Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intensive Monitoring of Pregabalin

Results from an Observational, Web-Based, Prospective Cohort Study in the Netherlands Using Patients as a Source of Information

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Pregabalin is one of the first drugs registered for the treatment of neuropathic pain. It is also indicated as adjuvant therapy in the treatment of epilepsy and for generalized anxiety disorder. Pregabalin is a GABA analogue and exerts its effect by binding to the α2-δ subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels, leading to a decreased synaptic release of neurotransmitters.

Objective: To gain insight into the safety and user profile of pregabalin in daily practice, reported by patients via a web-based intensive monitoring system based at the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb.

Methods: Lareb Intensive Monitoring is an observational prospective cohort study with no limiting inclusion or exclusion criteria compared with clinical trials. First-time users of pregabalin were identified through the first prescription signal in intensive monitoring participating pharmacies between 1 August 2006 and 31 January 2008. Eligible patients received information about the pregabalin study in the pharmacy. When registering online, patient characteristics and information about pregabalin and other concomitant drug use were collected. After registration, the patient received questionnaires by e-mail 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after the start of pregabalin. In these questionnaires, possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were addressed. Reactions not labelled in the Summary of Product Characteristics of pregabalin, and reactions that were labelled but were interesting for other reasons, were analysed on a case-by-case basis.

Results: In total, 1373 patients filled in the online registration form. The average age of participants was 54.5 years (range 11–89), with 58.0% being female. The indication for pregabalin use was neuropathic pain in 85.9% of participants. The average daily dose was 201 mg, and 80.5% of all users used pregabalin capsule 75 mg. All patients who registered for the study were sent a questionnaire; 1051 (76.5%) patients filled in at least one questionnaire. There were no statistically significant differences found regarding sex, age or daily dosage between this latter group compared with the patients who registered for the study but did not fill in a questionnaire. At least one possible ADR was reported by 69.3% of patients and serious ADRs were reported by 11 patients. The five most frequently reported possible ADRs were dizziness, somnolence, feeling drunk, fatigue and increased weight. Four associations were further analysed. Headache was analysed because of its high frequency. The time to onset ranged from a few hours to 5 months, with a median time to onset of 2 days. In 15 reports the headache passed without withdrawing the drug, and in ten cases the headache disappeared after drug withdrawal. Upper abdominal pain, a possible drug interaction between pregabalin and blood glucose-lowering agents, and suicidal ideation were considered to be signals.

Conclusions: Web-based intensive monitoring is an observational prospective cohort study. It will therefore provide a picture of the use of pregabalin and its ADRs in daily practice. This study indicates that pregabalin is a relatively safe drug. Eleven patients (<1.0%) experienced a serious ADR while using the drug. The most frequently reported possible ADRs correspond with the reactions most frequently reported during clinical trials. The study demonstrates that a web-based intensive monitoring system can contribute to greater knowledge about a reaction, such as headache, with quantification and information about latencies and time course of the reaction. It can also detect signals worth further investigation, such as abdominal pain and possible interaction with oral antidiabetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Fig. 2
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jensen TS, Gottrup H, Sindrup SH, et al. The clinical picture of neuropathic pain. Eur J Pharmacol 2001 Oct 19; 429(1–3): 1–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Attal N, Cruccu G, Haanpaa M, et al. EFNS guidelines on pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Eur J Neurol 2006 Nov; 13(11): 1153–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dieleman JP, Kerklaan J, Huygen FJ, et al. Incidence rates and treatment of neuropathic pain conditions in the general population. Pain 2008 Jul 31; 137(3): 681–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ, et al. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants for diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia: a quantitative systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2000 Dec; 20(6): 449–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). EPAR: Lyrica® [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_—_Product_Information/human/000546/WC500046602.pdf [Accessed 2010 Dec 1]

  6. Taylor CP, Angelotti T, Fauman E. Pharmacology and mechanism of action of pregabalin: the calcium channel alpha2-delta (alpha2-delta) subunit as a target for anti-epileptic drug discovery. Epilepsy Res 2007 Feb; 73(2): 137–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stricker BH, Psaty BM. Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2004 Jul 3; 329(7456): 44–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Härmark L, van Grootheest AC. Pharmacovigilance: methods, recent developments and future perspectives. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008 Aug; 64(8): 743–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Raine JM. Risk management: a European regulatory view. In: Mann R, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2007: 553–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29(5): 385–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Waller PC, Evans SJ. A model for the future conduct of pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003 Jan; 12(1): 17–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Härmark L, Kabel JS, van Puijenbroek EP, et al. Web-based intensive monitoring, a new patient based tool for early signal detection [abstract no. 184]. Drug Saf 2006; 29(10): 1005

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oosterhuis I, Härmark L, van Puijenbroek EP, et al. Lareb Intensive Monitoring: an interim analysis [abstract no. P091]. Drug Saf 2007; 30(10): 960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Grootheest AC, Härmark L, Oosterhuis I, et al. Lareb Intensive Monitoring, a web based system for monitoring ADRs in the postmarketing phase [abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: S252–3

    Google Scholar 

  15. Z-Index [online]. Available from URL: http://www.z-index.nl [Accessed 2010 Nov 15]

  16. Shakir SAW. PEM in the UK. In: Mann R, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2007: 307–16

    Google Scholar 

  17. Coulter DM. The New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1998 Mar; 7(2): 79–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Freeman R, Durso-Decruz E, Emir B. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pregabalin treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: findings from seven randomized, 231 controlled trials across a range of doses. Diabetes Care 2008 Jul; 31(7): 1448–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Feltner D, Wittchen HU, Kavoussi R, et al. Long-term efficacy of pregabalin in generalized anxiety disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2008 Jan; 23(1): 18–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Food and Drug Administration. Statistical review and evaluation: anti-epileptic drugs and suicidality [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM192556.pdf [Accessed 2010 Feb 22]

  21. van Grootheest AC, van Puijenbroek EP, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Contribution of pharmacists to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11(3): 205–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sfk.nl [Accessed 2010 Oct 27]

  23. de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, et al. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf 2008; 31(6): 515–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg L. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26(4): 211–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Mediaproducten steeds meer via internet [media release]. 2008 Oct 28 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/vrije-tijd-cultuur/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-071-pb.htm [Accessed 2010 Oct 27]

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Goudsbloemvallei 7, 5237MH, the Netherlands

    Linda Härmark, Eugène van Puijenbroek & Kees van Grootheest

  2. Department of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Linda Härmark & Kees van Grootheest

  3. Medicines Evaluation Board, The Hague, the Netherlands

    Sabine Straus

  4. Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Medical Informatics, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Sabine Straus

Authors
  1. Linda Härmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eugène van Puijenbroek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabine Straus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kees van Grootheest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Härmark.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Härmark, L., van Puijenbroek, E., Straus, S. et al. Intensive Monitoring of Pregabalin. Drug-Safety 34, 221–231 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11585030-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11585030-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation