Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Utilization of gabapentin by people in treatment for substance use disorders in Belgium (2011–2014): a cross-sectional study

Archives of Public HealthThe official journal of the Belgian Public Health Association201876:17

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-018-0254-8

  • Received: 12 September 2017
  • Accepted: 12 January 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Although gabapentin has been licensed in the European Union only for neuropathic pain and epilepsy for patients who have partial seizures, it has also been prescribed in treatment for substance use disorders. Many studies report the potential risk of abuse of gabapentin by people with substance use disorders. The objective of this paper is to determine if people who have been in treatment for substance use disorders bought gabapentin in a time span that could indicate consumption at a dose that exceeded the maximum approved dose of 3600 mg/day.

Methods

This analysis is the result of an observational cross-sectional descriptive study with matching. Two datasets were used and linked at individual level. Subjects were selected based on their first registration in the database of the Treatment Demand Indicator (TDI) between 2011 and 2014, without any exclusion criteria concerning nationality or age. Through linkage with the database of the InterMutualistic Agency (IMA) information on health service use and medication use was determined. In addition, each subject was matched on age, sex and place of residence to four comparators from the general population who were not in specialized treatment. The prevalence of gabapentin purchases in the period between 2008 and 2014 for both populations were compared. Quantification of the amount of gabapentin between two consecutive purchases was used as a proxy for potential abuse.

Results

Out of 30,905 patients in treatment for substance use disorders 2.7% had bought at least once gabapentin in a public pharmacy or received it from a hospital pharmacy, compared to 0.7% in the comparison group (n = 122,142). In both populations, more than half of the patients bought only once or twice gabapentin and about 10.0% bought at least once gabapentin in a time span that could indicate potential abuse. A limitation of the study is that it is only based on reimbursed medication without clinical information.

Conclusion

Through the linkage of the TDI-database and the database of the Belgian health insurance companies, no evidence was found for regular abuse of prescribed gabapentin in Belgium by people in treatment for substance use disorders.

Keywords

  • Substance use disorders
  • Pharmacoepidemiological data
  • Health services
  • Belgium
  • Gabapentin

Background

In August 2006, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted a marketing authorization in all member states of the European Union for gabapentin. It was licensed for neuropathic pain and epilepsy for patients who have partial seizures [1]. Gabapentin is among the medications with the highest proportion of off-label use and has been prescribed for a range of conditions like bipolar disorder, peripheral neuropathy, diabetic neuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, attention deficit disorder, restless legs syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, periodic limb movement, sleeping disorders and migraine headaches [2]. In the majority of circumstances there is evidence that it is not the optimal treatment for these conditions [2], except for some very specific psychiatric disorders. Indeed, people with anxiety disorders might benefit from gabapentin [3], it has clear efficacy for alcohol dependence and relapse-related symptoms of insomnia, dysphoria and craving [3, 4], and it may be used in adjunctive treatment of opioid dependence [5, 6]. In a study by Bramness et al. [7] gabapentin was also successful in helping benzodiazepine users to reduce their consumption of benzodiazepine.

After the EMA granted marketing authorization, the pharmacological effect of gabapentin was quickly recognized by prescribers. For instance, between 2008 and 2012 gabapentin prescribing in the UK increased by 150%, to 3.5 million scripts [8]. Another report in the UK revealed that the prescription of gabapentin rose with 46% between 2011 and 2013 [9].

At the same time, reports mentioned the potential abuse of gabapentin by people with substance use disorders [914]. It was said to constitute a valid substitute for most common illicit drugs and this was a reason of concern [1517].

