Neurology

From the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH (Ms. Manohar and Dr. Oliver), the Department of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH (Ms. Perkins, Ms. Laurion, and Dr. Oliver), and the Multiple Sclerosis Specialty Care Program, Concord Hospital, Concord, NH (Dr. Oliver).

Abstract

• Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), can be used to assess perceived health status, functioning, quality of life, and experience of care. Complex chronic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis (MS) affect multiple aspects of health, and PROs can be applied in assessment and decision-making in MS care as well as in research pertaining to MS.
• Objective: To provide a general review of PROs, with a specific focus on implications for MS care.
• Methods: Evidence synthesis of available literature on PROs in MS care.
• Results: PROs (including PROMs and PREMs) have historically been utilized in research and are now being applied in clinical, improvement, and population health settings using learning health system approaches in many disease populations, including MS. Many challenges complicate the use of PROs in MS care, including reliability, validity, and interpretability of PROMs, as well as feasibility barriers due to time and financial constraints in clinical settings.
• Conclusion: PROs have the potential to better inform clinical care, empower patient-centered care, inform health care improvement efforts, and create the conditions for coproduction of health care services.

Keywords: PRO; PROM; patient-reported outcome measure; patient-reported experience measure; quality of life; patient-centered care.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling, complex, chronic, immune-mediated disorder of the central nervous system (CNS). MS causes inflammatory and degenerative damage in the CNS, which disrupts signaling pathways.¹ It is most commonly diagnosed in young adults and affects 2.3 million people worldwide.² People with MS experience very different disease courses and a wide range of neurological symptoms, including visual, somatic, mental health, sensory, motor, and cognitive problems.^1-3 Relapsing-remitting MS, the most common form, affects 85% of those with MS and is characterized by periods of relapse (exacerbation) and remission.¹ Other forms of MS (primary progressive and secondary progressive MS) are characterized by progressive deterioration and worsening symptom severity without exacerbations. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can reduce the frequency of exacerbations and disability progression, but unfortunately there is no cure for MS. Treatment is focused on increasing quality of life, minimizing disability, and maximizing wellness.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe the perceived health status, function, and/or experience of a person as obtained by direct self-report. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated PROs that can be used to inform clinical care,⁴ and have demonstrated effectiveness in improving patient-provider communication and decision-making.^5-7 PROMs are currently used in some MS clinical trials to determine the impact of experimental interventions,^8-10 and are also being used to inform and improve clinical care in some settings. Especially for persons with MS, they can provide individualized perspectives about health experience and outcomes.¹¹ In more advanced applications, PROMs can be used to improve face-to-face collaborations between clinicians and patients and to inform patient-centered systems of care.^12-14 PROMs can also be used to inform systems-level improvement for entire patient populations.^15,16

In this article, we review current applications of PROs and PROMs in the care of persons with MS, as well as current limitations and barriers to their use.

CASE STUDY

Marion is a 26-year-old woman who first developed MS symptoms at age 16, including increased sensitivity to heat, blurry vision, and numbness in her legs (note: this case was developed based on interviews with persons with MS, obtained with appropriate consents, and does not represent a specific patient). At that time, her clinician attributed her symptoms to a car accident she had been in a few months before. Later, at age 20, she developed abdominal paresthesia, which her clinician attributed to an episode of shingles. At age 23, she developed double vision. She was evaluated by a neurologist and was diagnosed with MS. Marion started care with an MS specialists, who worked with her towards her goals of having a family, working, and exercising. In addition to appropriate medical care, she started martial arts training and biking for exercise and transitioned to a consulting position with flexible hours and the ability to work from home. Her daughter was born a year later.

At a recent visit to her neurologist, Marion reviews her health diary, in which she has been tracking her fatigue levels throughout the day and when she has to visit the bathroom. The PRO diary also helps her remember details that she might not otherwise be able to recall at the time of her clinic visit. They review the diary entrees together to develop a shared understanding of what Marion has been experiencing and identify trends in the PRO data. They discuss symptom management and use the PRO information from the diary to help guide adjustments to her physical therapy routine and medication regimen.

Part of Marion’s “PRO package” includes the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), a validated depression screening and symptom severity questionnaire that she completes every 3 months. Although she denies being depressed, she has noticed that her CES-D scores in recent months have been consistently increasing. This prompts a discussion about mental health in MS and a referral to work on depression with the MS mental health specialist. Marion and the mental health specialist use CES-D measures at baseline and during treatment to set a remission target and to track progress during treatment. Marion finds this helpful because she says it is hard for her to “wrap my hands around depression… it’s not something that there is a blood test or a MRI for.” Marion is encouraged by being able to see her CES-D scores change as her depression severity decreases, and this helps motivate her to keep engaged in treatment.

PROs and PROMs: General Applications

PROs are measures obtained directly from an individual without a priori interpretation by a clinician.^9,17 PROs capture individual perspectives on symptoms, capability, disability, and health-related quality of life.⁹ With increasing emphasis on patient-centered care,¹⁸ individual perspectives and preferences elicited using PROMs may be able to inform better quality of care and patient-centered disease treatment and management.^19-21

PROMs are standardized, validated questionnaires used to assess PROs and can be generic or condition-specific. Generic PROMs can be used in any patient population. The SF-36²² is a set of quality of life measures that assess perceived ability to complete physical tasks and routine activities, general health status, fatigue, social functioning, pain, and emotional and mental health.²³ Condition-specific PROMs can be used for particular patient populations and are helpful in identifying changes in health status for a specific disease, disability, or surgery. For example, the PDQ-39 assesses 8 dimensions of daily living, functioning, and well-being for people with Parkinson’s disease.²⁴

PROMs have been used in some MS clinical trials and research studies to determine the effectiveness of experimental treatments from the viewpoint of study participants.^9,25,26 PROs can also be utilized in clinical care to facilitate communication of needs and track health outcomes,²⁷ and can inform improvement in outcomes for health systems and populations. They can also be used to assess experience of care,²⁸ encouraging a focus on high-quality outcomes through PRO-connected reimbursement mechanisms,²⁹ and provide aggregate data to evaluate clinical practice, population health outcomes, and the effectiveness of public policies.²⁷

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess patient satisfaction and experience of health care.^30,31 CollaboRATE³² is a PREM that assesses the degree of shared decision-making occurring between patients and clinicians during clinical care. PREMs are currently used for assessing self-efficacy and in shared decision-making and health care improvement applications. PREMs have yet to be developed specifically for persons with MS.

PROMs in MS Care

Generic PROMs have shown that persons with MS are disproportionately burdened by poor quality of life.^33-35 Other generic PROMs, like the SF-36,³⁶ the Sickness Impact Profile,³⁷ and versions of the Health Utilities Index,³⁸ can be used to gather information on dysfunction and to determine quality and duration of life modified by MS-related dysfunction and disability. MS-specific PROMs are used to assess MS impairments, including pain, fatigue, cognition, sexual dysfunction, and depression.^12,39-42 PROMs have also been used in MS clinical trials, including the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29),^43,44 the Leeds MS QoL (LMSQoL),^45,46 the Functional Assessment of MS (FAMS),⁴⁷ the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in MS (HAQUAMS),⁴⁸ the MS Quality of Life-54 (MSQoL-54),⁴⁹ the MS International QoL (MUSIQoL),⁵⁰ and the Patient-Reported Indices for MS Activity Limitations Scale (PRIMUS).⁵¹

Condition-specific PROMs are more sensitive to changes in health status and functioning for persons with MS compared to generic PROMs. They are also more reliable during MS remission and relapse periods.^44,52 For example, the SF-36 has floor and ceiling effects in MS populations—a high proportion of persons with MS are scored at the maximum or minimum levels of the scale, limiting discriminant capability.²² As a result, a “combined approach” using both generic and MS-specific measures is often recommended.⁵³ Some MS PROMs (eg, MSQoL-54) include generic questions found in the SF-36 as well as additional MS-specific questions or scales.

The variety of PROMs available (see Table for a selected listing) introduces a significant challenge to using them—limited generalizability and difficulty comparing PROs across MS studies. Efforts to establish common PROMs have been undertaken to address this problem.⁵⁴ The National Institute of Neurologicical Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) sponsored the development of a neurological quality of life battery, the Neuro-QOL.⁵⁵ Neuro-QOL measures the physical, mental, and social effects of neurological conditions in adults and children with neurological disorders and has the capability to facilitate comparisons across different neurological conditions. Additionally, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) has been developed to assess physical, mental, and social effects of chronic disease. PROMIS has a hybrid design that includes generic and MS-specific measures (such as PROMIS FatigueMS).⁵⁶ PROMIS can be used to assess persons with MS as well as to compare the MS population with other populations with chronic illness.

PROMs have varying levels of reliability and validity. The Evaluating the Measure of Patient-Reported Outcomes⁵⁷ study evaluated the development process of MS PROMs,⁴³ and found that the MSIS-29 and LMSQoL had the highest overall reliability among the most common MS PROMs. However, both scored poorly on validity due to lack of patient involvement during development. This questions the overall capability of existing MS PROMs to accurately and consistently assess PROs in persons with MS.

 

 

“Feed-Forward” PROMs

Oliver and colleagues¹⁶ have described “feed-forward” PROM applications in MS care in a community hospital setting using a learning health system approach. This MS clinic uses feed-forward PROs to inform clinical care—PRO data are gathered before the clinic visit and analyzed ahead of or during the clinic visit by the clinician. Patients are asked to arrive early and complete a questionnaire comprised of PROMs measuring disability, functioning, quality of life, cognitive ability, pain, fatigue, sleep quality, anxiety, and depression. Clinicians score the PROMs and input scores into the electronic health record before the clinical encounter. During the clinic visit, PROM data is visually displayed so that the clinician and patient can discuss results and use the data to better inform decision-making. The visual data display contains longitudinal information, displaying trends in health status across multiple domains, and includes specified thresholds for clinically active symptom levels (Figure).¹⁶ Longitudinal monitoring of PROM data allows for real-time assessment of goal-related progress throughout treatment. As illustrated previously by Marion’s case study, the use of real-time feed-forward PROM data can strengthen the partnership between patient and clinician as well as improve empowerment, engagement, self-monitoring, and adherence.

PRO Dashboards

Performance dashboards are increasingly used in health care to visually display clinical and PRO data for individual patients, systems, and populations over time. Dashboards display a parsimonious group of critically important measures to give clinicians and patients a longitudinal view of PRO status. They can inform decision-making in clinical care, operations, health care improvement efforts, and population health initiatives.⁵⁸ Effective dashboards allow for user customization with meaningful measures, knowledge discovery for analysis of health problems, accessibility of health information, clear visualization, alerts for unexpected data values, and system connectivity.^59,60 Appropriate development of PRO dashboards requires meaningful patient and clinician involvement via focus groups and key informant interviews, Delphi process approaches to prioritize and finalize selection of priority measures, iterative building of the interface with design input from key informants and stakeholders (co-design), and pilot testing to assess feasibility and acceptability of use.^61-63

Other Applications of PROs/PROMs in MS

Learning Health Systems

The National Quality Forum (NQF) and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services have adopted PROs for use in quality measurement.^64-66 This includes a movement towards the use of LHS, defined as a health system in which information from patients and clinicians is systematically collected and synthesized with external evidence to inform clinical care, improvement, and research.^67-70 Often a LHS is undertaken as a collaborative effort between multiple health care centers to improve quality and outcomes of care.⁷⁰ The MS Continuous Quality Improvement Collaborative (MS-CQI), the first multi-center systems-level health care improvement research collaborative for MS,⁷¹ as well as IBD Qorus and the Cystic Fibrosis Care Center Network utilize LHS approaches.^72-77

IBD Qorus is a LHS developed by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation that uses performance dashboards to better inform clinical care for people with inflammatory bowel disease. It also employs system-level dashboards for performance benchmarking in quality improvement initiatives and aggregate-level dashboards to assess population health status.^78,79 MS-CQI uses a LHS approach to inform the improvement of MS care across multiple centers using a comprehensive dashboard, including PROMs, for benchmarking and to monitor system and population health status. MS-CQI collects PROMs using a secure online platform that can be accessed by persons with MS and their clinicians and also includes a journaling feature for collecting qualitative information and for reference and self-monitoring.⁷¹

MS Research

PROMs are used in clinical and epidemiological research to evaluate many aspects of MS, including the FAMS, the PDSS, the Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS), and others.^80-82 For example, the PROMIS FatigueMS and the Fatigue Performance Scale have been used to assess the impact of MS-related fatigue on social participation.⁸³ Generic and MS-specific PROMs have been used to assess pain levels for people with MS,^84-87 and multiple MS-specific PROMs, like PRIMUS and MSQoL-54,⁴³ as well as the SF-36³⁹ include pain assessment scales. PROMs have also been used to assess MS-related bladder, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. Urgency, frequency, and incontinence affect up to 75% of patients with MS,⁸⁸ and many PROMs, such as the LMSQoL, MUSIQoL, and the MSQoL-54, are able to evaluate bladder control and sexual functioning.^43,89

PROMs are employed in MS clinical trials to help assess the tolerability and effectiveness of DMTs.^90,91 PROs have been used as secondary endpoints to understand the global experience of a DMT from the patient perspective.^92-94 There are 15 FDA-approved DMTs for MS, and clinical trials for 6 of these have used PROMs as an effectiveness end point.^54,91,95,96 However, most DMT clinical trials are powered for MRI, relapse rate, or disease progression primary outcomes rather than PROMs, often resulting in underpowered PROM analyses.⁹⁷ In addition, many PROMs are not appropriate for use in DMT clinical trials.^98,99

In order to bridge the gap between clinical research and practice, some industry entities are championing “patient-focused drug development” approaches. The Accelerated Cure Project for MS has launched iConquerMS, which collects PROMs from persons with MS to further PRO research in MS and follows 4700 individuals with MS worldwide.¹⁰⁰ In 2018, the American College of Physicians announced a collaboration with an industry partner to share data to inform DMT clinical trials and develop and validate PROMs specifically designed for DMT clinical trials.¹⁰¹

Population Health

Registries following large cohorts of people with MS have the potential to develop knowledge about disease progression, treatment patterns, and outcomes.¹⁰² The Swedish EIMS study has identified associations between pre-disease body mass index and MS prognosis,¹⁰² alcohol and tobacco consumption affecting MS risk,^103,104 and exposure to shift work at a young age and increased MS risk.¹⁰⁵ The North American Research Committee on MS^83,106,107 and iConquerMS registries are “PROM-driven” and have been useful in identifying reductions in disease progression in people using DMTs.^107,108 The New York State MS Consortium has identified important demographic characteristics that influence MS progression.^109,110 PROs can also be used to determine risk of MS-related mortality¹¹¹ and decline in quality of life.^112,113 Limitations of these approaches include use of different PROMs, inconsistencies in data collection processes, and different follow-up intervals used across registries.¹⁰²

Patient-Centered Care

The Institute of Medicine defines patient-centeredness as “care that is respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensures that patient values guide all clinical decisions.”¹¹⁴ PROs are useful for identifying a patient’s individual health concerns and preferences, something that is needed when treating a highly variable chronic health condition like MS. The use of PROs can help clinicicans visualize the lived experience of persons with MS and identify personal preferences,¹¹⁵ as well as improve self-monitoring, self-management, self-efficacy, adherence, wellness, and coping ability.¹¹⁶ At the system level, PROs can inform improvement initiatives and patient-centered care design efforts.^117-120

Selecting PROMs

Initiatives from groups like the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)¹²¹ and the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL)¹⁰⁸ offer guidance on selecting PROs. The NINDS has promoted common data collection between clinical studies of the brain and nervous system.¹²² General guidance from these sources recommends first considering the outcome and target population, selecting PROMs to measure the outcome through a synthesis of the available evidence, assessing validity and reliability of selected PROMs, and using standard measures that can be compared across studies or populations.^108,121 Other factors include feasibility, acceptability, and burden of use for patients, clinicians, and systems, as well as literacy, cultural, and linguistic factors.¹²³

The NQF recommends that consideration be given to individual patient needs, insurance factors, clinical setting constraints, and available resources when selecting PROMs.¹²⁴ To maximize response rate, PROMs that are sensitive, reliable, valid, and developed in a comparative demographic of patients are advised.¹²⁵ ISOQOL has released a User’s Guide and several companion guides on implementing and utilizing PROMs.^108,126,127 Finally, PRO-Performance Measures (PRO-PMs) are sometimes used to assess whether PROMs are appropriately contributing to performance improvement and accountability.¹²⁴

The Cons of PROs

Time and Software Constraints

PROs can disrupt busy clinical care environments and overextend clinical staff.¹²⁵ Online collection of PROs outside of clinical encounters can relieve PRO-related burden, but this requires finding and funding appropriate secure online networks to effectively collect PROs.¹²⁸ In 2015, only 60% of people seen for primary care visits could access or view their records online, and of those, only 57% used messaging for medical questions or concerns.¹²⁹ Ideally, online patient portal or mobile health apps could synchronize directly to electronic health records or virtual scribes to transfer patient communications into clinical documentation.¹³⁰ There has been limited success with this approach in European countries¹³¹ and with some chronic illness conditions in the United States.⁷⁴

Electronic health technologies, including mobile health (mHealth) solutions, have improved the self-monitoring and self-management capability of patients with MS via information sharing in patient networks, assistive technologies, smartphone applications, and wearable devices.^132,133 A recent study found that communication modes included secure online patient portal use (29%) and email use (21%), and among those who owned tablets or smartphones, 46% used mHealth apps.¹³⁴ Social media use has been associated with increased peer/social/emotional support and increased access to health information, as well as clinical monitoring and behavior change.^134,135 Individuals using mHealth apps are younger, have comorbidities, and have higher socioeconomic and education levels,^135,136 suggesting that inequities in mHealth access exist.

Burden on People with MS

Questionnaires can be time-consuming and cause mental distress if not appropriately facilitated.¹³⁷ Decreasing questionnaire length and providing the option for PROMs to be delivered and completed online or outside of the clinic context can reduce burden.¹³⁸ Additionally, while some people are consistent in sharing their PROs, others struggle with using computers, especially while experiencing severe symptoms, forget to complete PROMs, or simply do not have internet access due to financial or geographic constraints.¹³⁹ A group of disabled and elderly persons with MS reported barriers to internet use due to visual deficits, small website font sizes, and distracting color schemes.¹⁴⁰

Interpretability

Interpreting PROMs and displays of longitudinal PROM data can be a challenge for persons with MS and their clinicians. There is little standardization in how PROMs are scored and presented, and there is often confusion about thresholds for clinical significance and how PROM scores can be compared to other PROMs.^141,142 While guidelines exist for implementing PRO scores in clinical settings,^126,143 there are few that aid PROM interpretation. As a result, clinicians often seek research evidence for PROMs used in other similar patient populations as a benchmark,^142-144 or compare them to other patients seen in their clinical practice.

Longitudinal PRO data are usually displayed in simple line graphs.^145,146 Overall, line graphs have been found to have the highest ease of understanding by both patients and clinicians, but sometimes can be confusing.¹⁴⁷ For example, upward trending lines are usually viewed as improvement and downward trending lines as decline; however, upward trending scores on a PROM can indicate decline, such as increasing fatigue severity. Annotation of visual displays can help. Patients and clinicians find that employing thresholds and color coding is useful, and better than “stoplight” red-yellow-green shading schemes or red-circle formats to indicate data that warrant attention.¹⁴²

Error Risks

PROs are not free of risk for error, especially if they are used independently of other information sources, such as clinical interview, examination, and diagnostic testing, or if they are utilized too frequently, too infrequently, or are duplicated in practice. If a PRO instrument is employed too frequently, score changes may reflect learning effects rather than actual clinical status. Conversely, if used too infrequently, PRO information will not be timely enough to inform real-time clinical practice. Duplication of PRO assessments (eg, multiple measures of the same PRO for the same patient on the same day) or use of multiple PRO measures to assess the same aspect (eg, 2 measures used to assess fatigue) could introduce unnecessary complexity and confusion to interpretation of PRO results.

PRO measures also can be biased or modified by clinical status and/or perceptions of people with MS at the time of assessment. For example, cognitive impairment, whether at baseline state or due to a cognitive MS relapse event, could impact patients’ ability to understand and respond to PRO assessments, producing erroneous results. However, when used appropriately, PROs targeting cognitive dysfunction may be able to detect onset of cognitive events or help to measure recovery from them. Finally, PROs measure perceived (self-reported) status, which may not be an accurate depiction of actual status.

All of these potential pitfalls support the argument that PROs should be utilized to augment the clinical interview, examination, and diagnostic (objective) testing aspects of comprehensive MS care. In this way, PROs can be correlated with other information sources to deepen the shared understanding of health status between a person with MS and her clinician, increasing the potential to make better treatment decisions and care plans together in partnership.

Value and Cost

National groups such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) are working with regulatory bodies, funding agencies, insurance providers, patient advocacy groups, researchers, providers, and specialty groups to investigate how PROMs can be implemented into value-based health care reforms, including value-based reimbursement.¹⁴⁸ However, practical PRO implementation requires considerable time and resources, and many methodological and operational questions must be addressed before widespread adoption and reimbursement for PROMs will be feasible.^148,149

 

 

Summary

PROs can generate valuable information about perceived health status, function, quality of life, and experience of care using self-reported sources. Validated PRO assessment tools include PROMs and PREMs. PROs are currently utilized in research settings (especially PROMs) but are also being used in clinical practice, quality improvement initiatives, and population health applications using LHS approaches. PROs have the advantages of empowering and informing persons with MS and clinicians to optimize patient-centered care, improve systems of care, and study population health outcomes. Barriers include PROM validity, reliability, comparability, specificity, interpretability, equity, time, and cost. Generic PROMs and PREMs, and some MS-specific PROMs, can be used for persons with MS. Unfortunately, no PREMs have been developed specifically for persons with MS, and this is an area for future research. With appropriate development and utilization in LHS applications, PROs can inform patient-centered clinical care, system-level improvement initiatives, and population health research, and have the potential to help facilitate coproduction of health care services.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Ann Cabot, DO, of the MS Specialty Care Program at Concord Hospital and (especially) peer mentors from a peer outreach wellness program for people with MS (who have asked to remain anonymous) for interviews conducted with their permission to inform the case study described in this article. The case study used in this manuscript has been de-identified, with some aspects modified from actual, and the person in the case study is fictitiously named.

Corresponding author: Brant Oliver, PhD, MS, MPH, APRN-BC, Department of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH (Ms. Manohar and Dr. Oliver), the Department of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH (Ms. Perkins, Ms. Laurion, and Dr. Oliver), and the Multiple Sclerosis Specialty Care Program, Concord Hospital, Concord, NH (Dr. Oliver).

Abstract

• Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), can be used to assess perceived health status, functioning, quality of life, and experience of care. Complex chronic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis (MS) affect multiple aspects of health, and PROs can be applied in assessment and decision-making in MS care as well as in research pertaining to MS.
• Objective: To provide a general review of PROs, with a specific focus on implications for MS care.
• Methods: Evidence synthesis of available literature on PROs in MS care.
• Results: PROs (including PROMs and PREMs) have historically been utilized in research and are now being applied in clinical, improvement, and population health settings using learning health system approaches in many disease populations, including MS. Many challenges complicate the use of PROs in MS care, including reliability, validity, and interpretability of PROMs, as well as feasibility barriers due to time and financial constraints in clinical settings.
• Conclusion: PROs have the potential to better inform clinical care, empower patient-centered care, inform health care improvement efforts, and create the conditions for coproduction of health care services.

Keywords: PRO; PROM; patient-reported outcome measure; patient-reported experience measure; quality of life; patient-centered care.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling, complex, chronic, immune-mediated disorder of the central nervous system (CNS). MS causes inflammatory and degenerative damage in the CNS, which disrupts signaling pathways.¹ It is most commonly diagnosed in young adults and affects 2.3 million people worldwide.² People with MS experience very different disease courses and a wide range of neurological symptoms, including visual, somatic, mental health, sensory, motor, and cognitive problems.^1-3 Relapsing-remitting MS, the most common form, affects 85% of those with MS and is characterized by periods of relapse (exacerbation) and remission.¹ Other forms of MS (primary progressive and secondary progressive MS) are characterized by progressive deterioration and worsening symptom severity without exacerbations. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can reduce the frequency of exacerbations and disability progression, but unfortunately there is no cure for MS. Treatment is focused on increasing quality of life, minimizing disability, and maximizing wellness.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe the perceived health status, function, and/or experience of a person as obtained by direct self-report. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated PROs that can be used to inform clinical care,⁴ and have demonstrated effectiveness in improving patient-provider communication and decision-making.^5-7 PROMs are currently used in some MS clinical trials to determine the impact of experimental interventions,^8-10 and are also being used to inform and improve clinical care in some settings. Especially for persons with MS, they can provide individualized perspectives about health experience and outcomes.¹¹ In more advanced applications, PROMs can be used to improve face-to-face collaborations between clinicians and patients and to inform patient-centered systems of care.^12-14 PROMs can also be used to inform systems-level improvement for entire patient populations.^15,16

In this article, we review current applications of PROs and PROMs in the care of persons with MS, as well as current limitations and barriers to their use.

CASE STUDY

Marion is a 26-year-old woman who first developed MS symptoms at age 16, including increased sensitivity to heat, blurry vision, and numbness in her legs (note: this case was developed based on interviews with persons with MS, obtained with appropriate consents, and does not represent a specific patient). At that time, her clinician attributed her symptoms to a car accident she had been in a few months before. Later, at age 20, she developed abdominal paresthesia, which her clinician attributed to an episode of shingles. At age 23, she developed double vision. She was evaluated by a neurologist and was diagnosed with MS. Marion started care with an MS specialists, who worked with her towards her goals of having a family, working, and exercising. In addition to appropriate medical care, she started martial arts training and biking for exercise and transitioned to a consulting position with flexible hours and the ability to work from home. Her daughter was born a year later.

At a recent visit to her neurologist, Marion reviews her health diary, in which she has been tracking her fatigue levels throughout the day and when she has to visit the bathroom. The PRO diary also helps her remember details that she might not otherwise be able to recall at the time of her clinic visit. They review the diary entrees together to develop a shared understanding of what Marion has been experiencing and identify trends in the PRO data. They discuss symptom management and use the PRO information from the diary to help guide adjustments to her physical therapy routine and medication regimen.

Part of Marion’s “PRO package” includes the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), a validated depression screening and symptom severity questionnaire that she completes every 3 months. Although she denies being depressed, she has noticed that her CES-D scores in recent months have been consistently increasing. This prompts a discussion about mental health in MS and a referral to work on depression with the MS mental health specialist. Marion and the mental health specialist use CES-D measures at baseline and during treatment to set a remission target and to track progress during treatment. Marion finds this helpful because she says it is hard for her to “wrap my hands around depression… it’s not something that there is a blood test or a MRI for.” Marion is encouraged by being able to see her CES-D scores change as her depression severity decreases, and this helps motivate her to keep engaged in treatment.

PROs and PROMs: General Applications

PROs are measures obtained directly from an individual without a priori interpretation by a clinician.^9,17 PROs capture individual perspectives on symptoms, capability, disability, and health-related quality of life.⁹ With increasing emphasis on patient-centered care,¹⁸ individual perspectives and preferences elicited using PROMs may be able to inform better quality of care and patient-centered disease treatment and management.^19-21

PROMs are standardized, validated questionnaires used to assess PROs and can be generic or condition-specific. Generic PROMs can be used in any patient population. The SF-36²² is a set of quality of life measures that assess perceived ability to complete physical tasks and routine activities, general health status, fatigue, social functioning, pain, and emotional and mental health.²³ Condition-specific PROMs can be used for particular patient populations and are helpful in identifying changes in health status for a specific disease, disability, or surgery. For example, the PDQ-39 assesses 8 dimensions of daily living, functioning, and well-being for people with Parkinson’s disease.²⁴

PROMs have been used in some MS clinical trials and research studies to determine the effectiveness of experimental treatments from the viewpoint of study participants.^9,25,26 PROs can also be utilized in clinical care to facilitate communication of needs and track health outcomes,²⁷ and can inform improvement in outcomes for health systems and populations. They can also be used to assess experience of care,²⁸ encouraging a focus on high-quality outcomes through PRO-connected reimbursement mechanisms,²⁹ and provide aggregate data to evaluate clinical practice, population health outcomes, and the effectiveness of public policies.²⁷

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess patient satisfaction and experience of health care.^30,31 CollaboRATE³² is a PREM that assesses the degree of shared decision-making occurring between patients and clinicians during clinical care. PREMs are currently used for assessing self-efficacy and in shared decision-making and health care improvement applications. PREMs have yet to be developed specifically for persons with MS.

PROMs in MS Care

Generic PROMs have shown that persons with MS are disproportionately burdened by poor quality of life.^33-35 Other generic PROMs, like the SF-36,³⁶ the Sickness Impact Profile,³⁷ and versions of the Health Utilities Index,³⁸ can be used to gather information on dysfunction and to determine quality and duration of life modified by MS-related dysfunction and disability. MS-specific PROMs are used to assess MS impairments, including pain, fatigue, cognition, sexual dysfunction, and depression.^12,39-42 PROMs have also been used in MS clinical trials, including the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29),^43,44 the Leeds MS QoL (LMSQoL),^45,46 the Functional Assessment of MS (FAMS),⁴⁷ the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in MS (HAQUAMS),⁴⁸ the MS Quality of Life-54 (MSQoL-54),⁴⁹ the MS International QoL (MUSIQoL),⁵⁰ and the Patient-Reported Indices for MS Activity Limitations Scale (PRIMUS).⁵¹

Condition-specific PROMs are more sensitive to changes in health status and functioning for persons with MS compared to generic PROMs. They are also more reliable during MS remission and relapse periods.^44,52 For example, the SF-36 has floor and ceiling effects in MS populations—a high proportion of persons with MS are scored at the maximum or minimum levels of the scale, limiting discriminant capability.²² As a result, a “combined approach” using both generic and MS-specific measures is often recommended.⁵³ Some MS PROMs (eg, MSQoL-54) include generic questions found in the SF-36 as well as additional MS-specific questions or scales.

The variety of PROMs available (see Table for a selected listing) introduces a significant challenge to using them—limited generalizability and difficulty comparing PROs across MS studies. Efforts to establish common PROMs have been undertaken to address this problem.⁵⁴ The National Institute of Neurologicical Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) sponsored the development of a neurological quality of life battery, the Neuro-QOL.⁵⁵ Neuro-QOL measures the physical, mental, and social effects of neurological conditions in adults and children with neurological disorders and has the capability to facilitate comparisons across different neurological conditions. Additionally, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) has been developed to assess physical, mental, and social effects of chronic disease. PROMIS has a hybrid design that includes generic and MS-specific measures (such as PROMIS FatigueMS).⁵⁶ PROMIS can be used to assess persons with MS as well as to compare the MS population with other populations with chronic illness.

PROMs have varying levels of reliability and validity. The Evaluating the Measure of Patient-Reported Outcomes⁵⁷ study evaluated the development process of MS PROMs,⁴³ and found that the MSIS-29 and LMSQoL had the highest overall reliability among the most common MS PROMs. However, both scored poorly on validity due to lack of patient involvement during development. This questions the overall capability of existing MS PROMs to accurately and consistently assess PROs in persons with MS.

 

 

“Feed-Forward” PROMs

Oliver and colleagues¹⁶ have described “feed-forward” PROM applications in MS care in a community hospital setting using a learning health system approach. This MS clinic uses feed-forward PROs to inform clinical care—PRO data are gathered before the clinic visit and analyzed ahead of or during the clinic visit by the clinician. Patients are asked to arrive early and complete a questionnaire comprised of PROMs measuring disability, functioning, quality of life, cognitive ability, pain, fatigue, sleep quality, anxiety, and depression. Clinicians score the PROMs and input scores into the electronic health record before the clinical encounter. During the clinic visit, PROM data is visually displayed so that the clinician and patient can discuss results and use the data to better inform decision-making. The visual data display contains longitudinal information, displaying trends in health status across multiple domains, and includes specified thresholds for clinically active symptom levels (Figure).¹⁶ Longitudinal monitoring of PROM data allows for real-time assessment of goal-related progress throughout treatment. As illustrated previously by Marion’s case study, the use of real-time feed-forward PROM data can strengthen the partnership between patient and clinician as well as improve empowerment, engagement, self-monitoring, and adherence.

PRO Dashboards

Performance dashboards are increasingly used in health care to visually display clinical and PRO data for individual patients, systems, and populations over time. Dashboards display a parsimonious group of critically important measures to give clinicians and patients a longitudinal view of PRO status. They can inform decision-making in clinical care, operations, health care improvement efforts, and population health initiatives.⁵⁸ Effective dashboards allow for user customization with meaningful measures, knowledge discovery for analysis of health problems, accessibility of health information, clear visualization, alerts for unexpected data values, and system connectivity.^59,60 Appropriate development of PRO dashboards requires meaningful patient and clinician involvement via focus groups and key informant interviews, Delphi process approaches to prioritize and finalize selection of priority measures, iterative building of the interface with design input from key informants and stakeholders (co-design), and pilot testing to assess feasibility and acceptability of use.^61-63

Other Applications of PROs/PROMs in MS

Learning Health Systems

The National Quality Forum (NQF) and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services have adopted PROs for use in quality measurement.^64-66 This includes a movement towards the use of LHS, defined as a health system in which information from patients and clinicians is systematically collected and synthesized with external evidence to inform clinical care, improvement, and research.^67-70 Often a LHS is undertaken as a collaborative effort between multiple health care centers to improve quality and outcomes of care.⁷⁰ The MS Continuous Quality Improvement Collaborative (MS-CQI), the first multi-center systems-level health care improvement research collaborative for MS,⁷¹ as well as IBD Qorus and the Cystic Fibrosis Care Center Network utilize LHS approaches.^72-77

IBD Qorus is a LHS developed by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation that uses performance dashboards to better inform clinical care for people with inflammatory bowel disease. It also employs system-level dashboards for performance benchmarking in quality improvement initiatives and aggregate-level dashboards to assess population health status.^78,79 MS-CQI uses a LHS approach to inform the improvement of MS care across multiple centers using a comprehensive dashboard, including PROMs, for benchmarking and to monitor system and population health status. MS-CQI collects PROMs using a secure online platform that can be accessed by persons with MS and their clinicians and also includes a journaling feature for collecting qualitative information and for reference and self-monitoring.⁷¹

MS Research

PROMs are used in clinical and epidemiological research to evaluate many aspects of MS, including the FAMS, the PDSS, the Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS), and others.^80-82 For example, the PROMIS FatigueMS and the Fatigue Performance Scale have been used to assess the impact of MS-related fatigue on social participation.⁸³ Generic and MS-specific PROMs have been used to assess pain levels for people with MS,^84-87 and multiple MS-specific PROMs, like PRIMUS and MSQoL-54,⁴³ as well as the SF-36³⁹ include pain assessment scales. PROMs have also been used to assess MS-related bladder, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. Urgency, frequency, and incontinence affect up to 75% of patients with MS,⁸⁸ and many PROMs, such as the LMSQoL, MUSIQoL, and the MSQoL-54, are able to evaluate bladder control and sexual functioning.^43,89

PROMs are employed in MS clinical trials to help assess the tolerability and effectiveness of DMTs.^90,91 PROs have been used as secondary endpoints to understand the global experience of a DMT from the patient perspective.^92-94 There are 15 FDA-approved DMTs for MS, and clinical trials for 6 of these have used PROMs as an effectiveness end point.^54,91,95,96 However, most DMT clinical trials are powered for MRI, relapse rate, or disease progression primary outcomes rather than PROMs, often resulting in underpowered PROM analyses.⁹⁷ In addition, many PROMs are not appropriate for use in DMT clinical trials.^98,99

In order to bridge the gap between clinical research and practice, some industry entities are championing “patient-focused drug development” approaches. The Accelerated Cure Project for MS has launched iConquerMS, which collects PROMs from persons with MS to further PRO research in MS and follows 4700 individuals with MS worldwide.¹⁰⁰ In 2018, the American College of Physicians announced a collaboration with an industry partner to share data to inform DMT clinical trials and develop and validate PROMs specifically designed for DMT clinical trials.¹⁰¹

Population Health

Registries following large cohorts of people with MS have the potential to develop knowledge about disease progression, treatment patterns, and outcomes.¹⁰² The Swedish EIMS study has identified associations between pre-disease body mass index and MS prognosis,¹⁰² alcohol and tobacco consumption affecting MS risk,^103,104 and exposure to shift work at a young age and increased MS risk.¹⁰⁵ The North American Research Committee on MS^83,106,107 and iConquerMS registries are “PROM-driven” and have been useful in identifying reductions in disease progression in people using DMTs.^107,108 The New York State MS Consortium has identified important demographic characteristics that influence MS progression.^109,110 PROs can also be used to determine risk of MS-related mortality¹¹¹ and decline in quality of life.^112,113 Limitations of these approaches include use of different PROMs, inconsistencies in data collection processes, and different follow-up intervals used across registries.¹⁰²

Patient-Centered Care

The Institute of Medicine defines patient-centeredness as “care that is respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensures that patient values guide all clinical decisions.”¹¹⁴ PROs are useful for identifying a patient’s individual health concerns and preferences, something that is needed when treating a highly variable chronic health condition like MS. The use of PROs can help clinicicans visualize the lived experience of persons with MS and identify personal preferences,¹¹⁵ as well as improve self-monitoring, self-management, self-efficacy, adherence, wellness, and coping ability.¹¹⁶ At the system level, PROs can inform improvement initiatives and patient-centered care design efforts.^117-120

Selecting PROMs

Initiatives from groups like the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)¹²¹ and the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL)¹⁰⁸ offer guidance on selecting PROs. The NINDS has promoted common data collection between clinical studies of the brain and nervous system.¹²² General guidance from these sources recommends first considering the outcome and target population, selecting PROMs to measure the outcome through a synthesis of the available evidence, assessing validity and reliability of selected PROMs, and using standard measures that can be compared across studies or populations.^108,121 Other factors include feasibility, acceptability, and burden of use for patients, clinicians, and systems, as well as literacy, cultural, and linguistic factors.¹²³

The NQF recommends that consideration be given to individual patient needs, insurance factors, clinical setting constraints, and available resources when selecting PROMs.¹²⁴ To maximize response rate, PROMs that are sensitive, reliable, valid, and developed in a comparative demographic of patients are advised.¹²⁵ ISOQOL has released a User’s Guide and several companion guides on implementing and utilizing PROMs.^108,126,127 Finally, PRO-Performance Measures (PRO-PMs) are sometimes used to assess whether PROMs are appropriately contributing to performance improvement and accountability.¹²⁴

The Cons of PROs

Time and Software Constraints

PROs can disrupt busy clinical care environments and overextend clinical staff.¹²⁵ Online collection of PROs outside of clinical encounters can relieve PRO-related burden, but this requires finding and funding appropriate secure online networks to effectively collect PROs.¹²⁸ In 2015, only 60% of people seen for primary care visits could access or view their records online, and of those, only 57% used messaging for medical questions or concerns.¹²⁹ Ideally, online patient portal or mobile health apps could synchronize directly to electronic health records or virtual scribes to transfer patient communications into clinical documentation.¹³⁰ There has been limited success with this approach in European countries¹³¹ and with some chronic illness conditions in the United States.⁷⁴

Electronic health technologies, including mobile health (mHealth) solutions, have improved the self-monitoring and self-management capability of patients with MS via information sharing in patient networks, assistive technologies, smartphone applications, and wearable devices.^132,133 A recent study found that communication modes included secure online patient portal use (29%) and email use (21%), and among those who owned tablets or smartphones, 46% used mHealth apps.¹³⁴ Social media use has been associated with increased peer/social/emotional support and increased access to health information, as well as clinical monitoring and behavior change.^134,135 Individuals using mHealth apps are younger, have comorbidities, and have higher socioeconomic and education levels,^135,136 suggesting that inequities in mHealth access exist.

Burden on People with MS

Questionnaires can be time-consuming and cause mental distress if not appropriately facilitated.¹³⁷ Decreasing questionnaire length and providing the option for PROMs to be delivered and completed online or outside of the clinic context can reduce burden.¹³⁸ Additionally, while some people are consistent in sharing their PROs, others struggle with using computers, especially while experiencing severe symptoms, forget to complete PROMs, or simply do not have internet access due to financial or geographic constraints.¹³⁹ A group of disabled and elderly persons with MS reported barriers to internet use due to visual deficits, small website font sizes, and distracting color schemes.¹⁴⁰

Interpretability

Interpreting PROMs and displays of longitudinal PROM data can be a challenge for persons with MS and their clinicians. There is little standardization in how PROMs are scored and presented, and there is often confusion about thresholds for clinical significance and how PROM scores can be compared to other PROMs.^141,142 While guidelines exist for implementing PRO scores in clinical settings,^126,143 there are few that aid PROM interpretation. As a result, clinicians often seek research evidence for PROMs used in other similar patient populations as a benchmark,^142-144 or compare them to other patients seen in their clinical practice.

Longitudinal PRO data are usually displayed in simple line graphs.^145,146 Overall, line graphs have been found to have the highest ease of understanding by both patients and clinicians, but sometimes can be confusing.¹⁴⁷ For example, upward trending lines are usually viewed as improvement and downward trending lines as decline; however, upward trending scores on a PROM can indicate decline, such as increasing fatigue severity. Annotation of visual displays can help. Patients and clinicians find that employing thresholds and color coding is useful, and better than “stoplight” red-yellow-green shading schemes or red-circle formats to indicate data that warrant attention.¹⁴²

Error Risks

PROs are not free of risk for error, especially if they are used independently of other information sources, such as clinical interview, examination, and diagnostic testing, or if they are utilized too frequently, too infrequently, or are duplicated in practice. If a PRO instrument is employed too frequently, score changes may reflect learning effects rather than actual clinical status. Conversely, if used too infrequently, PRO information will not be timely enough to inform real-time clinical practice. Duplication of PRO assessments (eg, multiple measures of the same PRO for the same patient on the same day) or use of multiple PRO measures to assess the same aspect (eg, 2 measures used to assess fatigue) could introduce unnecessary complexity and confusion to interpretation of PRO results.

PRO measures also can be biased or modified by clinical status and/or perceptions of people with MS at the time of assessment. For example, cognitive impairment, whether at baseline state or due to a cognitive MS relapse event, could impact patients’ ability to understand and respond to PRO assessments, producing erroneous results. However, when used appropriately, PROs targeting cognitive dysfunction may be able to detect onset of cognitive events or help to measure recovery from them. Finally, PROs measure perceived (self-reported) status, which may not be an accurate depiction of actual status.

All of these potential pitfalls support the argument that PROs should be utilized to augment the clinical interview, examination, and diagnostic (objective) testing aspects of comprehensive MS care. In this way, PROs can be correlated with other information sources to deepen the shared understanding of health status between a person with MS and her clinician, increasing the potential to make better treatment decisions and care plans together in partnership.

Value and Cost

National groups such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) are working with regulatory bodies, funding agencies, insurance providers, patient advocacy groups, researchers, providers, and specialty groups to investigate how PROMs can be implemented into value-based health care reforms, including value-based reimbursement.¹⁴⁸ However, practical PRO implementation requires considerable time and resources, and many methodological and operational questions must be addressed before widespread adoption and reimbursement for PROMs will be feasible.^148,149

 

 

Summary

PROs can generate valuable information about perceived health status, function, quality of life, and experience of care using self-reported sources. Validated PRO assessment tools include PROMs and PREMs. PROs are currently utilized in research settings (especially PROMs) but are also being used in clinical practice, quality improvement initiatives, and population health applications using LHS approaches. PROs have the advantages of empowering and informing persons with MS and clinicians to optimize patient-centered care, improve systems of care, and study population health outcomes. Barriers include PROM validity, reliability, comparability, specificity, interpretability, equity, time, and cost. Generic PROMs and PREMs, and some MS-specific PROMs, can be used for persons with MS. Unfortunately, no PREMs have been developed specifically for persons with MS, and this is an area for future research. With appropriate development and utilization in LHS applications, PROs can inform patient-centered clinical care, system-level improvement initiatives, and population health research, and have the potential to help facilitate coproduction of health care services.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Ann Cabot, DO, of the MS Specialty Care Program at Concord Hospital and (especially) peer mentors from a peer outreach wellness program for people with MS (who have asked to remain anonymous) for interviews conducted with their permission to inform the case study described in this article. The case study used in this manuscript has been de-identified, with some aspects modified from actual, and the person in the case study is fictitiously named.

Corresponding author: Brant Oliver, PhD, MS, MPH, APRN-BC, Department of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH (Ms. Manohar and Dr. Oliver), the Department of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH (Ms. Perkins, Ms. Laurion, and Dr. Oliver), and the Multiple Sclerosis Specialty Care Program, Concord Hospital, Concord, NH (Dr. Oliver).

Abstract

• Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), can be used to assess perceived health status, functioning, quality of life, and experience of care. Complex chronic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis (MS) affect multiple aspects of health, and PROs can be applied in assessment and decision-making in MS care as well as in research pertaining to MS.
• Objective: To provide a general review of PROs, with a specific focus on implications for MS care.
• Methods: Evidence synthesis of available literature on PROs in MS care.
• Results: PROs (including PROMs and PREMs) have historically been utilized in research and are now being applied in clinical, improvement, and population health settings using learning health system approaches in many disease populations, including MS. Many challenges complicate the use of PROs in MS care, including reliability, validity, and interpretability of PROMs, as well as feasibility barriers due to time and financial constraints in clinical settings.
• Conclusion: PROs have the potential to better inform clinical care, empower patient-centered care, inform health care improvement efforts, and create the conditions for coproduction of health care services.

Keywords: PRO; PROM; patient-reported outcome measure; patient-reported experience measure; quality of life; patient-centered care.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabling, complex, chronic, immune-mediated disorder of the central nervous system (CNS). MS causes inflammatory and degenerative damage in the CNS, which disrupts signaling pathways.¹ It is most commonly diagnosed in young adults and affects 2.3 million people worldwide.² People with MS experience very different disease courses and a wide range of neurological symptoms, including visual, somatic, mental health, sensory, motor, and cognitive problems.^1-3 Relapsing-remitting MS, the most common form, affects 85% of those with MS and is characterized by periods of relapse (exacerbation) and remission.¹ Other forms of MS (primary progressive and secondary progressive MS) are characterized by progressive deterioration and worsening symptom severity without exacerbations. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can reduce the frequency of exacerbations and disability progression, but unfortunately there is no cure for MS. Treatment is focused on increasing quality of life, minimizing disability, and maximizing wellness.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe the perceived health status, function, and/or experience of a person as obtained by direct self-report. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated PROs that can be used to inform clinical care,⁴ and have demonstrated effectiveness in improving patient-provider communication and decision-making.^5-7 PROMs are currently used in some MS clinical trials to determine the impact of experimental interventions,^8-10 and are also being used to inform and improve clinical care in some settings. Especially for persons with MS, they can provide individualized perspectives about health experience and outcomes.¹¹ In more advanced applications, PROMs can be used to improve face-to-face collaborations between clinicians and patients and to inform patient-centered systems of care.^12-14 PROMs can also be used to inform systems-level improvement for entire patient populations.^15,16

In this article, we review current applications of PROs and PROMs in the care of persons with MS, as well as current limitations and barriers to their use.

CASE STUDY

Marion is a 26-year-old woman who first developed MS symptoms at age 16, including increased sensitivity to heat, blurry vision, and numbness in her legs (note: this case was developed based on interviews with persons with MS, obtained with appropriate consents, and does not represent a specific patient). At that time, her clinician attributed her symptoms to a car accident she had been in a few months before. Later, at age 20, she developed abdominal paresthesia, which her clinician attributed to an episode of shingles. At age 23, she developed double vision. She was evaluated by a neurologist and was diagnosed with MS. Marion started care with an MS specialists, who worked with her towards her goals of having a family, working, and exercising. In addition to appropriate medical care, she started martial arts training and biking for exercise and transitioned to a consulting position with flexible hours and the ability to work from home. Her daughter was born a year later.

At a recent visit to her neurologist, Marion reviews her health diary, in which she has been tracking her fatigue levels throughout the day and when she has to visit the bathroom. The PRO diary also helps her remember details that she might not otherwise be able to recall at the time of her clinic visit. They review the diary entrees together to develop a shared understanding of what Marion has been experiencing and identify trends in the PRO data. They discuss symptom management and use the PRO information from the diary to help guide adjustments to her physical therapy routine and medication regimen.

Part of Marion’s “PRO package” includes the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), a validated depression screening and symptom severity questionnaire that she completes every 3 months. Although she denies being depressed, she has noticed that her CES-D scores in recent months have been consistently increasing. This prompts a discussion about mental health in MS and a referral to work on depression with the MS mental health specialist. Marion and the mental health specialist use CES-D measures at baseline and during treatment to set a remission target and to track progress during treatment. Marion finds this helpful because she says it is hard for her to “wrap my hands around depression… it’s not something that there is a blood test or a MRI for.” Marion is encouraged by being able to see her CES-D scores change as her depression severity decreases, and this helps motivate her to keep engaged in treatment.

PROs and PROMs: General Applications

PROs are measures obtained directly from an individual without a priori interpretation by a clinician.^9,17 PROs capture individual perspectives on symptoms, capability, disability, and health-related quality of life.⁹ With increasing emphasis on patient-centered care,¹⁸ individual perspectives and preferences elicited using PROMs may be able to inform better quality of care and patient-centered disease treatment and management.^19-21

PROMs are standardized, validated questionnaires used to assess PROs and can be generic or condition-specific. Generic PROMs can be used in any patient population. The SF-36²² is a set of quality of life measures that assess perceived ability to complete physical tasks and routine activities, general health status, fatigue, social functioning, pain, and emotional and mental health.²³ Condition-specific PROMs can be used for particular patient populations and are helpful in identifying changes in health status for a specific disease, disability, or surgery. For example, the PDQ-39 assesses 8 dimensions of daily living, functioning, and well-being for people with Parkinson’s disease.²⁴

PROMs have been used in some MS clinical trials and research studies to determine the effectiveness of experimental treatments from the viewpoint of study participants.^9,25,26 PROs can also be utilized in clinical care to facilitate communication of needs and track health outcomes,²⁷ and can inform improvement in outcomes for health systems and populations. They can also be used to assess experience of care,²⁸ encouraging a focus on high-quality outcomes through PRO-connected reimbursement mechanisms,²⁹ and provide aggregate data to evaluate clinical practice, population health outcomes, and the effectiveness of public policies.²⁷

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess patient satisfaction and experience of health care.^30,31 CollaboRATE³² is a PREM that assesses the degree of shared decision-making occurring between patients and clinicians during clinical care. PREMs are currently used for assessing self-efficacy and in shared decision-making and health care improvement applications. PREMs have yet to be developed specifically for persons with MS.

PROMs in MS Care

Generic PROMs have shown that persons with MS are disproportionately burdened by poor quality of life.^33-35 Other generic PROMs, like the SF-36,³⁶ the Sickness Impact Profile,³⁷ and versions of the Health Utilities Index,³⁸ can be used to gather information on dysfunction and to determine quality and duration of life modified by MS-related dysfunction and disability. MS-specific PROMs are used to assess MS impairments, including pain, fatigue, cognition, sexual dysfunction, and depression.^12,39-42 PROMs have also been used in MS clinical trials, including the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29),^43,44 the Leeds MS QoL (LMSQoL),^45,46 the Functional Assessment of MS (FAMS),⁴⁷ the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in MS (HAQUAMS),⁴⁸ the MS Quality of Life-54 (MSQoL-54),⁴⁹ the MS International QoL (MUSIQoL),⁵⁰ and the Patient-Reported Indices for MS Activity Limitations Scale (PRIMUS).⁵¹

Condition-specific PROMs are more sensitive to changes in health status and functioning for persons with MS compared to generic PROMs. They are also more reliable during MS remission and relapse periods.^44,52 For example, the SF-36 has floor and ceiling effects in MS populations—a high proportion of persons with MS are scored at the maximum or minimum levels of the scale, limiting discriminant capability.²² As a result, a “combined approach” using both generic and MS-specific measures is often recommended.⁵³ Some MS PROMs (eg, MSQoL-54) include generic questions found in the SF-36 as well as additional MS-specific questions or scales.

The variety of PROMs available (see Table for a selected listing) introduces a significant challenge to using them—limited generalizability and difficulty comparing PROs across MS studies. Efforts to establish common PROMs have been undertaken to address this problem.⁵⁴ The National Institute of Neurologicical Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) sponsored the development of a neurological quality of life battery, the Neuro-QOL.⁵⁵ Neuro-QOL measures the physical, mental, and social effects of neurological conditions in adults and children with neurological disorders and has the capability to facilitate comparisons across different neurological conditions. Additionally, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) has been developed to assess physical, mental, and social effects of chronic disease. PROMIS has a hybrid design that includes generic and MS-specific measures (such as PROMIS FatigueMS).⁵⁶ PROMIS can be used to assess persons with MS as well as to compare the MS population with other populations with chronic illness.

PROMs have varying levels of reliability and validity. The Evaluating the Measure of Patient-Reported Outcomes⁵⁷ study evaluated the development process of MS PROMs,⁴³ and found that the MSIS-29 and LMSQoL had the highest overall reliability among the most common MS PROMs. However, both scored poorly on validity due to lack of patient involvement during development. This questions the overall capability of existing MS PROMs to accurately and consistently assess PROs in persons with MS.

 

 

“Feed-Forward” PROMs

Oliver and colleagues¹⁶ have described “feed-forward” PROM applications in MS care in a community hospital setting using a learning health system approach. This MS clinic uses feed-forward PROs to inform clinical care—PRO data are gathered before the clinic visit and analyzed ahead of or during the clinic visit by the clinician. Patients are asked to arrive early and complete a questionnaire comprised of PROMs measuring disability, functioning, quality of life, cognitive ability, pain, fatigue, sleep quality, anxiety, and depression. Clinicians score the PROMs and input scores into the electronic health record before the clinical encounter. During the clinic visit, PROM data is visually displayed so that the clinician and patient can discuss results and use the data to better inform decision-making. The visual data display contains longitudinal information, displaying trends in health status across multiple domains, and includes specified thresholds for clinically active symptom levels (Figure).¹⁶ Longitudinal monitoring of PROM data allows for real-time assessment of goal-related progress throughout treatment. As illustrated previously by Marion’s case study, the use of real-time feed-forward PROM data can strengthen the partnership between patient and clinician as well as improve empowerment, engagement, self-monitoring, and adherence.

