Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41337803›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2026

A comprehensive analysis of jurisdiction-specific laws related to scheduling or required prescription drug monitoring of gabapentin in the United States, 2016-2024.

Katherine Gora Combs, Rachel Vickers-Smith, Collin Stewart, Daniel Wacker, Juan M Hincapie-Castillo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Katherine Gora CombsDepartment of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, USA; UNC Injury Prevention Research Center, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, CB# 7505, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7505, USA. Electronic address: kgoracombs@unc.edu.
Rachel Vickers-SmithDepartment of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, UK College of Public Health, 111 Washington Avenue, Lexington, KY 40536, USA. Electronic address: rachel.vickers@uky.edu.
Collin StewartDepartment of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, USA. Electronic address: cgstew@unc.edu.
Daniel WackerDepartment of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440, USA. Electronic address: wackerd@unc.edu.
Juan M Hincapie-CastilloDepartment of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, USA; UNC Injury Prevention Research Center, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, CB# 7505, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7505, USA. Electronic address: jhincapie-castillo@unc.edu.

Funding

Impact of state-level gabapentin schedule V controlled substance classification on utilization and fatal overdoseR36DA062854 · NIDA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI GORA COMBS, KATHERINE NICOLE · 2025 to 2025
$54k
NIDA NIH HHS R36 DA062854
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gabapentin prescription use has increased across the United States since the late 2000s. Concerns of potential misuse and growing overdose involvement have led to the passage of jurisdiction-specific policies targeting gabapentin prescribing; however, the current legal landscape of these policies is not well documented or understood. We conducted a comprehensive, longitudinal analysis of policies related to scheduling or required prescription drug monitoring of gabapentin across 51 jurisdictions in the United States from January 2016 through December 2024. Across the study period, 25 jurisdictions (49 %) enacted policies related to gabapentin scheduling or required prescription reporting. Eight (16 %) jurisdictions classified gabapentin as a schedule V controlled substance and mandated reporting of gabapentin prescriptions in the jurisdiction's prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) and 17 (33 %) jurisdictions required the reporting of gabapentin prescriptions to the jurisdiction's PDMP but did not classify gabapentin as a schedule V controlled substance. Both scheduling and mandated reporting policies were largely concentrated between 2016 and 2019. Though policy changes were observed across the entirety of the continental United States, the majority of jurisdictions with policies were concentrated in the Appalachian and Eastern Midwest regions. Our results provide a strong basis for future research on the impact of gabapentin scheduling and prescription drug monitoring policies on prescribing, dispensing, health care utilization, and overdose involvement. Future discussions at the state and federal level can also be informed by this analysis of the current legal landscape of gabapentin prescribing policies in the United States.

Indexed as

GabapentinPrescription Drug Monitoring ProgramsPrescription DrugsControlled SubstancesDrug and Narcotic ControlHumansLongitudinal StudiesPrescription Drug MisuseUnited StatesControlled SubstancesGabapentinPrescription DrugsControlled substanceDrug schedulingGabapentinHealth policyPrescription drug monitoringUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41337803
PMCPMC12676011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.