The main objective of the study was to determine potential abuse by people in treatment for substance use disorders, i.e. whether they bought gabapentin in a time span that could indicate consumption at a dose that exceeded the maximum approved dose of 3600 mg/day. In addition, gabapentin purchases by people in treatment for substance use disorders were compared with purchases by users not in specialized treatment. Indeed, if people with substance use disorders were more susceptible to gabapentin abuse, it was expected that they would buy significantly more gabapentin within a time span that could indicate consumption at a dose that exceeded the maximum approved dose than users who were not in specialized treatment for substance use disorders.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study data from two Belgian national health and population registers were used. Data from the Belgian Treatment Demand Indicator (TDI) database [18] were linked to pharmacoepidemiological and health service use data gathered through the seven Belgian health insurance agencies and consolidated in the InterMutualistic Agency database (IMA) [1921], using the Belgian National Identification Number (NIN). This number is unique for every Belgian citizen and for other people living in Belgium with social security rights. 99% of the people living in Belgium have a NIN [19].

As described in detail by the research protocol [22], inclusion of subjects was defined by patients’ first treatment episode for substance use disorders between 2011 and 2014. An episode was defined as the period between the start of the treatment (i.e. the first face-to-face contact between a professional and the patient) and the end of activities in the context of the program prescribed. Subjects are patients who have sought treatment for substance use disorders within the reference period, without any exclusion criteria concerning nationality or age.

As illustrated by Fig. 1, between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2014 64,805 episodes have been registered in TDI. However, patients could have had more than one treatment episode in the given reference period. In this case only data from the first registered episode were used in present analysis. Moreover episodes can be registered without NIN and this is the case for approximately 33% of data in TDI. Since the NIN is used to identify an individual, this means that the exact number of people who have been in treatment for substance use disorders between 2011 and 2014 remains unknown. All patients registered with a NIN who have been in treatment for substance use disorders between 2011 and 2014 have been confirmed eligible subjects (n = 31,638). Since 117 of them had had their first episode before 2011 and 616 could not be identified in the IMA-database, 30,905 subjects were included in the study.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Set up of the linkage and matching procedure for subjects and comparators of the TDI-IMA database in Belgium

In addition a group of peers has been selected from the general population who had not been in specialized alcohol or drug treatment between 2008 and 2014. Four comparators were matched on age, sex and place of residence to each subject in treatment for substance use disorders. Sex and age were considered to be basic matching variables. The potential confounding of place of residence is related to regional differences in health care regulation, health care seeking and access to specialized medical health care for substance use disorders as well as other differences that might be present, for instance caused by socio-economic status of the patients by region. Some of them were matched to more than one person who was in treatment for substance use disorders. As a result 122,142 individuals who were not in treatment for substance use disorders between 2008 and 2014 were matched to the 30,905 individuals in specialized treatment between 2011 and 2014.

Data was gathered on medication and health service use through the IMA database [20, 21] for the period between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2014. Reimbursement of medication and use of health services is regulated in a very strict way in Belgium and purchases of medication such as gabapentin require a prescription by a physician in order to be delivered by public pharmacies.

Variables of interest and their source are given in Table 1. Details about all variables have been described in the research protocol [22]. All drugs in the IMA-database are classified according to the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC) classification. Information on purchases of gabapentin (ATC-code N03AX12), as primary outcome, was obtained from the database, including the quantity in mg for every purchase. The daily dose for gabapentin was calculated per patient and per purchase by dividing the amount of the dispensed drug by the number of days in the interval between two consecutive dates on which the drug was bought in the period between 2008 and 2014. According to the label, for licensed therapeutic conditions the DDD for gabapentin is 1800 mg/day, which is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for gabapentin used for its main indication in adults and adolescents [23], whereas the maximum dose is 3600 mg/day, i.e. the equivalent of two DDDs. Although gabapentin has been prescribed up to 4800 mg/day in long-term clinical trials on refractory bipolar and unipolar mood disorders [24, 25], other studies on on-labeled and off-labeled use of gabapentin have used 3600 mg/day as the maximum dose. Since there is no therapeutic reason to presume that people in treatment for substance use disorders need a dose that exceeds the maximum dose for licensed conditions, the dose of 3600 mg/day has been maintained in the present study.
Table 1

Variables of interest taken from the Treatment Demand Indicator Database (2011–2014) and the InterMutualistic Agency Database (2008–2014)

Variables only available for subjects (Source: TDI)

 

 Treatment center

 

  Region where subject was treated

 

  Type of program

 

 Subject’s characteristics

 

  Nationality

 

  Educational attainment

 

  Professional situation

 

 Treatment episode for substance use disorders

 

  Date of inclusion (treatment starting date)

 

  Previous treatment episodes (yes/no)

 

  Source of referral

 

  Primary substance

 

  Patterns of use for primary substance

 

  Injecting status

 

Variables available for subjects and comparators (Source: IMA)

 

 Patient characteristics

 

  Age

 

  Sex

 

  Place of residence

 

 Medication purchases

 

  Day, month and year of purchase of gabapentin

 

  Inpatient or outpatient delivery

 

  Product specificities (Defined Daily Doses (DDDs), Quantities Per Package (QPP), Quantities Per Unit (QPU))

 

By quantifying the amount of gabapentin available between two consecutive purchases, it was possible to develop a proxy for potential abuse, defined as the use of gabapentin at a quantity exceeding the maximum dose. The cumulated number of times each patient exceeded this quantity resulted in the times of abuse per patient. Because consumption in inpatient services is strictly controlled, calculations of potential abuse of gabapentin was only limited to outpatient prescriptions. The same method was used for people in treatment for substance use disorders as for people who had not been in specialized treatment. The abovementioned matching procedure allowed comparing the results for people who were in treatment for substance use disorders with those of people who were not in specialized treatment.

Numbers and proportions were used to describe the characteristics for both populations. Using matched univariable and multivariable logistic regression models, associations were studied between sociodemographic variables, the filling of prescriptions that resulted in the patient being dispensed gabapentin, and being in specialized treatment or not. In the multivariable model all factors listed in the univariable model were included. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The reporting of this study conforms to the STROBE guidelines (see Appendix 1) [26].

Results

As shown in Table 2, out of 30,905 patients who were in specialized alcohol and drug treatment between 2011 and 2014, 649 (2.7%) had been prescribed gabapentin at least once in the period between 2008 and 2014. Details about patients’ demographic characteristics are reported in Table 3 and Appendix 2. Almost two thirds of these patients reported an alcohol problem, 9.1% had problems with opioids and also 9.1% was in treatment for hypnotics and sedatives.
Table 2

Number of people who purchased gabapentin in Belgium between 2008 and 2014 who were in specialized alcohol and drug treatment or not

 

In specialized treatment between 2011 and 2014

Not in specialized treatment between 2008 and 2014

 
 

N

%

N

%

OR (95%CI)

Prescribed gabapentin between 2008 and 2014

649

2.7%

872

0.7%

3.0 (2.7–3.3)

Not prescribed gabapentin between 2008 and 2014

30,256

97.3%

121,270

99.3%

 
Table 3

Profile of patients initiated on gabapentin in Belgium between 2008 and 2014 who were in specialized alcohol and drug treatment or not

 

In specialized treatment (N = 649, 2.7%)

Not in specialized treatment (N = 872, 0.7%)