PRO Dashboards

Performance dashboards are increasingly used in health care to visually display clinical and PRO data for individual patients, systems, and populations over time. Dashboards display a parsimonious group of critically important measures to give clinicians and patients a longitudinal view of PRO status. They can inform decision-making in clinical care, operations, health care improvement efforts, and population health initiatives.⁵⁸ Effective dashboards allow for user customization with meaningful measures, knowledge discovery for analysis of health problems, accessibility of health information, clear visualization, alerts for unexpected data values, and system connectivity.^59,60 Appropriate development of PRO dashboards requires meaningful patient and clinician involvement via focus groups and key informant interviews, Delphi process approaches to prioritize and finalize selection of priority measures, iterative building of the interface with design input from key informants and stakeholders (co-design), and pilot testing to assess feasibility and acceptability of use.^61-63

Other Applications of PROs/PROMs in MS

Learning Health Systems

The National Quality Forum (NQF) and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services have adopted PROs for use in quality measurement.^64-66 This includes a movement towards the use of LHS, defined as a health system in which information from patients and clinicians is systematically collected and synthesized with external evidence to inform clinical care, improvement, and research.^67-70 Often a LHS is undertaken as a collaborative effort between multiple health care centers to improve quality and outcomes of care.⁷⁰ The MS Continuous Quality Improvement Collaborative (MS-CQI), the first multi-center systems-level health care improvement research collaborative for MS,⁷¹ as well as IBD Qorus and the Cystic Fibrosis Care Center Network utilize LHS approaches.^72-77

IBD Qorus is a LHS developed by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation that uses performance dashboards to better inform clinical care for people with inflammatory bowel disease. It also employs system-level dashboards for performance benchmarking in quality improvement initiatives and aggregate-level dashboards to assess population health status.^78,79 MS-CQI uses a LHS approach to inform the improvement of MS care across multiple centers using a comprehensive dashboard, including PROMs, for benchmarking and to monitor system and population health status. MS-CQI collects PROMs using a secure online platform that can be accessed by persons with MS and their clinicians and also includes a journaling feature for collecting qualitative information and for reference and self-monitoring.⁷¹

MS Research

PROMs are used in clinical and epidemiological research to evaluate many aspects of MS, including the FAMS, the PDSS, the Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS), and others.^80-82 For example, the PROMIS FatigueMS and the Fatigue Performance Scale have been used to assess the impact of MS-related fatigue on social participation.⁸³ Generic and MS-specific PROMs have been used to assess pain levels for people with MS,^84-87 and multiple MS-specific PROMs, like PRIMUS and MSQoL-54,⁴³ as well as the SF-36³⁹ include pain assessment scales. PROMs have also been used to assess MS-related bladder, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. Urgency, frequency, and incontinence affect up to 75% of patients with MS,⁸⁸ and many PROMs, such as the LMSQoL, MUSIQoL, and the MSQoL-54, are able to evaluate bladder control and sexual functioning.^43,89

PROMs are employed in MS clinical trials to help assess the tolerability and effectiveness of DMTs.^90,91 PROs have been used as secondary endpoints to understand the global experience of a DMT from the patient perspective.^92-94 There are 15 FDA-approved DMTs for MS, and clinical trials for 6 of these have used PROMs as an effectiveness end point.^54,91,95,96 However, most DMT clinical trials are powered for MRI, relapse rate, or disease progression primary outcomes rather than PROMs, often resulting in underpowered PROM analyses.⁹⁷ In addition, many PROMs are not appropriate for use in DMT clinical trials.^98,99

In order to bridge the gap between clinical research and practice, some industry entities are championing “patient-focused drug development” approaches. The Accelerated Cure Project for MS has launched iConquerMS, which collects PROMs from persons with MS to further PRO research in MS and follows 4700 individuals with MS worldwide.¹⁰⁰ In 2018, the American College of Physicians announced a collaboration with an industry partner to share data to inform DMT clinical trials and develop and validate PROMs specifically designed for DMT clinical trials.¹⁰¹

Population Health

Registries following large cohorts of people with MS have the potential to develop knowledge about disease progression, treatment patterns, and outcomes.¹⁰² The Swedish EIMS study has identified associations between pre-disease body mass index and MS prognosis,¹⁰² alcohol and tobacco consumption affecting MS risk,^103,104 and exposure to shift work at a young age and increased MS risk.¹⁰⁵ The North American Research Committee on MS^83,106,107 and iConquerMS registries are “PROM-driven” and have been useful in identifying reductions in disease progression in people using DMTs.^107,108 The New York State MS Consortium has identified important demographic characteristics that influence MS progression.^109,110 PROs can also be used to determine risk of MS-related mortality¹¹¹ and decline in quality of life.^112,113 Limitations of these approaches include use of different PROMs, inconsistencies in data collection processes, and different follow-up intervals used across registries.¹⁰²

Patient-Centered Care

The Institute of Medicine defines patient-centeredness as “care that is respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensures that patient values guide all clinical decisions.”¹¹⁴ PROs are useful for identifying a patient’s individual health concerns and preferences, something that is needed when treating a highly variable chronic health condition like MS. The use of PROs can help clinicicans visualize the lived experience of persons with MS and identify personal preferences,¹¹⁵ as well as improve self-monitoring, self-management, self-efficacy, adherence, wellness, and coping ability.¹¹⁶ At the system level, PROs can inform improvement initiatives and patient-centered care design efforts.^117-120

Selecting PROMs

Initiatives from groups like the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)¹²¹ and the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL)¹⁰⁸ offer guidance on selecting PROs. The NINDS has promoted common data collection between clinical studies of the brain and nervous system.¹²² General guidance from these sources recommends first considering the outcome and target population, selecting PROMs to measure the outcome through a synthesis of the available evidence, assessing validity and reliability of selected PROMs, and using standard measures that can be compared across studies or populations.^108,121 Other factors include feasibility, acceptability, and burden of use for patients, clinicians, and systems, as well as literacy, cultural, and linguistic factors.¹²³

The NQF recommends that consideration be given to individual patient needs, insurance factors, clinical setting constraints, and available resources when selecting PROMs.¹²⁴ To maximize response rate, PROMs that are sensitive, reliable, valid, and developed in a comparative demographic of patients are advised.¹²⁵ ISOQOL has released a User’s Guide and several companion guides on implementing and utilizing PROMs.^108,126,127 Finally, PRO-Performance Measures (PRO-PMs) are sometimes used to assess whether PROMs are appropriately contributing to performance improvement and accountability.¹²⁴

The Cons of PROs

Time and Software Constraints

PROs can disrupt busy clinical care environments and overextend clinical staff.¹²⁵ Online collection of PROs outside of clinical encounters can relieve PRO-related burden, but this requires finding and funding appropriate secure online networks to effectively collect PROs.¹²⁸ In 2015, only 60% of people seen for primary care visits could access or view their records online, and of those, only 57% used messaging for medical questions or concerns.¹²⁹ Ideally, online patient portal or mobile health apps could synchronize directly to electronic health records or virtual scribes to transfer patient communications into clinical documentation.¹³⁰ There has been limited success with this approach in European countries¹³¹ and with some chronic illness conditions in the United States.⁷⁴

Electronic health technologies, including mobile health (mHealth) solutions, have improved the self-monitoring and self-management capability of patients with MS via information sharing in patient networks, assistive technologies, smartphone applications, and wearable devices.^132,133 A recent study found that communication modes included secure online patient portal use (29%) and email use (21%), and among those who owned tablets or smartphones, 46% used mHealth apps.¹³⁴ Social media use has been associated with increased peer/social/emotional support and increased access to health information, as well as clinical monitoring and behavior change.^134,135 Individuals using mHealth apps are younger, have comorbidities, and have higher socioeconomic and education levels,^135,136 suggesting that inequities in mHealth access exist.

Burden on People with MS

Questionnaires can be time-consuming and cause mental distress if not appropriately facilitated.¹³⁷ Decreasing questionnaire length and providing the option for PROMs to be delivered and completed online or outside of the clinic context can reduce burden.¹³⁸ Additionally, while some people are consistent in sharing their PROs, others struggle with using computers, especially while experiencing severe symptoms, forget to complete PROMs, or simply do not have internet access due to financial or geographic constraints.¹³⁹ A group of disabled and elderly persons with MS reported barriers to internet use due to visual deficits, small website font sizes, and distracting color schemes.¹⁴⁰

Interpretability

Interpreting PROMs and displays of longitudinal PROM data can be a challenge for persons with MS and their clinicians. There is little standardization in how PROMs are scored and presented, and there is often confusion about thresholds for clinical significance and how PROM scores can be compared to other PROMs.^141,142 While guidelines exist for implementing PRO scores in clinical settings,^126,143 there are few that aid PROM interpretation. As a result, clinicians often seek research evidence for PROMs used in other similar patient populations as a benchmark,^142-144 or compare them to other patients seen in their clinical practice.

Longitudinal PRO data are usually displayed in simple line graphs.^145,146 Overall, line graphs have been found to have the highest ease of understanding by both patients and clinicians, but sometimes can be confusing.¹⁴⁷ For example, upward trending lines are usually viewed as improvement and downward trending lines as decline; however, upward trending scores on a PROM can indicate decline, such as increasing fatigue severity. Annotation of visual displays can help. Patients and clinicians find that employing thresholds and color coding is useful, and better than “stoplight” red-yellow-green shading schemes or red-circle formats to indicate data that warrant attention.¹⁴²

Error Risks

PROs are not free of risk for error, especially if they are used independently of other information sources, such as clinical interview, examination, and diagnostic testing, or if they are utilized too frequently, too infrequently, or are duplicated in practice. If a PRO instrument is employed too frequently, score changes may reflect learning effects rather than actual clinical status. Conversely, if used too infrequently, PRO information will not be timely enough to inform real-time clinical practice. Duplication of PRO assessments (eg, multiple measures of the same PRO for the same patient on the same day) or use of multiple PRO measures to assess the same aspect (eg, 2 measures used to assess fatigue) could introduce unnecessary complexity and confusion to interpretation of PRO results.

PRO measures also can be biased or modified by clinical status and/or perceptions of people with MS at the time of assessment. For example, cognitive impairment, whether at baseline state or due to a cognitive MS relapse event, could impact patients’ ability to understand and respond to PRO assessments, producing erroneous results. However, when used appropriately, PROs targeting cognitive dysfunction may be able to detect onset of cognitive events or help to measure recovery from them. Finally, PROs measure perceived (self-reported) status, which may not be an accurate depiction of actual status.

All of these potential pitfalls support the argument that PROs should be utilized to augment the clinical interview, examination, and diagnostic (objective) testing aspects of comprehensive MS care. In this way, PROs can be correlated with other information sources to deepen the shared understanding of health status between a person with MS and her clinician, increasing the potential to make better treatment decisions and care plans together in partnership.

Value and Cost

National groups such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) are working with regulatory bodies, funding agencies, insurance providers, patient advocacy groups, researchers, providers, and specialty groups to investigate how PROMs can be implemented into value-based health care reforms, including value-based reimbursement.¹⁴⁸ However, practical PRO implementation requires considerable time and resources, and many methodological and operational questions must be addressed before widespread adoption and reimbursement for PROMs will be feasible.^148,149

 

 

Summary

PROs can generate valuable information about perceived health status, function, quality of life, and experience of care using self-reported sources. Validated PRO assessment tools include PROMs and PREMs. PROs are currently utilized in research settings (especially PROMs) but are also being used in clinical practice, quality improvement initiatives, and population health applications using LHS approaches. PROs have the advantages of empowering and informing persons with MS and clinicians to optimize patient-centered care, improve systems of care, and study population health outcomes. Barriers include PROM validity, reliability, comparability, specificity, interpretability, equity, time, and cost. Generic PROMs and PREMs, and some MS-specific PROMs, can be used for persons with MS. Unfortunately, no PREMs have been developed specifically for persons with MS, and this is an area for future research. With appropriate development and utilization in LHS applications, PROs can inform patient-centered clinical care, system-level improvement initiatives, and population health research, and have the potential to help facilitate coproduction of health care services.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Ann Cabot, DO, of the MS Specialty Care Program at Concord Hospital and (especially) peer mentors from a peer outreach wellness program for people with MS (who have asked to remain anonymous) for interviews conducted with their permission to inform the case study described in this article. The case study used in this manuscript has been de-identified, with some aspects modified from actual, and the person in the case study is fictitiously named.

Corresponding author: Brant Oliver, PhD, MS, MPH, APRN-BC, Department of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Most children who undergo hemispherectomy for severe, intractable epilepsy report headaches after the procedure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Patients with headache before hemispherectomy may be at risk of increased headache frequency after the procedure. The most common type of headache reported is nonmigrainous headache.

“We recommend that hemispherectomy patients be evaluated and followed closely postoperatively and questioned regarding the presence of headache,” said William Bingaman, MD, vice-chair of the neurological institute and head of the section of epilepsy surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues. “Patients should be assessed and treated quickly to decrease prolonged pain and suffering and increase function.”

The two main types of hemispherectomy are anatomical and functional. Anatomical hemispherectomy entails the removal of a large amount of brain mass. Functional hemispherectomy entails the removal of a smaller amount of brain mass, as well as the disconnection of the brain’s hemispheres. Most patients are seizure free or have reduced seizure frequency after hemispherectomy. Other common postoperative outcomes include changes in behavior, cognition, motor function, and speech. Many studies have explored these outcomes, but few have examined the frequency of postoperative headache in children who undergo hemispherectomy.

Dr. Bingaman and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the charts of 74 children who underwent hemispherectomy at the Cleveland Clinic during the previous 5 years. They excluded 14 patients who were too young to respond for the analysis. The investigators sent the remaining 60 patients an informative letter and followed up with a 10-minute phone questionnaire about patients’ postoperative headache symptoms.

Twenty-two (36.7%) eligible patients completed the questionnaire. Thirty-eight patients could not be reached or declined to participate. Half of the 22 respondents were male. Participants’ median age at surgery was 6.5 years. The most common types of hemispherectomy were left functional (50%) and right functional (31.8%).

Nine (39.1%) of the 22 respondents had headache before surgery, and seven (31.8%) reported a family history of headache. In all, 19 (86.4%) patients had headache after surgery, and 10 (45.5%) had headaches that began after the surgery. Of the nine patients with preoperative headache, six (66.6%) had an increase in headache frequency after surgery, two (22.2%) reported no change, and one (11.1%) had decreased headache frequency. The most common type of headache reported was tension-type headache, and migraine was the second most common.

“The cause of any posthemispherectomy headache has thus far only been attributed to hydrocephalus,” wrote Dr. Bingaman and colleagues. “The tendency of headache to worsen following stresses such as illness, stroke, trauma, etc. has been studied extensively. The pathophysiology of posthemispherectomy headache can be investigated further by classifying hemispherectomy as a type of trauma or injury, which would explain the development of postoperative headache. Previous studies on posttraumatic headache have ascribed these headaches to neuroinflammation following the injury. Additionally, posthemispherectomy headache could also be due to the buildup of debris and fluid following the operation. Future hemispherectomy patients should be treated prophylactically for headache.”

The authors did not report funding for their study or declare any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pandit I et al. CNS 2019. Abstract 99.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Most children who undergo hemispherectomy for severe, intractable epilepsy report headaches after the procedure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Patients with headache before hemispherectomy may be at risk of increased headache frequency after the procedure. The most common type of headache reported is nonmigrainous headache.

“We recommend that hemispherectomy patients be evaluated and followed closely postoperatively and questioned regarding the presence of headache,” said William Bingaman, MD, vice-chair of the neurological institute and head of the section of epilepsy surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues. “Patients should be assessed and treated quickly to decrease prolonged pain and suffering and increase function.”

The two main types of hemispherectomy are anatomical and functional. Anatomical hemispherectomy entails the removal of a large amount of brain mass. Functional hemispherectomy entails the removal of a smaller amount of brain mass, as well as the disconnection of the brain’s hemispheres. Most patients are seizure free or have reduced seizure frequency after hemispherectomy. Other common postoperative outcomes include changes in behavior, cognition, motor function, and speech. Many studies have explored these outcomes, but few have examined the frequency of postoperative headache in children who undergo hemispherectomy.

Dr. Bingaman and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the charts of 74 children who underwent hemispherectomy at the Cleveland Clinic during the previous 5 years. They excluded 14 patients who were too young to respond for the analysis. The investigators sent the remaining 60 patients an informative letter and followed up with a 10-minute phone questionnaire about patients’ postoperative headache symptoms.

Twenty-two (36.7%) eligible patients completed the questionnaire. Thirty-eight patients could not be reached or declined to participate. Half of the 22 respondents were male. Participants’ median age at surgery was 6.5 years. The most common types of hemispherectomy were left functional (50%) and right functional (31.8%).

Nine (39.1%) of the 22 respondents had headache before surgery, and seven (31.8%) reported a family history of headache. In all, 19 (86.4%) patients had headache after surgery, and 10 (45.5%) had headaches that began after the surgery. Of the nine patients with preoperative headache, six (66.6%) had an increase in headache frequency after surgery, two (22.2%) reported no change, and one (11.1%) had decreased headache frequency. The most common type of headache reported was tension-type headache, and migraine was the second most common.

“The cause of any posthemispherectomy headache has thus far only been attributed to hydrocephalus,” wrote Dr. Bingaman and colleagues. “The tendency of headache to worsen following stresses such as illness, stroke, trauma, etc. has been studied extensively. The pathophysiology of posthemispherectomy headache can be investigated further by classifying hemispherectomy as a type of trauma or injury, which would explain the development of postoperative headache. Previous studies on posttraumatic headache have ascribed these headaches to neuroinflammation following the injury. Additionally, posthemispherectomy headache could also be due to the buildup of debris and fluid following the operation. Future hemispherectomy patients should be treated prophylactically for headache.”

The authors did not report funding for their study or declare any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pandit I et al. CNS 2019. Abstract 99.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Most children who undergo hemispherectomy for severe, intractable epilepsy report headaches after the procedure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Patients with headache before hemispherectomy may be at risk of increased headache frequency after the procedure. The most common type of headache reported is nonmigrainous headache.

“We recommend that hemispherectomy patients be evaluated and followed closely postoperatively and questioned regarding the presence of headache,” said William Bingaman, MD, vice-chair of the neurological institute and head of the section of epilepsy surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues. “Patients should be assessed and treated quickly to decrease prolonged pain and suffering and increase function.”

The two main types of hemispherectomy are anatomical and functional. Anatomical hemispherectomy entails the removal of a large amount of brain mass. Functional hemispherectomy entails the removal of a smaller amount of brain mass, as well as the disconnection of the brain’s hemispheres. Most patients are seizure free or have reduced seizure frequency after hemispherectomy. Other common postoperative outcomes include changes in behavior, cognition, motor function, and speech. Many studies have explored these outcomes, but few have examined the frequency of postoperative headache in children who undergo hemispherectomy.

Dr. Bingaman and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the charts of 74 children who underwent hemispherectomy at the Cleveland Clinic during the previous 5 years. They excluded 14 patients who were too young to respond for the analysis. The investigators sent the remaining 60 patients an informative letter and followed up with a 10-minute phone questionnaire about patients’ postoperative headache symptoms.

Twenty-two (36.7%) eligible patients completed the questionnaire. Thirty-eight patients could not be reached or declined to participate. Half of the 22 respondents were male. Participants’ median age at surgery was 6.5 years. The most common types of hemispherectomy were left functional (50%) and right functional (31.8%).

Nine (39.1%) of the 22 respondents had headache before surgery, and seven (31.8%) reported a family history of headache. In all, 19 (86.4%) patients had headache after surgery, and 10 (45.5%) had headaches that began after the surgery. Of the nine patients with preoperative headache, six (66.6%) had an increase in headache frequency after surgery, two (22.2%) reported no change, and one (11.1%) had decreased headache frequency. The most common type of headache reported was tension-type headache, and migraine was the second most common.

“The cause of any posthemispherectomy headache has thus far only been attributed to hydrocephalus,” wrote Dr. Bingaman and colleagues. “The tendency of headache to worsen following stresses such as illness, stroke, trauma, etc. has been studied extensively. The pathophysiology of posthemispherectomy headache can be investigated further by classifying hemispherectomy as a type of trauma or injury, which would explain the development of postoperative headache. Previous studies on posttraumatic headache have ascribed these headaches to neuroinflammation following the injury. Additionally, posthemispherectomy headache could also be due to the buildup of debris and fluid following the operation. Future hemispherectomy patients should be treated prophylactically for headache.”

The authors did not report funding for their study or declare any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pandit I et al. CNS 2019. Abstract 99.

Certain types of oral antibiotics seem to be associated with an elevated risk of Parkinson’s disease with a delay that is consistent with the proposed duration of a prodromal period, according to a report published in Movement Disorders. Associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics and those that act against anaerobic bacteria and fungi. The timing of antibiotic exposure also seemed to matter.

In a nationwide case-control study, Finnish researchers compared data on antibiotic use in 13,976 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease between 1998 and 2014 with antibiotic-use data from 40,697 controls. The strongest connection with Parkinson’s disease risk was found for oral exposure to macrolides and lincosamides (adjusted odds ratio up to 1.416). After correction for multiple comparisons, exposure to antianaerobics and tetracyclines 10-15 years before the index date, and antifungal medications 1-5 years before the index date were positively associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. In post hoc analyses, further positive associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Tuomas H. Mertsalmi, MD, from the Helsinki University Hospital and coauthors reported that this was the first study to explore a possible connection between antimicrobial use and Parkinson’s disease.

“In Parkinson’s disease, several studies have described alterations of gut microbiota composition, and changes in fecal microbiota abundance have been found to be associated with gastrointestinal and motor symptoms,” they wrote.

Commenting on the delay between the exposure and diagnosis for the most strongly associated antimicrobials, the authors noted that this 10-15 year lag was comparable with what has been found between the peripheral initiation of Parkinson’s disease and its motor manifestation.

“This would also explain the lack of association between antibiotic exposure 1-5 years before index date – if antibiotic exposure could induce or contribute to the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease in the gastrointestinal tract, it would probably take several years before the clinical manifestation of Parkinson’s disease,” they wrote.

With regards to the association seen for sulfonamides and trimethoprim – which was 1-5 years before the index date – they speculated this could reflect treatment for urinary tract infections, which individuals with Parkinson’s disease might be more susceptible to in the prodromal phase of the disease.

The authors noted that infectious disease has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease, and that their analysis did not include information about why the antimicrobial agents were prescribed. However, they pointed out that the associations were only for certain antibiotic classes, which makes it unlikely that the association was related to greater burden of infectious disease among individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

The pattern of associations supports the hypothesis that effects on gut microbiota could link antibiotics to Parkinson’s disease. “The link between antibiotic exposure and Parkinson’s disease fits the current view that in a significant proportion of patients the pathology of Parkinson’s disease may originate in the gut, possibly related to microbial changes, years before the onset of typical Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms such as slowness, muscle stiffness, and shaking of the extremities. It was known that bacterial composition of the intestine in patients with Parkinson’s disease is abnormal, but the cause is unclear. Our results suggest that some commonly used antibiotics, which are known to strongly influence the gut microbiota, could be a predisposing factor,” said lead investigator Filip Scheperjans, MD, PhD, from the department of neurology at Helsinki University Hospital.

The findings may have implications for antibiotic prescribing practices in the future, said Dr. Scheperjans. “In addition to the problem of antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial prescribing should also take into account their potentially long-lasting effects on the gut microbiome and the development of certain diseases.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Parkinson Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Maire Taponen Foundation, and the Academy of Finland. One author declared relevant patents and his position as founder and chief executive of a private company. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mertsalmi TH et al. Mov Disord. 2019 Nov 18. doi: 10.1002/mds.27924.

Certain types of oral antibiotics seem to be associated with an elevated risk of Parkinson’s disease with a delay that is consistent with the proposed duration of a prodromal period, according to a report published in Movement Disorders. Associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics and those that act against anaerobic bacteria and fungi. The timing of antibiotic exposure also seemed to matter.

In a nationwide case-control study, Finnish researchers compared data on antibiotic use in 13,976 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease between 1998 and 2014 with antibiotic-use data from 40,697 controls. The strongest connection with Parkinson’s disease risk was found for oral exposure to macrolides and lincosamides (adjusted odds ratio up to 1.416). After correction for multiple comparisons, exposure to antianaerobics and tetracyclines 10-15 years before the index date, and antifungal medications 1-5 years before the index date were positively associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. In post hoc analyses, further positive associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Tuomas H. Mertsalmi, MD, from the Helsinki University Hospital and coauthors reported that this was the first study to explore a possible connection between antimicrobial use and Parkinson’s disease.

“In Parkinson’s disease, several studies have described alterations of gut microbiota composition, and changes in fecal microbiota abundance have been found to be associated with gastrointestinal and motor symptoms,” they wrote.

Commenting on the delay between the exposure and diagnosis for the most strongly associated antimicrobials, the authors noted that this 10-15 year lag was comparable with what has been found between the peripheral initiation of Parkinson’s disease and its motor manifestation.

“This would also explain the lack of association between antibiotic exposure 1-5 years before index date – if antibiotic exposure could induce or contribute to the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease in the gastrointestinal tract, it would probably take several years before the clinical manifestation of Parkinson’s disease,” they wrote.

With regards to the association seen for sulfonamides and trimethoprim – which was 1-5 years before the index date – they speculated this could reflect treatment for urinary tract infections, which individuals with Parkinson’s disease might be more susceptible to in the prodromal phase of the disease.

The authors noted that infectious disease has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease, and that their analysis did not include information about why the antimicrobial agents were prescribed. However, they pointed out that the associations were only for certain antibiotic classes, which makes it unlikely that the association was related to greater burden of infectious disease among individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

The pattern of associations supports the hypothesis that effects on gut microbiota could link antibiotics to Parkinson’s disease. “The link between antibiotic exposure and Parkinson’s disease fits the current view that in a significant proportion of patients the pathology of Parkinson’s disease may originate in the gut, possibly related to microbial changes, years before the onset of typical Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms such as slowness, muscle stiffness, and shaking of the extremities. It was known that bacterial composition of the intestine in patients with Parkinson’s disease is abnormal, but the cause is unclear. Our results suggest that some commonly used antibiotics, which are known to strongly influence the gut microbiota, could be a predisposing factor,” said lead investigator Filip Scheperjans, MD, PhD, from the department of neurology at Helsinki University Hospital.

The findings may have implications for antibiotic prescribing practices in the future, said Dr. Scheperjans. “In addition to the problem of antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial prescribing should also take into account their potentially long-lasting effects on the gut microbiome and the development of certain diseases.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Parkinson Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Maire Taponen Foundation, and the Academy of Finland. One author declared relevant patents and his position as founder and chief executive of a private company. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mertsalmi TH et al. Mov Disord. 2019 Nov 18. doi: 10.1002/mds.27924.

Certain types of oral antibiotics seem to be associated with an elevated risk of Parkinson’s disease with a delay that is consistent with the proposed duration of a prodromal period, according to a report published in Movement Disorders. Associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics and those that act against anaerobic bacteria and fungi. The timing of antibiotic exposure also seemed to matter.

In a nationwide case-control study, Finnish researchers compared data on antibiotic use in 13,976 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease between 1998 and 2014 with antibiotic-use data from 40,697 controls. The strongest connection with Parkinson’s disease risk was found for oral exposure to macrolides and lincosamides (adjusted odds ratio up to 1.416). After correction for multiple comparisons, exposure to antianaerobics and tetracyclines 10-15 years before the index date, and antifungal medications 1-5 years before the index date were positively associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. In post hoc analyses, further positive associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Tuomas H. Mertsalmi, MD, from the Helsinki University Hospital and coauthors reported that this was the first study to explore a possible connection between antimicrobial use and Parkinson’s disease.

“In Parkinson’s disease, several studies have described alterations of gut microbiota composition, and changes in fecal microbiota abundance have been found to be associated with gastrointestinal and motor symptoms,” they wrote.

Commenting on the delay between the exposure and diagnosis for the most strongly associated antimicrobials, the authors noted that this 10-15 year lag was comparable with what has been found between the peripheral initiation of Parkinson’s disease and its motor manifestation.

“This would also explain the lack of association between antibiotic exposure 1-5 years before index date – if antibiotic exposure could induce or contribute to the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease in the gastrointestinal tract, it would probably take several years before the clinical manifestation of Parkinson’s disease,” they wrote.

With regards to the association seen for sulfonamides and trimethoprim – which was 1-5 years before the index date – they speculated this could reflect treatment for urinary tract infections, which individuals with Parkinson’s disease might be more susceptible to in the prodromal phase of the disease.

The authors noted that infectious disease has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease, and that their analysis did not include information about why the antimicrobial agents were prescribed. However, they pointed out that the associations were only for certain antibiotic classes, which makes it unlikely that the association was related to greater burden of infectious disease among individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

The pattern of associations supports the hypothesis that effects on gut microbiota could link antibiotics to Parkinson’s disease. “The link between antibiotic exposure and Parkinson’s disease fits the current view that in a significant proportion of patients the pathology of Parkinson’s disease may originate in the gut, possibly related to microbial changes, years before the onset of typical Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms such as slowness, muscle stiffness, and shaking of the extremities. It was known that bacterial composition of the intestine in patients with Parkinson’s disease is abnormal, but the cause is unclear. Our results suggest that some commonly used antibiotics, which are known to strongly influence the gut microbiota, could be a predisposing factor,” said lead investigator Filip Scheperjans, MD, PhD, from the department of neurology at Helsinki University Hospital.

The findings may have implications for antibiotic prescribing practices in the future, said Dr. Scheperjans. “In addition to the problem of antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial prescribing should also take into account their potentially long-lasting effects on the gut microbiome and the development of certain diseases.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Parkinson Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Maire Taponen Foundation, and the Academy of Finland. One author declared relevant patents and his position as founder and chief executive of a private company. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mertsalmi TH et al. Mov Disord. 2019 Nov 18. doi: 10.1002/mds.27924.

Most tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have US Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of depression and anxiety disorders, but they are also a viable off-label option that should be considered by clinicians in specialties beyond psychiatry, especially for treating pain syndromes. Given the ongoing epidemic of opioid use disorder, increasing attention has been drawn to alternative strategies for chronic pain management, renewing an interest in the use of TCAs.

This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties of TCAs, their potential indications in conditions other than depression, and safety considerations.

BRIEF HISTORY OF TRICYCLICS

TCAs were originally designed in the 1950s and marketed later for treating depression. Due to their adverse effects and lethality in overdose quantities, over time they have been largely replaced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in depression management. However, TCAs have been applied to conditions other than depression with varying degrees of efficacy and safety.

TCA PHARMACOLOGY

TCAs are absorbed in the small intestine and undergo first-pass metabolism in the liver. They bind extensively to proteins, leading to interactions with other protein-bound drugs. They are widely distributed throughout the systemic circulation because they are highly lipophilic, resulting in systemic effects including central nervous system manifestations.

Peak plasma concentration is at about 2 to 6 hours, and elimination half-life is around 24 hours for most agents, providing a long duration of action. Clearance depends on cytochrome P450 oxidative enzymes.¹

MECHANISMS OF ACTION

TCAs inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, resulting in accumulation of these neurotransmitters in the presynaptic cleft. They also block postsynaptic histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and muscarinic-acetylcholine receptors, causing a variety of adverse effects, including dry mouth, confusion, cognitive impairment, hypotension, orthostasis, blurred vision, urinary retention, drowsiness, and sedation.¹

Research suggests that TCAs relieve pain centrally through a descending pathway that inhibits transmission of pain signals in the spinal cord, as well as peripherally through complex anti-neuroimmune actions.² Norepinephrine appears to play a more important role in this process than serotonin, although both are deemed necessary for the “dual action” often cited in pain management,¹ which is also the rationale for widespread use of SNRIs to control pain.

Table 1 compares neurotransmitter reuptake mechanisms, adverse effect profiles, and typical dosages for depression for commonly prescribed TCAs.

POTENTIAL USES

Headache and migraine

TCAs have been shown to be effective for managing and preventing chronic headache syndromes.^3,4 Amitriptyline has been the most studied of the TCAs for both chronic daily and episodic migraine headache, showing the most efficacy among diverse drug classes (angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, SSRIs) compared with placebo. However, in head-to-head trials, amitriptyline was no more effective than SSRIs, venlafaxine, topiramate, or propranolol.⁴ Jackson et al⁴ suggested that prophylactic medication choices should be tailored to patient characteristics and expected adverse effects, and specifically recommended that TCAs—particularly amitriptyline—be reserved for patients who have both migraine and depression.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain secondary to a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system⁵ and is the pathomechanistic component of a number of conditions, including postherpetic neuralgia,⁶ diabetic and nondiabetic painful polyneuropathy,⁷ posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain⁸ (including plexus avulsion and complex regional pain syndrome⁹), central poststroke pain,¹⁰ spinal cord injury pain,¹¹ and multiple sclerosis-associated pain.¹²

As a group, TCAs appear to have a role as first-line agents for managing these varied neuropathic pain syndromes. In a recent meta-analysis,¹³ 16 (89%) of 18 placebo-controlled trials of TCAs (mainly amitriptyline at 25–150 mg/day) for these pain conditions were positive, with a combined number needed to treat of 3.6, suggesting a role for TCAs in these conditions. Of note, the TCAs desipramine¹⁴ and nortriptyline¹⁵ have demonstrated little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain syndromes.

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of loss of work, excessive healthcare expenditure, and disability in the United States. It can be due to numerous spinal conditions, including degenerative disk disease, spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and spinal arthropathy.

TCAs have been used to treat chronic low back pain for decades and have been repeatedly shown to be more effective than placebo in reducing pain severity.^16,17 A double-blind controlled trial¹⁸ from 1999 compared the effects of the TCA maprotiline (up to 150 mg daily), the SSRI paroxetine (up to 30 mg daily), and placebo and found a statistically significant reduction in back pain with maprotiline compared with paroxetine and placebo. However, a 2008 meta-analysis suggested little evidence that TCAs were superior to placebo.¹⁹

Evidence of TCA efficacy for back pain was reported in 2018 with a well-designed 6-month double-blind randomized controlled trial²⁰ comparing low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg) with an active comparator (benztropine 1 mg). The authors reported that amitriptyline was effective in reducing pain and pain-related disability without incurring serious adverse effects. They suggested continued use of TCAs for chronic low back pain if complicated with pain-related disability, insomnia, depression, or other comorbidity, although they called for further large-scale studies. They also cautioned that patients started the trial with symptoms similar to the adverse effects of TCAs themselves; this has implications for monitoring of symptoms as well as TCA adverse effects while using these drugs.

 

 

Fibromyalgia and chronic widespread pain

Fibromyalgia is a common, frustrating, noninflammatory pain syndrome characterized by diffuse hyperalgesia and multiple comorbidities.²¹ Although sleep hygiene, exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, some gabapentinoids (pregabalin), and a combination of these therapies have demonstrated efficacy, TCAs also offer robust benefits.

A meta-analysis of 9 placebo-controlled TCA trials showed large effect sizes for pain reduction, fatigue reduction, improved sleep quality, and reduced stiffness and tenderness, with the most significant of these improvements being for sleep.²² A separate meta-analysis calculated that the number needed to treat with amitriptyline for a positive outcome is 4.9.²³ Recent systematic reviews have supported these findings, listing TCAs as second-line agents after pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran.²⁴

Of note, TCA monotherapy rarely produces a complete response in patients with moderate to severe fibromyalgia, chronic widespread pain, or significant comorbidities (depression, anxiety). Supplementation with cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, functional restoration, and other modalities is strongly recommended.

Abdominal and gastrointestinal pain

TCAs have been applied to a number of gastrointestinal syndromes with or without pain. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome have long been known to benefit from TCAs; the number needed to treat for symptomatic benefit over placebo is 3.5.^25,26

Although there is no substantial evidence that TCAs are useful in reducing active inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease, a study involving 81 patients found that residual noninflammatory gastrointestinal symptoms (such as diarrhea and pain) responded to TCAs, including nortriptyline and amitriptyline, with greater benefit for ulcerative colitis than for Crohn disease.²⁷

TCAs have also shown prophylactic benefit in cyclic vomiting syndrome, with a clinical response in over 75% of patients in controlled cohort studies.²⁸

The efficacy of TCAs in other abdominal or gastrointestinal syndromes is unclear or modest at best.²⁹ However, few alternative treatments exist for these conditions. Amitriptyline may help symptoms of functional dyspepsia,³⁰ but nortriptyline has proven ineffective in gastroparesis.³¹ Nonetheless, some authors²⁹ suggest considering TCAs on an individualized basis, with proper monitoring, in many if not most functional gastrointestinal disorders, especially when paired with behavioral therapies.

Pelvic and urogynecologic symptoms

Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women³² and 5% to 10% of men.³³ TCAs have shown efficacy in treating chronic pelvic pain with or without comorbid depression.³⁴ Amitriptyline and to a lesser extent nortriptyline are the TCAs most often prescribed. Pain relief appears to be independent of antidepressant effects and may be achieved at low doses; initial dosing ranges from 10 to 25 mg at bedtime, which may be increased to 100 mg as tolerated.³⁴

Based on a randomized, double-blind trial,³⁵ amitriptyline was recommended as a treatment option for interstitial cystitis or bladder pain, with the greatest symptom improvement in patients tolerating a daily dose of 50 mg.

Another study³⁶ randomized 56 women with chronic pelvic pain to amitriptyline or  gabapentin, or a combination of the drugs for 24 months. Although each regimen resulted in significant reduction in pain, fewer adverse effects occurred with gabapentin than amitriptyline. Poor compliance and early discontinuation of amitriptyline were common due to anticholinergic effects.

In small uncontrolled studies,³⁷ about half of women with chronic pelvic pain became pain-free after 8 weeks of treatment with nortriptyline and imipramine.

Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm potential benefits of TCAs in chronic urologic and pelvic pain.

Insomnia

Insomnia affects 23% to 56% of people in the United States, Europe, and Asia³⁸ and is the reason for more than 5.5 million primary care visits annually.³⁹ TCAs (especially doxepin, maprotiline, and amitriptyline⁴⁰) have been shown to be an effective treatment, with an 82% increase in somnolence compared with placebo, as well as measurably improved total sleep time, enhanced sleep efficiency, reduced latency to persistent sleep, and decreased wake times after sleep onset.³⁸

Dosing should be kept at a minimum to minimize harsh anticholinergic effects and avoid daytime sedation. Patients should be advised to take new doses or dose escalations earlier in the night to ensure less hangover sedation the next morning.

For patients with insomnia and comorbid depression, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine suggests the addition of a low dose (eg, 10–25 mg) of a TCA at nighttime to complement preexisting, full-dose, non-TCA antidepressants, while monitoring for serotonin syndrome and other potential but exceedingly rare drug-drug interactions.⁴¹

Psychiatric indications other than depression

Beyond the known benefits in major depressive disorder, TCAs have been shown to be effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia nervosa, and childhood enuresis.⁴² Given the shortage of mental health clinicians and the high prevalence of these conditions, nonpsychiatrist physicians should be familiar with the therapeutic potential of TCAs for these indications.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Adverse effects vary among TCAs. Common ones include blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, hypotension, tachycardia, tremor, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.⁴³ Tertiary amines are generally more sedating than secondary amines and cause more anticholinergic effects (Table 1).

Despite widespread perceptions that TCAs are less tolerable than newer antidepressants, studies repeatedly suggest that they have an adverse-effect burden similar to that of SSRIs and SNRIs, although SSRIs have a greater tendency to produce nausea, whereas TCAs are more likely to cause constipation.⁴⁴

Discontinuation syndrome

Abrupt discontinuation or unintentionally missed doses of TCAs have been associated with a discontinuation syndrome in about 40% of users.⁴⁵ Patients should be warned about this possibility and the syndrome’s potential effects: dizziness, insomnia, headaches, nausea, vomiting, flulike achiness, and restlessness. Rebound depression, anxiety, panic, or other psychiatric symptoms may also occur. Symptoms generally present within 2 to 5 days after dose discontinuation and last 7 to 14 days.⁴⁵

However, all TCAs have a long half-life, allowing for sufficient coverage with once-daily dosing and thus carry a lower risk of discontinuation syndrome than many other antidepressants (78% with venlafaxine; 55% with paroxetine).⁴⁵

To discontinue therapy safely, the dosage should be reduced gradually. As is pharmacologically expected, the greatest likelihood of discontinuation syndrome is associated with longer duration of continuous treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Cardiac conduction abnormalities

TCAs should not be prescribed to patients who have right bundle branch block, a severe electrolyte disturbance, or other cardiac conduction deficit or arrhythmia that can prolong the QTc interval and elevate the risk of lethal arrhythmia.^46,47 Cardiac effects from TCAs are largely dose-dependent. Nevertheless, a baseline electrocardiogram can be obtained to assess cardiac risk, and dose escalation can proceed if results are normal (eg, appropriate conduction intervals, QTc ≤ 450 ms).

Advanced age

For elderly patients, TCAs should be prescribed with caution and sometimes not at all,⁴⁸ because anticholinergic effects may worsen preexisting urinary retention (including benign prostatic hyperplasia), narrow-angle glaucoma, imbalance and gait issues, and cognitive impairment and dementia. Dehydration and orthostatic hypotension are contraindications for TCAs, as they may precipitate falls or hypotensive shock.

Epilepsy

TCAs should also be used with caution in patients with epilepsy, as they lower the seizure threshold.

Concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment

Giving TCAs together with monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants should be avoided, given the risk of hypertensive crisis.

Suicide risk

TCAs are dangerous and potentially lethal in overdose and so should not be prescribed to suicidal or otherwise impulsive patients.

Pregnancy

TCAs are in pregnancy risk category C (animal studies show adverse effects on fetus; no adequate or well-controlled studies in humans; potential benefits may warrant use despite risks). Using TCAs during pregnancy has very rarely led to neonatal withdrawal such as irritability, jitteriness, and convulsions, as well as fetal QTc interval prolongation.⁴⁹

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that therapy for depression during pregnancy be individualized, incorporating the expertise of the patient’s mental health clinician, obstetrician, primary healthcare provider, and pediatrician. In general, they recommend that TCAs should be avoided if possible and that alternatives such as SSRIs or SNRIs should be considered.⁵⁰

TCAs are excreted in breast milk, but they have not been detected in the serum of nursing infants, and no adverse events have been reported.

OVERDOSE IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS

Severe morbidity and death are associated with TCA overdose, characterized by  convulsions, cardiac arrest, and coma (the “3 Cs”). These dangers occur at much higher rates with TCAs than with other antidepressants.⁴³ Signs and symptoms of toxicity develop rapidly, usually within the first hour of overdose. Manifestations of overdose include prolonged QTc, cardiac arrhythmias, tachycardia, hypertension, severe hypotension, agitation, seizures, central nervous system depression, hallucinations, seizures, and coma.

Overdose management includes activated charcoal, seizure control, cardioversion, hydration, electrolyte stabilization, and other intensive care.

OFF-LABEL TCA MANAGEMENT

Dosing recommendations for off-label use of TCAs vary based on the condition, the medication, and the suggestions of individual authors and researchers. In general, dosing ranges for pain and other nondepression indications may be lower than for severe depression (Table 2).¹

As with any pharmacologic titration, monitoring for rate-limiting adverse effects is recommended. We suggest caution, tailoring the approach to the patient, and routinely assessing for adverse effects and other safety considerations.

In addition, we strongly recommend supplementing TCA therapy with nonpharmacologic strategies such as lifestyle changes, dietary modifications, exercise, physical therapy, and mental health optimization.

Most tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have US Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of depression and anxiety disorders, but they are also a viable off-label option that should be considered by clinicians in specialties beyond psychiatry, especially for treating pain syndromes. Given the ongoing epidemic of opioid use disorder, increasing attention has been drawn to alternative strategies for chronic pain management, renewing an interest in the use of TCAs.

This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties of TCAs, their potential indications in conditions other than depression, and safety considerations.

BRIEF HISTORY OF TRICYCLICS

TCAs were originally designed in the 1950s and marketed later for treating depression. Due to their adverse effects and lethality in overdose quantities, over time they have been largely replaced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in depression management. However, TCAs have been applied to conditions other than depression with varying degrees of efficacy and safety.

TCA PHARMACOLOGY

TCAs are absorbed in the small intestine and undergo first-pass metabolism in the liver. They bind extensively to proteins, leading to interactions with other protein-bound drugs. They are widely distributed throughout the systemic circulation because they are highly lipophilic, resulting in systemic effects including central nervous system manifestations.

Peak plasma concentration is at about 2 to 6 hours, and elimination half-life is around 24 hours for most agents, providing a long duration of action. Clearance depends on cytochrome P450 oxidative enzymes.¹

MECHANISMS OF ACTION

TCAs inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, resulting in accumulation of these neurotransmitters in the presynaptic cleft. They also block postsynaptic histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and muscarinic-acetylcholine receptors, causing a variety of adverse effects, including dry mouth, confusion, cognitive impairment, hypotension, orthostasis, blurred vision, urinary retention, drowsiness, and sedation.¹

Research suggests that TCAs relieve pain centrally through a descending pathway that inhibits transmission of pain signals in the spinal cord, as well as peripherally through complex anti-neuroimmune actions.² Norepinephrine appears to play a more important role in this process than serotonin, although both are deemed necessary for the “dual action” often cited in pain management,¹ which is also the rationale for widespread use of SNRIs to control pain.

Table 1 compares neurotransmitter reuptake mechanisms, adverse effect profiles, and typical dosages for depression for commonly prescribed TCAs.

POTENTIAL USES

Headache and migraine

TCAs have been shown to be effective for managing and preventing chronic headache syndromes.^3,4 Amitriptyline has been the most studied of the TCAs for both chronic daily and episodic migraine headache, showing the most efficacy among diverse drug classes (angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, SSRIs) compared with placebo. However, in head-to-head trials, amitriptyline was no more effective than SSRIs, venlafaxine, topiramate, or propranolol.⁴ Jackson et al⁴ suggested that prophylactic medication choices should be tailored to patient characteristics and expected adverse effects, and specifically recommended that TCAs—particularly amitriptyline—be reserved for patients who have both migraine and depression.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain secondary to a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system⁵ and is the pathomechanistic component of a number of conditions, including postherpetic neuralgia,⁶ diabetic and nondiabetic painful polyneuropathy,⁷ posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain⁸ (including plexus avulsion and complex regional pain syndrome⁹), central poststroke pain,¹⁰ spinal cord injury pain,¹¹ and multiple sclerosis-associated pain.¹²

As a group, TCAs appear to have a role as first-line agents for managing these varied neuropathic pain syndromes. In a recent meta-analysis,¹³ 16 (89%) of 18 placebo-controlled trials of TCAs (mainly amitriptyline at 25–150 mg/day) for these pain conditions were positive, with a combined number needed to treat of 3.6, suggesting a role for TCAs in these conditions. Of note, the TCAs desipramine¹⁴ and nortriptyline¹⁵ have demonstrated little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain syndromes.

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of loss of work, excessive healthcare expenditure, and disability in the United States. It can be due to numerous spinal conditions, including degenerative disk disease, spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and spinal arthropathy.

TCAs have been used to treat chronic low back pain for decades and have been repeatedly shown to be more effective than placebo in reducing pain severity.^16,17 A double-blind controlled trial¹⁸ from 1999 compared the effects of the TCA maprotiline (up to 150 mg daily), the SSRI paroxetine (up to 30 mg daily), and placebo and found a statistically significant reduction in back pain with maprotiline compared with paroxetine and placebo. However, a 2008 meta-analysis suggested little evidence that TCAs were superior to placebo.¹⁹

Evidence of TCA efficacy for back pain was reported in 2018 with a well-designed 6-month double-blind randomized controlled trial²⁰ comparing low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg) with an active comparator (benztropine 1 mg). The authors reported that amitriptyline was effective in reducing pain and pain-related disability without incurring serious adverse effects. They suggested continued use of TCAs for chronic low back pain if complicated with pain-related disability, insomnia, depression, or other comorbidity, although they called for further large-scale studies. They also cautioned that patients started the trial with symptoms similar to the adverse effects of TCAs themselves; this has implications for monitoring of symptoms as well as TCA adverse effects while using these drugs.

 

 

Fibromyalgia and chronic widespread pain

Fibromyalgia is a common, frustrating, noninflammatory pain syndrome characterized by diffuse hyperalgesia and multiple comorbidities.²¹ Although sleep hygiene, exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, some gabapentinoids (pregabalin), and a combination of these therapies have demonstrated efficacy, TCAs also offer robust benefits.

A meta-analysis of 9 placebo-controlled TCA trials showed large effect sizes for pain reduction, fatigue reduction, improved sleep quality, and reduced stiffness and tenderness, with the most significant of these improvements being for sleep.²² A separate meta-analysis calculated that the number needed to treat with amitriptyline for a positive outcome is 4.9.²³ Recent systematic reviews have supported these findings, listing TCAs as second-line agents after pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran.²⁴

Of note, TCA monotherapy rarely produces a complete response in patients with moderate to severe fibromyalgia, chronic widespread pain, or significant comorbidities (depression, anxiety). Supplementation with cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, functional restoration, and other modalities is strongly recommended.

Abdominal and gastrointestinal pain

TCAs have been applied to a number of gastrointestinal syndromes with or without pain. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome have long been known to benefit from TCAs; the number needed to treat for symptomatic benefit over placebo is 3.5.^25,26

Although there is no substantial evidence that TCAs are useful in reducing active inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease, a study involving 81 patients found that residual noninflammatory gastrointestinal symptoms (such as diarrhea and pain) responded to TCAs, including nortriptyline and amitriptyline, with greater benefit for ulcerative colitis than for Crohn disease.²⁷

TCAs have also shown prophylactic benefit in cyclic vomiting syndrome, with a clinical response in over 75% of patients in controlled cohort studies.²⁸

The efficacy of TCAs in other abdominal or gastrointestinal syndromes is unclear or modest at best.²⁹ However, few alternative treatments exist for these conditions. Amitriptyline may help symptoms of functional dyspepsia,³⁰ but nortriptyline has proven ineffective in gastroparesis.³¹ Nonetheless, some authors²⁹ suggest considering TCAs on an individualized basis, with proper monitoring, in many if not most functional gastrointestinal disorders, especially when paired with behavioral therapies.

Pelvic and urogynecologic symptoms

Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women³² and 5% to 10% of men.³³ TCAs have shown efficacy in treating chronic pelvic pain with or without comorbid depression.³⁴ Amitriptyline and to a lesser extent nortriptyline are the TCAs most often prescribed. Pain relief appears to be independent of antidepressant effects and may be achieved at low doses; initial dosing ranges from 10 to 25 mg at bedtime, which may be increased to 100 mg as tolerated.³⁴

Based on a randomized, double-blind trial,³⁵ amitriptyline was recommended as a treatment option for interstitial cystitis or bladder pain, with the greatest symptom improvement in patients tolerating a daily dose of 50 mg.

Another study³⁶ randomized 56 women with chronic pelvic pain to amitriptyline or  gabapentin, or a combination of the drugs for 24 months. Although each regimen resulted in significant reduction in pain, fewer adverse effects occurred with gabapentin than amitriptyline. Poor compliance and early discontinuation of amitriptyline were common due to anticholinergic effects.

In small uncontrolled studies,³⁷ about half of women with chronic pelvic pain became pain-free after 8 weeks of treatment with nortriptyline and imipramine.

Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm potential benefits of TCAs in chronic urologic and pelvic pain.

Insomnia

Insomnia affects 23% to 56% of people in the United States, Europe, and Asia³⁸ and is the reason for more than 5.5 million primary care visits annually.³⁹ TCAs (especially doxepin, maprotiline, and amitriptyline⁴⁰) have been shown to be an effective treatment, with an 82% increase in somnolence compared with placebo, as well as measurably improved total sleep time, enhanced sleep efficiency, reduced latency to persistent sleep, and decreased wake times after sleep onset.³⁸

Dosing should be kept at a minimum to minimize harsh anticholinergic effects and avoid daytime sedation. Patients should be advised to take new doses or dose escalations earlier in the night to ensure less hangover sedation the next morning.

For patients with insomnia and comorbid depression, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine suggests the addition of a low dose (eg, 10–25 mg) of a TCA at nighttime to complement preexisting, full-dose, non-TCA antidepressants, while monitoring for serotonin syndrome and other potential but exceedingly rare drug-drug interactions.⁴¹

Psychiatric indications other than depression

Beyond the known benefits in major depressive disorder, TCAs have been shown to be effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia nervosa, and childhood enuresis.⁴² Given the shortage of mental health clinicians and the high prevalence of these conditions, nonpsychiatrist physicians should be familiar with the therapeutic potential of TCAs for these indications.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Adverse effects vary among TCAs. Common ones include blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, hypotension, tachycardia, tremor, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.⁴³ Tertiary amines are generally more sedating than secondary amines and cause more anticholinergic effects (Table 1).

Despite widespread perceptions that TCAs are less tolerable than newer antidepressants, studies repeatedly suggest that they have an adverse-effect burden similar to that of SSRIs and SNRIs, although SSRIs have a greater tendency to produce nausea, whereas TCAs are more likely to cause constipation.⁴⁴

Discontinuation syndrome

Abrupt discontinuation or unintentionally missed doses of TCAs have been associated with a discontinuation syndrome in about 40% of users.⁴⁵ Patients should be warned about this possibility and the syndrome’s potential effects: dizziness, insomnia, headaches, nausea, vomiting, flulike achiness, and restlessness. Rebound depression, anxiety, panic, or other psychiatric symptoms may also occur. Symptoms generally present within 2 to 5 days after dose discontinuation and last 7 to 14 days.⁴⁵

However, all TCAs have a long half-life, allowing for sufficient coverage with once-daily dosing and thus carry a lower risk of discontinuation syndrome than many other antidepressants (78% with venlafaxine; 55% with paroxetine).⁴⁵

To discontinue therapy safely, the dosage should be reduced gradually. As is pharmacologically expected, the greatest likelihood of discontinuation syndrome is associated with longer duration of continuous treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Cardiac conduction abnormalities

TCAs should not be prescribed to patients who have right bundle branch block, a severe electrolyte disturbance, or other cardiac conduction deficit or arrhythmia that can prolong the QTc interval and elevate the risk of lethal arrhythmia.^46,47 Cardiac effects from TCAs are largely dose-dependent. Nevertheless, a baseline electrocardiogram can be obtained to assess cardiac risk, and dose escalation can proceed if results are normal (eg, appropriate conduction intervals, QTc ≤ 450 ms).

Advanced age

For elderly patients, TCAs should be prescribed with caution and sometimes not at all,⁴⁸ because anticholinergic effects may worsen preexisting urinary retention (including benign prostatic hyperplasia), narrow-angle glaucoma, imbalance and gait issues, and cognitive impairment and dementia. Dehydration and orthostatic hypotension are contraindications for TCAs, as they may precipitate falls or hypotensive shock.

Epilepsy

TCAs should also be used with caution in patients with epilepsy, as they lower the seizure threshold.

Concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment

Giving TCAs together with monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants should be avoided, given the risk of hypertensive crisis.

Suicide risk

TCAs are dangerous and potentially lethal in overdose and so should not be prescribed to suicidal or otherwise impulsive patients.

Pregnancy

TCAs are in pregnancy risk category C (animal studies show adverse effects on fetus; no adequate or well-controlled studies in humans; potential benefits may warrant use despite risks). Using TCAs during pregnancy has very rarely led to neonatal withdrawal such as irritability, jitteriness, and convulsions, as well as fetal QTc interval prolongation.⁴⁹

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that therapy for depression during pregnancy be individualized, incorporating the expertise of the patient’s mental health clinician, obstetrician, primary healthcare provider, and pediatrician. In general, they recommend that TCAs should be avoided if possible and that alternatives such as SSRIs or SNRIs should be considered.⁵⁰

TCAs are excreted in breast milk, but they have not been detected in the serum of nursing infants, and no adverse events have been reported.

OVERDOSE IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS

Severe morbidity and death are associated with TCA overdose, characterized by  convulsions, cardiac arrest, and coma (the “3 Cs”). These dangers occur at much higher rates with TCAs than with other antidepressants.⁴³ Signs and symptoms of toxicity develop rapidly, usually within the first hour of overdose. Manifestations of overdose include prolonged QTc, cardiac arrhythmias, tachycardia, hypertension, severe hypotension, agitation, seizures, central nervous system depression, hallucinations, seizures, and coma.

Overdose management includes activated charcoal, seizure control, cardioversion, hydration, electrolyte stabilization, and other intensive care.

OFF-LABEL TCA MANAGEMENT

Dosing recommendations for off-label use of TCAs vary based on the condition, the medication, and the suggestions of individual authors and researchers. In general, dosing ranges for pain and other nondepression indications may be lower than for severe depression (Table 2).¹

As with any pharmacologic titration, monitoring for rate-limiting adverse effects is recommended. We suggest caution, tailoring the approach to the patient, and routinely assessing for adverse effects and other safety considerations.

In addition, we strongly recommend supplementing TCA therapy with nonpharmacologic strategies such as lifestyle changes, dietary modifications, exercise, physical therapy, and mental health optimization.

Most tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) have US Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of depression and anxiety disorders, but they are also a viable off-label option that should be considered by clinicians in specialties beyond psychiatry, especially for treating pain syndromes. Given the ongoing epidemic of opioid use disorder, increasing attention has been drawn to alternative strategies for chronic pain management, renewing an interest in the use of TCAs.

This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties of TCAs, their potential indications in conditions other than depression, and safety considerations.

BRIEF HISTORY OF TRICYCLICS

TCAs were originally designed in the 1950s and marketed later for treating depression. Due to their adverse effects and lethality in overdose quantities, over time they have been largely replaced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in depression management. However, TCAs have been applied to conditions other than depression with varying degrees of efficacy and safety.

TCA PHARMACOLOGY

TCAs are absorbed in the small intestine and undergo first-pass metabolism in the liver. They bind extensively to proteins, leading to interactions with other protein-bound drugs. They are widely distributed throughout the systemic circulation because they are highly lipophilic, resulting in systemic effects including central nervous system manifestations.

Peak plasma concentration is at about 2 to 6 hours, and elimination half-life is around 24 hours for most agents, providing a long duration of action. Clearance depends on cytochrome P450 oxidative enzymes.¹

MECHANISMS OF ACTION

TCAs inhibit reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, resulting in accumulation of these neurotransmitters in the presynaptic cleft. They also block postsynaptic histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and muscarinic-acetylcholine receptors, causing a variety of adverse effects, including dry mouth, confusion, cognitive impairment, hypotension, orthostasis, blurred vision, urinary retention, drowsiness, and sedation.¹

Research suggests that TCAs relieve pain centrally through a descending pathway that inhibits transmission of pain signals in the spinal cord, as well as peripherally through complex anti-neuroimmune actions.² Norepinephrine appears to play a more important role in this process than serotonin, although both are deemed necessary for the “dual action” often cited in pain management,¹ which is also the rationale for widespread use of SNRIs to control pain.

Table 1 compares neurotransmitter reuptake mechanisms, adverse effect profiles, and typical dosages for depression for commonly prescribed TCAs.

POTENTIAL USES

Headache and migraine

TCAs have been shown to be effective for managing and preventing chronic headache syndromes.^3,4 Amitriptyline has been the most studied of the TCAs for both chronic daily and episodic migraine headache, showing the most efficacy among diverse drug classes (angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, SSRIs) compared with placebo. However, in head-to-head trials, amitriptyline was no more effective than SSRIs, venlafaxine, topiramate, or propranolol.⁴ Jackson et al⁴ suggested that prophylactic medication choices should be tailored to patient characteristics and expected adverse effects, and specifically recommended that TCAs—particularly amitriptyline—be reserved for patients who have both migraine and depression.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain secondary to a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system⁵ and is the pathomechanistic component of a number of conditions, including postherpetic neuralgia,⁶ diabetic and nondiabetic painful polyneuropathy,⁷ posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain⁸ (including plexus avulsion and complex regional pain syndrome⁹), central poststroke pain,¹⁰ spinal cord injury pain,¹¹ and multiple sclerosis-associated pain.¹²

As a group, TCAs appear to have a role as first-line agents for managing these varied neuropathic pain syndromes. In a recent meta-analysis,¹³ 16 (89%) of 18 placebo-controlled trials of TCAs (mainly amitriptyline at 25–150 mg/day) for these pain conditions were positive, with a combined number needed to treat of 3.6, suggesting a role for TCAs in these conditions. Of note, the TCAs desipramine¹⁴ and nortriptyline¹⁵ have demonstrated little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain syndromes.

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain is a leading cause of loss of work, excessive healthcare expenditure, and disability in the United States. It can be due to numerous spinal conditions, including degenerative disk disease, spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and spinal arthropathy.

TCAs have been used to treat chronic low back pain for decades and have been repeatedly shown to be more effective than placebo in reducing pain severity.^16,17 A double-blind controlled trial¹⁸ from 1999 compared the effects of the TCA maprotiline (up to 150 mg daily), the SSRI paroxetine (up to 30 mg daily), and placebo and found a statistically significant reduction in back pain with maprotiline compared with paroxetine and placebo. However, a 2008 meta-analysis suggested little evidence that TCAs were superior to placebo.¹⁹

Evidence of TCA efficacy for back pain was reported in 2018 with a well-designed 6-month double-blind randomized controlled trial²⁰ comparing low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg) with an active comparator (benztropine 1 mg). The authors reported that amitriptyline was effective in reducing pain and pain-related disability without incurring serious adverse effects. They suggested continued use of TCAs for chronic low back pain if complicated with pain-related disability, insomnia, depression, or other comorbidity, although they called for further large-scale studies. They also cautioned that patients started the trial with symptoms similar to the adverse effects of TCAs themselves; this has implications for monitoring of symptoms as well as TCA adverse effects while using these drugs.

 

 

Fibromyalgia and chronic widespread pain

Fibromyalgia is a common, frustrating, noninflammatory pain syndrome characterized by diffuse hyperalgesia and multiple comorbidities.²¹ Although sleep hygiene, exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, some gabapentinoids (pregabalin), and a combination of these therapies have demonstrated efficacy, TCAs also offer robust benefits.

A meta-analysis of 9 placebo-controlled TCA trials showed large effect sizes for pain reduction, fatigue reduction, improved sleep quality, and reduced stiffness and tenderness, with the most significant of these improvements being for sleep.²² A separate meta-analysis calculated that the number needed to treat with amitriptyline for a positive outcome is 4.9.²³ Recent systematic reviews have supported these findings, listing TCAs as second-line agents after pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran.²⁴

Of note, TCA monotherapy rarely produces a complete response in patients with moderate to severe fibromyalgia, chronic widespread pain, or significant comorbidities (depression, anxiety). Supplementation with cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, functional restoration, and other modalities is strongly recommended.

Abdominal and gastrointestinal pain

TCAs have been applied to a number of gastrointestinal syndromes with or without pain. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome have long been known to benefit from TCAs; the number needed to treat for symptomatic benefit over placebo is 3.5.^25,26

Although there is no substantial evidence that TCAs are useful in reducing active inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease, a study involving 81 patients found that residual noninflammatory gastrointestinal symptoms (such as diarrhea and pain) responded to TCAs, including nortriptyline and amitriptyline, with greater benefit for ulcerative colitis than for Crohn disease.²⁷

TCAs have also shown prophylactic benefit in cyclic vomiting syndrome, with a clinical response in over 75% of patients in controlled cohort studies.²⁸

The efficacy of TCAs in other abdominal or gastrointestinal syndromes is unclear or modest at best.²⁹ However, few alternative treatments exist for these conditions. Amitriptyline may help symptoms of functional dyspepsia,³⁰ but nortriptyline has proven ineffective in gastroparesis.³¹ Nonetheless, some authors²⁹ suggest considering TCAs on an individualized basis, with proper monitoring, in many if not most functional gastrointestinal disorders, especially when paired with behavioral therapies.

Pelvic and urogynecologic symptoms

Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women³² and 5% to 10% of men.³³ TCAs have shown efficacy in treating chronic pelvic pain with or without comorbid depression.³⁴ Amitriptyline and to a lesser extent nortriptyline are the TCAs most often prescribed. Pain relief appears to be independent of antidepressant effects and may be achieved at low doses; initial dosing ranges from 10 to 25 mg at bedtime, which may be increased to 100 mg as tolerated.³⁴

Based on a randomized, double-blind trial,³⁵ amitriptyline was recommended as a treatment option for interstitial cystitis or bladder pain, with the greatest symptom improvement in patients tolerating a daily dose of 50 mg.

Another study³⁶ randomized 56 women with chronic pelvic pain to amitriptyline or  gabapentin, or a combination of the drugs for 24 months. Although each regimen resulted in significant reduction in pain, fewer adverse effects occurred with gabapentin than amitriptyline. Poor compliance and early discontinuation of amitriptyline were common due to anticholinergic effects.

In small uncontrolled studies,³⁷ about half of women with chronic pelvic pain became pain-free after 8 weeks of treatment with nortriptyline and imipramine.

Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm potential benefits of TCAs in chronic urologic and pelvic pain.

Insomnia

Insomnia affects 23% to 56% of people in the United States, Europe, and Asia³⁸ and is the reason for more than 5.5 million primary care visits annually.³⁹ TCAs (especially doxepin, maprotiline, and amitriptyline⁴⁰) have been shown to be an effective treatment, with an 82% increase in somnolence compared with placebo, as well as measurably improved total sleep time, enhanced sleep efficiency, reduced latency to persistent sleep, and decreased wake times after sleep onset.³⁸

Dosing should be kept at a minimum to minimize harsh anticholinergic effects and avoid daytime sedation. Patients should be advised to take new doses or dose escalations earlier in the night to ensure less hangover sedation the next morning.

For patients with insomnia and comorbid depression, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine suggests the addition of a low dose (eg, 10–25 mg) of a TCA at nighttime to complement preexisting, full-dose, non-TCA antidepressants, while monitoring for serotonin syndrome and other potential but exceedingly rare drug-drug interactions.⁴¹

Psychiatric indications other than depression

Beyond the known benefits in major depressive disorder, TCAs have been shown to be effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia nervosa, and childhood enuresis.⁴² Given the shortage of mental health clinicians and the high prevalence of these conditions, nonpsychiatrist physicians should be familiar with the therapeutic potential of TCAs for these indications.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Adverse effects vary among TCAs. Common ones include blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, hypotension, tachycardia, tremor, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.⁴³ Tertiary amines are generally more sedating than secondary amines and cause more anticholinergic effects (Table 1).

Despite widespread perceptions that TCAs are less tolerable than newer antidepressants, studies repeatedly suggest that they have an adverse-effect burden similar to that of SSRIs and SNRIs, although SSRIs have a greater tendency to produce nausea, whereas TCAs are more likely to cause constipation.⁴⁴

Discontinuation syndrome

Abrupt discontinuation or unintentionally missed doses of TCAs have been associated with a discontinuation syndrome in about 40% of users.⁴⁵ Patients should be warned about this possibility and the syndrome’s potential effects: dizziness, insomnia, headaches, nausea, vomiting, flulike achiness, and restlessness. Rebound depression, anxiety, panic, or other psychiatric symptoms may also occur. Symptoms generally present within 2 to 5 days after dose discontinuation and last 7 to 14 days.⁴⁵

However, all TCAs have a long half-life, allowing for sufficient coverage with once-daily dosing and thus carry a lower risk of discontinuation syndrome than many other antidepressants (78% with venlafaxine; 55% with paroxetine).⁴⁵

To discontinue therapy safely, the dosage should be reduced gradually. As is pharmacologically expected, the greatest likelihood of discontinuation syndrome is associated with longer duration of continuous treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Cardiac conduction abnormalities

TCAs should not be prescribed to patients who have right bundle branch block, a severe electrolyte disturbance, or other cardiac conduction deficit or arrhythmia that can prolong the QTc interval and elevate the risk of lethal arrhythmia.^46,47 Cardiac effects from TCAs are largely dose-dependent. Nevertheless, a baseline electrocardiogram can be obtained to assess cardiac risk, and dose escalation can proceed if results are normal (eg, appropriate conduction intervals, QTc ≤ 450 ms).

Advanced age

For elderly patients, TCAs should be prescribed with caution and sometimes not at all,⁴⁸ because anticholinergic effects may worsen preexisting urinary retention (including benign prostatic hyperplasia), narrow-angle glaucoma, imbalance and gait issues, and cognitive impairment and dementia. Dehydration and orthostatic hypotension are contraindications for TCAs, as they may precipitate falls or hypotensive shock.

Epilepsy

TCAs should also be used with caution in patients with epilepsy, as they lower the seizure threshold.

Concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitor treatment

Giving TCAs together with monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants should be avoided, given the risk of hypertensive crisis.

Suicide risk

TCAs are dangerous and potentially lethal in overdose and so should not be prescribed to suicidal or otherwise impulsive patients.

Pregnancy

TCAs are in pregnancy risk category C (animal studies show adverse effects on fetus; no adequate or well-controlled studies in humans; potential benefits may warrant use despite risks). Using TCAs during pregnancy has very rarely led to neonatal withdrawal such as irritability, jitteriness, and convulsions, as well as fetal QTc interval prolongation.⁴⁹

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that therapy for depression during pregnancy be individualized, incorporating the expertise of the patient’s mental health clinician, obstetrician, primary healthcare provider, and pediatrician. In general, they recommend that TCAs should be avoided if possible and that alternatives such as SSRIs or SNRIs should be considered.⁵⁰

TCAs are excreted in breast milk, but they have not been detected in the serum of nursing infants, and no adverse events have been reported.

OVERDOSE IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS

Severe morbidity and death are associated with TCA overdose, characterized by  convulsions, cardiac arrest, and coma (the “3 Cs”). These dangers occur at much higher rates with TCAs than with other antidepressants.⁴³ Signs and symptoms of toxicity develop rapidly, usually within the first hour of overdose. Manifestations of overdose include prolonged QTc, cardiac arrhythmias, tachycardia, hypertension, severe hypotension, agitation, seizures, central nervous system depression, hallucinations, seizures, and coma.

Overdose management includes activated charcoal, seizure control, cardioversion, hydration, electrolyte stabilization, and other intensive care.

OFF-LABEL TCA MANAGEMENT

Dosing recommendations for off-label use of TCAs vary based on the condition, the medication, and the suggestions of individual authors and researchers. In general, dosing ranges for pain and other nondepression indications may be lower than for severe depression (Table 2).¹

As with any pharmacologic titration, monitoring for rate-limiting adverse effects is recommended. We suggest caution, tailoring the approach to the patient, and routinely assessing for adverse effects and other safety considerations.

In addition, we strongly recommend supplementing TCA therapy with nonpharmacologic strategies such as lifestyle changes, dietary modifications, exercise, physical therapy, and mental health optimization.

Perceptions regarding the use of gabapentin for alcohol use disorder (AUD) have shifted over time.^1–4 Early on, the drug was deemed to be benign and effective.^4–6 But more and more, concerns are being raised about its recreational use to achieve euphoria,⁷ and the drug is often misused by vulnerable populations, particularly those with opioid use disorder.^7–9

Given the large number of gabapentin prescriptions written off-label for AUD, it is incumbent on providers to understand how to prescribe it responsibly.^7–9 To that end, this article focuses on the benefits—and concerns—of this treatment option. We describe the effects of gabapentin on the central nervous system and how it may mitigate alcohol withdrawal and increase the likelihood of abstinence. In addition, we review clinical trials that evaluated potential roles of gabapentin in AUD, discuss the drug’s misuse potential, and suggest a framework for its appropriate use in AUD management.

ALCOHOL USE DISORDER IS COMMON AND SERIOUS

AUD affects about 14% of US adults and represents a significant health burden,¹ often with severe clinical and social implications. It manifests as compulsive drinking and loss of control despite adverse consequences on various life domains.¹⁰ It is generally associated with cravings, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms upon cessation. Alcohol withdrawal is characterized by tremors, anxiety, sweating, nausea, and tachycardia, and in severe cases, may involve hallucinations, seizures, and delirium tremens. Untreated, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.¹⁰

Even though psychosocial treatments for AUD by themselves are associated with high relapse rates, pharmacotherapy is underutilized. Three drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are available to treat it, but they are often poorly accepted and have limited efficacy. For these reasons, there is considerable interest in finding alternatives. Gabapentin is one of several agents that have been studied (Table 1). The topic has been reviewed in depth by Soyka and Müller.¹¹

GABAPENTIN REDUCES EXCITATION

The anticonvulsant gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating epilepsy, postherpetic neuralgia, and restless leg syndrome.^8,12–14 It binds and selectively impedes voltage-sensitive calcium channels, the pores in cell membrane that permit calcium to enter a neuron in response to changes in electrical currents.¹⁵

Gabapentin is believed to decrease excitation of the central nervous system in multiple ways:

• It reduces the release of glutamate, a key component of the excitatory system¹⁶
• It increases the concentration of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain7
• By binding the alpha-2-delta type 1 subunit of voltage-sensitive calcium channels,^8,15–17 it inhibits excitatory synapse formation independent of calcium channel activity¹⁶
• By blocking excitatory neurotransmission, it also may indirectly increase the concentration of GABA in the central nervous system1^6,17
• It modulates action of glutamic acid decarboxylase (involved in the synthesis of GABA) and glutamate synthesizing enzyme to increase GABA and decrease glutamate.¹⁷

 

 

ALCOHOL’S ACTIONS

The actions of alcohol on the brain are also complex.¹⁸ Alpha-2-delta type 1 subunits of calcium channels are upregulated in the reward centers of the brain by addictive substances, including alcohol.¹⁶ Alcohol interacts with corticotropin-releasing factor and several neurotransmitters,¹⁸ and specifically affects neuropathways involving norepinephrine, GABA, and glutamate.¹⁹ Alcohol has reinforcing effects mediated by the release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens.²⁰

Acutely, alcohol promotes GABA release and may also reduce GABA degradation, producing sedative and anxiolytic effects.²¹ Chronic alcohol use leads to a decrease in the number of GABAA receptors. Clinically, this downregulation manifests as tolerance to alcohol’s sedating effects.²¹

Alcohol affects the signaling of glutamatergic interaction with the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor.²² Glutamate activates this receptor as well as the voltage-gated ion channels, modifying calcium influx and increasing neuronal excitability.^22,23 Acutely, alcohol has an antagonistic effect on the NMDA receptor, while chronic drinking upregulates (increases) the number of NMDA receptors and voltage-gated calcium channels.^22,23

Alcohol withdrawal increases excitatory effects

Patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal have decreased GABA-ergic functioning and increased glutamatergic action throughout the central nervous system.^19,24

Withdrawal can be subdivided into an acute phase (lasting up to about 5 days) and a protracted phase (of undetermined duration). During withdrawal, the brain activates its “stress system,” leading to overexpression of corticotropin-releasing factor in the amygdala. Protracted withdrawal dysregulates the prefrontal cortex, increasing cravings and worsening negative emotional states and sleep.¹⁶

GABAPENTIN FOR ALCOHOL WITHDRAWAL

Benzodiazepines are the standard treatment for alcohol withdrawal.^3,24 They relieve symptoms and can prevent seizures and delirium tremens,²⁴ but they are sedating and cause psychomotor impairments.³ Because of the potential for addiction, benzodiazepine use is limited to acute alcohol withdrawal.³

Gabapentin shows promise as an agent that can be used in withdrawal and continued through early abstinence without the highly addictive potential of benzodiazepines.¹⁶ It is thought to affect drinking behaviors during early abstinence by normalizing GABA and glutamate activity.^2,16

Early preclinical studies in mouse models found that gabapentin decreases anxiogenic and epileptic effects of alcohol withdrawal. Compared with other antidrinking medications, gabapentin has the benefits of lacking elimination via hepatic metabolism, few pharmacokinetic interactions, and good reported tolerability in this population.

Inpatient trials show no benefit over standard treatments

Bonnet et al²⁵ conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled trial in Germany in inpatients experiencing acute alcohol withdrawal to determine whether gabapentin might be an effective adjunct to clomethiazole, a GABAA modulator commonly used in Europe for alcohol withdrawal. Participants (N = 61) were randomized to receive placebo or gabapentin (400 mg every 6 hours) for 72 hours, with tapering over the next 3 days. All patients could receive rescue doses of clomethiazole, using a symptom-triggered protocol.

The study revealed no differences in the amount of clomethiazole administered between the 2 groups, suggesting that gabapentin had no adjunctive effect. Side effects (vertigo, nausea, dizziness, and ataxia) were mild and comparable between groups.

Nichols et al²⁶ conducted a retrospective cohort study in a South Carolina academic psychiatric hospital to assess the adjunctive effect of gabapentin on the as-needed use of benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The active group (n = 40) received gabapentin as well as a symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol of benzodiazepine. The control group (n = 43) received only the symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol without gabapentin.

No effect was found of gabapentin use for benzodiazepine treatment of alcohol withdrawal. It is notable that Bonnet et al and Nichols et al had similar findings despite their studies being conducted in different countries using distinct comparators and methods.

Bonnet et al,²⁷ in another study, tried a different design to investigate a possible role for gabapentin in inpatient alcohol withdrawal. The study included 37 patients with severe alcohol withdrawal (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised [CIWA-Ar] > 15).

All participants received gabapentin 800 mg. Those whose CIWA-Ar score improved within 2 hours were considered “early responders” (n = 27) and next received 2 days of gabapentin 600 mg 4 times a day before starting a taper. The nonresponders whose CIWA-Ar score worsened (associated with greater anxiety and depressive symptoms; n = 10) were switched to standard treatment with clomethiazole (n = 4) or clonazepam (n = 6). Scores of 3 early responders subsequently worsened; 2 of these participants developed seizures and were switched to standard treatment.

The authors concluded that gabapentin in a dose of 3,200 mg in the first 24 hours is useful only for milder forms of alcohol withdrawal. Hence, subsequent efforts on the use of gabapentin for alcohol withdrawal have focused on outpatients.

Outpatient trials reveal benefits over benzodiazepines

Myrick et al³ compared gabapentin vs lorazepam in 100 outpatients seeking treatment for alcohol withdrawal. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: gabapentin 600 mg, 900 mg, or 1,200 mg, or lorazepam 6 mg, each tapering over 4 days. Alcohol withdrawal was measured by the CIWA-Ar score. Only 68 patients completed all follow-up appointments to day 12.

Gabapentin 600 mg was discontinued because of seizures in 2 patients, but it was generally well tolerated and was associated with diminished symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, especially at the 1,200 mg dose. The gabapentin groups experienced less anxiety and sedation and fewer cravings than the lorazepam group. Those treated with lorazepam fared worse for achieving early abstinence and were more likely to return to drinking when the intervention was discontinued. However, significant relapse by day 12 occurred in both groups.

The authors concluded that gabapentin was at least as effective as lorazepam in the outpatient treatment of alcohol withdrawal, with the 1,200-mg gabapentin dosage being more effective than 900 mg. At 1,200 mg, gabapentin was associated with better sleep, less anxiety, and better self-reported ability to work than lorazepam, and at the 900-mg dose it was associated with less depression than lorazepam.

Stock et al²⁸ conducted a randomized, double-blind study of gabapentin in acute alcohol withdrawal in 26 military veterans in an outpatient setting. Patients were ran­domized to one of the following:

• Gabapentin 1,200 mg orally for 3 days, followed by 900 mg, 600 mg, and 300 mg for 1 day each (n = 17)
• Chlordiazepoxide 100 mg orally for 3 days, followed by 75 mg, 50 mg, and 25 mg for 1 day each (n = 9).

Withdrawal scores improved similarly in both groups. Early on (days 1–4), neither cravings nor sleep differed significantly between groups; but later (days 5–7), the gabapentin group had superior scores for these measures. Gabapentin was also associated with significantly less sedation than chlordiazepoxide and trended to less alcohol craving.

 

 

Bottom line: Gabapentin is useful for mild withdrawal

Data suggest that gabapentin offers benefits for managing mild alcohol withdrawal. Improved residual craving and sleep measures are clinically important because they are risk factors for relapse. Mood and anxiety also improve with gabapentin, further indicating a therapeutic effect.

Gabapentin’s benefits for moderate and severe alcohol withdrawal have not been established. Seizures occurred during withdrawal despite gabapentin treatment, but whether from an insufficient dose, patient susceptibility, or lack of gabapentin efficacy is not clear. Best results occurred at the 1,200-mg daily dose, but benefits may not apply to patients with severe withdrawal. In addition, many studies were small, limiting the strength of conclusions.

Across most studies of gabapentin for alcohol withdrawal, advantages included a smoother transition into early abstinence due to improved sleep, mood, and anxiety, alleviating common triggers for a return to drinking. Gabapentin also carries less reinforcing potential than benzodiazepines. These qualities fueled interest in trying gabapentin to improve long-term abstinence.

GABAPENTIN FOR RELAPSE PREVENTION

Although naltrexone and acamprosate are the first-line treatments for relapse prevention, they do not help all patients and are more effective when combined with cognitive behavioral therapy.^1,29,30 For patients in whom standard treatments are not effective or tolerated, gabapentin may provide a reasonable alternative, and several randomized controlled trials have examined its use for this role.

Gabapentin alone is better than placebo

Furieri and Nakamura-Palacios⁴ assessed the use of gabapentin for relapse prevention in Brazilian outpatients (N = 60) who had averaged 27 years of drinking and consumed 17 drinks daily for the 90 days before baseline. After detoxification with diazepam and vitamins, patients were randomized to either gabapentin 300 mg twice daily or placebo for 4 weeks.

Compared with placebo, gabapentin significantly reduced cravings and lowered the percentage of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per day, with a significant increase in the percentage of abstinent days. These self-reported measures correlated with decreases in gamma-glutamyl transferase, a biological marker for heavy drinking.

Brower et al³¹ investigated the use of gabapentin in 21 outpatients with AUD and insomnia who desired to remain abstinent. They were randomized to gabapentin (up to 1,500 mg at night) or placebo for 6 weeks. Just 14 participants completed the study; all but 2 were followed without treatment until week 12.

Gabapentin was associated with significantly lower relapse rates at 6 weeks (3 of 10 in the gabapentin group vs 9 of 11 in the placebo group) and at 12 weeks (6 of 10 in the gabapentin group vs 11 of 11 in the placebo group, assuming the 2 patients lost to follow-up relapsed). No difference between groups was detected for sleep measures in this small study. However, other studies have found that gabapentin for AUD improves measures of insomnia and daytime drowsiness—predictors of relapse—compared with other medications.¹⁶

High-dose gabapentin is better

Mason et al² randomized 150 outpatients with alcohol dependence to 12 weeks of daily treatment with either gabapentin (900 mg or 1,800 mg) or placebo after at least 3 days of abstinence. All participants received counseling. Drinking quantity and frequency were assessed by gamma-glutamyl transferase testing.

Patients taking gabapentin had better rates of abstinence and cessation of heavy drinking than those taking placebo. During the 12-week study, the 1,800-mg daily dose showed a substantially higher abstinence rate (17%) than either 900 mg  (11%) or placebo (4%). Significant dose-related improvements were also found for heavy drinking days, total drinking quantity, and frequency of alcohol withdrawal symptoms that predispose to early relapse, such as poor sleep, cravings, and poor mood. There were also significant linear dose effects on rates of abstinence and nondrinking days at the 24-week posttreatment follow-up.

Gabapentin plus naltrexone is better than naltrexone alone

Anton et al⁵ examined the efficacy of gabapentin combined with naltrexone during early abstinence. The study randomly assigned 150 people with AUD to one of the following groups:

• 16 weeks of naltrexone (50 mg/day) alone
• 6 weeks of naltrexone (50 mg/day) plus gabapentin (up to 1,200 mg/day), followed by 10 weeks of naltrexone alone
• Placebo.

All participants received medical management.

Over the first 6 weeks, those receiving naltrexone plus gabapentin had a longer interval to heavy drinking than those taking only naltrexone. By week 6, about half of those taking placebo or naltrexone alone had a heavy drinking day, compared with about 35% of those taking naltrexone plus gabapentin. Those receiving the combination also had fewer days of heavy drinking, fewer drinks per drinking day, and better sleep than the other groups. Participants in the naltrexone-alone group were more likely to drink heavily during periods in which they reported poor sleep. No significant group differences were found in measures of mood.

Gabapentin enacarbil is no better than placebo

Falk et al,³² in a 2019 preliminary analysis, examined data from a trial of gabapentin enacarbil, a prodrug formulation of gabapentin. In this 6-month double-blind study, 346 people with moderate AUD at 10 sites were randomized to gabapentin enacarbil extended-release 600 mg twice a day or placebo. All subjects received a computerized behavioral intervention.

No significant differences between groups were found in drinking measures or alcohol cravings, sleep problems, depression, or anxiety symptoms. However, a dose-response analysis found significantly less drinking for higher doses of the drug.

Bottom line: Evidence of benefits mixed but risk low

The efficacy of gabapentin as a treatment for AUD has varied across studies as a function of dosing and formulation. Daily doses have ranged from 600 mg to 1,800 mg, with the highest dose showing advantages in one study for cravings, insomnia, anxiety, dysphoria, and relapse.² Thus far, gabapentin immediate-release has performed better than gabapentin enacarbil extended-release. All forms of gabapentin have been well-tolerated in AUD trials.

The 2018 American Psychiatric Association guidelines stated that gabapentin had a small positive effect on drinking outcomes, but the harm of treatment was deemed minimal, especially relative to the harms of chronic drinking.³³ The guidelines endorse the use of gabapentin in patients with moderate to severe AUD who select gabapentin from the available options, or for those who are nonresponsive to or cannot tolerate naltrexone or acamprosate, as long as no contraindications exist. It was also noted that even small effects may be clinically important, considering the significant morbidity associated with AUD.

 

 

POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE

The use of gabapentin has become controversial owing to the growing recognition that it may not be as benign as initially thought.^7–9,34 A review of US legislative actions reflects concerns about its misuse.³⁵ In July 2017, Kentucky classified it as a schedule V controlled substance with prescription drug monitoring,³⁵ as did Tennessee in 2018³⁶ and Michigan in January 2019.³⁷ Currently, 8 other states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, Wyoming, and West Virginia) require prescription drug monitoring of gabapentin, and other states are considering it.³⁵

Efforts to understand gabapentin misuse derive largely from people with drug use disorders. A review of postmortem toxicology reports in fatal drug overdoses found gabapentin present in 22%.³⁸ Although it was not necessarily a cause of death, its high rate of detection suggests wide misuse among drug users.

Among a cohort of 503 prescription opioid misusers in Appalachian Kentucky, 15% reported using gabapentin “to get high.” Those who reported misusing gabapentin were 6 times more likely than nonusers to be abusing opioids and benzodiazepines. The main sources of gabapentin were doctors (52%) and dealers (36%). The average cost of gabapentin on the street was less than $1.00 per pill.³⁹

Gabapentin misuse by methadone clinic patients is also reported. Baird et al⁴⁰ surveyed patients in 6 addiction clinics in the United Kingdom for gabapentin and pregabalin abuse and found that 22% disclosed misusing these medications. Of these, 38% said they did so to enhance the methadone high.

In a review article, Quintero⁴¹ also cited enhancement of methadone euphoria and treatment of opioid withdrawal as motivations for misuse. Opioid-dependent gabapentin misusers consumed doses of gabapentin 3 to 20 times higher than clinically recommended and in combination with multiple drugs.⁴ Such use can cause dissociative and psychedelic effects.

Gabapentin also potentiates the sedative effects of opioids, thus increasing the risk of falls, accidents, and other adverse events.^34,35 Risk of opioid-related deaths was increased with coprescription of gabapentin and with moderate to high gabapentin doses.³⁴

Are people with AUD at higher risk of gabapentin abuse?

Despite concerns, patients in clinical trials of gabapentin treatment for AUD were not identified as at high risk for misuse of the drug.^2,4,5,16 Further, no such trials reported serious drug-related adverse events resulting in gabapentin discontinuation or side effects that differed from placebo in frequency or severity.^2,4,5,16

Clinical laboratory studies also have found no significant interactions between alcohol and gabapentin.^42,43 In fact, they showed no influence of gabapentin on the pharmacokinetics of alcohol or on alcohol’s subjective effects. Relative to placebo, gabapentin did not affect blood alcohol levels, the degree of intoxication, sedation, craving, or alcohol self-administration.

Smith et al⁹ reported estimates that only 1% of the general population misuse gabapentin. Another review concluded that gabapentin is seldom a drug of choice.¹⁷ Most patients prescribed gabapentin do not experience cravings or loss of control, which are hallmarks of addiction. Hence, with adequate precautions, the off-label use of gabapentin for AUD is reasonable.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GABAPENTIN PRESCRIBING

Overall, evidence for the benefit of gabapentin in AUD is mixed. Subgroups of alcoholic patients, such as those who do not respond to or tolerate standard therapies, may particularly benefit, as may those with comorbid insomnia or neuropathic pain.⁴⁴ Clinicians should prescribe gabapentin only when it is likely to be helpful and should carefully document its efficacy.^2,45

At each visit, an open and honest assessment of the benefits and risks serves to promote shared decision-making regarding initiating, continuing, or discontinuing gabapentin.

For alcohol withdrawal

Before gabapentin is prescribed for alcohol withdrawal, potential benefits (reduction of withdrawal symptoms), side effects (sedation, fatigue), and risks (falls) should be discussed with the patient.⁴⁶ Patients should also be informed that benzodiazepines are the gold standard for alcohol withdrawal and that gabapentin is not effective for severe withdrawal.⁴⁶

For relapse prevention

When initiating treatment for relapse prevention, the patient and the prescriber should agree on specific goals (eg, reduction of drinking, anxiety, and insomnia).^2,16 Ongoing monitoring is essential and includes assessing and documenting improvement with respect to these goals.

In the AUD studies, gabapentin was well tolerated.¹⁶ Frequently observed side effects including headache, insomnia, fatigue, muscle aches, and gastrointestinal distress did not occur at a statistically different rate from placebo. However, patients in studies are selected samples, and their experience may not be generalizable to clinical practice. Thus, it is necessary to exercise caution and check for comorbidities that may put patients at risk of complications.⁴⁷ Older patients and those on hemodialysis are more susceptible to gabapentin side effects such as sedation, dizziness, ataxia, and mental status changes,³⁴ and prescribers should be alert for signs of toxicity (eg, ataxia, mental status changes).^47,48

Gabapentin misuse was not observed in AUD studies,^2,4,5,16 but evidence indicates that patients with opioid use disorder, prisoners, and polydrug users are at high risk for gabapentin misuse.^39–41 In all cases, clinicians should monitor for red flags that may indicate abuse, such as missed appointments, early refill requests, demands for increased dosage, and simultaneous opiate and benzodiazepine use.⁴⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank Nick Mulligan for his invaluable assistance with formatting and grammar.

Perceptions regarding the use of gabapentin for alcohol use disorder (AUD) have shifted over time.^1–4 Early on, the drug was deemed to be benign and effective.^4–6 But more and more, concerns are being raised about its recreational use to achieve euphoria,⁷ and the drug is often misused by vulnerable populations, particularly those with opioid use disorder.^7–9

Given the large number of gabapentin prescriptions written off-label for AUD, it is incumbent on providers to understand how to prescribe it responsibly.^7–9 To that end, this article focuses on the benefits—and concerns—of this treatment option. We describe the effects of gabapentin on the central nervous system and how it may mitigate alcohol withdrawal and increase the likelihood of abstinence. In addition, we review clinical trials that evaluated potential roles of gabapentin in AUD, discuss the drug’s misuse potential, and suggest a framework for its appropriate use in AUD management.

ALCOHOL USE DISORDER IS COMMON AND SERIOUS

AUD affects about 14% of US adults and represents a significant health burden,¹ often with severe clinical and social implications. It manifests as compulsive drinking and loss of control despite adverse consequences on various life domains.¹⁰ It is generally associated with cravings, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms upon cessation. Alcohol withdrawal is characterized by tremors, anxiety, sweating, nausea, and tachycardia, and in severe cases, may involve hallucinations, seizures, and delirium tremens. Untreated, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.¹⁰

Even though psychosocial treatments for AUD by themselves are associated with high relapse rates, pharmacotherapy is underutilized. Three drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are available to treat it, but they are often poorly accepted and have limited efficacy. For these reasons, there is considerable interest in finding alternatives. Gabapentin is one of several agents that have been studied (Table 1). The topic has been reviewed in depth by Soyka and Müller.¹¹

GABAPENTIN REDUCES EXCITATION

The anticonvulsant gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating epilepsy, postherpetic neuralgia, and restless leg syndrome.^8,12–14 It binds and selectively impedes voltage-sensitive calcium channels, the pores in cell membrane that permit calcium to enter a neuron in response to changes in electrical currents.¹⁵

Gabapentin is believed to decrease excitation of the central nervous system in multiple ways:

• It reduces the release of glutamate, a key component of the excitatory system¹⁶
• It increases the concentration of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain7
• By binding the alpha-2-delta type 1 subunit of voltage-sensitive calcium channels,^8,15–17 it inhibits excitatory synapse formation independent of calcium channel activity¹⁶
• By blocking excitatory neurotransmission, it also may indirectly increase the concentration of GABA in the central nervous system1^6,17
• It modulates action of glutamic acid decarboxylase (involved in the synthesis of GABA) and glutamate synthesizing enzyme to increase GABA and decrease glutamate.¹⁷

 

 

ALCOHOL’S ACTIONS

The actions of alcohol on the brain are also complex.¹⁸ Alpha-2-delta type 1 subunits of calcium channels are upregulated in the reward centers of the brain by addictive substances, including alcohol.¹⁶ Alcohol interacts with corticotropin-releasing factor and several neurotransmitters,¹⁸ and specifically affects neuropathways involving norepinephrine, GABA, and glutamate.¹⁹ Alcohol has reinforcing effects mediated by the release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens.²⁰

Acutely, alcohol promotes GABA release and may also reduce GABA degradation, producing sedative and anxiolytic effects.²¹ Chronic alcohol use leads to a decrease in the number of GABAA receptors. Clinically, this downregulation manifests as tolerance to alcohol’s sedating effects.²¹

Alcohol affects the signaling of glutamatergic interaction with the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor.²² Glutamate activates this receptor as well as the voltage-gated ion channels, modifying calcium influx and increasing neuronal excitability.^22,23 Acutely, alcohol has an antagonistic effect on the NMDA receptor, while chronic drinking upregulates (increases) the number of NMDA receptors and voltage-gated calcium channels.^22,23

Alcohol withdrawal increases excitatory effects

Patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal have decreased GABA-ergic functioning and increased glutamatergic action throughout the central nervous system.^19,24

Withdrawal can be subdivided into an acute phase (lasting up to about 5 days) and a protracted phase (of undetermined duration). During withdrawal, the brain activates its “stress system,” leading to overexpression of corticotropin-releasing factor in the amygdala. Protracted withdrawal dysregulates the prefrontal cortex, increasing cravings and worsening negative emotional states and sleep.¹⁶

GABAPENTIN FOR ALCOHOL WITHDRAWAL

Benzodiazepines are the standard treatment for alcohol withdrawal.^3,24 They relieve symptoms and can prevent seizures and delirium tremens,²⁴ but they are sedating and cause psychomotor impairments.³ Because of the potential for addiction, benzodiazepine use is limited to acute alcohol withdrawal.³

Gabapentin shows promise as an agent that can be used in withdrawal and continued through early abstinence without the highly addictive potential of benzodiazepines.¹⁶ It is thought to affect drinking behaviors during early abstinence by normalizing GABA and glutamate activity.^2,16

Early preclinical studies in mouse models found that gabapentin decreases anxiogenic and epileptic effects of alcohol withdrawal. Compared with other antidrinking medications, gabapentin has the benefits of lacking elimination via hepatic metabolism, few pharmacokinetic interactions, and good reported tolerability in this population.

Inpatient trials show no benefit over standard treatments

Bonnet et al²⁵ conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled trial in Germany in inpatients experiencing acute alcohol withdrawal to determine whether gabapentin might be an effective adjunct to clomethiazole, a GABAA modulator commonly used in Europe for alcohol withdrawal. Participants (N = 61) were randomized to receive placebo or gabapentin (400 mg every 6 hours) for 72 hours, with tapering over the next 3 days. All patients could receive rescue doses of clomethiazole, using a symptom-triggered protocol.

The study revealed no differences in the amount of clomethiazole administered between the 2 groups, suggesting that gabapentin had no adjunctive effect. Side effects (vertigo, nausea, dizziness, and ataxia) were mild and comparable between groups.

Nichols et al²⁶ conducted a retrospective cohort study in a South Carolina academic psychiatric hospital to assess the adjunctive effect of gabapentin on the as-needed use of benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The active group (n = 40) received gabapentin as well as a symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol of benzodiazepine. The control group (n = 43) received only the symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol without gabapentin.

No effect was found of gabapentin use for benzodiazepine treatment of alcohol withdrawal. It is notable that Bonnet et al and Nichols et al had similar findings despite their studies being conducted in different countries using distinct comparators and methods.

Bonnet et al,²⁷ in another study, tried a different design to investigate a possible role for gabapentin in inpatient alcohol withdrawal. The study included 37 patients with severe alcohol withdrawal (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised [CIWA-Ar] > 15).

All participants received gabapentin 800 mg. Those whose CIWA-Ar score improved within 2 hours were considered “early responders” (n = 27) and next received 2 days of gabapentin 600 mg 4 times a day before starting a taper. The nonresponders whose CIWA-Ar score worsened (associated with greater anxiety and depressive symptoms; n = 10) were switched to standard treatment with clomethiazole (n = 4) or clonazepam (n = 6). Scores of 3 early responders subsequently worsened; 2 of these participants developed seizures and were switched to standard treatment.

The authors concluded that gabapentin in a dose of 3,200 mg in the first 24 hours is useful only for milder forms of alcohol withdrawal. Hence, subsequent efforts on the use of gabapentin for alcohol withdrawal have focused on outpatients.

Outpatient trials reveal benefits over benzodiazepines

Myrick et al³ compared gabapentin vs lorazepam in 100 outpatients seeking treatment for alcohol withdrawal. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: gabapentin 600 mg, 900 mg, or 1,200 mg, or lorazepam 6 mg, each tapering over 4 days. Alcohol withdrawal was measured by the CIWA-Ar score. Only 68 patients completed all follow-up appointments to day 12.

Gabapentin 600 mg was discontinued because of seizures in 2 patients, but it was generally well tolerated and was associated with diminished symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, especially at the 1,200 mg dose. The gabapentin groups experienced less anxiety and sedation and fewer cravings than the lorazepam group. Those treated with lorazepam fared worse for achieving early abstinence and were more likely to return to drinking when the intervention was discontinued. However, significant relapse by day 12 occurred in both groups.

The authors concluded that gabapentin was at least as effective as lorazepam in the outpatient treatment of alcohol withdrawal, with the 1,200-mg gabapentin dosage being more effective than 900 mg. At 1,200 mg, gabapentin was associated with better sleep, less anxiety, and better self-reported ability to work than lorazepam, and at the 900-mg dose it was associated with less depression than lorazepam.

Stock et al²⁸ conducted a randomized, double-blind study of gabapentin in acute alcohol withdrawal in 26 military veterans in an outpatient setting. Patients were ran­domized to one of the following:

• Gabapentin 1,200 mg orally for 3 days, followed by 900 mg, 600 mg, and 300 mg for 1 day each (n = 17)
• Chlordiazepoxide 100 mg orally for 3 days, followed by 75 mg, 50 mg, and 25 mg for 1 day each (n = 9).

Withdrawal scores improved similarly in both groups. Early on (days 1–4), neither cravings nor sleep differed significantly between groups; but later (days 5–7), the gabapentin group had superior scores for these measures. Gabapentin was also associated with significantly less sedation than chlordiazepoxide and trended to less alcohol craving.

 

 

Bottom line: Gabapentin is useful for mild withdrawal

Data suggest that gabapentin offers benefits for managing mild alcohol withdrawal. Improved residual craving and sleep measures are clinically important because they are risk factors for relapse. Mood and anxiety also improve with gabapentin, further indicating a therapeutic effect.

Gabapentin’s benefits for moderate and severe alcohol withdrawal have not been established. Seizures occurred during withdrawal despite gabapentin treatment, but whether from an insufficient dose, patient susceptibility, or lack of gabapentin efficacy is not clear. Best results occurred at the 1,200-mg daily dose, but benefits may not apply to patients with severe withdrawal. In addition, many studies were small, limiting the strength of conclusions.

Across most studies of gabapentin for alcohol withdrawal, advantages included a smoother transition into early abstinence due to improved sleep, mood, and anxiety, alleviating common triggers for a return to drinking. Gabapentin also carries less reinforcing potential than benzodiazepines. These qualities fueled interest in trying gabapentin to improve long-term abstinence.

GABAPENTIN FOR RELAPSE PREVENTION

Although naltrexone and acamprosate are the first-line treatments for relapse prevention, they do not help all patients and are more effective when combined with cognitive behavioral therapy.^1,29,30 For patients in whom standard treatments are not effective or tolerated, gabapentin may provide a reasonable alternative, and several randomized controlled trials have examined its use for this role.

Gabapentin alone is better than placebo

Furieri and Nakamura-Palacios⁴ assessed the use of gabapentin for relapse prevention in Brazilian outpatients (N = 60) who had averaged 27 years of drinking and consumed 17 drinks daily for the 90 days before baseline. After detoxification with diazepam and vitamins, patients were randomized to either gabapentin 300 mg twice daily or placebo for 4 weeks.

Compared with placebo, gabapentin significantly reduced cravings and lowered the percentage of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per day, with a significant increase in the percentage of abstinent days. These self-reported measures correlated with decreases in gamma-glutamyl transferase, a biological marker for heavy drinking.

Brower et al³¹ investigated the use of gabapentin in 21 outpatients with AUD and insomnia who desired to remain abstinent. They were randomized to gabapentin (up to 1,500 mg at night) or placebo for 6 weeks. Just 14 participants completed the study; all but 2 were followed without treatment until week 12.

Gabapentin was associated with significantly lower relapse rates at 6 weeks (3 of 10 in the gabapentin group vs 9 of 11 in the placebo group) and at 12 weeks (6 of 10 in the gabapentin group vs 11 of 11 in the placebo group, assuming the 2 patients lost to follow-up relapsed). No difference between groups was detected for sleep measures in this small study. However, other studies have found that gabapentin for AUD improves measures of insomnia and daytime drowsiness—predictors of relapse—compared with other medications.¹⁶

High-dose gabapentin is better

Mason et al² randomized 150 outpatients with alcohol dependence to 12 weeks of daily treatment with either gabapentin (900 mg or 1,800 mg) or placebo after at least 3 days of abstinence. All participants received counseling. Drinking quantity and frequency were assessed by gamma-glutamyl transferase testing.

Patients taking gabapentin had better rates of abstinence and cessation of heavy drinking than those taking placebo. During the 12-week study, the 1,800-mg daily dose showed a substantially higher abstinence rate (17%) than either 900 mg  (11%) or placebo (4%). Significant dose-related improvements were also found for heavy drinking days, total drinking quantity, and frequency of alcohol withdrawal symptoms that predispose to early relapse, such as poor sleep, cravings, and poor mood. There were also significant linear dose effects on rates of abstinence and nondrinking days at the 24-week posttreatment follow-up.

Gabapentin plus naltrexone is better than naltrexone alone

Anton et al⁵ examined the efficacy of gabapentin combined with naltrexone during early abstinence. The study randomly assigned 150 people with AUD to one of the following groups:

• 16 weeks of naltrexone (50 mg/day) alone
• 6 weeks of naltrexone (50 mg/day) plus gabapentin (up to 1,200 mg/day), followed by 10 weeks of naltrexone alone
• Placebo.

All participants received medical management.

Over the first 6 weeks, those receiving naltrexone plus gabapentin had a longer interval to heavy drinking than those taking only naltrexone. By week 6, about half of those taking placebo or naltrexone alone had a heavy drinking day, compared with about 35% of those taking naltrexone plus gabapentin. Those receiving the combination also had fewer days of heavy drinking, fewer drinks per drinking day, and better sleep than the other groups. Participants in the naltrexone-alone group were more likely to drink heavily during periods in which they reported poor sleep. No significant group differences were found in measures of mood.

Gabapentin enacarbil is no better than placebo

Falk et al,³² in a 2019 preliminary analysis, examined data from a trial of gabapentin enacarbil, a prodrug formulation of gabapentin. In this 6-month double-blind study, 346 people with moderate AUD at 10 sites were randomized to gabapentin enacarbil extended-release 600 mg twice a day or placebo. All subjects received a computerized behavioral intervention.

No significant differences between groups were found in drinking measures or alcohol cravings, sleep problems, depression, or anxiety symptoms. However, a dose-response analysis found significantly less drinking for higher doses of the drug.

Bottom line: Evidence of benefits mixed but risk low

The efficacy of gabapentin as a treatment for AUD has varied across studies as a function of dosing and formulation. Daily doses have ranged from 600 mg to 1,800 mg, with the highest dose showing advantages in one study for cravings, insomnia, anxiety, dysphoria, and relapse.² Thus far, gabapentin immediate-release has performed better than gabapentin enacarbil extended-release. All forms of gabapentin have been well-tolerated in AUD trials.

The 2018 American Psychiatric Association guidelines stated that gabapentin had a small positive effect on drinking outcomes, but the harm of treatment was deemed minimal, especially relative to the harms of chronic drinking.³³ The guidelines endorse the use of gabapentin in patients with moderate to severe AUD who select gabapentin from the available options, or for those who are nonresponsive to or cannot tolerate naltrexone or acamprosate, as long as no contraindications exist. It was also noted that even small effects may be clinically important, considering the significant morbidity associated with AUD.

 

 

POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE

The use of gabapentin has become controversial owing to the growing recognition that it may not be as benign as initially thought.^7–9,34 A review of US legislative actions reflects concerns about its misuse.³⁵ In July 2017, Kentucky classified it as a schedule V controlled substance with prescription drug monitoring,³⁵ as did Tennessee in 2018³⁶ and Michigan in January 2019.³⁷ Currently, 8 other states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, Wyoming, and West Virginia) require prescription drug monitoring of gabapentin, and other states are considering it.³⁵

Efforts to understand gabapentin misuse derive largely from people with drug use disorders. A review of postmortem toxicology reports in fatal drug overdoses found gabapentin present in 22%.³⁸ Although it was not necessarily a cause of death, its high rate of detection suggests wide misuse among drug users.

Among a cohort of 503 prescription opioid misusers in Appalachian Kentucky, 15% reported using gabapentin “to get high.” Those who reported misusing gabapentin were 6 times more likely than nonusers to be abusing opioids and benzodiazepines. The main sources of gabapentin were doctors (52%) and dealers (36%). The average cost of gabapentin on the street was less than $1.00 per pill.³⁹

Gabapentin misuse by methadone clinic patients is also reported. Baird et al⁴⁰ surveyed patients in 6 addiction clinics in the United Kingdom for gabapentin and pregabalin abuse and found that 22% disclosed misusing these medications. Of these, 38% said they did so to enhance the methadone high.

In a review article, Quintero⁴¹ also cited enhancement of methadone euphoria and treatment of opioid withdrawal as motivations for misuse. Opioid-dependent gabapentin misusers consumed doses of gabapentin 3 to 20 times higher than clinically recommended and in combination with multiple drugs.⁴ Such use can cause dissociative and psychedelic effects.

Gabapentin also potentiates the sedative effects of opioids, thus increasing the risk of falls, accidents, and other adverse events.^34,35 Risk of opioid-related deaths was increased with coprescription of gabapentin and with moderate to high gabapentin doses.³⁴

Are people with AUD at higher risk of gabapentin abuse?

Despite concerns, patients in clinical trials of gabapentin treatment for AUD were not identified as at high risk for misuse of the drug.^2,4,5,16 Further, no such trials reported serious drug-related adverse events resulting in gabapentin discontinuation or side effects that differed from placebo in frequency or severity.^2,4,5,16

Clinical laboratory studies also have found no significant interactions between alcohol and gabapentin.^42,43 In fact, they showed no influence of gabapentin on the pharmacokinetics of alcohol or on alcohol’s subjective effects. Relative to placebo, gabapentin did not affect blood alcohol levels, the degree of intoxication, sedation, craving, or alcohol self-administration.

Smith et al⁹ reported estimates that only 1% of the general population misuse gabapentin. Another review concluded that gabapentin is seldom a drug of choice.¹⁷ Most patients prescribed gabapentin do not experience cravings or loss of control, which are hallmarks of addiction. Hence, with adequate precautions, the off-label use of gabapentin for AUD is reasonable.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GABAPENTIN PRESCRIBING

Overall, evidence for the benefit of gabapentin in AUD is mixed. Subgroups of alcoholic patients, such as those who do not respond to or tolerate standard therapies, may particularly benefit, as may those with comorbid insomnia or neuropathic pain.⁴⁴ Clinicians should prescribe gabapentin only when it is likely to be helpful and should carefully document its efficacy.^2,45

At each visit, an open and honest assessment of the benefits and risks serves to promote shared decision-making regarding initiating, continuing, or discontinuing gabapentin.

For alcohol withdrawal

Before gabapentin is prescribed for alcohol withdrawal, potential benefits (reduction of withdrawal symptoms), side effects (sedation, fatigue), and risks (falls) should be discussed with the patient.⁴⁶ Patients should also be informed that benzodiazepines are the gold standard for alcohol withdrawal and that gabapentin is not effective for severe withdrawal.⁴⁶

For relapse prevention

When initiating treatment for relapse prevention, the patient and the prescriber should agree on specific goals (eg, reduction of drinking, anxiety, and insomnia).^2,16 Ongoing monitoring is essential and includes assessing and documenting improvement with respect to these goals.

In the AUD studies, gabapentin was well tolerated.¹⁶ Frequently observed side effects including headache, insomnia, fatigue, muscle aches, and gastrointestinal distress did not occur at a statistically different rate from placebo. However, patients in studies are selected samples, and their experience may not be generalizable to clinical practice. Thus, it is necessary to exercise caution and check for comorbidities that may put patients at risk of complications.⁴⁷ Older patients and those on hemodialysis are more susceptible to gabapentin side effects such as sedation, dizziness, ataxia, and mental status changes,³⁴ and prescribers should be alert for signs of toxicity (eg, ataxia, mental status changes).^47,48

Gabapentin misuse was not observed in AUD studies,^2,4,5,16 but evidence indicates that patients with opioid use disorder, prisoners, and polydrug users are at high risk for gabapentin misuse.^39–41 In all cases, clinicians should monitor for red flags that may indicate abuse, such as missed appointments, early refill requests, demands for increased dosage, and simultaneous opiate and benzodiazepine use.⁴⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank Nick Mulligan for his invaluable assistance with formatting and grammar.

Perceptions regarding the use of gabapentin for alcohol use disorder (AUD) have shifted over time.^1–4 Early on, the drug was deemed to be benign and effective.^4–6 But more and more, concerns are being raised about its recreational use to achieve euphoria,⁷ and the drug is often misused by vulnerable populations, particularly those with opioid use disorder.^7–9

Given the large number of gabapentin prescriptions written off-label for AUD, it is incumbent on providers to understand how to prescribe it responsibly.^7–9 To that end, this article focuses on the benefits—and concerns—of this treatment option. We describe the effects of gabapentin on the central nervous system and how it may mitigate alcohol withdrawal and increase the likelihood of abstinence. In addition, we review clinical trials that evaluated potential roles of gabapentin in AUD, discuss the drug’s misuse potential, and suggest a framework for its appropriate use in AUD management.

ALCOHOL USE DISORDER IS COMMON AND SERIOUS

AUD affects about 14% of US adults and represents a significant health burden,¹ often with severe clinical and social implications. It manifests as compulsive drinking and loss of control despite adverse consequences on various life domains.¹⁰ It is generally associated with cravings, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms upon cessation. Alcohol withdrawal is characterized by tremors, anxiety, sweating, nausea, and tachycardia, and in severe cases, may involve hallucinations, seizures, and delirium tremens. Untreated, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.¹⁰

Even though psychosocial treatments for AUD by themselves are associated with high relapse rates, pharmacotherapy is underutilized. Three drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are available to treat it, but they are often poorly accepted and have limited efficacy. For these reasons, there is considerable interest in finding alternatives. Gabapentin is one of several agents that have been studied (Table 1). The topic has been reviewed in depth by Soyka and Müller.¹¹

GABAPENTIN REDUCES EXCITATION

The anticonvulsant gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating epilepsy, postherpetic neuralgia, and restless leg syndrome.^8,12–14 It binds and selectively impedes voltage-sensitive calcium channels, the pores in cell membrane that permit calcium to enter a neuron in response to changes in electrical currents.¹⁵

Gabapentin is believed to decrease excitation of the central nervous system in multiple ways:

• It reduces the release of glutamate, a key component of the excitatory system¹⁶
• It increases the concentration of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain7
• By binding the alpha-2-delta type 1 subunit of voltage-sensitive calcium channels,^8,15–17 it inhibits excitatory synapse formation independent of calcium channel activity¹⁶
• By blocking excitatory neurotransmission, it also may indirectly increase the concentration of GABA in the central nervous system1^6,17
• It modulates action of glutamic acid decarboxylase (involved in the synthesis of GABA) and glutamate synthesizing enzyme to increase GABA and decrease glutamate.¹⁷

 

 

ALCOHOL’S ACTIONS

The actions of alcohol on the brain are also complex.¹⁸ Alpha-2-delta type 1 subunits of calcium channels are upregulated in the reward centers of the brain by addictive substances, including alcohol.¹⁶ Alcohol interacts with corticotropin-releasing factor and several neurotransmitters,¹⁸ and specifically affects neuropathways involving norepinephrine, GABA, and glutamate.¹⁹ Alcohol has reinforcing effects mediated by the release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens.²⁰

Acutely, alcohol promotes GABA release and may also reduce GABA degradation, producing sedative and anxiolytic effects.²¹ Chronic alcohol use leads to a decrease in the number of GABAA receptors. Clinically, this downregulation manifests as tolerance to alcohol’s sedating effects.²¹

Alcohol affects the signaling of glutamatergic interaction with the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor.²² Glutamate activates this receptor as well as the voltage-gated ion channels, modifying calcium influx and increasing neuronal excitability.^22,23 Acutely, alcohol has an antagonistic effect on the NMDA receptor, while chronic drinking upregulates (increases) the number of NMDA receptors and voltage-gated calcium channels.^22,23

Alcohol withdrawal increases excitatory effects

Patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal have decreased GABA-ergic functioning and increased glutamatergic action throughout the central nervous system.^19,24

Withdrawal can be subdivided into an acute phase (lasting up to about 5 days) and a protracted phase (of undetermined duration). During withdrawal, the brain activates its “stress system,” leading to overexpression of corticotropin-releasing factor in the amygdala. Protracted withdrawal dysregulates the prefrontal cortex, increasing cravings and worsening negative emotional states and sleep.¹⁶

GABAPENTIN FOR ALCOHOL WITHDRAWAL

Benzodiazepines are the standard treatment for alcohol withdrawal.^3,24 They relieve symptoms and can prevent seizures and delirium tremens,²⁴ but they are sedating and cause psychomotor impairments.³ Because of the potential for addiction, benzodiazepine use is limited to acute alcohol withdrawal.³

Gabapentin shows promise as an agent that can be used in withdrawal and continued through early abstinence without the highly addictive potential of benzodiazepines.¹⁶ It is thought to affect drinking behaviors during early abstinence by normalizing GABA and glutamate activity.^2,16

Early preclinical studies in mouse models found that gabapentin decreases anxiogenic and epileptic effects of alcohol withdrawal. Compared with other antidrinking medications, gabapentin has the benefits of lacking elimination via hepatic metabolism, few pharmacokinetic interactions, and good reported tolerability in this population.

Inpatient trials show no benefit over standard treatments

Bonnet et al²⁵ conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled trial in Germany in inpatients experiencing acute alcohol withdrawal to determine whether gabapentin might be an effective adjunct to clomethiazole, a GABAA modulator commonly used in Europe for alcohol withdrawal. Participants (N = 61) were randomized to receive placebo or gabapentin (400 mg every 6 hours) for 72 hours, with tapering over the next 3 days. All patients could receive rescue doses of clomethiazole, using a symptom-triggered protocol.

The study revealed no differences in the amount of clomethiazole administered between the 2 groups, suggesting that gabapentin had no adjunctive effect. Side effects (vertigo, nausea, dizziness, and ataxia) were mild and comparable between groups.

Nichols et al²⁶ conducted a retrospective cohort study in a South Carolina academic psychiatric hospital to assess the adjunctive effect of gabapentin on the as-needed use of benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The active group (n = 40) received gabapentin as well as a symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol of benzodiazepine. The control group (n = 43) received only the symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol without gabapentin.

No effect was found of gabapentin use for benzodiazepine treatment of alcohol withdrawal. It is notable that Bonnet et al and Nichols et al had similar findings despite their studies being conducted in different countries using distinct comparators and methods.

Bonnet et al,²⁷ in another study, tried a different design to investigate a possible role for gabapentin in inpatient alcohol withdrawal. The study included 37 patients with severe alcohol withdrawal (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised [CIWA-Ar] > 15).

All participants received gabapentin 800 mg. Those whose CIWA-Ar score improved within 2 hours were considered “early responders” (n = 27) and next received 2 days of gabapentin 600 mg 4 times a day before starting a taper. The nonresponders whose CIWA-Ar score worsened (associated with greater anxiety and depressive symptoms; n = 10) were switched to standard treatment with clomethiazole (n = 4) or clonazepam (n = 6). Scores of 3 early responders subsequently worsened; 2 of these participants developed seizures and were switched to standard treatment.

The authors concluded that gabapentin in a dose of 3,200 mg in the first 24 hours is useful only for milder forms of alcohol withdrawal. Hence, subsequent efforts on the use of gabapentin for alcohol withdrawal have focused on outpatients.

Outpatient trials reveal benefits over benzodiazepines

Myrick et al³ compared gabapentin vs lorazepam in 100 outpatients seeking treatment for alcohol withdrawal. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: gabapentin 600 mg, 900 mg, or 1,200 mg, or lorazepam 6 mg, each tapering over 4 days. Alcohol withdrawal was measured by the CIWA-Ar score. Only 68 patients completed all follow-up appointments to day 12.

Gabapentin 600 mg was discontinued because of seizures in 2 patients, but it was generally well tolerated and was associated with diminished symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, especially at the 1,200 mg dose. The gabapentin groups experienced less anxiety and sedation and fewer cravings than the lorazepam group. Those treated with lorazepam fared worse for achieving early abstinence and were more likely to return to drinking when the intervention was discontinued. However, significant relapse by day 12 occurred in both groups.

The authors concluded that gabapentin was at least as effective as lorazepam in the outpatient treatment of alcohol withdrawal, with the 1,200-mg gabapentin dosage being more effective than 900 mg. At 1,200 mg, gabapentin was associated with better sleep, less anxiety, and better self-reported ability to work than lorazepam, and at the 900-mg dose it was associated with less depression than lorazepam.

Stock et al²⁸ conducted a randomized, double-blind study of gabapentin in acute alcohol withdrawal in 26 military veterans in an outpatient setting. Patients were ran­domized to one of the following:

• Gabapentin 1,200 mg orally for 3 days, followed by 900 mg, 600 mg, and 300 mg for 1 day each (n = 17)
• Chlordiazepoxide 100 mg orally for 3 days, followed by 75 mg, 50 mg, and 25 mg for 1 day each (n = 9).

Withdrawal scores improved similarly in both groups. Early on (days 1–4), neither cravings nor sleep differed significantly between groups; but later (days 5–7), the gabapentin group had superior scores for these measures. Gabapentin was also associated with significantly less sedation than chlordiazepoxide and trended to less alcohol craving.

 

 

Bottom line: Gabapentin is useful for mild withdrawal

Data suggest that gabapentin offers benefits for managing mild alcohol withdrawal. Improved residual craving and sleep measures are clinically important because they are risk factors for relapse. Mood and anxiety also improve with gabapentin, further indicating a therapeutic effect.

Gabapentin’s benefits for moderate and severe alcohol withdrawal have not been established. Seizures occurred during withdrawal despite gabapentin treatment, but whether from an insufficient dose, patient susceptibility, or lack of gabapentin efficacy is not clear. Best results occurred at the 1,200-mg daily dose, but benefits may not apply to patients with severe withdrawal. In addition, many studies were small, limiting the strength of conclusions.

Across most studies of gabapentin for alcohol withdrawal, advantages included a smoother transition into early abstinence due to improved sleep, mood, and anxiety, alleviating common triggers for a return to drinking. Gabapentin also carries less reinforcing potential than benzodiazepines. These qualities fueled interest in trying gabapentin to improve long-term abstinence.

GABAPENTIN FOR RELAPSE PREVENTION

Although naltrexone and acamprosate are the first-line treatments for relapse prevention, they do not help all patients and are more effective when combined with cognitive behavioral therapy.^1,29,30 For patients in whom standard treatments are not effective or tolerated, gabapentin may provide a reasonable alternative, and several randomized controlled trials have examined its use for this role.

Gabapentin alone is better than placebo

Furieri and Nakamura-Palacios⁴ assessed the use of gabapentin for relapse prevention in Brazilian outpatients (N = 60) who had averaged 27 years of drinking and consumed 17 drinks daily for the 90 days before baseline. After detoxification with diazepam and vitamins, patients were randomized to either gabapentin 300 mg twice daily or placebo for 4 weeks.

Compared with placebo, gabapentin significantly reduced cravings and lowered the percentage of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per day, with a significant increase in the percentage of abstinent days. These self-reported measures correlated with decreases in gamma-glutamyl transferase, a biological marker for heavy drinking.

Brower et al³¹ investigated the use of gabapentin in 21 outpatients with AUD and insomnia who desired to remain abstinent. They were randomized to gabapentin (up to 1,500 mg at night) or placebo for 6 weeks. Just 14 participants completed the study; all but 2 were followed without treatment until week 12.

Gabapentin was associated with significantly lower relapse rates at 6 weeks (3 of 10 in the gabapentin group vs 9 of 11 in the placebo group) and at 12 weeks (6 of 10 in the gabapentin group vs 11 of 11 in the placebo group, assuming the 2 patients lost to follow-up relapsed). No difference between groups was detected for sleep measures in this small study. However, other studies have found that gabapentin for AUD improves measures of insomnia and daytime drowsiness—predictors of relapse—compared with other medications.¹⁶

High-dose gabapentin is better

Mason et al² randomized 150 outpatients with alcohol dependence to 12 weeks of daily treatment with either gabapentin (900 mg or 1,800 mg) or placebo after at least 3 days of abstinence. All participants received counseling. Drinking quantity and frequency were assessed by gamma-glutamyl transferase testing.

Patients taking gabapentin had better rates of abstinence and cessation of heavy drinking than those taking placebo. During the 12-week study, the 1,800-mg daily dose showed a substantially higher abstinence rate (17%) than either 900 mg  (11%) or placebo (4%). Significant dose-related improvements were also found for heavy drinking days, total drinking quantity, and frequency of alcohol withdrawal symptoms that predispose to early relapse, such as poor sleep, cravings, and poor mood. There were also significant linear dose effects on rates of abstinence and nondrinking days at the 24-week posttreatment follow-up.

Gabapentin plus naltrexone is better than naltrexone alone

Anton et al⁵ examined the efficacy of gabapentin combined with naltrexone during early abstinence. The study randomly assigned 150 people with AUD to one of the following groups:

• 16 weeks of naltrexone (50 mg/day) alone
• 6 weeks of naltrexone (50 mg/day) plus gabapentin (up to 1,200 mg/day), followed by 10 weeks of naltrexone alone
• Placebo.

All participants received medical management.

Over the first 6 weeks, those receiving naltrexone plus gabapentin had a longer interval to heavy drinking than those taking only naltrexone. By week 6, about half of those taking placebo or naltrexone alone had a heavy drinking day, compared with about 35% of those taking naltrexone plus gabapentin. Those receiving the combination also had fewer days of heavy drinking, fewer drinks per drinking day, and better sleep than the other groups. Participants in the naltrexone-alone group were more likely to drink heavily during periods in which they reported poor sleep. No significant group differences were found in measures of mood.

Gabapentin enacarbil is no better than placebo

Falk et al,³² in a 2019 preliminary analysis, examined data from a trial of gabapentin enacarbil, a prodrug formulation of gabapentin. In this 6-month double-blind study, 346 people with moderate AUD at 10 sites were randomized to gabapentin enacarbil extended-release 600 mg twice a day or placebo. All subjects received a computerized behavioral intervention.

No significant differences between groups were found in drinking measures or alcohol cravings, sleep problems, depression, or anxiety symptoms. However, a dose-response analysis found significantly less drinking for higher doses of the drug.

Bottom line: Evidence of benefits mixed but risk low

The efficacy of gabapentin as a treatment for AUD has varied across studies as a function of dosing and formulation. Daily doses have ranged from 600 mg to 1,800 mg, with the highest dose showing advantages in one study for cravings, insomnia, anxiety, dysphoria, and relapse.² Thus far, gabapentin immediate-release has performed better than gabapentin enacarbil extended-release. All forms of gabapentin have been well-tolerated in AUD trials.

The 2018 American Psychiatric Association guidelines stated that gabapentin had a small positive effect on drinking outcomes, but the harm of treatment was deemed minimal, especially relative to the harms of chronic drinking.³³ The guidelines endorse the use of gabapentin in patients with moderate to severe AUD who select gabapentin from the available options, or for those who are nonresponsive to or cannot tolerate naltrexone or acamprosate, as long as no contraindications exist. It was also noted that even small effects may be clinically important, considering the significant morbidity associated with AUD.

 

 

POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE

The use of gabapentin has become controversial owing to the growing recognition that it may not be as benign as initially thought.^7–9,34 A review of US legislative actions reflects concerns about its misuse.³⁵ In July 2017, Kentucky classified it as a schedule V controlled substance with prescription drug monitoring,³⁵ as did Tennessee in 2018³⁶ and Michigan in January 2019.³⁷ Currently, 8 other states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, Wyoming, and West Virginia) require prescription drug monitoring of gabapentin, and other states are considering it.³⁵

Efforts to understand gabapentin misuse derive largely from people with drug use disorders. A review of postmortem toxicology reports in fatal drug overdoses found gabapentin present in 22%.³⁸ Although it was not necessarily a cause of death, its high rate of detection suggests wide misuse among drug users.

Among a cohort of 503 prescription opioid misusers in Appalachian Kentucky, 15% reported using gabapentin “to get high.” Those who reported misusing gabapentin were 6 times more likely than nonusers to be abusing opioids and benzodiazepines. The main sources of gabapentin were doctors (52%) and dealers (36%). The average cost of gabapentin on the street was less than $1.00 per pill.³⁹

Gabapentin misuse by methadone clinic patients is also reported. Baird et al⁴⁰ surveyed patients in 6 addiction clinics in the United Kingdom for gabapentin and pregabalin abuse and found that 22% disclosed misusing these medications. Of these, 38% said they did so to enhance the methadone high.

In a review article, Quintero⁴¹ also cited enhancement of methadone euphoria and treatment of opioid withdrawal as motivations for misuse. Opioid-dependent gabapentin misusers consumed doses of gabapentin 3 to 20 times higher than clinically recommended and in combination with multiple drugs.⁴ Such use can cause dissociative and psychedelic effects.

Gabapentin also potentiates the sedative effects of opioids, thus increasing the risk of falls, accidents, and other adverse events.^34,35 Risk of opioid-related deaths was increased with coprescription of gabapentin and with moderate to high gabapentin doses.³⁴

Are people with AUD at higher risk of gabapentin abuse?

Despite concerns, patients in clinical trials of gabapentin treatment for AUD were not identified as at high risk for misuse of the drug.^2,4,5,16 Further, no such trials reported serious drug-related adverse events resulting in gabapentin discontinuation or side effects that differed from placebo in frequency or severity.^2,4,5,16

Clinical laboratory studies also have found no significant interactions between alcohol and gabapentin.^42,43 In fact, they showed no influence of gabapentin on the pharmacokinetics of alcohol or on alcohol’s subjective effects. Relative to placebo, gabapentin did not affect blood alcohol levels, the degree of intoxication, sedation, craving, or alcohol self-administration.

Smith et al⁹ reported estimates that only 1% of the general population misuse gabapentin. Another review concluded that gabapentin is seldom a drug of choice.¹⁷ Most patients prescribed gabapentin do not experience cravings or loss of control, which are hallmarks of addiction. Hence, with adequate precautions, the off-label use of gabapentin for AUD is reasonable.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GABAPENTIN PRESCRIBING

Overall, evidence for the benefit of gabapentin in AUD is mixed. Subgroups of alcoholic patients, such as those who do not respond to or tolerate standard therapies, may particularly benefit, as may those with comorbid insomnia or neuropathic pain.⁴⁴ Clinicians should prescribe gabapentin only when it is likely to be helpful and should carefully document its efficacy.^2,45

At each visit, an open and honest assessment of the benefits and risks serves to promote shared decision-making regarding initiating, continuing, or discontinuing gabapentin.

For alcohol withdrawal

Before gabapentin is prescribed for alcohol withdrawal, potential benefits (reduction of withdrawal symptoms), side effects (sedation, fatigue), and risks (falls) should be discussed with the patient.⁴⁶ Patients should also be informed that benzodiazepines are the gold standard for alcohol withdrawal and that gabapentin is not effective for severe withdrawal.⁴⁶

For relapse prevention

When initiating treatment for relapse prevention, the patient and the prescriber should agree on specific goals (eg, reduction of drinking, anxiety, and insomnia).^2,16 Ongoing monitoring is essential and includes assessing and documenting improvement with respect to these goals.

In the AUD studies, gabapentin was well tolerated.¹⁶ Frequently observed side effects including headache, insomnia, fatigue, muscle aches, and gastrointestinal distress did not occur at a statistically different rate from placebo. However, patients in studies are selected samples, and their experience may not be generalizable to clinical practice. Thus, it is necessary to exercise caution and check for comorbidities that may put patients at risk of complications.⁴⁷ Older patients and those on hemodialysis are more susceptible to gabapentin side effects such as sedation, dizziness, ataxia, and mental status changes,³⁴ and prescribers should be alert for signs of toxicity (eg, ataxia, mental status changes).^47,48

Gabapentin misuse was not observed in AUD studies,^2,4,5,16 but evidence indicates that patients with opioid use disorder, prisoners, and polydrug users are at high risk for gabapentin misuse.^39–41 In all cases, clinicians should monitor for red flags that may indicate abuse, such as missed appointments, early refill requests, demands for increased dosage, and simultaneous opiate and benzodiazepine use.⁴⁹

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank Nick Mulligan for his invaluable assistance with formatting and grammar.

Here are 5 articles from the December issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Sustainable weight loss seen 5 years after endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/37lteRX
Expires May 16, 2020

2. PT beats steroid injections for knee OA

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2KIWKY6
Expires May 17, 2020

3. Better screening needed to reduce pregnancy-related overdose, death

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2XEZyuG
Expires May 17, 2020

4. Meta-analysis finds no link between PPI use and risk of dementia

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Xzs7JM
Expires June 3, 2020

5. Study: Cardiac biomarkers predicted CV events in CAP

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/33bAH2u
Expires August 13, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the December issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Sustainable weight loss seen 5 years after endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/37lteRX
Expires May 16, 2020

2. PT beats steroid injections for knee OA

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2KIWKY6
Expires May 17, 2020

3. Better screening needed to reduce pregnancy-related overdose, death

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2XEZyuG
Expires May 17, 2020

4. Meta-analysis finds no link between PPI use and risk of dementia

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Xzs7JM
Expires June 3, 2020

5. Study: Cardiac biomarkers predicted CV events in CAP

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/33bAH2u
Expires August 13, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the December issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Sustainable weight loss seen 5 years after endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/37lteRX
Expires May 16, 2020

2. PT beats steroid injections for knee OA

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2KIWKY6
Expires May 17, 2020

3. Better screening needed to reduce pregnancy-related overdose, death

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2XEZyuG
Expires May 17, 2020

4. Meta-analysis finds no link between PPI use and risk of dementia

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Xzs7JM
Expires June 3, 2020

5. Study: Cardiac biomarkers predicted CV events in CAP

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/33bAH2u
Expires August 13, 2020

Among children and adults with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus, fosphenytoin, valproate, and levetiracetam each stop seizures by 60 minutes in approximately half of patients, according to a study published Nov. 27 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The effectiveness and safety of the intravenous medications do not differ significantly, the researchers wrote.

“Having three equally effective second-line intravenous medications means that the clinician may choose a drug that takes into account individual situations,” wrote Phil E.M. Smith, MD, in an accompanying editorial (doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1913775). Clinicians may consider “factors such as the presumed underlying cause of status epilepticus; coexisting conditions, including allergy, liver and renal disease, hypotension, propensity to cardiac arrhythmia, and alcohol and drug dependence; the currently prescribed antiepileptic treatment; the cost of the medication; and governmental agency drug approval,” said Dr. Smith, who is affiliated with University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff.
 

A gap in guidance

Evidence supports benzodiazepines as the initial treatment for status epilepticus, but these drugs do not work in up to a third of patients, said first study author Jaideep Kapur, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues. “Clinical guidelines emphasize the need for rapid control of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus but do not provide guidance regarding the choice of medication on the basis of either efficacy or safety,” they wrote. Dr. Kapur is a professor of neurology and the director of UVA Brain Institute at University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate are the three most commonly used medications for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The Food and Drug Administration has labeled fosphenytoin for this indication in adults, and none of the drugs is approved for children. To determine the superiority or inferiority of these medications, the researchers conducted the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT). The blinded, comparative-effectiveness trial enrolled 384 patients at 57 hospital EDs in the United States. Patients were aged 2 years or older, had received a generally accepted cumulative dose of benzodiazepines for generalized convulsive seizures lasting more than 5 minutes and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions between 5-30 minutes after the last dose of benzodiazepine.

Patients randomly received one of the three trial drugs, which “were identical in appearance, formulation, packaging, and administration,” the authors said. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures and improving responsiveness at 60 minutes after the start of the infusion without administration of additional anticonvulsant medication. ED physicians determined the presence of seizure and improvement in responsiveness.
 

Trial was stopped for futility

The trial included 400 enrollments of 384 unique patients during 2015-2017. Sixteen patients were enrolled twice, and their second enrollments were not included in the intention-to-treat analysis. A planned interim analysis after 400 enrollments to assess the likelihood of success or futility found that the trial had met the futility criterion. “There was a 1% chance of showing a most effective or least effective treatment if the trial were to continue to the maximum sample size” of 795 patients, Dr. Kapur and coauthors wrote. The researchers continued enrollment in a pediatric subcohort for a planned subgroup analysis by age.

In all, 55% of the patients were male, 43% were black, and 16% were Hispanic. The population was 39% children and adolescents, 48% adults aged 18-65 years, and 13% older than 65 years. Most patients had a final diagnosis of status epilepticus (87%). Other final diagnoses included psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (10%).

At 60 minutes after treatment administration, absence of seizures and improved responsiveness occurred in 47% of patients who received levetiracetam, 45% who received fosphenytoin, and 46% who received valproate.

In 39 patients for whom the researchers had reliable information about time to seizure cessation, median time to seizure cessation numerically favored valproate (7 minutes for valproate vs. 10.5 minutes for levetiracetam vs. 11.7 minutes for fosphenytoin), but the number of patients was limited, the authors noted.

“Hypotension and endotracheal intubation were more frequent with fosphenytoin than with the other two drugs, and deaths were more frequent with levetiracetam, but these differences were not significant,” wrote Dr. Kapur and colleagues. Seven patients who received levetiracetam died, compared with three who received fosphenytoin and two who received valproate. Life-threatening hypotension occurred in 3.2% of patients who received fosphenytoin, compared with 1.6% who received valproate and 0.7% who received levetiracetam. Endotracheal intubation occurred in 26.4% or patients who received fosphenytoin, compared with 20% of patients in the levetiracetam group and 16.8% in the valproate group.

The trial’s limitations include the enrollment of patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and the use of clinical instead of electroencephalographic criteria for the primary outcome measure, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Smith noted that third- and fourth-line management of status epilepticus is not supported by high-quality evidence, and further studies are needed. Given the evidence from ESETT, “the practical challenge for the management of status epilepticus remains the same as in the past: ensuring that clinicians are familiar with, and follow, a treatment protocol,” he said.

The trial was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Kapur had no financial disclosures. A coauthor holds a patent on intravenous carbamazepine and intellectual property on intravenous topiramate. Other coauthors have ties to pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

Dr. Smith is coeditor of Practical Neurology and a member of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines committee for epilepsy.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kapur J et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905795.

Among children and adults with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus, fosphenytoin, valproate, and levetiracetam each stop seizures by 60 minutes in approximately half of patients, according to a study published Nov. 27 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The effectiveness and safety of the intravenous medications do not differ significantly, the researchers wrote.

“Having three equally effective second-line intravenous medications means that the clinician may choose a drug that takes into account individual situations,” wrote Phil E.M. Smith, MD, in an accompanying editorial (doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1913775). Clinicians may consider “factors such as the presumed underlying cause of status epilepticus; coexisting conditions, including allergy, liver and renal disease, hypotension, propensity to cardiac arrhythmia, and alcohol and drug dependence; the currently prescribed antiepileptic treatment; the cost of the medication; and governmental agency drug approval,” said Dr. Smith, who is affiliated with University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff.
 

A gap in guidance

Evidence supports benzodiazepines as the initial treatment for status epilepticus, but these drugs do not work in up to a third of patients, said first study author Jaideep Kapur, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues. “Clinical guidelines emphasize the need for rapid control of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus but do not provide guidance regarding the choice of medication on the basis of either efficacy or safety,” they wrote. Dr. Kapur is a professor of neurology and the director of UVA Brain Institute at University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate are the three most commonly used medications for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The Food and Drug Administration has labeled fosphenytoin for this indication in adults, and none of the drugs is approved for children. To determine the superiority or inferiority of these medications, the researchers conducted the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT). The blinded, comparative-effectiveness trial enrolled 384 patients at 57 hospital EDs in the United States. Patients were aged 2 years or older, had received a generally accepted cumulative dose of benzodiazepines for generalized convulsive seizures lasting more than 5 minutes and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions between 5-30 minutes after the last dose of benzodiazepine.

Patients randomly received one of the three trial drugs, which “were identical in appearance, formulation, packaging, and administration,” the authors said. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures and improving responsiveness at 60 minutes after the start of the infusion without administration of additional anticonvulsant medication. ED physicians determined the presence of seizure and improvement in responsiveness.
 

Trial was stopped for futility

The trial included 400 enrollments of 384 unique patients during 2015-2017. Sixteen patients were enrolled twice, and their second enrollments were not included in the intention-to-treat analysis. A planned interim analysis after 400 enrollments to assess the likelihood of success or futility found that the trial had met the futility criterion. “There was a 1% chance of showing a most effective or least effective treatment if the trial were to continue to the maximum sample size” of 795 patients, Dr. Kapur and coauthors wrote. The researchers continued enrollment in a pediatric subcohort for a planned subgroup analysis by age.

In all, 55% of the patients were male, 43% were black, and 16% were Hispanic. The population was 39% children and adolescents, 48% adults aged 18-65 years, and 13% older than 65 years. Most patients had a final diagnosis of status epilepticus (87%). Other final diagnoses included psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (10%).

At 60 minutes after treatment administration, absence of seizures and improved responsiveness occurred in 47% of patients who received levetiracetam, 45% who received fosphenytoin, and 46% who received valproate.

In 39 patients for whom the researchers had reliable information about time to seizure cessation, median time to seizure cessation numerically favored valproate (7 minutes for valproate vs. 10.5 minutes for levetiracetam vs. 11.7 minutes for fosphenytoin), but the number of patients was limited, the authors noted.

“Hypotension and endotracheal intubation were more frequent with fosphenytoin than with the other two drugs, and deaths were more frequent with levetiracetam, but these differences were not significant,” wrote Dr. Kapur and colleagues. Seven patients who received levetiracetam died, compared with three who received fosphenytoin and two who received valproate. Life-threatening hypotension occurred in 3.2% of patients who received fosphenytoin, compared with 1.6% who received valproate and 0.7% who received levetiracetam. Endotracheal intubation occurred in 26.4% or patients who received fosphenytoin, compared with 20% of patients in the levetiracetam group and 16.8% in the valproate group.

The trial’s limitations include the enrollment of patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and the use of clinical instead of electroencephalographic criteria for the primary outcome measure, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Smith noted that third- and fourth-line management of status epilepticus is not supported by high-quality evidence, and further studies are needed. Given the evidence from ESETT, “the practical challenge for the management of status epilepticus remains the same as in the past: ensuring that clinicians are familiar with, and follow, a treatment protocol,” he said.

The trial was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Kapur had no financial disclosures. A coauthor holds a patent on intravenous carbamazepine and intellectual property on intravenous topiramate. Other coauthors have ties to pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

Dr. Smith is coeditor of Practical Neurology and a member of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines committee for epilepsy.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kapur J et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905795.

Among children and adults with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus, fosphenytoin, valproate, and levetiracetam each stop seizures by 60 minutes in approximately half of patients, according to a study published Nov. 27 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The effectiveness and safety of the intravenous medications do not differ significantly, the researchers wrote.

“Having three equally effective second-line intravenous medications means that the clinician may choose a drug that takes into account individual situations,” wrote Phil E.M. Smith, MD, in an accompanying editorial (doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1913775). Clinicians may consider “factors such as the presumed underlying cause of status epilepticus; coexisting conditions, including allergy, liver and renal disease, hypotension, propensity to cardiac arrhythmia, and alcohol and drug dependence; the currently prescribed antiepileptic treatment; the cost of the medication; and governmental agency drug approval,” said Dr. Smith, who is affiliated with University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff.
 

A gap in guidance

Evidence supports benzodiazepines as the initial treatment for status epilepticus, but these drugs do not work in up to a third of patients, said first study author Jaideep Kapur, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues. “Clinical guidelines emphasize the need for rapid control of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus but do not provide guidance regarding the choice of medication on the basis of either efficacy or safety,” they wrote. Dr. Kapur is a professor of neurology and the director of UVA Brain Institute at University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate are the three most commonly used medications for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus. The Food and Drug Administration has labeled fosphenytoin for this indication in adults, and none of the drugs is approved for children. To determine the superiority or inferiority of these medications, the researchers conducted the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT). The blinded, comparative-effectiveness trial enrolled 384 patients at 57 hospital EDs in the United States. Patients were aged 2 years or older, had received a generally accepted cumulative dose of benzodiazepines for generalized convulsive seizures lasting more than 5 minutes and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions between 5-30 minutes after the last dose of benzodiazepine.

Patients randomly received one of the three trial drugs, which “were identical in appearance, formulation, packaging, and administration,” the authors said. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures and improving responsiveness at 60 minutes after the start of the infusion without administration of additional anticonvulsant medication. ED physicians determined the presence of seizure and improvement in responsiveness.
 

Trial was stopped for futility

The trial included 400 enrollments of 384 unique patients during 2015-2017. Sixteen patients were enrolled twice, and their second enrollments were not included in the intention-to-treat analysis. A planned interim analysis after 400 enrollments to assess the likelihood of success or futility found that the trial had met the futility criterion. “There was a 1% chance of showing a most effective or least effective treatment if the trial were to continue to the maximum sample size” of 795 patients, Dr. Kapur and coauthors wrote. The researchers continued enrollment in a pediatric subcohort for a planned subgroup analysis by age.

In all, 55% of the patients were male, 43% were black, and 16% were Hispanic. The population was 39% children and adolescents, 48% adults aged 18-65 years, and 13% older than 65 years. Most patients had a final diagnosis of status epilepticus (87%). Other final diagnoses included psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (10%).

At 60 minutes after treatment administration, absence of seizures and improved responsiveness occurred in 47% of patients who received levetiracetam, 45% who received fosphenytoin, and 46% who received valproate.

In 39 patients for whom the researchers had reliable information about time to seizure cessation, median time to seizure cessation numerically favored valproate (7 minutes for valproate vs. 10.5 minutes for levetiracetam vs. 11.7 minutes for fosphenytoin), but the number of patients was limited, the authors noted.

“Hypotension and endotracheal intubation were more frequent with fosphenytoin than with the other two drugs, and deaths were more frequent with levetiracetam, but these differences were not significant,” wrote Dr. Kapur and colleagues. Seven patients who received levetiracetam died, compared with three who received fosphenytoin and two who received valproate. Life-threatening hypotension occurred in 3.2% of patients who received fosphenytoin, compared with 1.6% who received valproate and 0.7% who received levetiracetam. Endotracheal intubation occurred in 26.4% or patients who received fosphenytoin, compared with 20% of patients in the levetiracetam group and 16.8% in the valproate group.

The trial’s limitations include the enrollment of patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and the use of clinical instead of electroencephalographic criteria for the primary outcome measure, the investigators wrote.

Dr. Smith noted that third- and fourth-line management of status epilepticus is not supported by high-quality evidence, and further studies are needed. Given the evidence from ESETT, “the practical challenge for the management of status epilepticus remains the same as in the past: ensuring that clinicians are familiar with, and follow, a treatment protocol,” he said.

The trial was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Kapur had no financial disclosures. A coauthor holds a patent on intravenous carbamazepine and intellectual property on intravenous topiramate. Other coauthors have ties to pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

Dr. Smith is coeditor of Practical Neurology and a member of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines committee for epilepsy.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kapur J et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905795.

Among patients with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive treatment with cenobamate reduces focal-onset seizure frequency, according to recently published trial results.

In addition, “high rates of seizure freedom were observed with doses of 200 mg and 400 mg,” investigators reported in the Lancet Neurology.

During a 12-week maintenance phase, 21% of patients who received cenobamate 400 mg/day and 11% who received cenobamate 200 mg/day were seizure free, compared with 1% who received placebo. “These data suggest that cenobamate might be a safe and effective treatment option in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial)-onset seizures,” the authors wrote.

On Nov. 21, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved cenobamate tablets, marketed as Xcopri, to treat focal-onset seizures in adults. The agency noted that hypersensitivity reactions have occurred with cenobamate in two randomized, controlled studies and that one patient died when the drug was titrated rapidly during one of the studies that has not been published yet.

Researchers think that cenobamate, a novel tetrazole alkyl carbamate derivative, reduces neuronal excitability “by enhancing the fast and slow inactivation of sodium channels and by inhibiting the persistent component of the sodium channel current,” wrote Gregory L. Krauss, MD, a professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

The rates of seizure freedom with adjunctive cenobamate in the published trial are “a remarkable finding,” wrote Stephan Arnold, MD, an epilepsy specialist at Neurozentrum Nymphenburg in Munich, in an accompanying commentary. Twenty of 95 patients in the 400-mg/day group and 11 of 98 patients in the 200-mg/day group “had no seizures during the 12-week maintenance phase, whereas only 1 patient (1%) of the placebo group remained free of seizures during this period,” Dr. Arnold wrote. “To my knowledge, a seizure freedom rate of 20% or higher has not yet been reported in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of anticonvulsive drugs.”

Still, clinical trials in general are limited by their inclusion and exclusion criteria, relatively short maintenance phases, and the need to keep the dosage of concomitant drugs unchanged during the study, Dr. Arnold noted. “Thus, future findings under real-life conditions will reveal the clinical relevance of cenobamate.”

Hypersensitivity reactions led to protocol adjustments

During the trial, the investigators amended the protocol to lower the starting dose of cenobamate and slow the rate of up-titration to address a risk of allergic drug reactions. “Three hypersensitivity reactions, characterized as rash with involvement of at least one other body system, were reported in three patients” who were assigned to receive cenobamate 200 mg/day, the authors wrote. One case of pruritic rash accompanied by pyrexia occurred on day 10 during the initial faster titration protocol. In another case, “a rash and facial swelling occurred on day 57 in a patient who underwent the amended titration protocol.” These two patients discontinued treatment, and the rashes resolved.

“The third hypersensitivity reaction was a serious case of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms that occurred starting on day 24 of treatment in a patient randomly assigned to receive 200 mg/day of cenobamate during the faster initial titration protocol,” the authors wrote. “Treatment was discontinued and the patient was treated with corticosteroids and recovered within 2 months.”

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included somnolence, dizziness, and fatigue. Most events were mild or moderate. The rate of titration and an inability to adjust the dose of concomitant medications may have contributed to the rate of adverse events, the researchers noted. Treatment-emergent adverse events were most frequent in the 400-mg/day group and led to treatment discontinuation in 20% of patients in this group. An ongoing phase 3 study is assessing a lower starting dose and slower titration rate.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The 18-week, double-blind, randomized trial published in Lancet Neurology is one of two phase 2 clinical trials of cenobamate. The other phase 2 study, which lasted 12 weeks, is pending publication. For the 18-week study, researchers at 107 centers in 16 countries enrolled more than 430 adults aged 18-70 years with uncontrolled focal epilepsy. Patients were taking one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs at stable doses for at least 4 weeks before screening. Patients completed an 8-week baseline assessment, followed by a 6-week titration phase and a 12-week maintenance phase.

“During the 8-week baseline assessment, patients had to have eight or more focal aware (simple partial) seizures with a motor component, focal impaired awareness (complex partial) seizures, or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (secondarily generalized) seizures, with a seizure-free interval of less than 25 days,” Dr. Krauss and colleagues wrote. In addition, participants had to have at least three of these seizures during the first 4 weeks of the baseline assessment and at least three during the last 4 weeks.

The investigators excluded patients who were taking diazepam, phenytoin, or phenobarbital within 1 month of screening because of a potential drug-drug interaction with cenobamate. Other exclusion criteria included clinically significant psychiatric illness and status epilepticus within 3 months of screening.

The researchers assigned patients 1:1:1:1 to receive cenobamate 100 mg/day, cenobamate 200 mg/day, cenobamate 400 mg/day, or placebo. Percentage change from baseline in focal seizure frequency averaged over 28 days during the 18-week treatment period was the primary efficacy outcome for the FDA. The responder rate (the percentage of patients with at least a 50% reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency) during the 12-week maintenance phase was the primary efficacy outcome for the European Medicines Agency.

The investigators screened 533 patients and assigned 437 to treatment groups. The modified intention-to-treat population included 434 patients, the modified intention-to-treat maintenance-phase population included 397 patients, and the safety population included 437 patients. The most frequently used concomitant medications were levetiracetam (43%), lamotrigine (32%), and carbamazepine (28%).

The median percentage change from baseline in focal seizure frequency per 28 days during treatment was –24% for the placebo group and –35.5% for the cenobamate 100-mg group. The cenobamate 200 mg group and the cenobamate 400-mg/day group each had a change of –55%.

Responder rates during the maintenance phase were 25% for the placebo group, 40% for the 100-mg group, 56% for the 200-mg group, and 64% for the 400-mg group.

The implications of seizure freedom

The authors acknowledged that it is “difficult to interpret seizure freedom in clinical trials given the constraints of the study designs ... which do not reflect real-life practice. Nonetheless, seizure freedom is of great clinical significance to patient quality of life and the rates reported in this study are notable relative to all other pivotal studies of antiepileptic drug treatment in uncontrolled focal seizures over the past 25 years.”

Rates of seizure freedom represent a crucial outcome measure, Dr. Arnold wrote in his commentary.

“For individual patients, it is not a seizure reduction of 50% or even higher that counts, since this effect will not allow them to drive a car or to work under circumstances bearing increased health risks,” he wrote. “Even when seizure are infrequent, patients nevertheless face the risks of falls, fractures, drowning, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. It is complete seizure control that gives rise for hope of an independent lifestyle.”

The study was funded by SK Life Science, the developer of cenobamate. One of the study authors is an employee of SK Life Science. Dr. Krauss is a consultant or advisor for Eisai, Otsuka, and Shire and has received research support from Biogen, SK Life Science, and UCB. Dr. Arnold had no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Krauss GL et al. Lancet Neurol. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30399-0.

Among patients with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive treatment with cenobamate reduces focal-onset seizure frequency, according to recently published trial results.

In addition, “high rates of seizure freedom were observed with doses of 200 mg and 400 mg,” investigators reported in the Lancet Neurology.

During a 12-week maintenance phase, 21% of patients who received cenobamate 400 mg/day and 11% who received cenobamate 200 mg/day were seizure free, compared with 1% who received placebo. “These data suggest that cenobamate might be a safe and effective treatment option in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial)-onset seizures,” the authors wrote.

On Nov. 21, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved cenobamate tablets, marketed as Xcopri, to treat focal-onset seizures in adults. The agency noted that hypersensitivity reactions have occurred with cenobamate in two randomized, controlled studies and that one patient died when the drug was titrated rapidly during one of the studies that has not been published yet.

Researchers think that cenobamate, a novel tetrazole alkyl carbamate derivative, reduces neuronal excitability “by enhancing the fast and slow inactivation of sodium channels and by inhibiting the persistent component of the sodium channel current,” wrote Gregory L. Krauss, MD, a professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

The rates of seizure freedom with adjunctive cenobamate in the published trial are “a remarkable finding,” wrote Stephan Arnold, MD, an epilepsy specialist at Neurozentrum Nymphenburg in Munich, in an accompanying commentary. Twenty of 95 patients in the 400-mg/day group and 11 of 98 patients in the 200-mg/day group “had no seizures during the 12-week maintenance phase, whereas only 1 patient (1%) of the placebo group remained free of seizures during this period,” Dr. Arnold wrote. “To my knowledge, a seizure freedom rate of 20% or higher has not yet been reported in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of anticonvulsive drugs.”

Still, clinical trials in general are limited by their inclusion and exclusion criteria, relatively short maintenance phases, and the need to keep the dosage of concomitant drugs unchanged during the study, Dr. Arnold noted. “Thus, future findings under real-life conditions will reveal the clinical relevance of cenobamate.”

Hypersensitivity reactions led to protocol adjustments

During the trial, the investigators amended the protocol to lower the starting dose of cenobamate and slow the rate of up-titration to address a risk of allergic drug reactions. “Three hypersensitivity reactions, characterized as rash with involvement of at least one other body system, were reported in three patients” who were assigned to receive cenobamate 200 mg/day, the authors wrote. One case of pruritic rash accompanied by pyrexia occurred on day 10 during the initial faster titration protocol. In another case, “a rash and facial swelling occurred on day 57 in a patient who underwent the amended titration protocol.” These two patients discontinued treatment, and the rashes resolved.

“The third hypersensitivity reaction was a serious case of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms that occurred starting on day 24 of treatment in a patient randomly assigned to receive 200 mg/day of cenobamate during the faster initial titration protocol,” the authors wrote. “Treatment was discontinued and the patient was treated with corticosteroids and recovered within 2 months.”

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included somnolence, dizziness, and fatigue. Most events were mild or moderate. The rate of titration and an inability to adjust the dose of concomitant medications may have contributed to the rate of adverse events, the researchers noted. Treatment-emergent adverse events were most frequent in the 400-mg/day group and led to treatment discontinuation in 20% of patients in this group. An ongoing phase 3 study is assessing a lower starting dose and slower titration rate.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The 18-week, double-blind, randomized trial published in Lancet Neurology is one of two phase 2 clinical trials of cenobamate. The other phase 2 study, which lasted 12 weeks, is pending publication. For the 18-week study, researchers at 107 centers in 16 countries enrolled more than 430 adults aged 18-70 years with uncontrolled focal epilepsy. Patients were taking one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs at stable doses for at least 4 weeks before screening. Patients completed an 8-week baseline assessment, followed by a 6-week titration phase and a 12-week maintenance phase.

“During the 8-week baseline assessment, patients had to have eight or more focal aware (simple partial) seizures with a motor component, focal impaired awareness (complex partial) seizures, or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (secondarily generalized) seizures, with a seizure-free interval of less than 25 days,” Dr. Krauss and colleagues wrote. In addition, participants had to have at least three of these seizures during the first 4 weeks of the baseline assessment and at least three during the last 4 weeks.

The investigators excluded patients who were taking diazepam, phenytoin, or phenobarbital within 1 month of screening because of a potential drug-drug interaction with cenobamate. Other exclusion criteria included clinically significant psychiatric illness and status epilepticus within 3 months of screening.

The researchers assigned patients 1:1:1:1 to receive cenobamate 100 mg/day, cenobamate 200 mg/day, cenobamate 400 mg/day, or placebo. Percentage change from baseline in focal seizure frequency averaged over 28 days during the 18-week treatment period was the primary efficacy outcome for the FDA. The responder rate (the percentage of patients with at least a 50% reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency) during the 12-week maintenance phase was the primary efficacy outcome for the European Medicines Agency.

The investigators screened 533 patients and assigned 437 to treatment groups. The modified intention-to-treat population included 434 patients, the modified intention-to-treat maintenance-phase population included 397 patients, and the safety population included 437 patients. The most frequently used concomitant medications were levetiracetam (43%), lamotrigine (32%), and carbamazepine (28%).

The median percentage change from baseline in focal seizure frequency per 28 days during treatment was –24% for the placebo group and –35.5% for the cenobamate 100-mg group. The cenobamate 200 mg group and the cenobamate 400-mg/day group each had a change of –55%.

Responder rates during the maintenance phase were 25% for the placebo group, 40% for the 100-mg group, 56% for the 200-mg group, and 64% for the 400-mg group.

The implications of seizure freedom

The authors acknowledged that it is “difficult to interpret seizure freedom in clinical trials given the constraints of the study designs ... which do not reflect real-life practice. Nonetheless, seizure freedom is of great clinical significance to patient quality of life and the rates reported in this study are notable relative to all other pivotal studies of antiepileptic drug treatment in uncontrolled focal seizures over the past 25 years.”

Rates of seizure freedom represent a crucial outcome measure, Dr. Arnold wrote in his commentary.

“For individual patients, it is not a seizure reduction of 50% or even higher that counts, since this effect will not allow them to drive a car or to work under circumstances bearing increased health risks,” he wrote. “Even when seizure are infrequent, patients nevertheless face the risks of falls, fractures, drowning, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. It is complete seizure control that gives rise for hope of an independent lifestyle.”

The study was funded by SK Life Science, the developer of cenobamate. One of the study authors is an employee of SK Life Science. Dr. Krauss is a consultant or advisor for Eisai, Otsuka, and Shire and has received research support from Biogen, SK Life Science, and UCB. Dr. Arnold had no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Krauss GL et al. Lancet Neurol. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30399-0.

Among patients with uncontrolled focal seizures, adjunctive treatment with cenobamate reduces focal-onset seizure frequency, according to recently published trial results.

In addition, “high rates of seizure freedom were observed with doses of 200 mg and 400 mg,” investigators reported in the Lancet Neurology.

During a 12-week maintenance phase, 21% of patients who received cenobamate 400 mg/day and 11% who received cenobamate 200 mg/day were seizure free, compared with 1% who received placebo. “These data suggest that cenobamate might be a safe and effective treatment option in patients with uncontrolled focal (partial)-onset seizures,” the authors wrote.

On Nov. 21, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved cenobamate tablets, marketed as Xcopri, to treat focal-onset seizures in adults. The agency noted that hypersensitivity reactions have occurred with cenobamate in two randomized, controlled studies and that one patient died when the drug was titrated rapidly during one of the studies that has not been published yet.

Researchers think that cenobamate, a novel tetrazole alkyl carbamate derivative, reduces neuronal excitability “by enhancing the fast and slow inactivation of sodium channels and by inhibiting the persistent component of the sodium channel current,” wrote Gregory L. Krauss, MD, a professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

The rates of seizure freedom with adjunctive cenobamate in the published trial are “a remarkable finding,” wrote Stephan Arnold, MD, an epilepsy specialist at Neurozentrum Nymphenburg in Munich, in an accompanying commentary. Twenty of 95 patients in the 400-mg/day group and 11 of 98 patients in the 200-mg/day group “had no seizures during the 12-week maintenance phase, whereas only 1 patient (1%) of the placebo group remained free of seizures during this period,” Dr. Arnold wrote. “To my knowledge, a seizure freedom rate of 20% or higher has not yet been reported in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of anticonvulsive drugs.”

Still, clinical trials in general are limited by their inclusion and exclusion criteria, relatively short maintenance phases, and the need to keep the dosage of concomitant drugs unchanged during the study, Dr. Arnold noted. “Thus, future findings under real-life conditions will reveal the clinical relevance of cenobamate.”

Hypersensitivity reactions led to protocol adjustments

During the trial, the investigators amended the protocol to lower the starting dose of cenobamate and slow the rate of up-titration to address a risk of allergic drug reactions. “Three hypersensitivity reactions, characterized as rash with involvement of at least one other body system, were reported in three patients” who were assigned to receive cenobamate 200 mg/day, the authors wrote. One case of pruritic rash accompanied by pyrexia occurred on day 10 during the initial faster titration protocol. In another case, “a rash and facial swelling occurred on day 57 in a patient who underwent the amended titration protocol.” These two patients discontinued treatment, and the rashes resolved.

“The third hypersensitivity reaction was a serious case of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms that occurred starting on day 24 of treatment in a patient randomly assigned to receive 200 mg/day of cenobamate during the faster initial titration protocol,” the authors wrote. “Treatment was discontinued and the patient was treated with corticosteroids and recovered within 2 months.”

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included somnolence, dizziness, and fatigue. Most events were mild or moderate. The rate of titration and an inability to adjust the dose of concomitant medications may have contributed to the rate of adverse events, the researchers noted. Treatment-emergent adverse events were most frequent in the 400-mg/day group and led to treatment discontinuation in 20% of patients in this group. An ongoing phase 3 study is assessing a lower starting dose and slower titration rate.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The 18-week, double-blind, randomized trial published in Lancet Neurology is one of two phase 2 clinical trials of cenobamate. The other phase 2 study, which lasted 12 weeks, is pending publication. For the 18-week study, researchers at 107 centers in 16 countries enrolled more than 430 adults aged 18-70 years with uncontrolled focal epilepsy. Patients were taking one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs at stable doses for at least 4 weeks before screening. Patients completed an 8-week baseline assessment, followed by a 6-week titration phase and a 12-week maintenance phase.

“During the 8-week baseline assessment, patients had to have eight or more focal aware (simple partial) seizures with a motor component, focal impaired awareness (complex partial) seizures, or focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (secondarily generalized) seizures, with a seizure-free interval of less than 25 days,” Dr. Krauss and colleagues wrote. In addition, participants had to have at least three of these seizures during the first 4 weeks of the baseline assessment and at least three during the last 4 weeks.

The investigators excluded patients who were taking diazepam, phenytoin, or phenobarbital within 1 month of screening because of a potential drug-drug interaction with cenobamate. Other exclusion criteria included clinically significant psychiatric illness and status epilepticus within 3 months of screening.

The researchers assigned patients 1:1:1:1 to receive cenobamate 100 mg/day, cenobamate 200 mg/day, cenobamate 400 mg/day, or placebo. Percentage change from baseline in focal seizure frequency averaged over 28 days during the 18-week treatment period was the primary efficacy outcome for the FDA. The responder rate (the percentage of patients with at least a 50% reduction from baseline in focal seizure frequency) during the 12-week maintenance phase was the primary efficacy outcome for the European Medicines Agency.

The investigators screened 533 patients and assigned 437 to treatment groups. The modified intention-to-treat population included 434 patients, the modified intention-to-treat maintenance-phase population included 397 patients, and the safety population included 437 patients. The most frequently used concomitant medications were levetiracetam (43%), lamotrigine (32%), and carbamazepine (28%).

The median percentage change from baseline in focal seizure frequency per 28 days during treatment was –24% for the placebo group and –35.5% for the cenobamate 100-mg group. The cenobamate 200 mg group and the cenobamate 400-mg/day group each had a change of –55%.

Responder rates during the maintenance phase were 25% for the placebo group, 40% for the 100-mg group, 56% for the 200-mg group, and 64% for the 400-mg group.

The implications of seizure freedom

The authors acknowledged that it is “difficult to interpret seizure freedom in clinical trials given the constraints of the study designs ... which do not reflect real-life practice. Nonetheless, seizure freedom is of great clinical significance to patient quality of life and the rates reported in this study are notable relative to all other pivotal studies of antiepileptic drug treatment in uncontrolled focal seizures over the past 25 years.”

Rates of seizure freedom represent a crucial outcome measure, Dr. Arnold wrote in his commentary.

“For individual patients, it is not a seizure reduction of 50% or even higher that counts, since this effect will not allow them to drive a car or to work under circumstances bearing increased health risks,” he wrote. “Even when seizure are infrequent, patients nevertheless face the risks of falls, fractures, drowning, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. It is complete seizure control that gives rise for hope of an independent lifestyle.”

The study was funded by SK Life Science, the developer of cenobamate. One of the study authors is an employee of SK Life Science. Dr. Krauss is a consultant or advisor for Eisai, Otsuka, and Shire and has received research support from Biogen, SK Life Science, and UCB. Dr. Arnold had no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Krauss GL et al. Lancet Neurol. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30399-0.

ST. LOUIS – Late-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), with symptoms starting at or after age 50, is more severe than earlier-onset disease, with faster accrual of disability, according to a review of 1,524 patients with MS treated at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Whether the pathophysiology is different, or if the disease is simply compounded by the effects of aging, is uncertain. It is likely, however, that patients with late onset are at greater risk of misdiagnosis and delayed treatment, said Mattia Wruble, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Virginia.

The reason is that MS usually presents in young women as relapsing-remitting disease, but late onset is more typically primary progressive, with a higher proportion of men, which is something that has been demonstrated in previous work and also found in the new study.

“What we didn’t expect to find,” however, was greater “disability and higher disability accrual rates” across all subtypes. Late-onset MS “is a worse disease, a more severe disease” that might even need different treatment options, Ms. Wruble said at the American Neurological Association annual meeting.

Ms. Wruble and colleagues compared the charts of 1,381 patients with MS onset before age 50 years, at a median age of 33 years, with 143 patients whose symptoms began at age 50 years or later, at a median of 55 years.

It was one of the largest late-onset MS samples to date. Incidence of the condition is on the rise, but research has been limited. The investigators hoped to address a need for “a better and more thorough characterization of” the disease to aid treatment and improve outcomes, Ms. Wruble said.

There was a higher proportion of men in the late-onset group, 38% vs. 26%. About 75% of patients with early onset had relapsing remitting disease, and 10% had primary progressive disease. The late-onset group was about evenly split between relapsing-remitting and primary progressive MS (P less than .001).

Patients with late onset MS also had a higher degree of disability at their most recent visit across all subtypes (median Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 5 versus 3), despite having a shorter duration of disease (mean 12 vs. 17 years from symptom onset).

Overall disease accrual rate in the late-onset group was twice that of early-onset group, a decline of 0.647 points per year on the EDSS versus 0.357 points (P less than .001). The finding held when limited to early and late relapsing-remitting cases. The accrual rate for late-onset primary and secondary progressive MS was 1.5 times that of early-onset cases.

Transition to secondary progressive disease also was faster in the late-onset group, a mean of about 7 years versus 15-19 years. Patients with late onset also were more likely to have a history of smoking.

The cerebrospinal fluid in late-onset MS generally has fewer unique oligoclonal bands, which are part of the McDonald diagnostic criteria for MS. “The McDonald criteria were made for patients between 20 and 50 years old; maybe they are not the best criteria to diagnose this late-onset group,” Ms. Wruble said.

There was no external funding, and Ms. Wruble had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wruble M et al. ANA 2019. Abstract S234.

ST. LOUIS – Late-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), with symptoms starting at or after age 50, is more severe than earlier-onset disease, with faster accrual of disability, according to a review of 1,524 patients with MS treated at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Whether the pathophysiology is different, or if the disease is simply compounded by the effects of aging, is uncertain. It is likely, however, that patients with late onset are at greater risk of misdiagnosis and delayed treatment, said Mattia Wruble, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Virginia.

The reason is that MS usually presents in young women as relapsing-remitting disease, but late onset is more typically primary progressive, with a higher proportion of men, which is something that has been demonstrated in previous work and also found in the new study.

“What we didn’t expect to find,” however, was greater “disability and higher disability accrual rates” across all subtypes. Late-onset MS “is a worse disease, a more severe disease” that might even need different treatment options, Ms. Wruble said at the American Neurological Association annual meeting.

Ms. Wruble and colleagues compared the charts of 1,381 patients with MS onset before age 50 years, at a median age of 33 years, with 143 patients whose symptoms began at age 50 years or later, at a median of 55 years.

It was one of the largest late-onset MS samples to date. Incidence of the condition is on the rise, but research has been limited. The investigators hoped to address a need for “a better and more thorough characterization of” the disease to aid treatment and improve outcomes, Ms. Wruble said.

There was a higher proportion of men in the late-onset group, 38% vs. 26%. About 75% of patients with early onset had relapsing remitting disease, and 10% had primary progressive disease. The late-onset group was about evenly split between relapsing-remitting and primary progressive MS (P less than .001).

Patients with late onset MS also had a higher degree of disability at their most recent visit across all subtypes (median Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 5 versus 3), despite having a shorter duration of disease (mean 12 vs. 17 years from symptom onset).

Overall disease accrual rate in the late-onset group was twice that of early-onset group, a decline of 0.647 points per year on the EDSS versus 0.357 points (P less than .001). The finding held when limited to early and late relapsing-remitting cases. The accrual rate for late-onset primary and secondary progressive MS was 1.5 times that of early-onset cases.

Transition to secondary progressive disease also was faster in the late-onset group, a mean of about 7 years versus 15-19 years. Patients with late onset also were more likely to have a history of smoking.

The cerebrospinal fluid in late-onset MS generally has fewer unique oligoclonal bands, which are part of the McDonald diagnostic criteria for MS. “The McDonald criteria were made for patients between 20 and 50 years old; maybe they are not the best criteria to diagnose this late-onset group,” Ms. Wruble said.

There was no external funding, and Ms. Wruble had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wruble M et al. ANA 2019. Abstract S234.

ST. LOUIS – Late-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), with symptoms starting at or after age 50, is more severe than earlier-onset disease, with faster accrual of disability, according to a review of 1,524 patients with MS treated at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Whether the pathophysiology is different, or if the disease is simply compounded by the effects of aging, is uncertain. It is likely, however, that patients with late onset are at greater risk of misdiagnosis and delayed treatment, said Mattia Wruble, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Virginia.

The reason is that MS usually presents in young women as relapsing-remitting disease, but late onset is more typically primary progressive, with a higher proportion of men, which is something that has been demonstrated in previous work and also found in the new study.

“What we didn’t expect to find,” however, was greater “disability and higher disability accrual rates” across all subtypes. Late-onset MS “is a worse disease, a more severe disease” that might even need different treatment options, Ms. Wruble said at the American Neurological Association annual meeting.

Ms. Wruble and colleagues compared the charts of 1,381 patients with MS onset before age 50 years, at a median age of 33 years, with 143 patients whose symptoms began at age 50 years or later, at a median of 55 years.

It was one of the largest late-onset MS samples to date. Incidence of the condition is on the rise, but research has been limited. The investigators hoped to address a need for “a better and more thorough characterization of” the disease to aid treatment and improve outcomes, Ms. Wruble said.

There was a higher proportion of men in the late-onset group, 38% vs. 26%. About 75% of patients with early onset had relapsing remitting disease, and 10% had primary progressive disease. The late-onset group was about evenly split between relapsing-remitting and primary progressive MS (P less than .001).

Patients with late onset MS also had a higher degree of disability at their most recent visit across all subtypes (median Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 5 versus 3), despite having a shorter duration of disease (mean 12 vs. 17 years from symptom onset).

Overall disease accrual rate in the late-onset group was twice that of early-onset group, a decline of 0.647 points per year on the EDSS versus 0.357 points (P less than .001). The finding held when limited to early and late relapsing-remitting cases. The accrual rate for late-onset primary and secondary progressive MS was 1.5 times that of early-onset cases.

Transition to secondary progressive disease also was faster in the late-onset group, a mean of about 7 years versus 15-19 years. Patients with late onset also were more likely to have a history of smoking.

The cerebrospinal fluid in late-onset MS generally has fewer unique oligoclonal bands, which are part of the McDonald diagnostic criteria for MS. “The McDonald criteria were made for patients between 20 and 50 years old; maybe they are not the best criteria to diagnose this late-onset group,” Ms. Wruble said.

There was no external funding, and Ms. Wruble had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wruble M et al. ANA 2019. Abstract S234.

Episodic visual snow was tied to migraine attacks in a case series of three adults who denied any visual snow outside of the migraines, based on data collected at an outpatient headache center.

Visual snow, a condition in which patients experience visual distortion of tiny, flickering dots resembling analog television static, is often a comorbid condition in migraine patients with and without aura. However, “to our knowledge, this is the first report of patients with an episodic form of visual snow strictly occurring with migraine attacks,” wrote Julius Hodak, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland) and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Neurology, the investigators described 3 adults with histories of migraine but no aura who presented to a tertiary headache center between January 2016 and December 2017, in addition to 1,934 adults with migraine but no visual snow. The three patients initially presented with headaches, and neurologic and MRI results were normal.

Two patients experienced black and white episodic visual snow and one experienced black and yellow visual snow. In one patient, visual snow occurred for less than 2 minutes before and during a migraine attack. The other two patients experienced visual snow during the entire migraine attack.

Based on these patients, the researchers proposed distinguishing episodic visual snow from the distinct disorder of visual snow syndrome, in which patients experience continuous visual snow and other visual symptoms.

In addition, the cases were notable because of the lack of aura in the patients, the researchers wrote.

“In clinical practice, a detailed history in patients reporting visual flickering is therefore necessary to differentiate aura from [episodic visual snow],” they added, because an aura diagnosis would affect patient guidance on contraception use or the timing of triptans.

Dr. Hodak had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by Deutsche Migräne-und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft, Eye on Vision Foundation, and Baasch-Medicus Foundation.

SOURCE: Hodak J et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4050.

Episodic visual snow was tied to migraine attacks in a case series of three adults who denied any visual snow outside of the migraines, based on data collected at an outpatient headache center.

Visual snow, a condition in which patients experience visual distortion of tiny, flickering dots resembling analog television static, is often a comorbid condition in migraine patients with and without aura. However, “to our knowledge, this is the first report of patients with an episodic form of visual snow strictly occurring with migraine attacks,” wrote Julius Hodak, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland) and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Neurology, the investigators described 3 adults with histories of migraine but no aura who presented to a tertiary headache center between January 2016 and December 2017, in addition to 1,934 adults with migraine but no visual snow. The three patients initially presented with headaches, and neurologic and MRI results were normal.

Two patients experienced black and white episodic visual snow and one experienced black and yellow visual snow. In one patient, visual snow occurred for less than 2 minutes before and during a migraine attack. The other two patients experienced visual snow during the entire migraine attack.

Based on these patients, the researchers proposed distinguishing episodic visual snow from the distinct disorder of visual snow syndrome, in which patients experience continuous visual snow and other visual symptoms.

In addition, the cases were notable because of the lack of aura in the patients, the researchers wrote.

“In clinical practice, a detailed history in patients reporting visual flickering is therefore necessary to differentiate aura from [episodic visual snow],” they added, because an aura diagnosis would affect patient guidance on contraception use or the timing of triptans.

Dr. Hodak had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by Deutsche Migräne-und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft, Eye on Vision Foundation, and Baasch-Medicus Foundation.

SOURCE: Hodak J et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4050.

Episodic visual snow was tied to migraine attacks in a case series of three adults who denied any visual snow outside of the migraines, based on data collected at an outpatient headache center.

Visual snow, a condition in which patients experience visual distortion of tiny, flickering dots resembling analog television static, is often a comorbid condition in migraine patients with and without aura. However, “to our knowledge, this is the first report of patients with an episodic form of visual snow strictly occurring with migraine attacks,” wrote Julius Hodak, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland) and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Neurology, the investigators described 3 adults with histories of migraine but no aura who presented to a tertiary headache center between January 2016 and December 2017, in addition to 1,934 adults with migraine but no visual snow. The three patients initially presented with headaches, and neurologic and MRI results were normal.

Two patients experienced black and white episodic visual snow and one experienced black and yellow visual snow. In one patient, visual snow occurred for less than 2 minutes before and during a migraine attack. The other two patients experienced visual snow during the entire migraine attack.

Based on these patients, the researchers proposed distinguishing episodic visual snow from the distinct disorder of visual snow syndrome, in which patients experience continuous visual snow and other visual symptoms.

In addition, the cases were notable because of the lack of aura in the patients, the researchers wrote.

“In clinical practice, a detailed history in patients reporting visual flickering is therefore necessary to differentiate aura from [episodic visual snow],” they added, because an aura diagnosis would affect patient guidance on contraception use or the timing of triptans.

Dr. Hodak had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by Deutsche Migräne-und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft, Eye on Vision Foundation, and Baasch-Medicus Foundation.

SOURCE: Hodak J et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Nov 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4050.