | 2.3 | 20 | 2.6 | 10 | 3.0 | 150 | 2.6 |
a
Nationally representative weighted estimates.
b
Cells with small sample sizes were suppressed per National Ambulatory Care Medical Survey (NAMCS) reporting standards.
c
Schizophrenia spectrum disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
d
Defined by NAMCS as general and family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology.
e
Defined by NAMCS as general surgery, orthopedic surgery, cardiovascular diseases, dermatology, urology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, and all other.
f
Patients may see multiple providers during a visit; hence totals sum to >100%.
Provider characteristics for the off-label gabapentin visits were similar to those in the overall sample (Table 3). In total, off-label gabapentin visits were mostly attended by a provider who specialized in another specialty (48.1%), followed by primary care (34.9%)—the latter were primarily physicians (98.1%), but more than one provider could be seen at a single visit.
Concomitant use of gabapentin and CNS-D drugs was similar for the total sample of gabapentin visits and for the off-label gabapentin visits (Table 4). For the off-label gabapentin visits, only 3.6% of visits listed gabapentin as the only prescription medication. Most off-label gabapentin visits (90.6%) listed two or more prescription medications. For nearly one-third (33.1%) of the off-label gabapentin visits, one concomitant CNS-D prescription drug was listed, and one-fourth (25.3%) of the visits listed two or more. The most frequently utilized CNS-D drug classes were antidepressants (24.3%), opioids (including opioid-combination products) (22.9%), and benzodiazepines (17.3%). In contrast, for the on-label gabapentin visits, a smaller proportion of visits listed concomitant prescription medications (82.9% for two or more such medications) and CNS-D prescription drugs (28.6% for one CNS-D drug and 17.1% for two or more), and the most frequently utilized CNS-D drug class was benzodiazepines (25.7%), followed by antidepressants (17.1%) and opioids (14.3%).
| Gabapentin | Gabapentin | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| visits with | visits with | |||||
| Total gabapentin | on-label | off-label | ||||
| Medication | visits | indicationa | indication | |||
| prescription | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Gabapentin visits | 5,732 | 100 | 35 | .6 | 5,697 | 99.4 |
| Any concomitant prescription drug | ||||||
| 0 (only gabapentin) | 204 | 3.6 | — | 2.9 | 203 | 3.6 |
| 1 | 336 | 5.8 | — | 14.3 | 331 | 5.8 |
| ≥2 | 5,192 | 90.6 | — | 82.9 | 5,163 | 90.6 |
| Any CNS-D prescription drug | ||||||
| 0 | 2,289 | 41.7 | — | 54.3 | 2,370 | 41.6 |
| 1 | 1,893 | 33.0 | — | 28.6 | 1,883 | 33.1 |
| ≥2 | 1,450 | 25.3 | — | 17.1 | 1,444 | 25.3 |
| Class of CNS-D drug prescribedb | ||||||
| Opioidc | 1,310 | 22.9 | — | 14.3 | 1,305 | 22.9 |
| Benzodiazepine | 997 | 17.4 | — | 25.7 | 988 | 17.3 |
| Sedatives-hypnotics | 302 | 5.3 | — | 2.9 | 301 | 5.3 |
| Skeletal muscle relaxant | 794 | 13.9 | — | 2.9 | 793 | 13.9 |
| Antihistamine (first generation) | 191 | 3.3 | — | .0 | 191 | 3.4 |
| Antidepressantd | 1,392 | 24.3 | — | 17.1 | 1,386 | 24.3 |
| Antipsychotic | 275 | 4.8 | — | 2.9 | 274 | 4.8 |
a
Cells with small sample sizes were suppressed per National Ambulatory Care Medical Survey reporting standards.
b
Not mutually exclusive; more than one drug per visit was possible.
c
Including opioid-combination products.
d
Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.
Discussion
In this study assessing outpatient use of off-label gabapentin for psychiatric indications, we found a remarkably low proportion of visits with on-label utilization, consistent with earlier literature in the United States and internationally (26–29). The most common diagnoses in this study were depressive disorders, followed by anxiety disorders and bipolar disorders, which supports case reports suggesting an increase in gabapentin use for these disorders despite limited high-quality evidence. The evidence cited for use of gabapentin for anxiety disorders is limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for situational anxiety, including perioperative anxiety, but there have been no RCTs to date examining gabapentin’s efficacy as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment for generalized anxiety disorder or for depressive disorders (12). Although the NAMCS data did not allow us to ascertain the psychiatric diagnosis for which gabapentin was specifically prescribed, the results suggest that gabapentin was in fact prescribed at least adjunctively in the presence of a depression or anxiety diagnosis, consistent with our findings of high proportions of concomitant antidepressants and benzodiazepines. Patients with chronic pain often have secondary anxiety and depressive symptoms, and thus adjuvant use may fall into this category, particularly in light of gabapentin’s approval for PHN and its frequent off-label use for other neuropathic pain conditions (30, 31).