N

%

N

%

Sex

 Male

382

58.9%

503

57.7%

 Female

267

41.1%

369

42.3%

Age categories

 15 y–19 y

5

0.8%

4

0.5%

 20 y–29 y

48

7.4%

59

6.8%

 30 y–39 y

135

20.8%

145

16.6%

 40 y–49 y

184

28.4%

264

30.3%

 50 y–59 y

188

29.0%

275

31.5%

 ≥ 60 y

89

13.7%

125

14.3%

Received prescription gabapentin

 only inpatient

88

13.6%

34

3.9%

 only outpatient

337

51.9%

693

79.5%

 in- and outpatient

224

34.5%

145

16.6%

Initiation to gabapentin

 in outpatient service

469

72.3%

789

90.5%

 in inpatient service

180

27.7%

83

9.5%

Number of prescriptions received per patient –only outpatient prescriptions

 1

247

38.1%

411

47.1%

 2

98

15.1%

137

15.7%

 3

50

7.7%

43

4.9%

 4

42

6.5%

48

5.5%

 5

25

3.9%

23

2.6%

 6–10

69

10.6%

87

10.0%

 11–20

72

11.1%

62

7.1%

 +20

46

7.1%

61

7.0%

Times of abuse (>3600mg/day) – only outpatient prescriptions

 0

505

90.0%

756

90.2%

 1

36

6.4%

51

6.1%

 2

10

1.8%

9

1.1%

 3–10

6

1.1%

21

2.5%

 11–20

3

0.5%

1

0.1%

 +20

1

0.2%

0

0.0%

 Total abusers

56

10.0%

82

9.8%

 Total users (outpatient only)

561

 

838

 

Out of 122,142 people who were not in specialized alcohol and drug treatment, 872 had been prescribed gabapentin at least once (0.7%) (Table 2). The only demographic characteristics available for people who were not in specialized treatment were age and sex, as reported in Table 3.

Patients in specialized treatment had an increased likelihood of having been filled a prescription for gabapentin compared to people who were not in alcohol and drug treatment (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.7–3.3). For both groups, the median age category was 40 to 49 years and slightly more men than women were filled a prescription for gabapentin (Table 3).

As shown in Fig. 2 the relative number of gabapentin users per year increased steadily from 0.03% in 2008 to 1.1% in 2014 among people in specialized treatment and during the same time span from 0.02% to 0.32% among those who had not been in specialized treatment.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Proportion of patients who have been prescribed gabapentin per year on the total number of people in specialized treatment and not in specialized treatment

Among gabapentin users, 72.3% of the patients in specialized treatment and 90.5% of people not in specialized treatment were initiated through outpatient services. Also later on, people who were not in alcohol or drug treatment had an increased likelihood of being dispensed gabapentin through outpatient services (Table 4). For both patients in specialized treatment and those not in specialized treatment, who were filled a prescription through outpatient services, more than half received only one or two prescriptions of gabapentin. Of those who were prescribed gabapentin through outpatient services, 56 (10.0%) of the people in specialized treatment and 82 (9.8%) of the people not in specialized treatment procured at least once gabapentin within a time span which could indicate the use of gabapentin at an estimated daily dosage that exceeded the maximum approved dose of 3600 mg/day. However, being in specialized treatment did not increase the likelihood of potential abuse of gabapentin (Table 4).
Table 4

Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals of being dispensed gabapentin in Belgium for people who were in specialized alcohol and drug treatment

 

Univariable

Multivariablea

Received prescription gabapentin

 only inpatient

1.4 (0.9–2.3)

1.0 (0.5–1.8)

 only outpatient

0.3 (0.2–0.4)

0.2 (0.1–0.3)

 in- and outpatient (reference)

1

1

Initiation to gabapentin

 in outpatient service

0.3 (0.2–0.4)

0.9 (0.6–1.5)

 in inpatient service (reference)

1

1

Number of prescriptions received per patient –only outpatient prescriptions

 1

0.7 (0.4–1.0)

1.5 (0.8–2.8)

 2

0.9 (0.6–1.4)

1.5 (0.8–2.9)

 3

1.5 (0.8–2.6)

2.7 (1.3–5.6)

 4

1.0 (0.6–1.9)

1.6 (0.8–3.3)

 5

1.2 (0.6–2.4)

1.5 (0.6–3.3)

 6–10

1.0 (0.6–1.5)

0.9 (0.5–1.8)

 11–20

1.4 (0.8–2.4)

1.6 (0.9–3.0)

 +20 (Reference)

1

1

Times of abuse (>3600mg/day) – only outpatient prescriptions

 0 (Reference)

1

1

 1

0.9 (0.5–1.3)

0.6 (0.4–1.0)

 2

1.9 (0.6–4.6)

0.8 (0.3–2.6)

