Characteristics and Impact of Drug Detailing for Gabapentin

Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
PLoS Medicine (Impact Factor: 14.43). 05/2007; 4(4):e134. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040134
Source: PubMed


Sales visits by pharmaceutical representatives ("drug detailing") are common, but little is known about the content of these visits or about the impact of visit characteristics on prescribing behavior. In this study, we evaluated the content and impact of detail visits for gabapentin by analyzing market research forms completed by physicians after receiving a detail visit for this drug.
Market research forms that describe detail visits for gabapentin became available through litigation that alleged that gabapentin was promoted for "off-label" uses. Forms were available for 97 physicians reporting on 116 detail visits between 1995 and 1999. Three-quarters of recorded visits (91/116) occurred in 1996. Two-thirds of visits (72/107) were 5 minutes or less in duration, 65% (73/113) were rated of high informational value, and 39% (42/107) were accompanied by the delivery or promise of samples. During the period of this study, gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the adjunctive treatment of partial seizures, but in 38% of visits (44/115) the "main message" of the visit involved at least one off-label use. After receiving the detail visit, 46% (50/108) of physicians reported the intention to increase their prescribing or recommending of gabapentin in the future. In multivariable analysis, intent to increase future use or recommendation of gabapentin was associated with receiving the detail in a small group (versus one-on-one) setting and with low or absent baseline use of the drug, but not with other factors such as visit duration, discussion of "on-label" versus "off-label" content, and the perceived informational value of the presentation.
Detail visits for gabapentin were of high perceived informational value and often involved messages about unapproved uses. Despite their short duration, detail visits were frequently followed by physician intentions to increase their future recommending or prescribing of the drug.

Download full-text


Available from: Charles Seth Landefeld, Feb 20, 2015
30 Reads
  • Source
    • "GBP is also widely used for the treatment of neuropathic pain and in off-label treatments [11], all of these being chronic regimens. Since the appearance of GBP as an add-on therapy for epilepsy in 1993, many studies have aimed to determine its cognitive profile and the potential application of this drug to the management of other neurological disorders [10] [11]. Several clinical and preclinical studies have provided evidence of the negative influence of GBP on memory performance after standard administration regimens [12] [13] [14] [15]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We previously reported that administration of a single dose of gabapentin (GBP) immediately after training improves memory of mice in an inhibitory avoidance task (IA), whereas GBP administered repeatedly for 7 days impairs memory. This is in accordance with the observation that long-term clinical treatment with GBP may be associated with adverse cognitive side effects. In the present work we used a GBP-loaded poly(epsilon-caprolactone) implant, allowing controlled release of the drug and maintenance of constant plasma levels over 1 week. When GBP-loaded implants were inserted subcutaneously into mice, immediately after training in the IA task, memory consolidation was enhanced. Moreover, GBP released from implants had an anticonvulsant action against pentylenetetrazole-induced seizures. These results suggest that maintenance of stable GBP plasma levels could protect against seizures without causing memory impairment. Hence, the adverse cognitive effects might be avoided by stabilizing plasma levels of the drug.
    Epilepsy & Behavior 02/2010; 17(2):157-64. DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.12.005 · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Publication bias, especially the lack of publication of negative treatment studies, is known to be a major problem in the medical literature. In particular, it appears that the pharmaceutical industry is not routinely making data from negative studies available through the published scientific literature. In this paper, we review the case of studies with lamotrigine in bipolar disorder, describing evidence of lack of efficacy in multiple mood states outside of the primary area of efficacy (prophylaxis of mood episodes). In particular, the drug has very limited, if any, efficacy in acute bipolar depression and rapid-cycling bipolar disorder, areas in which practicing clinicians, as well as some academic leaders, have supported its use. The negative unpublished data now made available on lamotrigine provide an important context for clinical practice and research, and also raise important scientific and public policy concerns about having access to studies showing inefficacy with psychotropic medications.
    Medscape journal of medicine 02/2008; 10(9):211.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bipolar disorder is a common and debilitating psychiatric illness. Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been approved for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Gabapentin gained a large market share of AED use in the late 1990s in spite of a lack of randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence and no labeled indication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its use in psychiatric illness. This article describes the results of a literature review, the purpose of which was to examine the characteristics of studies conducted in humans concerning the efficacy of gabapentin in bipolar disorder. Publications relevant to this topic were identified based on a PUBMED search as well as an examination of references from a published systematic review and citations from relevant review articles. The search located 29 studies published between 1997 and 2007, with the greatest number of articles published in 1998 and 1999. Of these 29 publications, 15 involved uncontrolled case series, while 6 were single case reports. The sample size in the studies was generally small, and often we could not identify the funding source. Despite the generally weak study design in the identified publications, the authors of the articles often commented on the promising nature of gabapentin therapy for bipolar disorder. However, 4 small, randomized trials in heterogeneous populations demonstrated little if any evidence of such efficacy. Nine letters to the editor demonstrated a similar pattern. The large number of case series concerning gabapentin is striking. The number of reports and their distribution in many different journals created a type of "echo chamber" effect, through which the sheer number of publications and citations may give legitimacy to the practice of using gabapentin for bipolar disorder. Although the case series were generally of poor quality, their publication in peer-reviewed journals may have been partially responsible for the widespread use of an ineffective medication.
    03/2008; 14 Suppl 1:15-27. DOI:10.1097/01.pra.0000333584.75741.45
Show more