The relatively low frequency of bipolar disorder diagnoses in the sample of off-label gabapentin visits suggests that use of gabapentin as a mood stabilizer has declined, which corresponds with more recent psychopharmacology literature concluding that gabapentin’s mood-stabilizing effects are minimal to negligible (13, 32). We found few instances of gabapentin use for other psychiatric indications, which concurs with a greater likelihood of off-label experimentation being initiated by a psychiatrist rather than by a PCP for these conditions. Furthermore, the time frame of the data analyzed may explain why few gabapentin visits for conditions other than anxiety and depressive disorders were observed—particularly for alcohol use disorder—because the American Psychiatric Association (APA) did not include gabapentin in its guidelines until 2018 and graded the evidence as low (33). A recent systematic review concluded that gabapentin for alcohol use disorder may be safe only as an adjuvant but not as a monotherapy and that there is insufficient evidence to support its use as a treatment for other substance dependencies or for depression, OCD, PTSD, and schizoaffective disorder (24). The largest proportion of off-label gabapentin prescribing was initiated by a PCP, as evident in our findings. PCPs are the first point of contact for many patients, prior to referral to a psychiatrist or other mental health specialist. Compared with psychiatrists, PCPs may initiate gabapentin more often because of the widespread perception among PCPs that it is relatively safe (34). During the 6 years covered by the data, use of outpatient mental health services increased overall, whereas the number of practicing psychiatrists declined (35–37). Furthermore, disparities in provider reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid suggest reduced access to specialty care from psychiatrists, which may have particularly affected beneficiaries of these governmental programs, who were prominent in our sample (38, 39). Thus, in some situations, PCPs may remain responsible for caring for a patient’s mental health care needs.
For the gabapentin visits, we found a high proportion of concomitant use of CNS-D prescription drugs, despite the FDA warning (14). Although this warning arose primarily because of concerns about acute adverse effects of serious breathing problems and respiratory depression, the FDA also warned that elderly patients are at an increased risk when coprescribed gabapentin and CNS-D drugs. Our sample had a large representation of older patients, which highlights the need for providers to be aware of this risk when considering whether to continue gabapentin when a patient is also prescribed a CNS-D medication. Additionally, the FDA warned of potential increased risks of misuse and abuse associated with gabapentin. As gabapentin has risen to the top five prescribed medications in the United States, a parallel rise in reports of misuse, abuse, and suicidality associated with gabapentin has occurred (40–42). Curtailing high-risk use could entail a Schedule V classification to limit prescribing quantities and to require reporting to prescription drug monitoring programs, which has been initiated in some states (43).
Furthermore, it is worthwhile to note that much of the literature on gabapentin’s use in psychiatry fails to mention that gabapentin has carried a warning for suicidal behavior and ideation in its package insert dating back to 2008 (3, 44, 45). Publications by the APA on prescribing psychiatric medications do not mention this serious adverse effect associated with gabapentin, despite its particular relevance in psychiatry practice (13, 46). Although a direct link between gabapentin and suicidality is not definitive, it is known that patients with psychiatric conditions have a higher risk of suicidal behavior, compared with the general population. These added risks warrant a reevaluation of gabapentin’s risk-benefit profile in psychiatry, specifically to prevent unintended consequences of exacerbating a psychiatric disorder. The complexity of managing psychiatric symptoms treated with gabapentin in light of these safety and efficacy concerns highlight the need for further research to identify cost-effective strategies to improve care management.
We recognize that the largest proportion of gabapentin prescribers fell into an “other disciplines” category (i.e., not primary care, neurology, or psychiatry), and these providers are likely responsible for adjuvant prescribing for anxiety or depression secondary to a chronic condition. It is not clear whether these providers have the proper training and resources to adequately treat secondary mental health conditions. However, if providers see benefit in gabapentin’s adjuvant uses, they should have the tools to manage the patient’s need, particularly when gabapentin is used concomitantly with other medications that may increase risks. Training for various practitioners providing mental health care may be warranted.
This study was not without limitations. First, the record-level nature of the data limited interpretation of findings in a patient-level context. Sampling was conducted over a 1-week reporting period and thus limited examination of visits by the same patient, although underestimation of gabapentin prescriptions was still possible. Second, we restricted analysis to the first eight medication variables and first three diagnosis variables because of variations in the data collection process for each survey year. This may have underestimated both gabapentin use and off-label psychiatric indications, although results did not change in a sensitivity analysis. Third, NAMCS data lack details on dosage, frequency, and refills, which limited the understanding of therapeutic uses. Fourth, attribution of gabapentin to the specific off-label indications was not definitive because clinical notes were unavailable. Finally, “central nervous system depressants” is a broad term, and the selected drug classes may not be exhaustive. The strengths of this study were a nationally representative sample, and the study is the first to investigate off-label gabapentin use for psychiatric indications in the primary care setting and the first to comprehensively assess concomitant use with CNS-D drugs.
Conclusions
This study examined off-label use of gabapentin for psychiatric indications and its concomitant use with CNS-D prescription drugs in a nationally representative sample of ambulatory care office visits. Less than 1% of outpatient gabapentin use was for FDA-approved indications. Depression and anxiety disorders were the most frequent off-label psychiatric diagnoses. In light of recent safety warnings from the FDA, the high proportions of concomitant CNS-D use found in this study underline the need for future research on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin prescribed off label for the treatment of patients with psychiatric symptoms or conditions.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202000338.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 154.76 KB
References
1.
Peckham AM, Evoy KE, Ochs L, et al: Gabapentin for off-label use: evidence-based or cause for concern? Subst Abus Res Treat 2018; 12:117822181880131
2.
Top 10 Prescription Medication in the US. Santa Monica, CA, GoodRx, 2020. https://www.goodrx.com/drug-guide
3.
Highlights of Prescribing Information: Neurontin (Gabapentin). Package insert. Silver Spring, MD, US Food and Drug Administration, 2017. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/020235s064_020882s047_021129s046lbl.pdf
4.
Yasaei R, Katta S, Saadabadi A: Gabapentin. Treasure Island, FL, StatPearls Publishing, 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493228/
5.
Clinical Pharmacology: Gabapentin Monograph. New York, Elsevier, 2012. https://www.clinicalkey.com/pharmacology/monograph/271?sec=mondesc
6.
Goodman CW, Brett AS: A clinical overview of off-label use of gabapentinoid drugs. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179:695–701
7.
Love S: Millions Use Gabapentin for Pain and Anxiety, But There’s Almost No Evidence It Works. Brooklyn, NY, VICE Media Group, VICE News, Oct 31, 2019. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5y4py/millions-use-gabapentin-for-anxiety-and-pain-but-little-evidence-it-works
8.
Wallach JD, Ross JS: Gabapentin approvals, off-label use, and lessons for postmarketing evaluation efforts. JAMA 2018; 319:776–778
9.
Fullerton CA, Busch AB, Frank RG: The rise and fall of gabapentin for bipolar disorder: a case study on off-label pharmaceutical diffusion. Med Care 2010; 48:372–379
10.
Mason BJ, Quello S, Goodell V, et al: Gabapentin treatment for alcohol dependence: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:70–77
11.
Leung JG, Hall-Flavin D, Nelson S, et al: The role of gabapentin in the management of alcohol withdrawal and dependence. Ann Pharmacother 2015; 49:897–906
12.
Berlin RK, Butler PM, Perloff MD: Gabapentin therapy in psychiatric disorders: a systematic review. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2015; 17:330
13.
Schatzberg AF, DeBattista C: Schatzberg’s Manual of Psychopharmacology, 9th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019
14.
FDA Warns About Serious Breathing Problems With Seizure and Nerve Pain Medicines Gabapentin (Neurontin, Gralise, Horizant) and Pregabalin (Lyrica, Lyrica CR). Silver Spring, MD, US Food and Drug Administration, 2019. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-warns-about-serious-breathing-problems-seizure-and-nerve-pain-medicines-gabapentin-neurontin
15.
Clinical Pharmacology: Gabapentin Contraindications/Precautions. New York, Elsevier, 2020. https://www.clinicalkey.com/pharmacology/monograph/271?sec=moncontr
16.
Clinical Pharmacology: Pregabalin Contraindications/Precautions. New York, Elsevier, 2019. https://www.clinicalkey.com/pharmacology/monograph/2757?sec=moncontr
17.
About the Ambulatory Health Care Surveys: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Hyattsville, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/about_ahcd.htm
18.
2015 NAMCS Micro-Data File Documentation. Hyattsville, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2015. https://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/NAMCS/doc2015.pdf
19.
Ambulatory Health Care Data: Reliability of Estimates. Hyattsville, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/ahcd_estimation_reliability.htm
20.
The Ambulatory Care Drug Database System. Hyattsville, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2018. https://www2.cdc.gov/drugs/applicationnav1.asp
21.
Brook RA, Rajagopalan K, Smeeding JE: Healthcare costs and absenteeism among caregivers of adults with partial-onset seizures: analysis of claims from an employer database. Am Health Drug Benefits 2018; 11:396–403
22.
Berger A, Dukes E, McCarberg B, et al: Change in opioid use after the initiation of gabapentin therapy in patients with postherpetic neuralgia. Clin Ther 2003; 25:2809–2821
23.
Johnson P, Becker L, Halpern R, et al: Real-world treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia with gabapentin or pregabalin. Clin Drug Investig 2013; 33:35–44
24.
Ahmed S, Bachu R, Kotapati P, et al: Use of gabapentin in the treatment of substance use and psychiatric disorders: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry 2019; 10:228
25.
FDA Warns About Serious Risks and Death When Combining Opioid Pain or Cough Medicines With Benzodiazepines; Requires Its Strongest Warning. FDA Drug Safety Communication. Silver Spring, MD, US Food and Drug Administration, 2016. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-warns-about-serious-risks-and-death-when-combining-opioid-pain-or
26.
Hamer AM, Haxby DG, McFarland BH, et al: Gabapentin use in a managed Medicaid population. J Manag Care Pharm 2002; 8:266–271
27.
Johansen ME: Gabapentinoid use in the United States 2002 through 2015. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178:292–294
28.
Zhou L, Bhattacharjee S, Kwoh CK, et al: Trends, patient and prescriber characteristics in gabapentinoid use in a sample of united states ambulatory care visits from 2003 to 2016. J Clin Med 2019; 9:83
29.
Montastruc F, Loo SY, Renoux C: Trends in first gabapentin and pregabalin prescriptions in primary care in the United Kingdom, 1993–2017. JAMA 2018; 320:2149–2151
30.
Coplan JD, Aaronson CJ, Panthangi V, et al: Treating comorbid anxiety and depression: psychosocial and pharmacological approaches. World J Psychiatry 2015; 5:366–378
31.
Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Bell RF, et al: Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6:CD007938
32.
Bahji A, Ermacora D, Stephenson C, et al: Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments for the treatment of acute bipolar depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2020; 269:154–184
33.
Practice Guideline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2018
34.
Ghinea N, Lipworth W, Kerridge I: Evidence, regulation and “rational” prescribing: the case of gabapentin for neuropathic pain. J Eval Clin Pract 2015; 21:28–33
35.
Olfson M, Wang S, Wall M, et al: Trends in serious psychological distress and outpatient mental health care of US adults. JAMA Psychiatry 2019; 76:152–161
36.
Germack HD, Drake C, Donohue JM, et al: National trends in outpatient mental health service use among adults between 2008 and 2015. Psychiatr Serv 2020; 71:1127–1135
37.
Bishop TF, Seirup JK, Pincus HA, et al: Population of US practicing psychiatrists declined, 2003–13, which may help explain poor access to mental health care. Health Aff 2016; 35:1271–1277
38.
Mark TL, Parish W, Zarkin GA, et al: Comparison of Medicaid reimbursements for psychiatrists and primary care physicians. Psychiatr Serv 2020; 71:947–950
39.
Mark TL, Olesiuk W, Ali MM, et al: Differential reimbursement of psychiatric services by psychiatrists and other medical providers. Psychiatr Serv 2018; 69:281–285
40.
Daly C, Griffin E, Ashcroft DM, et al: Intentional drug overdose involving pregabalin and gabapentin: findings from the national self-harm registry Ireland, 2007–2015. Clin Drug Investig 2018; 38:373–380
41.
Peckham AM, Evoy KE, Covvey JR, et al: Predictors of gabapentin overuse with or without concomitant opioids in a commercially insured US population. Pharmacotherapy 2018; 38:436–443
42.
D’Arrigo T: Suicide attempts involving gabapentin, baclofen rising. Psychiatr News 2020; 55(2):18
43.
Peckham AM, Fairman KA, Sclar DA: Policies to mitigate nonmedical use of prescription medications: how should emerging evidence of gabapentin misuse be addressed? Expert Opin Drug Saf 2018; 17:519–523
44.
Gibbons RD, Hur K, Brown CH, et al: Relationship between antiepileptic drugs and suicide attempts in patients with bipolar disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2009; 66:1354–1360
45.
Gibbons RD, Hur K, Brown CH, et al: Gabapentin and suicide attempts. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19:1241–1247
46.
Chew RH: What Your Patients Need to Know About Psychiatric Medications. Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2016
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 13 May 2020
Accepted: 8 January 2021
Published online: 21 May 2021
Published in print: November 01, 2021
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).