Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28841868›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2017

A systematic review of the effectiveness of policies restricting access to pregabalin.

Brett R Stacey, Jonathan Liss, Regina Behar, Alesia Sadosky, Bruce Parsons, Elizabeth T Masters, Patrick Hlavacek

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The impact of a restricted pregabalin prescription policy on drug utilization: An observational multicenter study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  5. The Relative Value of Anti-Obesity Medications Compared to Similar Therapies.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Interpol review of controlled substances 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brett R StaceyCenter for Pain Relief at UWMC-Roosevelt, University of Washington, 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA. staceyb1@uw.edu.
Jonathan LissMedical Research and Health Education Foundation, 7196 North Lake Drive, Suite A, Columbus, GA, 31909, USA.
Regina BeharPfizer Inc, 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Alesia SadoskyPfizer Inc, 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Bruce ParsonsPfizer Inc, 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Elizabeth T MastersPfizer Inc, 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Patrick HlavacekPfizer Inc, 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Pfizer (United States) · USEducation & Research Foundation · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFormularies often employ restriction policies to reduce pharmacy costs. Pregabalin, an alpha-2-delta ligand, is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM); neuropathic pain (NeP) due to postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), spinal cord injury; and as adjunct therapy for partial onset seizures. Pregabalin is endorsed as first-line therapy for these indications by several US and EU medical professional societies. However, restriction policies such as prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) often favor less costly generic pain medications over pregabalin.

methodsA structured literature search (PubMed, past 11 years) was conducted to evaluate whether restriction policies against pregabalin support real-world economic and healthcare utilization benefits.

resultsSearch criteria identified three claims analyses and a modeling study that evaluated patients with NeP and/or FM with and without PA restrictions; three other studies included patients with FM and NeP in plans with ST requirements, and one evaluated a mail order requirement program. All studies evaluated outcomes during follow-up periods of 6 months or longer. Overall, PA, ST, and mail order restriction policies effectively reduced pregabalin usage, but the effects were inconsistent with reducing pharmacy costs and were non-significant for total disease-related medical costs. Two studies (one PA; one ST) reported significantly higher disease-related costs in restricted plans. The modeling study failed to demonstrate cost savings with PA. Opioid usage was higher in PA-restricted plans (two studies). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several professional NeP guidelines recommend opioid use only in cases when other non-opioid pain therapies have proven ineffective. New US Government taskforce guidelines now seek to reduce opioid exposure. Additionally, in both ST studies, gabapentin utilization (a common ST edit) was significantly increased. Both studies had substantial proportions of FM and pDPN patients and the only pain condition gabapentin is approved to treat in the United States is PHN.

conclusionPA and ST restriction policies significantly decrease utilization of pregabalin, but do not consistently demonstrate cost savings for US health plans. More research is needed to evaluate whether these policies may lead to increased opioid usage as found in some studies.

trial registrationN/A.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePharmaceutical ServicesAnalgesicsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHumansNeuralgiaPregabalinUnited StatesAnalgesicsPregabalinPregabalinPrior authorizationRestriction policiesStep therapy

Identifiers

PMID28841868
PMCPMC6389065
OpenAlexW2749382566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.