 3–10

0.4 (0.2–1.0)

0.4 (0.1–1.0)

 11–20

3.9 (0.4–38.1)

3.6 (0.3–44.0)

 +20

Discussion

Out of 30,905 patients in treatment for substance use disorders between 2011 and 2014, 2.7% had been prescribed gabapentin between 2008 and 2014. Compared to people who were not in specialized treatment in the same period, patients had an increased likelihood of having been filled a prescription for gabapentin. This is not unexpected, given the results of previous research: although gabapentin was licensed by the EMA as a drug for neuropathic pain and epilepsy for patients with partial seizures [1], it has also been reported to be efficient in alcohol dependence, abstinence and acute alcohol withdrawal [4], in the treatment and management of opiates [5] and to reduce the consumption of benzodiazepines [7]. When looking at outpatient support only, almost one in two people in specialized treatment received just one or two prescriptions for gabapentin. It could confirm off-label use of gabapentin in treatment of substance use disorders: gabapentin has been used in clinical trials on alcohol treatment [4, 27] and opioids [5] in protocols of less than one month, whereas protocols for neuropathic pain and epilepsy indicate long term treatment with titration schemes of two to three weeks to start up and a steady reduction in the consumption over at least one week at the end of the therapy [1]. This is also confirmed by the fact that more than 80% of the patients who were prescribed gabapentin were in treatment for alcohol, opioids or benzodiazepines as main substance.

However, if tackling withdrawal symptoms by off-label use of gabapentin is the main reason for the high number of people in specialized treatment with only one or two prescriptions of gabapentin, the question arises why people who were not in treatment for substance use disorders were more likely to get only one prescription. Indeed, 62.8% of them received only one or two prescriptions. One explanation might be that many people with alcohol or benzodiazepine dependence do not enter specialized treatment but prefer to seek help from their general practitioner: 90.5% of the people who were not in specialized treatment received the first prescription for gabapentin through outpatient services, which was significantly higher than for people who were in specialized treatment. Also later on, people who were not in treatment for substance use disorders were more likely to receive gabapentin only at outpatient health services.

The data of present study could not provide evidence to support the concern that people in treatment for substance use disorders are at risk for potential abuse of prescribed gabapentin, as suggested by other studies [917]. Indeed, slightly more than one in four of the people in treatment for substance use disorders who were prescribed gabapentin were filled more than five prescriptions and only 10.0% of the people in treatment for substance use disorders might have used gabapentin at a dose that exceeded the maximum approved dose of 3600 mg/day. More than 80% of them did so only once or twice. It can not be excluded that people who use gabapentin to reinforce or alter the effects of other drugs, buy gabapentin through online pharmacies, from other drug users or from their local drug dealer, as reported before [28, 29], but according to the data the phenomenon of medical and pharmaceutical shopping for gabapentin, whereby patients frequently go from doctor to doctor or from pharmacy to pharmacy, remains marginal in Belgium.

The main strength of the current research is the national coverage of the database and the availability of longitudinal data through the linkage of a database of people in treatment for substance use disorders with socio-economical, pharmacoepidemiological and health service data, as collected by the health insurance agencies.

Nonetheless, some limitations of the database have to be mentioned as well when interpreting the data.

First of all, there are some general limitations related to the linkage of the TDI- and IMA-database as discussed before in the research protocol [22]. Particularly the fact that the database does not contain information on patients’ diagnosis makes it difficult to distinguish between patients for whom gabapentin has been prescribed because of on-label conditions and others with off-label conditions such as substance use disorders. Indeed, people in TDI were in treatment for substance use disorders, but information on any coexisting on-label condition for which gabapentin can be prescribed such as neuropathic pain or epilepsy was missing. As such, it cannot be excluded that some of the patients in TDI with an alcohol or drug problem were prescribed gabapentin for on-label conditions and that any abuse of gabapentin was related to this specific condition rather than to the existing substance use disorders.

Secondly, the analysis was based on DDD, which is a theoretical construct, rather than a directly observed indicator such as Prescribed Daily Doses (PDD) or Consumed Daily Doses (CDD). Although these indicators reflect better actual consumption than DDD, in current study no information was available on the exact prescribed doses, on titration schemes that were used or on actual consumption rates. As such it might be that people have used gabapentin at a dose higher than prescribed by the physician, but since the cut-off of two times the DDD was used as a proxy, this kind of abuse remained unnoticed.

Finally, general practitioners did not participate in the TDI-registration and hence their work with people who seek treatment for substance use disorders is not reflected in the current data. Indeed, the data suggest that some people who were not registered in the TDI-database and for whom no codes of medication used for alcohol dependence (ATC N07BB) or opioid dependence (ATC N07BC) were recorded, were actually in treatment for alcohol or opioid dependence with a caregiver who did not participate in the TDI registration between 2011 and 2014. The IMA-database as such could not provide the necessary information since it is a register of data on reimbursed medication and services. Some medication specifically used in alcohol or opioid dependence is not reimbursed by the Belgian insurance system (e.g. naltrexone) or it is only reimbursed under strict conditions (e.g. nalmefene). Also benzodiazepines are not reimbursed. As such, it might be that some people who were not in specialized treatment were prescribed medication for alcohol, opioid or benzodiazepine dependence, but not correspondingly registered in the IMA-database. As a result any concomitant or prior prescription of gabapentin and non-reimbursed medication for alcohol dependence remained unidentifiable, meaning that some of the people who were not in specialized treatment actually were treated for alcohol dependence. As such it could be that gabapentin is used more frequently in treatment for substance use disorders than suggested by the data. This could have a slight influence on the number of patients with substance use disorders who might have used gabapentin at an estimated daily dosage that exceeded the maximum approved dose.

Conclusion

The current study could not find any indication that people treated for substance use disorders used prescribed gabapentin frequently at a dose that exceeded the maximum approved dose of two times the DDD. These data reflect the regular procurements through pharmacies and hospitals and as such they do not exclude that people purchased gabapentin from local drug dealers or online pharmacies. However, in case of gabapentin the risk of medical shopping by people who were in treatment for substance use disorders in Belgium is considered to be minimal.

Abbreviations

ATC: 

Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System

DDD: 

Daily Defined Doses

EMA: 

European Medicines Agency

EMCDDA: 

European Monitoring Center for Drug and Drug Addiction

EU: 

European Union

IMA: 

Health Insurance Agency (InterMutualistisch Agentschap – Agence InterMutualiste)

NIN: 

National Identification Number

TDI: 

Treatment Demand Indicator

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The TDI-IMA-dataset is not publically available.

Authors’ contributions

LVB carried out the analysis and drafted the manuscript. KDR, JA and LG helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health and Surveillance, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium, Rue Juliette Wytsmanstraat, 14, 1050 Brussels, Belgium

References

  1. EMA - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Referral opinion pursuant to article 30 of council directive 2001/83/EC for Neurontin and associated names. 4–8-2006.Google Scholar
  2. Mack A. Examination of the evidence for off-label use of gabapentin. JMCP. 2003;9:559–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlin RK, Butler PM, Perloff MD. Gabapentin therapy in psychiatric disorders: a systematic review. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2015;17(10)Google Scholar
  4. Mason BJ, Quello S, Goodell V, Shadan F, Kyle M, Begovic A. Gabapentin treatment for alcohol dependence: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:70–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Salehi M, Kheirabadi GR, Maracy MR, Ranjkesh M. Importance of gabapentin dose in treatment of opioid withdrawal. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011;31:593–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Tay KH. Gabapentin and opioid craving. Pain Med. 2009;10:774.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bramness JG, Sandvik P, Engeland A, Skurtveit S. Does Pregabalin (Lyrica®) help patients reduce their use of benzodiazepines? A comparison with gabapentin using the Norwegian prescription database. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. 2010;107:883–6.Google Scholar
  8. Spence D. Bad medicine: gabapentin and pregabalin. BMJ. 2013;347Google Scholar
  9. Stannard C, et.al: Advice for prescribers on the risk of the misuse of pregabalin and gabapentin. PHE publications gateway number: 2014586; NHS England publications gateway number 02387 2014.Google Scholar
  10. Baird CRW, Fox P, Colvin LA. Gabapentinoid abuse in order to potentiate the effect of methadone: a survey among substance misusers. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20:115–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bastiaens L, Galus J, Mazur C. Abuse of gabapentin is associated with opioid addiction. Psychiatry Q. 2016;87:763–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Evoy KE, Morrison MD, Saklad SR. Abuse and misuse of Pregabalin and gabapentin. Drugs. 2017;77:403–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Häkkinen M, Vuori E, Kalso E, Gergov M, Ojanperä I. Profiles of pregabalin and gabapentin abuse by postmortem toxicology. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;241:1–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wilens T, Zulauf C, Ryland D, Carrellas N, Catalina-Wellington I. Prescription medication misuse among opioid dependent patients seeking inpatient detoxification. Am J Addict. 2015;24:173–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Schifano F. Misuse and abuse of Pregabalin and gabapentin: cause for concern? CNS Drugs. 2014;28:491–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Quintero GC. Review about gabapentin misuse, interactions, contraindications and side effects. J Exp Pharmacol. 2017;9:13–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Mersfelder TL, Nichols WH. Gabapentin: abuse, dependence, and withdrawal. Ann Pharmacother. 2015;50:229–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Antoine J, De Ridder K, Plettinckx E, Blanckaert P, Gremeaux L. Treatment for substance use disorders: the Belgian treatment demand indicator registration protocol. Arch Public Health. 2016;74:27.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. IMA. Données Population Populatiedata Layout. 2014. Brussels. Retrieved from: http://www.aim-ima.be/Data-Populatie-53
  20. IMA. Données Pharmanet Farmanet Data Layout. 2014. Brussels. Retrieved from : http://www.aim-ima.be/Data-Farmanet
  21. IMA. Données soins de santé Gezondheidszorg data Layout. 2013. Brussels. Retrieved from: http://www.aim-ima.be/Data-Gezondheidszorgen
  22. Van Baelen L, De Ridder K, Antoine J, Gremeaux L. Longitudinal pharmacoepidemiological and health services research for substance users in treatment: protocol of the Belgian TDI-IMA linkage. Archives of Public Health. 2018;76:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-017-0249-x.
  23. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2013. Oslo; 2012.vGoogle Scholar
  24. Erfurth A, Kammerer C, Grunze H, Normann C, Walden J+. An open label study of gabapentin in the treatment of acute mania. J Psychiatr Res. 1998;32:261–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Obrocea GV, Dunn RM, Frye MA, Ketter TA, Luckenbaugh DA, Leverich GS, Speer AM, Osuch EA, Jajodia K, Post RM. Clinical predictors of response to lamotrigine and gabapentin monotherapy in refractory affective disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51:253–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger, Stuart J Pocock, Peter C Gøtzsche, Jan P Vandenbroucke, (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS Medicine 4 (10):e296Google Scholar
  27. Brower KJ, Myra Kim H, Strobbe S, Karam-Hage MA, Consens F, Zucker RA. A randomized double-blind pilot trial of gabapentin versus placebo to treat alcohol dependence and comorbid insomnia. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32:1429–38.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Grosshans M, Lemenager T, Vollmert C, Kaemmerer N, Schreiner R, Mutschler J, Wagner X, Kiefer F, Hermann D. Pregabalin abuse among opiate addicted patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:2021–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kapil V, Green JL, Le Lait MC, Wood DM, Dargan PI. Misuse of the ϒ-aminobutyric acid analogues baclofen, gabapentin and pregabalin in the UK. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;78:190–1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement