The American Society of Hematology (ASH) plans to honor 10 researchers with awards and lectures at this year’s annual meeting, scheduled to take place Dec. 7-10 in Orlando.

Richard Aster, MD, will receive the 2019 Wallace H. Coulter Award for Lifetime Achievement in Hematology. Dr. Aster, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Versiti Blood Center of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, “will be honored for his significant contributions to hematology through research, mentorship, and education throughout his 62-year career,” according to ASH.

Dr. Aster is known for his research on immune diseases that affect blood cells, particularly platelets. His work has led to improvements in platelet preparation, storage, and matching. In addition, he and his team developed the standard techniques for diagnosing immune thrombocytopenia and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia-thrombosis.

Other ASH awardees include William Eaton, MD, PhD, and Richard A. Larson, MD, who will receive the 2019 Henry M. Stratton Medal “for their seminal contributions to basic and clinical/translational hematology research, respectively.”

Dr. Eaton, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases conducts research on sickle cell disease, and his work contributed to the development of hydroxyurea. Dr. Larson, of the University of Chicago is the namesake of the Larson regimen (CALGB 8811) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and he played a key role in research that led to the U.S. approval of midostaurin.

Philip Greenberg, MD, will deliver the 2019 E. Donnall Thomas Lecture in recognition of “his outstanding contributions to the field of immunotherapy.” Dr. Greenberg, of theFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, is known for contributing to the development of T-cell adoptive immune therapy. His lecture will focus on the engineering of T cells to target acute myeloid leukemia and other malignancies.

Sriram Krishnaswamy, PhD, and Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD, will deliver the 2019 Ernest Beutler Lecture in recognition of “their significant research contributions to the understanding and treatment of blood clots.” The researchers will each deliver one part of the lecture at the meeting, and both will discuss research related to novel anticoagulants.

Dr. Krishnaswamy, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is considered an authority on the function of surface-dependent coagulation complexes. Dr. Weitz, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., has conducted research that led to the development of novel anticoagulants.

Emmanuelle Passegué, PhD, will receive the 2019 William Dameshek Prize “for her outstanding contributions to the understanding of hematopoietic stem cells.” Dr. Passegué, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, conducts research focused on changes to hematopoietic stem cells in the contexts of myeloid malignancies and physiological aging.

Griffin Rodgers, MD, will receive the ASH Award for Leadership in Promoting Diversity “for his extraordinary commitment to diversity and inclusion in hematology.” As director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Dr. Rodgers has worked to promote diversity in the scientific workforce and in clinical trials.

Leonard Zon, MD, and Michael R. DeBaun, MD, will receive the 2019 ASH Mentor Award “for their sustained, outstanding commitment to the training and career development of early career hematologists.”

Dr. DeBaun, of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., has mentees ranging from high school students with sickle cell disease to tenured faculty members at medical schools. Dr. Zon, of Harvard University and Boston Children’s Hospital, organizes mentoring events for postdocs, graduate students, and technicians.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) plans to honor 10 researchers with awards and lectures at this year’s annual meeting, scheduled to take place Dec. 7-10 in Orlando.

Richard Aster, MD, will receive the 2019 Wallace H. Coulter Award for Lifetime Achievement in Hematology. Dr. Aster, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Versiti Blood Center of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, “will be honored for his significant contributions to hematology through research, mentorship, and education throughout his 62-year career,” according to ASH.

Dr. Aster is known for his research on immune diseases that affect blood cells, particularly platelets. His work has led to improvements in platelet preparation, storage, and matching. In addition, he and his team developed the standard techniques for diagnosing immune thrombocytopenia and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia-thrombosis.

Other ASH awardees include William Eaton, MD, PhD, and Richard A. Larson, MD, who will receive the 2019 Henry M. Stratton Medal “for their seminal contributions to basic and clinical/translational hematology research, respectively.”

Dr. Eaton, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases conducts research on sickle cell disease, and his work contributed to the development of hydroxyurea. Dr. Larson, of the University of Chicago is the namesake of the Larson regimen (CALGB 8811) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and he played a key role in research that led to the U.S. approval of midostaurin.

Philip Greenberg, MD, will deliver the 2019 E. Donnall Thomas Lecture in recognition of “his outstanding contributions to the field of immunotherapy.” Dr. Greenberg, of theFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, is known for contributing to the development of T-cell adoptive immune therapy. His lecture will focus on the engineering of T cells to target acute myeloid leukemia and other malignancies.

Sriram Krishnaswamy, PhD, and Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD, will deliver the 2019 Ernest Beutler Lecture in recognition of “their significant research contributions to the understanding and treatment of blood clots.” The researchers will each deliver one part of the lecture at the meeting, and both will discuss research related to novel anticoagulants.

Dr. Krishnaswamy, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is considered an authority on the function of surface-dependent coagulation complexes. Dr. Weitz, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., has conducted research that led to the development of novel anticoagulants.

Emmanuelle Passegué, PhD, will receive the 2019 William Dameshek Prize “for her outstanding contributions to the understanding of hematopoietic stem cells.” Dr. Passegué, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, conducts research focused on changes to hematopoietic stem cells in the contexts of myeloid malignancies and physiological aging.

Griffin Rodgers, MD, will receive the ASH Award for Leadership in Promoting Diversity “for his extraordinary commitment to diversity and inclusion in hematology.” As director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Dr. Rodgers has worked to promote diversity in the scientific workforce and in clinical trials.

Leonard Zon, MD, and Michael R. DeBaun, MD, will receive the 2019 ASH Mentor Award “for their sustained, outstanding commitment to the training and career development of early career hematologists.”

Dr. DeBaun, of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., has mentees ranging from high school students with sickle cell disease to tenured faculty members at medical schools. Dr. Zon, of Harvard University and Boston Children’s Hospital, organizes mentoring events for postdocs, graduate students, and technicians.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) plans to honor 10 researchers with awards and lectures at this year’s annual meeting, scheduled to take place Dec. 7-10 in Orlando.

Richard Aster, MD, will receive the 2019 Wallace H. Coulter Award for Lifetime Achievement in Hematology. Dr. Aster, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Versiti Blood Center of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, “will be honored for his significant contributions to hematology through research, mentorship, and education throughout his 62-year career,” according to ASH.

Dr. Aster is known for his research on immune diseases that affect blood cells, particularly platelets. His work has led to improvements in platelet preparation, storage, and matching. In addition, he and his team developed the standard techniques for diagnosing immune thrombocytopenia and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia-thrombosis.

Other ASH awardees include William Eaton, MD, PhD, and Richard A. Larson, MD, who will receive the 2019 Henry M. Stratton Medal “for their seminal contributions to basic and clinical/translational hematology research, respectively.”

Dr. Eaton, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases conducts research on sickle cell disease, and his work contributed to the development of hydroxyurea. Dr. Larson, of the University of Chicago is the namesake of the Larson regimen (CALGB 8811) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and he played a key role in research that led to the U.S. approval of midostaurin.

Philip Greenberg, MD, will deliver the 2019 E. Donnall Thomas Lecture in recognition of “his outstanding contributions to the field of immunotherapy.” Dr. Greenberg, of theFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, is known for contributing to the development of T-cell adoptive immune therapy. His lecture will focus on the engineering of T cells to target acute myeloid leukemia and other malignancies.

Sriram Krishnaswamy, PhD, and Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD, will deliver the 2019 Ernest Beutler Lecture in recognition of “their significant research contributions to the understanding and treatment of blood clots.” The researchers will each deliver one part of the lecture at the meeting, and both will discuss research related to novel anticoagulants.

Dr. Krishnaswamy, of the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is considered an authority on the function of surface-dependent coagulation complexes. Dr. Weitz, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., has conducted research that led to the development of novel anticoagulants.

Emmanuelle Passegué, PhD, will receive the 2019 William Dameshek Prize “for her outstanding contributions to the understanding of hematopoietic stem cells.” Dr. Passegué, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, conducts research focused on changes to hematopoietic stem cells in the contexts of myeloid malignancies and physiological aging.

Griffin Rodgers, MD, will receive the ASH Award for Leadership in Promoting Diversity “for his extraordinary commitment to diversity and inclusion in hematology.” As director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Dr. Rodgers has worked to promote diversity in the scientific workforce and in clinical trials.

Leonard Zon, MD, and Michael R. DeBaun, MD, will receive the 2019 ASH Mentor Award “for their sustained, outstanding commitment to the training and career development of early career hematologists.”

Dr. DeBaun, of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., has mentees ranging from high school students with sickle cell disease to tenured faculty members at medical schools. Dr. Zon, of Harvard University and Boston Children’s Hospital, organizes mentoring events for postdocs, graduate students, and technicians.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The plan was in motion before I got on the plane.

When your leukemia came back suddenly 3 years after your stem cell transplant, it was devastating. But we had a plan. Your cancer developed a new mutation we could target with a chemotherapy drug. If we got you into a second remission, we could consolidate it by infusing more of your donor’s stem cells.

We met in the hospital, but I was adamant to “keep” you as my patient when you got to the clinic. I made swaps to see you, to get the continuity I value so much but often lose as a fellow, rotating from clinic to hospital to clinic.

I was grateful to see how well you dealt with the chemotherapy. Typically it’s a tough regimen, but you hardly had side effects. Between visits, I would check your blood counts on my phone, watching your blast count fall and your normal blood cells rise. Watching the cancer disappear.

Your lumbar punctures were negative, negative, negative – my favorite word, I told you. I was involved in long email threads coordinating the timing of your stem cell infusion with the remission we were achieving.

We were on our way.

One day, your lumbar puncture came back with a few “atypical” cells. I called the pathologist, and upon further review they were convinced the cells were reactive, not cancer. The next lumbar puncture was normal, but it was hard to ignore.

“Are you worried?” I asked my attending in clinic.

“I’m always worried,” she said. Neither of us truly believed the leukemia was back, but with the odds against us, we pored over every detail, always on the alert for a clue to an outcome we feared.

By now, the stem cell infusion was all set up. The donor was ready; so was the medical team; so were you. It was exciting. I thought of how a different attending described his interest in leukemia: There’s a subset you get to cure. Yes, you were going to be one of them.

Your big day coincided with a vacation I had scheduled months before. I was sorry I would be missing the actual moment, but happy I would come back to good news.

I left my coat and badge at the hospital, packed my bags, and got on the plane. I refrained from immediately checking your blood counts on my phone as soon as we landed. That night, jet lagged, I let myself look before I go to sleep. Relief. Your numbers still looked good.

da-kuk/Getty Images

Every day, I explored. My Internet was spotty during my travels, and when I would I finally get service I would peek at your latest blood tests.

Day 1. Cooled lava canyons. Black sand beaches. Circulating blast count: 0%.

Day 2: Glacier tour. A national park. Geysers. Blast count: 2%.

Day 3: We drive along the shore to see a famous waterfall, where you can climb a set of winding stairs to the top.

I check my phone before we start the climb. No service.

And so we begin. The wind cuts as I count steps. 403, 404, 405 … and 406. We are there. The air is thin, the world quiet. My nose is running from the cold.

We hike a bit, and I glance down again. Still no signal. It’s probably for the best. The scenery is spectacular.

Two miles later, I get service. I open the blood work first. Circulating blast count: 5%. But the other counts are okay. It could still be reactive, I say to myself, though on a deeper level I think of my attending’s words: I’m always worried. The stem cell infusion is scheduled for tomorrow.

I hear the rush of the water hitting the rocks below. Icicles form to our left. Sheep graze on our right. I appreciate the feeling of my muscles aching as we climb, higher and higher, a reminder of where I am and my place in it.

At the very top, we pause to take photos. And I get a signal again. I open the bone marrow biopsy report and skim the pathologist’s words. My eyes glue on the summary: 80% blasts, compatible with relapsed leukemia.

I let out an audible gasp.

Do you know? How will they tell you? I am painfully aware of the distance between us, in so many ways.

I want to be present. And soon I will be back, and I will be visiting in the hospital, and we will be having hard conversations and thinking about hard decisions.

But I’m not there right now. Someone else is. Here, now, I realize what I cannot do. The best way I can be present for you later is to be present where I am now.

I stuff my phone in my backpack and zip it closed. I step carefully forward on the rocks, slippery from the rain. My nose is running again, but not from the cold.

“What do you think?” my partner asks.

“The views are incredible,” I say.

Minor details of this story were changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

The plan was in motion before I got on the plane.

When your leukemia came back suddenly 3 years after your stem cell transplant, it was devastating. But we had a plan. Your cancer developed a new mutation we could target with a chemotherapy drug. If we got you into a second remission, we could consolidate it by infusing more of your donor’s stem cells.

We met in the hospital, but I was adamant to “keep” you as my patient when you got to the clinic. I made swaps to see you, to get the continuity I value so much but often lose as a fellow, rotating from clinic to hospital to clinic.

I was grateful to see how well you dealt with the chemotherapy. Typically it’s a tough regimen, but you hardly had side effects. Between visits, I would check your blood counts on my phone, watching your blast count fall and your normal blood cells rise. Watching the cancer disappear.

Your lumbar punctures were negative, negative, negative – my favorite word, I told you. I was involved in long email threads coordinating the timing of your stem cell infusion with the remission we were achieving.

We were on our way.

One day, your lumbar puncture came back with a few “atypical” cells. I called the pathologist, and upon further review they were convinced the cells were reactive, not cancer. The next lumbar puncture was normal, but it was hard to ignore.

“Are you worried?” I asked my attending in clinic.

“I’m always worried,” she said. Neither of us truly believed the leukemia was back, but with the odds against us, we pored over every detail, always on the alert for a clue to an outcome we feared.

By now, the stem cell infusion was all set up. The donor was ready; so was the medical team; so were you. It was exciting. I thought of how a different attending described his interest in leukemia: There’s a subset you get to cure. Yes, you were going to be one of them.

Your big day coincided with a vacation I had scheduled months before. I was sorry I would be missing the actual moment, but happy I would come back to good news.

I left my coat and badge at the hospital, packed my bags, and got on the plane. I refrained from immediately checking your blood counts on my phone as soon as we landed. That night, jet lagged, I let myself look before I go to sleep. Relief. Your numbers still looked good.

da-kuk/Getty Images

Every day, I explored. My Internet was spotty during my travels, and when I would I finally get service I would peek at your latest blood tests.

Day 1. Cooled lava canyons. Black sand beaches. Circulating blast count: 0%.

Day 2: Glacier tour. A national park. Geysers. Blast count: 2%.

Day 3: We drive along the shore to see a famous waterfall, where you can climb a set of winding stairs to the top.

I check my phone before we start the climb. No service.

And so we begin. The wind cuts as I count steps. 403, 404, 405 … and 406. We are there. The air is thin, the world quiet. My nose is running from the cold.

We hike a bit, and I glance down again. Still no signal. It’s probably for the best. The scenery is spectacular.

Two miles later, I get service. I open the blood work first. Circulating blast count: 5%. But the other counts are okay. It could still be reactive, I say to myself, though on a deeper level I think of my attending’s words: I’m always worried. The stem cell infusion is scheduled for tomorrow.

I hear the rush of the water hitting the rocks below. Icicles form to our left. Sheep graze on our right. I appreciate the feeling of my muscles aching as we climb, higher and higher, a reminder of where I am and my place in it.

At the very top, we pause to take photos. And I get a signal again. I open the bone marrow biopsy report and skim the pathologist’s words. My eyes glue on the summary: 80% blasts, compatible with relapsed leukemia.

I let out an audible gasp.

Do you know? How will they tell you? I am painfully aware of the distance between us, in so many ways.

I want to be present. And soon I will be back, and I will be visiting in the hospital, and we will be having hard conversations and thinking about hard decisions.

But I’m not there right now. Someone else is. Here, now, I realize what I cannot do. The best way I can be present for you later is to be present where I am now.

I stuff my phone in my backpack and zip it closed. I step carefully forward on the rocks, slippery from the rain. My nose is running again, but not from the cold.

“What do you think?” my partner asks.

“The views are incredible,” I say.

Minor details of this story were changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

The plan was in motion before I got on the plane.

When your leukemia came back suddenly 3 years after your stem cell transplant, it was devastating. But we had a plan. Your cancer developed a new mutation we could target with a chemotherapy drug. If we got you into a second remission, we could consolidate it by infusing more of your donor’s stem cells.

We met in the hospital, but I was adamant to “keep” you as my patient when you got to the clinic. I made swaps to see you, to get the continuity I value so much but often lose as a fellow, rotating from clinic to hospital to clinic.

I was grateful to see how well you dealt with the chemotherapy. Typically it’s a tough regimen, but you hardly had side effects. Between visits, I would check your blood counts on my phone, watching your blast count fall and your normal blood cells rise. Watching the cancer disappear.

Your lumbar punctures were negative, negative, negative – my favorite word, I told you. I was involved in long email threads coordinating the timing of your stem cell infusion with the remission we were achieving.

We were on our way.

One day, your lumbar puncture came back with a few “atypical” cells. I called the pathologist, and upon further review they were convinced the cells were reactive, not cancer. The next lumbar puncture was normal, but it was hard to ignore.

“Are you worried?” I asked my attending in clinic.

“I’m always worried,” she said. Neither of us truly believed the leukemia was back, but with the odds against us, we pored over every detail, always on the alert for a clue to an outcome we feared.

By now, the stem cell infusion was all set up. The donor was ready; so was the medical team; so were you. It was exciting. I thought of how a different attending described his interest in leukemia: There’s a subset you get to cure. Yes, you were going to be one of them.

Your big day coincided with a vacation I had scheduled months before. I was sorry I would be missing the actual moment, but happy I would come back to good news.

I left my coat and badge at the hospital, packed my bags, and got on the plane. I refrained from immediately checking your blood counts on my phone as soon as we landed. That night, jet lagged, I let myself look before I go to sleep. Relief. Your numbers still looked good.

da-kuk/Getty Images

Every day, I explored. My Internet was spotty during my travels, and when I would I finally get service I would peek at your latest blood tests.

Day 1. Cooled lava canyons. Black sand beaches. Circulating blast count: 0%.

Day 2: Glacier tour. A national park. Geysers. Blast count: 2%.

Day 3: We drive along the shore to see a famous waterfall, where you can climb a set of winding stairs to the top.

I check my phone before we start the climb. No service.

And so we begin. The wind cuts as I count steps. 403, 404, 405 … and 406. We are there. The air is thin, the world quiet. My nose is running from the cold.

We hike a bit, and I glance down again. Still no signal. It’s probably for the best. The scenery is spectacular.

Two miles later, I get service. I open the blood work first. Circulating blast count: 5%. But the other counts are okay. It could still be reactive, I say to myself, though on a deeper level I think of my attending’s words: I’m always worried. The stem cell infusion is scheduled for tomorrow.

I hear the rush of the water hitting the rocks below. Icicles form to our left. Sheep graze on our right. I appreciate the feeling of my muscles aching as we climb, higher and higher, a reminder of where I am and my place in it.

At the very top, we pause to take photos. And I get a signal again. I open the bone marrow biopsy report and skim the pathologist’s words. My eyes glue on the summary: 80% blasts, compatible with relapsed leukemia.

I let out an audible gasp.

Do you know? How will they tell you? I am painfully aware of the distance between us, in so many ways.

I want to be present. And soon I will be back, and I will be visiting in the hospital, and we will be having hard conversations and thinking about hard decisions.

But I’m not there right now. Someone else is. Here, now, I realize what I cannot do. The best way I can be present for you later is to be present where I am now.

I stuff my phone in my backpack and zip it closed. I step carefully forward on the rocks, slippery from the rain. My nose is running again, but not from the cold.

“What do you think?” my partner asks.

“The views are incredible,” I say.

Minor details of this story were changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz and listen to her each week on the Blood & Cancer podcast.

A 44-year-old woman presents with an 8-year history of intermittent heartburn, and in the past year she has been experiencing her symptoms daily. She says the heartburn is constant and is worse immediately after eating spicy or acidic foods. She says she has had no dysphagia, weight loss, or vomiting. Her symptoms have persisted despite taking a histamine (H)₂-receptor antagonist twice daily plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) before breakfast and dinner for more than 3 months.

She has undergone upper endoscopy 3 times in the past 8 years. Each time, the esophagus was normal with a regular Z-line and normal biopsy results from the proximal and distal esophagus.

The patient believes she has severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and asks if she is a candidate for fundoplication surgery.

HEARTBURN IS A SYMPTOM; GERD IS A CONDITION

A distinction should be made between heartburn—the symptom of persistent retrosternal burning and discomfort—and gastroesophageal reflux disease—the condition in which reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms or complications.¹ While many clinicians initially diagnose patients who have heartburn as having GERD, there are many other potential causes of their symptoms.

For patients with persistent heartburn, an empiric trial of a once-daily PPI is usually effective, but one-third of patients continue to have heartburn.^2,3 The most common cause of this PPI-refractory heartburn is functional heartburn, a functional or hypersensitivity disorder of the esophagus.⁴

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY IS POORLY UNDERSTOOD

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION

Clinicians have several tests available for diagnosing these conditions.

Upper endoscopy

Upper endoscopy is recommended for patients with heartburn that does not respond to a 3-month trial of a PPI.⁹ Endoscopy is also indicated in any patient who has any of the following “alarm symptoms” that could be due to malignancy or peptic ulcer:

• Dysphagia
• Odynophagia
• Vomiting
• Unexplained weight loss or anemia
• Signs of gastrointestinal bleeding
• Anorexia
• New onset of dyspepsia in a patient over age 60.

During upper endoscopy, the esophagus is evaluated for reflux esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, and other inflammatory disorders such as infectious esophagitis. But even if the esophageal mucosa appears normal, the proximal and distal esophagus should be biopsied to rule out an inflammatory disorder such as eosinophilic or lymphocytic esophagitis.

If endoscopic and esophageal biopsy results are inconclusive, a workup for an esophageal motility disorder is the next step. Dysphagia is the most common symptom of these disorders, although the initial presenting symptom may be heartburn or regurgitation that persists despite PPI therapy.

Manometry is used to test for motility disorders such as achalasia and esophageal spasm.¹⁰ After applying a local anesthetic inside the nares, the clinician inserts a flexible catheter (about 4 mm in diameter) with 36 pressure sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals into the nares and passes it through the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter. The patient then swallows liquid, and the sensors relay the esophageal response, creating a topographic plot that shows esophageal peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation.

Achalasia is identified by incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation combined with 100% failed peristalsis in the body of the esophagus. Esophageal spasms are identified by a shortened distal latency, which corresponds to premature contraction of the esophagus during peristalsis.¹¹

Esophageal pH testing

Measuring esophageal pH levels is an important step to quantify gastroesophageal reflux and determine if symptoms occur during reflux events. According to the updated Porto GERD consensus group recommendations,¹² a pH test is positive if the acid exposure time is greater than 6% of the testing period. Testing the pH differentiates between GERD (abnormal acid exposure), reflux hypersensitivity (normal acid exposure, strong correlation between symptoms and reflux events), and functional heartburn (normal acid exposure, negative correlation between reflux events and symptoms).⁵ For this test, a pH probe is placed in the esophagus transnasally or endoscopically. The probe records esophageal pH levels for 24 to 96 hours in an outpatient setting. Antisecretory therapy needs to be withheld for 7 to 10 days before the test.

Transnasal pH probe. For this approach, a thin catheter is inserted through the nares and advanced until the tip is 5 cm proximal to the lower esophageal sphincter. (The placement is guided by the results of esophageal manometry, which is done immediately before pH catheter placement.) The tube is secured with clear tape on the side of the patient’s face, and the end is connected to a portable recorder that compiles the data. The patient pushes a button on the recorder when experiencing heartburn symptoms. (A nurse instructs the patient on proper procedure.) After 24 hours, the patient either removes the catheter or has the clinic remove it. The pH and symptom data are downloaded and analyzed.

Transnasal pH testing can be combined with impedance measurement, which can detect nonacid reflux or weakly acid reflux. However, the clinical significance of this measurement is unclear, as multiple studies have found total acid exposure time to be a better predictor of response to therapy than weakly acid or nonacid reflux.¹²

Wireless pH probe. This method uses a disposable, catheter-free, capsule device to measure esophageal pH. The capsule, about the size of a gel capsule or pencil eraser, is attached to the patient’s esophageal lining, usually during upper endoscopy. The capsule records pH levels in the lower esophagus for 48 to 96 hours and transmits the data wirelessly to a receiver the patient wears. The patient pushes buttons on the receiver to record symptom-specific data when experiencing heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, or cough. The capsule detaches from the esophagus spontaneously, generally within 7 days, and is passed out of the body through a bowel movement.

Diagnosing functional heartburn

CASE CONTINUED: NORMAL RESULTS ON TESTING

Based on these results, her condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn, consistent with the Rome IV criteria.⁵

Patient education is key

Patient education about the pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment options is the most important aspect of treating any functional gastrointestinal disorder. This includes the “brain-gut connection” and potential mechanisms of dysregulation. Patient education along with assessment of symptoms should be part of every visit, especially before discussing treatment options.

Patients whose condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn need reassurance that the condition is benign and, in particular, that the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma is minimal in the absence of Barrett esophagus.¹³ Also important to point out is that the disorder may spontaneously resolve: resolution rates of up to 40% have been reported for other functional gastrointestinal disorders.¹⁴

Antisecretory medications may work for some

A PPI or H₂-receptor antagonist is the most common first-line treatment for heartburn symptoms. Although most patients with functional heartburn experience no improvement in symptoms with an antisecretory agent, a small number report some relief, which suggests that acid-suppression therapy may have an indirect impact on pain modulation in the esophagus.¹⁵ In patients who report symptom relief with an antisecretory agent, we suggest continuing the medication tapered to the lowest effective dose, with repeated reassurance that the medication can be discontinued safely at any time.

Antireflux surgery should be avoided

Antireflux surgery should be avoided in patients with normal pH testing and no objective finding of reflux, as this is associated with worse subjective outcomes than in patients with abnormal pH test results.¹⁶

Neuromodulators

It is important to discuss with patients the concept of neuromodulation, including the fact that antidepressants are often used because of their effects on serotonin and norepinephrine, which decrease visceral hypersensitivity.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram has been shown to reduce esophageal hypersensitivity,¹⁷ and a tricyclic antidepressant has been shown to improve quality of life.¹⁸ These results have led experts to recommend a trial of a low dose of either type of medication.¹⁹ The dose of tricyclic antidepressant often needs to be increased sequentially every 2 to 4 weeks.

Interestingly, melatonin 6 mg at bedtime has also shown efficacy for functional heartburn, potentially due to its antinociceptive properties.²⁰

Alternative and complementary therapies

Many esophageal centers use cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy as first-line treatment for functional esophageal disorders. Here again, it is important for the patient to understand the rationale of therapy for functional gastrointestinal disorders, given the stigma in the general population regarding psychotherapy.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been used for functional gastrointestinal disorders for many years, as it has been shown to modulate visceral perception.²¹ Although published studies are limited, research regarding other functional esophageal disorders suggests that patients who commit to long-term behavioral therapy have had a significant improvement in symptoms.²²

The goal of esophageal-directed behavioral therapy is to promote focused relaxation using deep breathing techniques, which can help patients manage esophageal hypervigilance, especially if symptoms continue despite neuromodulator therapy. Specifically, hypnotherapy has been shown to modulate functional chest pain through the visceral sensory pathway and also to suppress gastric acid secretion.^21,23 A study of a 7-week hypnotherapy program reported significant benefits in heartburn relief and improved quality of life in patients with functional heartburn.²⁴ The data support the use of behavioral therapies as first-line therapy or as adjunctive therapy for patients already taking a neuromodulator.

CASE FOLLOW-UP: IMPROVEMENT WITH TREATMENT

During a follow-up visit, the patient is given several printed resources, including the Rome Foundation article on functional heartburn.⁵ We again emphasize the benign nature of functional heartburn, noting the minimal risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, as she had no evidence of Barrett esophagus on endoscopy. And we discuss the natural course of functional heartburn, including the spontaneous resolution rate of about 40%.

For treatment, we present her the rationale for using neuromodulators and reassure her that these medications are for treatment of visceral hypersensitivity, not for anxiety or depression. After the discussion, the patient opts to start amitriptyline therapy at 10 mg every night at bedtime, increasing the dose by 10 mg every 2 weeks until symptoms improve, up to 75–100 mg every day.

After 3 months, the patient reports a 90% improvement in symptoms while on amitriptyline 30 mg every night. She is also able to taper her antisecretory medications once symptoms are controlled. We plan to continue amitriptyline at the current dose for 6 to 12 months, then discuss a slow taper to see if her symptoms spontaneously resolve.

A 44-year-old woman presents with an 8-year history of intermittent heartburn, and in the past year she has been experiencing her symptoms daily. She says the heartburn is constant and is worse immediately after eating spicy or acidic foods. She says she has had no dysphagia, weight loss, or vomiting. Her symptoms have persisted despite taking a histamine (H)₂-receptor antagonist twice daily plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) before breakfast and dinner for more than 3 months.

She has undergone upper endoscopy 3 times in the past 8 years. Each time, the esophagus was normal with a regular Z-line and normal biopsy results from the proximal and distal esophagus.

The patient believes she has severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and asks if she is a candidate for fundoplication surgery.

HEARTBURN IS A SYMPTOM; GERD IS A CONDITION

A distinction should be made between heartburn—the symptom of persistent retrosternal burning and discomfort—and gastroesophageal reflux disease—the condition in which reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms or complications.¹ While many clinicians initially diagnose patients who have heartburn as having GERD, there are many other potential causes of their symptoms.

For patients with persistent heartburn, an empiric trial of a once-daily PPI is usually effective, but one-third of patients continue to have heartburn.^2,3 The most common cause of this PPI-refractory heartburn is functional heartburn, a functional or hypersensitivity disorder of the esophagus.⁴

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY IS POORLY UNDERSTOOD

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION

Clinicians have several tests available for diagnosing these conditions.

Upper endoscopy

Upper endoscopy is recommended for patients with heartburn that does not respond to a 3-month trial of a PPI.⁹ Endoscopy is also indicated in any patient who has any of the following “alarm symptoms” that could be due to malignancy or peptic ulcer:

• Dysphagia
• Odynophagia
• Vomiting
• Unexplained weight loss or anemia
• Signs of gastrointestinal bleeding
• Anorexia
• New onset of dyspepsia in a patient over age 60.

During upper endoscopy, the esophagus is evaluated for reflux esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, and other inflammatory disorders such as infectious esophagitis. But even if the esophageal mucosa appears normal, the proximal and distal esophagus should be biopsied to rule out an inflammatory disorder such as eosinophilic or lymphocytic esophagitis.

If endoscopic and esophageal biopsy results are inconclusive, a workup for an esophageal motility disorder is the next step. Dysphagia is the most common symptom of these disorders, although the initial presenting symptom may be heartburn or regurgitation that persists despite PPI therapy.

Manometry is used to test for motility disorders such as achalasia and esophageal spasm.¹⁰ After applying a local anesthetic inside the nares, the clinician inserts a flexible catheter (about 4 mm in diameter) with 36 pressure sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals into the nares and passes it through the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter. The patient then swallows liquid, and the sensors relay the esophageal response, creating a topographic plot that shows esophageal peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation.

Achalasia is identified by incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation combined with 100% failed peristalsis in the body of the esophagus. Esophageal spasms are identified by a shortened distal latency, which corresponds to premature contraction of the esophagus during peristalsis.¹¹

Esophageal pH testing

Measuring esophageal pH levels is an important step to quantify gastroesophageal reflux and determine if symptoms occur during reflux events. According to the updated Porto GERD consensus group recommendations,¹² a pH test is positive if the acid exposure time is greater than 6% of the testing period. Testing the pH differentiates between GERD (abnormal acid exposure), reflux hypersensitivity (normal acid exposure, strong correlation between symptoms and reflux events), and functional heartburn (normal acid exposure, negative correlation between reflux events and symptoms).⁵ For this test, a pH probe is placed in the esophagus transnasally or endoscopically. The probe records esophageal pH levels for 24 to 96 hours in an outpatient setting. Antisecretory therapy needs to be withheld for 7 to 10 days before the test.

Transnasal pH probe. For this approach, a thin catheter is inserted through the nares and advanced until the tip is 5 cm proximal to the lower esophageal sphincter. (The placement is guided by the results of esophageal manometry, which is done immediately before pH catheter placement.) The tube is secured with clear tape on the side of the patient’s face, and the end is connected to a portable recorder that compiles the data. The patient pushes a button on the recorder when experiencing heartburn symptoms. (A nurse instructs the patient on proper procedure.) After 24 hours, the patient either removes the catheter or has the clinic remove it. The pH and symptom data are downloaded and analyzed.

Transnasal pH testing can be combined with impedance measurement, which can detect nonacid reflux or weakly acid reflux. However, the clinical significance of this measurement is unclear, as multiple studies have found total acid exposure time to be a better predictor of response to therapy than weakly acid or nonacid reflux.¹²

Wireless pH probe. This method uses a disposable, catheter-free, capsule device to measure esophageal pH. The capsule, about the size of a gel capsule or pencil eraser, is attached to the patient’s esophageal lining, usually during upper endoscopy. The capsule records pH levels in the lower esophagus for 48 to 96 hours and transmits the data wirelessly to a receiver the patient wears. The patient pushes buttons on the receiver to record symptom-specific data when experiencing heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, or cough. The capsule detaches from the esophagus spontaneously, generally within 7 days, and is passed out of the body through a bowel movement.

Diagnosing functional heartburn

CASE CONTINUED: NORMAL RESULTS ON TESTING

Based on these results, her condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn, consistent with the Rome IV criteria.⁵

Patient education is key

Patient education about the pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment options is the most important aspect of treating any functional gastrointestinal disorder. This includes the “brain-gut connection” and potential mechanisms of dysregulation. Patient education along with assessment of symptoms should be part of every visit, especially before discussing treatment options.

Patients whose condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn need reassurance that the condition is benign and, in particular, that the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma is minimal in the absence of Barrett esophagus.¹³ Also important to point out is that the disorder may spontaneously resolve: resolution rates of up to 40% have been reported for other functional gastrointestinal disorders.¹⁴

Antisecretory medications may work for some

A PPI or H₂-receptor antagonist is the most common first-line treatment for heartburn symptoms. Although most patients with functional heartburn experience no improvement in symptoms with an antisecretory agent, a small number report some relief, which suggests that acid-suppression therapy may have an indirect impact on pain modulation in the esophagus.¹⁵ In patients who report symptom relief with an antisecretory agent, we suggest continuing the medication tapered to the lowest effective dose, with repeated reassurance that the medication can be discontinued safely at any time.

Antireflux surgery should be avoided

Antireflux surgery should be avoided in patients with normal pH testing and no objective finding of reflux, as this is associated with worse subjective outcomes than in patients with abnormal pH test results.¹⁶

Neuromodulators

It is important to discuss with patients the concept of neuromodulation, including the fact that antidepressants are often used because of their effects on serotonin and norepinephrine, which decrease visceral hypersensitivity.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram has been shown to reduce esophageal hypersensitivity,¹⁷ and a tricyclic antidepressant has been shown to improve quality of life.¹⁸ These results have led experts to recommend a trial of a low dose of either type of medication.¹⁹ The dose of tricyclic antidepressant often needs to be increased sequentially every 2 to 4 weeks.

Interestingly, melatonin 6 mg at bedtime has also shown efficacy for functional heartburn, potentially due to its antinociceptive properties.²⁰

Alternative and complementary therapies

Many esophageal centers use cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy as first-line treatment for functional esophageal disorders. Here again, it is important for the patient to understand the rationale of therapy for functional gastrointestinal disorders, given the stigma in the general population regarding psychotherapy.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been used for functional gastrointestinal disorders for many years, as it has been shown to modulate visceral perception.²¹ Although published studies are limited, research regarding other functional esophageal disorders suggests that patients who commit to long-term behavioral therapy have had a significant improvement in symptoms.²²

The goal of esophageal-directed behavioral therapy is to promote focused relaxation using deep breathing techniques, which can help patients manage esophageal hypervigilance, especially if symptoms continue despite neuromodulator therapy. Specifically, hypnotherapy has been shown to modulate functional chest pain through the visceral sensory pathway and also to suppress gastric acid secretion.^21,23 A study of a 7-week hypnotherapy program reported significant benefits in heartburn relief and improved quality of life in patients with functional heartburn.²⁴ The data support the use of behavioral therapies as first-line therapy or as adjunctive therapy for patients already taking a neuromodulator.

CASE FOLLOW-UP: IMPROVEMENT WITH TREATMENT

During a follow-up visit, the patient is given several printed resources, including the Rome Foundation article on functional heartburn.⁵ We again emphasize the benign nature of functional heartburn, noting the minimal risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, as she had no evidence of Barrett esophagus on endoscopy. And we discuss the natural course of functional heartburn, including the spontaneous resolution rate of about 40%.

For treatment, we present her the rationale for using neuromodulators and reassure her that these medications are for treatment of visceral hypersensitivity, not for anxiety or depression. After the discussion, the patient opts to start amitriptyline therapy at 10 mg every night at bedtime, increasing the dose by 10 mg every 2 weeks until symptoms improve, up to 75–100 mg every day.

After 3 months, the patient reports a 90% improvement in symptoms while on amitriptyline 30 mg every night. She is also able to taper her antisecretory medications once symptoms are controlled. We plan to continue amitriptyline at the current dose for 6 to 12 months, then discuss a slow taper to see if her symptoms spontaneously resolve.

A 44-year-old woman presents with an 8-year history of intermittent heartburn, and in the past year she has been experiencing her symptoms daily. She says the heartburn is constant and is worse immediately after eating spicy or acidic foods. She says she has had no dysphagia, weight loss, or vomiting. Her symptoms have persisted despite taking a histamine (H)₂-receptor antagonist twice daily plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) before breakfast and dinner for more than 3 months.

She has undergone upper endoscopy 3 times in the past 8 years. Each time, the esophagus was normal with a regular Z-line and normal biopsy results from the proximal and distal esophagus.

The patient believes she has severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and asks if she is a candidate for fundoplication surgery.

HEARTBURN IS A SYMPTOM; GERD IS A CONDITION

A distinction should be made between heartburn—the symptom of persistent retrosternal burning and discomfort—and gastroesophageal reflux disease—the condition in which reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms or complications.¹ While many clinicians initially diagnose patients who have heartburn as having GERD, there are many other potential causes of their symptoms.

For patients with persistent heartburn, an empiric trial of a once-daily PPI is usually effective, but one-third of patients continue to have heartburn.^2,3 The most common cause of this PPI-refractory heartburn is functional heartburn, a functional or hypersensitivity disorder of the esophagus.⁴

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY IS POORLY UNDERSTOOD

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION

Clinicians have several tests available for diagnosing these conditions.

Upper endoscopy

Upper endoscopy is recommended for patients with heartburn that does not respond to a 3-month trial of a PPI.⁹ Endoscopy is also indicated in any patient who has any of the following “alarm symptoms” that could be due to malignancy or peptic ulcer:

• Dysphagia
• Odynophagia
• Vomiting
• Unexplained weight loss or anemia
• Signs of gastrointestinal bleeding
• Anorexia
• New onset of dyspepsia in a patient over age 60.

During upper endoscopy, the esophagus is evaluated for reflux esophagitis, Barrett esophagus, and other inflammatory disorders such as infectious esophagitis. But even if the esophageal mucosa appears normal, the proximal and distal esophagus should be biopsied to rule out an inflammatory disorder such as eosinophilic or lymphocytic esophagitis.

If endoscopic and esophageal biopsy results are inconclusive, a workup for an esophageal motility disorder is the next step. Dysphagia is the most common symptom of these disorders, although the initial presenting symptom may be heartburn or regurgitation that persists despite PPI therapy.

Manometry is used to test for motility disorders such as achalasia and esophageal spasm.¹⁰ After applying a local anesthetic inside the nares, the clinician inserts a flexible catheter (about 4 mm in diameter) with 36 pressure sensors spaced at 1-cm intervals into the nares and passes it through the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter. The patient then swallows liquid, and the sensors relay the esophageal response, creating a topographic plot that shows esophageal peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter relaxation.

Achalasia is identified by incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation combined with 100% failed peristalsis in the body of the esophagus. Esophageal spasms are identified by a shortened distal latency, which corresponds to premature contraction of the esophagus during peristalsis.¹¹

Esophageal pH testing

Measuring esophageal pH levels is an important step to quantify gastroesophageal reflux and determine if symptoms occur during reflux events. According to the updated Porto GERD consensus group recommendations,¹² a pH test is positive if the acid exposure time is greater than 6% of the testing period. Testing the pH differentiates between GERD (abnormal acid exposure), reflux hypersensitivity (normal acid exposure, strong correlation between symptoms and reflux events), and functional heartburn (normal acid exposure, negative correlation between reflux events and symptoms).⁵ For this test, a pH probe is placed in the esophagus transnasally or endoscopically. The probe records esophageal pH levels for 24 to 96 hours in an outpatient setting. Antisecretory therapy needs to be withheld for 7 to 10 days before the test.

Transnasal pH probe. For this approach, a thin catheter is inserted through the nares and advanced until the tip is 5 cm proximal to the lower esophageal sphincter. (The placement is guided by the results of esophageal manometry, which is done immediately before pH catheter placement.) The tube is secured with clear tape on the side of the patient’s face, and the end is connected to a portable recorder that compiles the data. The patient pushes a button on the recorder when experiencing heartburn symptoms. (A nurse instructs the patient on proper procedure.) After 24 hours, the patient either removes the catheter or has the clinic remove it. The pH and symptom data are downloaded and analyzed.

Transnasal pH testing can be combined with impedance measurement, which can detect nonacid reflux or weakly acid reflux. However, the clinical significance of this measurement is unclear, as multiple studies have found total acid exposure time to be a better predictor of response to therapy than weakly acid or nonacid reflux.¹²

Wireless pH probe. This method uses a disposable, catheter-free, capsule device to measure esophageal pH. The capsule, about the size of a gel capsule or pencil eraser, is attached to the patient’s esophageal lining, usually during upper endoscopy. The capsule records pH levels in the lower esophagus for 48 to 96 hours and transmits the data wirelessly to a receiver the patient wears. The patient pushes buttons on the receiver to record symptom-specific data when experiencing heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, or cough. The capsule detaches from the esophagus spontaneously, generally within 7 days, and is passed out of the body through a bowel movement.

Diagnosing functional heartburn

CASE CONTINUED: NORMAL RESULTS ON TESTING

Based on these results, her condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn, consistent with the Rome IV criteria.⁵

Patient education is key

Patient education about the pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment options is the most important aspect of treating any functional gastrointestinal disorder. This includes the “brain-gut connection” and potential mechanisms of dysregulation. Patient education along with assessment of symptoms should be part of every visit, especially before discussing treatment options.

Patients whose condition is diagnosed as functional heartburn need reassurance that the condition is benign and, in particular, that the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma is minimal in the absence of Barrett esophagus.¹³ Also important to point out is that the disorder may spontaneously resolve: resolution rates of up to 40% have been reported for other functional gastrointestinal disorders.¹⁴

Antisecretory medications may work for some

A PPI or H₂-receptor antagonist is the most common first-line treatment for heartburn symptoms. Although most patients with functional heartburn experience no improvement in symptoms with an antisecretory agent, a small number report some relief, which suggests that acid-suppression therapy may have an indirect impact on pain modulation in the esophagus.¹⁵ In patients who report symptom relief with an antisecretory agent, we suggest continuing the medication tapered to the lowest effective dose, with repeated reassurance that the medication can be discontinued safely at any time.

Antireflux surgery should be avoided

Antireflux surgery should be avoided in patients with normal pH testing and no objective finding of reflux, as this is associated with worse subjective outcomes than in patients with abnormal pH test results.¹⁶

Neuromodulators

It is important to discuss with patients the concept of neuromodulation, including the fact that antidepressants are often used because of their effects on serotonin and norepinephrine, which decrease visceral hypersensitivity.

The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram has been shown to reduce esophageal hypersensitivity,¹⁷ and a tricyclic antidepressant has been shown to improve quality of life.¹⁸ These results have led experts to recommend a trial of a low dose of either type of medication.¹⁹ The dose of tricyclic antidepressant often needs to be increased sequentially every 2 to 4 weeks.

Interestingly, melatonin 6 mg at bedtime has also shown efficacy for functional heartburn, potentially due to its antinociceptive properties.²⁰

Alternative and complementary therapies

Many esophageal centers use cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy as first-line treatment for functional esophageal disorders. Here again, it is important for the patient to understand the rationale of therapy for functional gastrointestinal disorders, given the stigma in the general population regarding psychotherapy.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been used for functional gastrointestinal disorders for many years, as it has been shown to modulate visceral perception.²¹ Although published studies are limited, research regarding other functional esophageal disorders suggests that patients who commit to long-term behavioral therapy have had a significant improvement in symptoms.²²

The goal of esophageal-directed behavioral therapy is to promote focused relaxation using deep breathing techniques, which can help patients manage esophageal hypervigilance, especially if symptoms continue despite neuromodulator therapy. Specifically, hypnotherapy has been shown to modulate functional chest pain through the visceral sensory pathway and also to suppress gastric acid secretion.^21,23 A study of a 7-week hypnotherapy program reported significant benefits in heartburn relief and improved quality of life in patients with functional heartburn.²⁴ The data support the use of behavioral therapies as first-line therapy or as adjunctive therapy for patients already taking a neuromodulator.

CASE FOLLOW-UP: IMPROVEMENT WITH TREATMENT

During a follow-up visit, the patient is given several printed resources, including the Rome Foundation article on functional heartburn.⁵ We again emphasize the benign nature of functional heartburn, noting the minimal risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, as she had no evidence of Barrett esophagus on endoscopy. And we discuss the natural course of functional heartburn, including the spontaneous resolution rate of about 40%.

For treatment, we present her the rationale for using neuromodulators and reassure her that these medications are for treatment of visceral hypersensitivity, not for anxiety or depression. After the discussion, the patient opts to start amitriptyline therapy at 10 mg every night at bedtime, increasing the dose by 10 mg every 2 weeks until symptoms improve, up to 75–100 mg every day.

After 3 months, the patient reports a 90% improvement in symptoms while on amitriptyline 30 mg every night. She is also able to taper her antisecretory medications once symptoms are controlled. We plan to continue amitriptyline at the current dose for 6 to 12 months, then discuss a slow taper to see if her symptoms spontaneously resolve.

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 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 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 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

In no way do I minimize the value of the imprimatur of FDA approval stating a drug, after appropriate preclinical and clinical studies, is deemed safe and effective. Whatever the agency’s shortcomings, the story of thalidomide (a drug never approved by the FDA) gives credence to the value of having a robust approval process. Arguments will likely continue forever as to whether the agency errs on the side of being too permissive or too restrictive in its approval process.

Nonetheless, I believe there are valid clinical reasons why we should continue to prescribe FDA-approved medications for nonapproved indications. In my practice, I treat some conditions that are sufficiently uncommon or heterogeneous in expression that large-scale clinical trials are logistically hard to carry out or deemed financially unviable by the corporate sponsor, even though clinical experience has informed us of a reasonable likelihood of efficacy. Sometimes drugs have “failed” in clinical trials, but experience and post hoc subset analysis of data have indicated a likely positive response in certain patients.

Although a drug that has been FDA approved has passed significant safety testing, the patients exposed to the drug when it was evaluated for treating a certain disease may be strikingly different from patients who have a different disease—the age, sex, comorbidities, and coprescribed medications may all differ significantly in the population of patients with the “off-label” disorder. Hence, appropriate caution is warranted, and if relevant, this should be explained to patients before giving them the medication.

In this issue of the Journal, 2 papers address the use of medications in an “off-label” manner. Schneider and colleagues discuss several frequent clinical uses of tricyclic antidepressants for reasons other than depression, and Modesto-Lowe and colleagues review the more controversial use of gabapentin in patients with alcohol use disorder. The hoped-for benefits in both circumstances are symptomatic, and both benefits and side effects are dose-related in ways not necessarily coinciding with those in the FDA-labeled indications.

My experience in using tricyclics as adjunctive treatment for fibromyalgia is that patients are quite sensitive to some of the side effects of the drugs (eg, oral dryness and fatigue), even in low doses. Moreover, we should expect only modest benefits, which should be explicitly described to the patient: improved quality of sleep with resultant decreased fatigue (while we watch closely for worsened fatigue from too-high dosing) and a modest reduction in pain over time as part of a multimodality treatment plan. I often find that practitioners who are less familiar with the use of these medications in this setting tend to start at lowish (but higher than often tolerated) doses, have patients take the medication too close to bedtime (resulting in some morning hangover sensation), fail to discuss the timing and degree of expected pain relief, don’t titrate the dose over time, and are not aware of the different responses that patients may experience with different medications within the same class. As with all prescribed medications, the benefits and ill effects must be frequently assessed, and particularly with these medications, one must be willing to discontinue them if appropriate outcomes are not achieved.

“Off-label” should not imply off the table as a therapeutic option. But it is incumbent on us to devote sufficient time to explain to each patient the anticipated side effects and hoped-for benefits, particularly since in most cases, we and our patients cannot refer to the results of definitive phase 3 clinical trials or patient online information sites that are totally relevant, reliable, data supported, and FDA reviewed.

In no way do I minimize the value of the imprimatur of FDA approval stating a drug, after appropriate preclinical and clinical studies, is deemed safe and effective. Whatever the agency’s shortcomings, the story of thalidomide (a drug never approved by the FDA) gives credence to the value of having a robust approval process. Arguments will likely continue forever as to whether the agency errs on the side of being too permissive or too restrictive in its approval process.

Nonetheless, I believe there are valid clinical reasons why we should continue to prescribe FDA-approved medications for nonapproved indications. In my practice, I treat some conditions that are sufficiently uncommon or heterogeneous in expression that large-scale clinical trials are logistically hard to carry out or deemed financially unviable by the corporate sponsor, even though clinical experience has informed us of a reasonable likelihood of efficacy. Sometimes drugs have “failed” in clinical trials, but experience and post hoc subset analysis of data have indicated a likely positive response in certain patients.

Although a drug that has been FDA approved has passed significant safety testing, the patients exposed to the drug when it was evaluated for treating a certain disease may be strikingly different from patients who have a different disease—the age, sex, comorbidities, and coprescribed medications may all differ significantly in the population of patients with the “off-label” disorder. Hence, appropriate caution is warranted, and if relevant, this should be explained to patients before giving them the medication.

In this issue of the Journal, 2 papers address the use of medications in an “off-label” manner. Schneider and colleagues discuss several frequent clinical uses of tricyclic antidepressants for reasons other than depression, and Modesto-Lowe and colleagues review the more controversial use of gabapentin in patients with alcohol use disorder. The hoped-for benefits in both circumstances are symptomatic, and both benefits and side effects are dose-related in ways not necessarily coinciding with those in the FDA-labeled indications.

My experience in using tricyclics as adjunctive treatment for fibromyalgia is that patients are quite sensitive to some of the side effects of the drugs (eg, oral dryness and fatigue), even in low doses. Moreover, we should expect only modest benefits, which should be explicitly described to the patient: improved quality of sleep with resultant decreased fatigue (while we watch closely for worsened fatigue from too-high dosing) and a modest reduction in pain over time as part of a multimodality treatment plan. I often find that practitioners who are less familiar with the use of these medications in this setting tend to start at lowish (but higher than often tolerated) doses, have patients take the medication too close to bedtime (resulting in some morning hangover sensation), fail to discuss the timing and degree of expected pain relief, don’t titrate the dose over time, and are not aware of the different responses that patients may experience with different medications within the same class. As with all prescribed medications, the benefits and ill effects must be frequently assessed, and particularly with these medications, one must be willing to discontinue them if appropriate outcomes are not achieved.

“Off-label” should not imply off the table as a therapeutic option. But it is incumbent on us to devote sufficient time to explain to each patient the anticipated side effects and hoped-for benefits, particularly since in most cases, we and our patients cannot refer to the results of definitive phase 3 clinical trials or patient online information sites that are totally relevant, reliable, data supported, and FDA reviewed.

In no way do I minimize the value of the imprimatur of FDA approval stating a drug, after appropriate preclinical and clinical studies, is deemed safe and effective. Whatever the agency’s shortcomings, the story of thalidomide (a drug never approved by the FDA) gives credence to the value of having a robust approval process. Arguments will likely continue forever as to whether the agency errs on the side of being too permissive or too restrictive in its approval process.

Nonetheless, I believe there are valid clinical reasons why we should continue to prescribe FDA-approved medications for nonapproved indications. In my practice, I treat some conditions that are sufficiently uncommon or heterogeneous in expression that large-scale clinical trials are logistically hard to carry out or deemed financially unviable by the corporate sponsor, even though clinical experience has informed us of a reasonable likelihood of efficacy. Sometimes drugs have “failed” in clinical trials, but experience and post hoc subset analysis of data have indicated a likely positive response in certain patients.

Although a drug that has been FDA approved has passed significant safety testing, the patients exposed to the drug when it was evaluated for treating a certain disease may be strikingly different from patients who have a different disease—the age, sex, comorbidities, and coprescribed medications may all differ significantly in the population of patients with the “off-label” disorder. Hence, appropriate caution is warranted, and if relevant, this should be explained to patients before giving them the medication.

In this issue of the Journal, 2 papers address the use of medications in an “off-label” manner. Schneider and colleagues discuss several frequent clinical uses of tricyclic antidepressants for reasons other than depression, and Modesto-Lowe and colleagues review the more controversial use of gabapentin in patients with alcohol use disorder. The hoped-for benefits in both circumstances are symptomatic, and both benefits and side effects are dose-related in ways not necessarily coinciding with those in the FDA-labeled indications.

My experience in using tricyclics as adjunctive treatment for fibromyalgia is that patients are quite sensitive to some of the side effects of the drugs (eg, oral dryness and fatigue), even in low doses. Moreover, we should expect only modest benefits, which should be explicitly described to the patient: improved quality of sleep with resultant decreased fatigue (while we watch closely for worsened fatigue from too-high dosing) and a modest reduction in pain over time as part of a multimodality treatment plan. I often find that practitioners who are less familiar with the use of these medications in this setting tend to start at lowish (but higher than often tolerated) doses, have patients take the medication too close to bedtime (resulting in some morning hangover sensation), fail to discuss the timing and degree of expected pain relief, don’t titrate the dose over time, and are not aware of the different responses that patients may experience with different medications within the same class. As with all prescribed medications, the benefits and ill effects must be frequently assessed, and particularly with these medications, one must be willing to discontinue them if appropriate outcomes are not achieved.

“Off-label” should not imply off the table as a therapeutic option. But it is incumbent on us to devote sufficient time to explain to each patient the anticipated side effects and hoped-for benefits, particularly since in most cases, we and our patients cannot refer to the results of definitive phase 3 clinical trials or patient online information sites that are totally relevant, reliable, data supported, and FDA reviewed.

A 66-year-old man presented with burning pain and erythema over the left axilla, and pustules that had ruptured and crusted over. The rash also involved the right axilla, trunk, abdomen, and face.

He said the symptoms had developed 3 days after starting to use ciprofloxacin eye drops for eye redness and purulent discharge that had been diagnosed as bacterial conjunctivitis. He was taking no other new medications. He was afebrile.

The ciprofloxacin drops were stopped. The skin lesions were treated with emollients, topical steroids, and topical mupirocin. Improvement was noted 3 days into the hospitalization, as the lesions started to crust over and dry up and no new lesions were forming. The conjunctivitis improved with topical bacitracin ointment and prednisolone drops.

ACUTE GENERALIZED EXANTHEMATOUS PUSTULOSIS

The differential diagnosis of drug-related acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis includes Stevens-Johnson syndrome, pustular psoriasis, folliculitis, and varicella infection. The characteristic features of the rash and lesions and the temporal relationship between the start of ciprofloxacin eye drops and the development of symptoms, combined with rapid resolution of symptoms within days after discontinuing the drops, accompanied by skin biopsy study showing diffuse spongiosis with scattered eosinophils and a subcorneal pustule, confirmed the diagnosis of AGEP.

Key features of AGEP include numerous small, sterile, nonfollicular pustules on an erythematous background with associated fever and sometimes neutrophilia and eosinophilia.¹ It usually begins on the face or in the intertriginous areas and then spreads to the trunk and lower limbs with rare mucosal involvement.¹ It can be associated with viral infections, but most reported cases are related to drug reactions.²

Our patient’s case was unusual because AGEP triggered by topical medications is rarely reported, especially with ophthalmic medications.³ Drugs most commonly implicated are antibiotics including penicillins, sulfonamides, and quinolones, but other drugs such as terbinafine, diltiazem, and hydroxychloroquine have also been associated.²

AGEP may present with extensive skin desquamation, as in our patient, sometimes with bullae formation and skin sloughing manifesting as AGEP with overlapping toxic epidermal necrolysis.⁴

Diagnosis entails a careful review of medications, attention to lesion morphology, compatible disease course, and a high index of suspicion. Treatment is supportive and consists of stopping the offending agent, wound care, and antipyretics. Evidence for the use of steroids is weak.⁵

TAKE-HOME POINTS

AGEP should be considered in sudden-onset pustular desquamating erythematous rash related to use of a new medication. It is important to be aware that topical and ophthalmic medications are possible triggers. A thorough medication review should be done. Antibiotics are the most commonly implicated medications. An alternative medication should be tried. Treatment is supportive, as the condition is usually self-limiting once the offending medication is discontinued. Rarely, extensive desquamation and bullae formation may occur, which may be a manifestation of overlap features with toxic epidermal necrolysis.

A 66-year-old man presented with burning pain and erythema over the left axilla, and pustules that had ruptured and crusted over. The rash also involved the right axilla, trunk, abdomen, and face.

He said the symptoms had developed 3 days after starting to use ciprofloxacin eye drops for eye redness and purulent discharge that had been diagnosed as bacterial conjunctivitis. He was taking no other new medications. He was afebrile.

The ciprofloxacin drops were stopped. The skin lesions were treated with emollients, topical steroids, and topical mupirocin. Improvement was noted 3 days into the hospitalization, as the lesions started to crust over and dry up and no new lesions were forming. The conjunctivitis improved with topical bacitracin ointment and prednisolone drops.

ACUTE GENERALIZED EXANTHEMATOUS PUSTULOSIS

The differential diagnosis of drug-related acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis includes Stevens-Johnson syndrome, pustular psoriasis, folliculitis, and varicella infection. The characteristic features of the rash and lesions and the temporal relationship between the start of ciprofloxacin eye drops and the development of symptoms, combined with rapid resolution of symptoms within days after discontinuing the drops, accompanied by skin biopsy study showing diffuse spongiosis with scattered eosinophils and a subcorneal pustule, confirmed the diagnosis of AGEP.

Key features of AGEP include numerous small, sterile, nonfollicular pustules on an erythematous background with associated fever and sometimes neutrophilia and eosinophilia.¹ It usually begins on the face or in the intertriginous areas and then spreads to the trunk and lower limbs with rare mucosal involvement.¹ It can be associated with viral infections, but most reported cases are related to drug reactions.²

Our patient’s case was unusual because AGEP triggered by topical medications is rarely reported, especially with ophthalmic medications.³ Drugs most commonly implicated are antibiotics including penicillins, sulfonamides, and quinolones, but other drugs such as terbinafine, diltiazem, and hydroxychloroquine have also been associated.²

AGEP may present with extensive skin desquamation, as in our patient, sometimes with bullae formation and skin sloughing manifesting as AGEP with overlapping toxic epidermal necrolysis.⁴

Diagnosis entails a careful review of medications, attention to lesion morphology, compatible disease course, and a high index of suspicion. Treatment is supportive and consists of stopping the offending agent, wound care, and antipyretics. Evidence for the use of steroids is weak.⁵

TAKE-HOME POINTS

AGEP should be considered in sudden-onset pustular desquamating erythematous rash related to use of a new medication. It is important to be aware that topical and ophthalmic medications are possible triggers. A thorough medication review should be done. Antibiotics are the most commonly implicated medications. An alternative medication should be tried. Treatment is supportive, as the condition is usually self-limiting once the offending medication is discontinued. Rarely, extensive desquamation and bullae formation may occur, which may be a manifestation of overlap features with toxic epidermal necrolysis.

A 66-year-old man presented with burning pain and erythema over the left axilla, and pustules that had ruptured and crusted over. The rash also involved the right axilla, trunk, abdomen, and face.

He said the symptoms had developed 3 days after starting to use ciprofloxacin eye drops for eye redness and purulent discharge that had been diagnosed as bacterial conjunctivitis. He was taking no other new medications. He was afebrile.

The ciprofloxacin drops were stopped. The skin lesions were treated with emollients, topical steroids, and topical mupirocin. Improvement was noted 3 days into the hospitalization, as the lesions started to crust over and dry up and no new lesions were forming. The conjunctivitis improved with topical bacitracin ointment and prednisolone drops.

ACUTE GENERALIZED EXANTHEMATOUS PUSTULOSIS

The differential diagnosis of drug-related acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis includes Stevens-Johnson syndrome, pustular psoriasis, folliculitis, and varicella infection. The characteristic features of the rash and lesions and the temporal relationship between the start of ciprofloxacin eye drops and the development of symptoms, combined with rapid resolution of symptoms within days after discontinuing the drops, accompanied by skin biopsy study showing diffuse spongiosis with scattered eosinophils and a subcorneal pustule, confirmed the diagnosis of AGEP.

Key features of AGEP include numerous small, sterile, nonfollicular pustules on an erythematous background with associated fever and sometimes neutrophilia and eosinophilia.¹ It usually begins on the face or in the intertriginous areas and then spreads to the trunk and lower limbs with rare mucosal involvement.¹ It can be associated with viral infections, but most reported cases are related to drug reactions.²

Our patient’s case was unusual because AGEP triggered by topical medications is rarely reported, especially with ophthalmic medications.³ Drugs most commonly implicated are antibiotics including penicillins, sulfonamides, and quinolones, but other drugs such as terbinafine, diltiazem, and hydroxychloroquine have also been associated.²

AGEP may present with extensive skin desquamation, as in our patient, sometimes with bullae formation and skin sloughing manifesting as AGEP with overlapping toxic epidermal necrolysis.⁴

Diagnosis entails a careful review of medications, attention to lesion morphology, compatible disease course, and a high index of suspicion. Treatment is supportive and consists of stopping the offending agent, wound care, and antipyretics. Evidence for the use of steroids is weak.⁵

TAKE-HOME POINTS

AGEP should be considered in sudden-onset pustular desquamating erythematous rash related to use of a new medication. It is important to be aware that topical and ophthalmic medications are possible triggers. A thorough medication review should be done. Antibiotics are the most commonly implicated medications. An alternative medication should be tried. Treatment is supportive, as the condition is usually self-limiting once the offending medication is discontinued. Rarely, extensive desquamation and bullae formation may occur, which may be a manifestation of overlap features with toxic epidermal necrolysis.

The benefits of influenza vaccination are clear to those in the medical community. Yet misinformation and unfounded fears continue to discourage some people from getting a flu shot. During the 2018–2019 influenza season, only 45% of US adults and 63% of children were vaccinated.¹

‘IT DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE’

Multiple studies have shown that the flu vaccine prevents millions of flu cases and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. During the 2016–2017 flu season, flu vaccine prevented an estimated 5.3 million influenza cases, 2.6 million influenza-associated medical visits, and 85,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations.²

Several viral and host factors affect vaccine effectiveness. In seasons when the vaccine viruses have matched circulating strains, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the following:

• The risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40% to 60%
• Children’s risk of flu-related death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 74%
• The risk in adults of flu-associated hospitalizations by 40% and ICU admission by 82%
• The rate of cardiac events in people with heart disease
• Hospitalizations in people with diabetes or underlying chronic lung disease.³

In people hospitalized with influenza despite receiving the flu vaccine for the season, studies have shown that receiving the flu vaccine shortens the average duration of hospitalization, reduces the chance of ICU admission by 59%, shortens the duration of ICU stay by 4 days, and reduces deaths.³

‘IT TARGETS THE WRONG VIRUS’

Selecting an effective influenza vaccine is a challenge. Every year, the World Health Organization and the CDC decide on the influenza strains expected to circulate in the upcoming flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, based on data for circulating strains in the Southern Hemisphere. This decision takes place about 7 months before the expected onset of the flu season. Flu viruses may mutate between the time the decision is made and the time the vaccine is administered (as well as after the flu season starts). Also, vaccine production in eggs needs time, which is why this decision must be made several months ahead of the flu season.

Vaccine effectiveness varies by virus serotype. Vaccines are typically less effective against influenza A H3N2 viruses than against influenza A H1N1 and influenza B viruses. Effectiveness also varies from season to season depending on how close the vaccine serotypes match the circulating serotypes, but some effectiveness is retained even in seasons when some of the serotypes don’t match circulating viruses. For example, in the 2017–2018 season, when the influenza A H3N2 vaccine serotype did not match the circulating serotype, the overall effectiveness in preventing medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection was 36%.⁵

A universal flu vaccine that does not need to be updated annually is the ultimate solution, but according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, such a vaccine is likely several years away.⁶

‘IT MAKES PEOPLE SICK’

Pain at the injection site of a flu shot occurs in 10% to 65% of people, lasts less than 2 days, and does not usually interfere with daily activities.⁷

Systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, and myalgia may occur in people who have had no previous exposure to the influenza virus antigens in the vaccine, particularly in children. In adults, the frequency of systemic symptoms after the flu shot is similar to that with placebo.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which has been capturing data since 1990, shows that the influenza vaccine accounted for 5.7% of people who developed malaise after receiving any vaccine.⁸

The injectable inactivated influenza vaccine cannot biologically cause an influenza virus-related illness, since the inactivated vaccine viruses can elicit a protective immune response but cannot replicate. The nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine can in theory cause acute illness in the person receiving it, but because it is cold-adapted, it multiplies only in the colder environment of the nasal epithelium, not in the lower airways where the temperature is higher. Consequently, the vaccine virus triggers immunity by multiplying in the nose, but doesn’t infect the lungs.

From 10% to 50% of people who receive the nasal live-attenuated vaccine develop runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, or cough shortly after receiving the vaccine, but these symptoms are usually mild and short-lived.

The most common reactions people have to flu vaccines are considerably less severe than the symptoms caused by actual flu illness.

While influenza illness results in natural immunity to the specific viral serotype causing it, this illness results in hospitalization in 2% and is fatal in 0.16% of people. Influenza vaccine results in immunity to the serotypes included in the vaccine, and multiple studies have not found a causal relationship between vaccination and death.⁹

In the United States, 3,000 to 6,000 people per year develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, or 1 to 2 of every 100,000, which translates to 80 to 160 cases per week.¹⁰ While the exact cause of Guillain-Barré syndrome is unknown, about two-thirds of people have an acute diarrheal or respiratory illness within 3 months before the onset of symptoms. In 1976, the estimated attributable risk of influenza vaccine-related Guillain-Barré syndrome in the US adult population was 1 case per 100,000 in the 6 weeks after vaccination.¹¹ Studies in subsequent influenza seasons have not shown similar findings.¹² In fact, one study showed that the risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome was 15 times higher after influenza illness than after influenza vaccination.¹³

Since 5% to 15% of the US population develop symptomatic influenza annually,¹⁴ the decision to vaccinate with respect to the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be obvious: vaccinate. The correct question to ask before influenza vaccination should be, “Have you previously developed Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks after receiving the flu vaccine?” If the answer is yes, the CDC considers this a caution, not a contraindication against receiving the influenza vaccine, since the benefit may still outweigh the risk.

‘I GOT THE FLU SHOT AND STILL GOT SICK’

The flu vaccine does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria that can make people sick during flu season. Influenza, the common cold, and streptococcal pharyngitis can have similar symptoms that make it difficult for patients—and, frequently, even healthcare providers—to distinguish between these illnesses with certainty.

One study suggested that influenza vaccine recipients had an increased risk of virologically confirmed noninfluenza respiratory viral infections,¹⁵ citing the phenomenon of virus interference that was described in the 1940s¹⁶ as a potential explanation. In essence, people protected against influenza by the vaccine may lack temporary nonspecific immunity against other respiratory viruses. However, these findings have not been replicated in subsequent studies.¹⁷

Viral gastroenteritis, mistakenly called “stomach flu,” is also not prevented by influenza vaccination.

‘I’M ALLERGIC TO EGGS’

The prevalence of egg allergy in US children is 0.5% to 2.5%.¹⁸ Most outgrow it by school age, but in one-third, the allergy persists into adulthood.

In general, people who can eat lightly cooked eggs (eg, scrambled eggs) without a reaction are unlikely to be allergic. On the other hand, the fact that egg-allergic people may tolerate egg included in baked products does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reaction to eggs and egg-containing foods, in addition to skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E directed against egg proteins.¹⁹

Most currently available influenza vaccines are prepared by propagation of virus in embryonated eggs and so may contain trace amounts of egg proteins such as ovalbumin, with the exception of the inactivated quadri­valent recombinant influenza vaccine (Flublok) and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine (Flucelvax).

The ACIP recommends that persons with a history of urticaria (hives) after exposure to eggs should receive any licensed, recommended influenza vaccine that is otherwise appropriate for their age and health status. Persons who report having angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent vomiting, or who required epinephrine or another emergency medical intervention after exposure to eggs, should receive the influenza vaccine in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under the supervision of a healthcare provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.

A history of severe allergic reaction such as anaphylaxis to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine, regardless of the vaccine component (including eggs) suspected of being responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to influenza vaccination. The ACIP recommends that vaccine providers consider observing patients for 15 minutes after administration of any vaccine (regardless of history of egg allergy) to decrease the risk of injury should syncope occur.²⁰

‘I DON’T WANT TO PUT POISONOUS MERCURY IN MY BODY’

A process of biomagnification of methylmercury occurs when humans eat large fish that have eaten smaller fish. Thus, larger fish such as shark can be hazardous for women who are or may become pregnant, for nursing mothers, and for young children, while smaller fish such as herring are relatively safe.

As a precautionary measure, thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001. Thimerosal-free influenza vaccine formulations include the nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine, the inactivated quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine, and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine.

‘I DON’T LIKE NEEDLES’

At least 10% of US adults have aichmophobia, the fear of sharp objects including needles.²² Vasovagal syncope is the most common manifestation. Behavioral therapy, topical anesthetics, and systemic anxiolytics have variable efficacy in treating needle phobia. For those who are absolutely averse to needles, the nasal flu vaccine is an appropriate alternative.

‘I DON’T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING THAT CAN MESS WITH MY OTHER MEDICATIONS’

Some immunosuppressive medications may decrease influenza vaccine immunogenicity. Concomitant administration of the inactivated influenza vaccine with other vaccines is safe and does not alter immunogenicity of other vaccines.¹ The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children and adolescents taking aspirin or other salicylates due to the risk of Reye syndrome.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with asthma exacerbation.²³ However, the nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children 2 to 4 years old who have asthma and should be used with caution in persons with asthma 5 years old and older. In the systematic review, influenza vaccine prevented 59% to 78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits or hospitalization.²³ In other immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, influenza vaccine does not precipitate exacerbations.²⁴

‘I HAD AN ORGAN TRANSPLANT, AND I’M AFRAID THE FLU SHOT WILL CAUSE ORGAN REJECTION’

A study of 51,730 kidney transplant recipients found that receipt of the inactivated influenza vaccine in the first year after transplant was associated with a lower risk of subsequent allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.85; P < .001) and death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76–0.89; P < .001).²⁵ In the same study, although acute rejection in the first year was not associated with influenza vaccination, influenza infection in the first year was associated with rejection (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.10–2.26; P < 0.001), but not with graft loss or death. Solid organ transplant recipients should receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 months after transplant.²⁶

Influenza vaccination has not been shown to precipitate graft-vs-host disease in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. These patients should also receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 to 6 months after transplant.²⁷

The nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in these immunocompromised patients.

‘I’M PREGNANT, AND I DON’T WANT TO EXPOSE MY UNBORN BABY TO ANYTHING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL’

The morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is high in children under 2 years old because of low immunogenicity to flu vaccine. This is particularly true in children younger than 6 months, but the vaccine is not recommended in this population. The best way to protect infants is for all household members to be vaccinated against the flu.

Equally important, morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is much higher in pregnant women than in the general population. Many studies have shown the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy for both mothers and their infants. A recently published study showed that 18% of infants who developed influenza required hospitalization.²⁸ In that study, prenatal and postpartum maternal influenza vaccination decreased the odds of influenza in infants by 61% and 53%, respectively. Another study showed that vaccine effectiveness did not vary by gestational age at vaccination.²⁹ A post hoc analysis of an influenza vaccination study in pregnant women suggested that the vaccine was also associated with decreased rates of pertussis in these women.³⁰

Healthcare providers should try to understand the public’s misconceptions³¹ about seasonal influenza and influenza vaccines in order to best address them.

The benefits of influenza vaccination are clear to those in the medical community. Yet misinformation and unfounded fears continue to discourage some people from getting a flu shot. During the 2018–2019 influenza season, only 45% of US adults and 63% of children were vaccinated.¹

‘IT DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE’

Multiple studies have shown that the flu vaccine prevents millions of flu cases and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. During the 2016–2017 flu season, flu vaccine prevented an estimated 5.3 million influenza cases, 2.6 million influenza-associated medical visits, and 85,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations.²

Several viral and host factors affect vaccine effectiveness. In seasons when the vaccine viruses have matched circulating strains, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the following:

• The risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40% to 60%
• Children’s risk of flu-related death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 74%
• The risk in adults of flu-associated hospitalizations by 40% and ICU admission by 82%
• The rate of cardiac events in people with heart disease
• Hospitalizations in people with diabetes or underlying chronic lung disease.³

In people hospitalized with influenza despite receiving the flu vaccine for the season, studies have shown that receiving the flu vaccine shortens the average duration of hospitalization, reduces the chance of ICU admission by 59%, shortens the duration of ICU stay by 4 days, and reduces deaths.³

‘IT TARGETS THE WRONG VIRUS’

Selecting an effective influenza vaccine is a challenge. Every year, the World Health Organization and the CDC decide on the influenza strains expected to circulate in the upcoming flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, based on data for circulating strains in the Southern Hemisphere. This decision takes place about 7 months before the expected onset of the flu season. Flu viruses may mutate between the time the decision is made and the time the vaccine is administered (as well as after the flu season starts). Also, vaccine production in eggs needs time, which is why this decision must be made several months ahead of the flu season.

Vaccine effectiveness varies by virus serotype. Vaccines are typically less effective against influenza A H3N2 viruses than against influenza A H1N1 and influenza B viruses. Effectiveness also varies from season to season depending on how close the vaccine serotypes match the circulating serotypes, but some effectiveness is retained even in seasons when some of the serotypes don’t match circulating viruses. For example, in the 2017–2018 season, when the influenza A H3N2 vaccine serotype did not match the circulating serotype, the overall effectiveness in preventing medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection was 36%.⁵

A universal flu vaccine that does not need to be updated annually is the ultimate solution, but according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, such a vaccine is likely several years away.⁶

‘IT MAKES PEOPLE SICK’

Pain at the injection site of a flu shot occurs in 10% to 65% of people, lasts less than 2 days, and does not usually interfere with daily activities.⁷

Systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, and myalgia may occur in people who have had no previous exposure to the influenza virus antigens in the vaccine, particularly in children. In adults, the frequency of systemic symptoms after the flu shot is similar to that with placebo.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which has been capturing data since 1990, shows that the influenza vaccine accounted for 5.7% of people who developed malaise after receiving any vaccine.⁸

The injectable inactivated influenza vaccine cannot biologically cause an influenza virus-related illness, since the inactivated vaccine viruses can elicit a protective immune response but cannot replicate. The nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine can in theory cause acute illness in the person receiving it, but because it is cold-adapted, it multiplies only in the colder environment of the nasal epithelium, not in the lower airways where the temperature is higher. Consequently, the vaccine virus triggers immunity by multiplying in the nose, but doesn’t infect the lungs.

From 10% to 50% of people who receive the nasal live-attenuated vaccine develop runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, or cough shortly after receiving the vaccine, but these symptoms are usually mild and short-lived.

The most common reactions people have to flu vaccines are considerably less severe than the symptoms caused by actual flu illness.

While influenza illness results in natural immunity to the specific viral serotype causing it, this illness results in hospitalization in 2% and is fatal in 0.16% of people. Influenza vaccine results in immunity to the serotypes included in the vaccine, and multiple studies have not found a causal relationship between vaccination and death.⁹

In the United States, 3,000 to 6,000 people per year develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, or 1 to 2 of every 100,000, which translates to 80 to 160 cases per week.¹⁰ While the exact cause of Guillain-Barré syndrome is unknown, about two-thirds of people have an acute diarrheal or respiratory illness within 3 months before the onset of symptoms. In 1976, the estimated attributable risk of influenza vaccine-related Guillain-Barré syndrome in the US adult population was 1 case per 100,000 in the 6 weeks after vaccination.¹¹ Studies in subsequent influenza seasons have not shown similar findings.¹² In fact, one study showed that the risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome was 15 times higher after influenza illness than after influenza vaccination.¹³

Since 5% to 15% of the US population develop symptomatic influenza annually,¹⁴ the decision to vaccinate with respect to the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be obvious: vaccinate. The correct question to ask before influenza vaccination should be, “Have you previously developed Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks after receiving the flu vaccine?” If the answer is yes, the CDC considers this a caution, not a contraindication against receiving the influenza vaccine, since the benefit may still outweigh the risk.

‘I GOT THE FLU SHOT AND STILL GOT SICK’

The flu vaccine does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria that can make people sick during flu season. Influenza, the common cold, and streptococcal pharyngitis can have similar symptoms that make it difficult for patients—and, frequently, even healthcare providers—to distinguish between these illnesses with certainty.

One study suggested that influenza vaccine recipients had an increased risk of virologically confirmed noninfluenza respiratory viral infections,¹⁵ citing the phenomenon of virus interference that was described in the 1940s¹⁶ as a potential explanation. In essence, people protected against influenza by the vaccine may lack temporary nonspecific immunity against other respiratory viruses. However, these findings have not been replicated in subsequent studies.¹⁷

Viral gastroenteritis, mistakenly called “stomach flu,” is also not prevented by influenza vaccination.

‘I’M ALLERGIC TO EGGS’

The prevalence of egg allergy in US children is 0.5% to 2.5%.¹⁸ Most outgrow it by school age, but in one-third, the allergy persists into adulthood.

In general, people who can eat lightly cooked eggs (eg, scrambled eggs) without a reaction are unlikely to be allergic. On the other hand, the fact that egg-allergic people may tolerate egg included in baked products does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reaction to eggs and egg-containing foods, in addition to skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E directed against egg proteins.¹⁹

Most currently available influenza vaccines are prepared by propagation of virus in embryonated eggs and so may contain trace amounts of egg proteins such as ovalbumin, with the exception of the inactivated quadri­valent recombinant influenza vaccine (Flublok) and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine (Flucelvax).

The ACIP recommends that persons with a history of urticaria (hives) after exposure to eggs should receive any licensed, recommended influenza vaccine that is otherwise appropriate for their age and health status. Persons who report having angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent vomiting, or who required epinephrine or another emergency medical intervention after exposure to eggs, should receive the influenza vaccine in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under the supervision of a healthcare provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.

A history of severe allergic reaction such as anaphylaxis to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine, regardless of the vaccine component (including eggs) suspected of being responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to influenza vaccination. The ACIP recommends that vaccine providers consider observing patients for 15 minutes after administration of any vaccine (regardless of history of egg allergy) to decrease the risk of injury should syncope occur.²⁰

‘I DON’T WANT TO PUT POISONOUS MERCURY IN MY BODY’

A process of biomagnification of methylmercury occurs when humans eat large fish that have eaten smaller fish. Thus, larger fish such as shark can be hazardous for women who are or may become pregnant, for nursing mothers, and for young children, while smaller fish such as herring are relatively safe.

As a precautionary measure, thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001. Thimerosal-free influenza vaccine formulations include the nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine, the inactivated quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine, and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine.

‘I DON’T LIKE NEEDLES’

At least 10% of US adults have aichmophobia, the fear of sharp objects including needles.²² Vasovagal syncope is the most common manifestation. Behavioral therapy, topical anesthetics, and systemic anxiolytics have variable efficacy in treating needle phobia. For those who are absolutely averse to needles, the nasal flu vaccine is an appropriate alternative.

‘I DON’T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING THAT CAN MESS WITH MY OTHER MEDICATIONS’

Some immunosuppressive medications may decrease influenza vaccine immunogenicity. Concomitant administration of the inactivated influenza vaccine with other vaccines is safe and does not alter immunogenicity of other vaccines.¹ The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children and adolescents taking aspirin or other salicylates due to the risk of Reye syndrome.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with asthma exacerbation.²³ However, the nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children 2 to 4 years old who have asthma and should be used with caution in persons with asthma 5 years old and older. In the systematic review, influenza vaccine prevented 59% to 78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits or hospitalization.²³ In other immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, influenza vaccine does not precipitate exacerbations.²⁴

‘I HAD AN ORGAN TRANSPLANT, AND I’M AFRAID THE FLU SHOT WILL CAUSE ORGAN REJECTION’

A study of 51,730 kidney transplant recipients found that receipt of the inactivated influenza vaccine in the first year after transplant was associated with a lower risk of subsequent allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.85; P < .001) and death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76–0.89; P < .001).²⁵ In the same study, although acute rejection in the first year was not associated with influenza vaccination, influenza infection in the first year was associated with rejection (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.10–2.26; P < 0.001), but not with graft loss or death. Solid organ transplant recipients should receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 months after transplant.²⁶

Influenza vaccination has not been shown to precipitate graft-vs-host disease in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. These patients should also receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 to 6 months after transplant.²⁷

The nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in these immunocompromised patients.

‘I’M PREGNANT, AND I DON’T WANT TO EXPOSE MY UNBORN BABY TO ANYTHING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL’

The morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is high in children under 2 years old because of low immunogenicity to flu vaccine. This is particularly true in children younger than 6 months, but the vaccine is not recommended in this population. The best way to protect infants is for all household members to be vaccinated against the flu.

Equally important, morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is much higher in pregnant women than in the general population. Many studies have shown the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy for both mothers and their infants. A recently published study showed that 18% of infants who developed influenza required hospitalization.²⁸ In that study, prenatal and postpartum maternal influenza vaccination decreased the odds of influenza in infants by 61% and 53%, respectively. Another study showed that vaccine effectiveness did not vary by gestational age at vaccination.²⁹ A post hoc analysis of an influenza vaccination study in pregnant women suggested that the vaccine was also associated with decreased rates of pertussis in these women.³⁰

Healthcare providers should try to understand the public’s misconceptions³¹ about seasonal influenza and influenza vaccines in order to best address them.

The benefits of influenza vaccination are clear to those in the medical community. Yet misinformation and unfounded fears continue to discourage some people from getting a flu shot. During the 2018–2019 influenza season, only 45% of US adults and 63% of children were vaccinated.¹

‘IT DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE’

Multiple studies have shown that the flu vaccine prevents millions of flu cases and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. During the 2016–2017 flu season, flu vaccine prevented an estimated 5.3 million influenza cases, 2.6 million influenza-associated medical visits, and 85,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations.²

Several viral and host factors affect vaccine effectiveness. In seasons when the vaccine viruses have matched circulating strains, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the following:

• The risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40% to 60%
• Children’s risk of flu-related death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 74%
• The risk in adults of flu-associated hospitalizations by 40% and ICU admission by 82%
• The rate of cardiac events in people with heart disease
• Hospitalizations in people with diabetes or underlying chronic lung disease.³

In people hospitalized with influenza despite receiving the flu vaccine for the season, studies have shown that receiving the flu vaccine shortens the average duration of hospitalization, reduces the chance of ICU admission by 59%, shortens the duration of ICU stay by 4 days, and reduces deaths.³

‘IT TARGETS THE WRONG VIRUS’

Selecting an effective influenza vaccine is a challenge. Every year, the World Health Organization and the CDC decide on the influenza strains expected to circulate in the upcoming flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, based on data for circulating strains in the Southern Hemisphere. This decision takes place about 7 months before the expected onset of the flu season. Flu viruses may mutate between the time the decision is made and the time the vaccine is administered (as well as after the flu season starts). Also, vaccine production in eggs needs time, which is why this decision must be made several months ahead of the flu season.

Vaccine effectiveness varies by virus serotype. Vaccines are typically less effective against influenza A H3N2 viruses than against influenza A H1N1 and influenza B viruses. Effectiveness also varies from season to season depending on how close the vaccine serotypes match the circulating serotypes, but some effectiveness is retained even in seasons when some of the serotypes don’t match circulating viruses. For example, in the 2017–2018 season, when the influenza A H3N2 vaccine serotype did not match the circulating serotype, the overall effectiveness in preventing medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection was 36%.⁵

A universal flu vaccine that does not need to be updated annually is the ultimate solution, but according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, such a vaccine is likely several years away.⁶

‘IT MAKES PEOPLE SICK’

Pain at the injection site of a flu shot occurs in 10% to 65% of people, lasts less than 2 days, and does not usually interfere with daily activities.⁷

Systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, and myalgia may occur in people who have had no previous exposure to the influenza virus antigens in the vaccine, particularly in children. In adults, the frequency of systemic symptoms after the flu shot is similar to that with placebo.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which has been capturing data since 1990, shows that the influenza vaccine accounted for 5.7% of people who developed malaise after receiving any vaccine.⁸

The injectable inactivated influenza vaccine cannot biologically cause an influenza virus-related illness, since the inactivated vaccine viruses can elicit a protective immune response but cannot replicate. The nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine can in theory cause acute illness in the person receiving it, but because it is cold-adapted, it multiplies only in the colder environment of the nasal epithelium, not in the lower airways where the temperature is higher. Consequently, the vaccine virus triggers immunity by multiplying in the nose, but doesn’t infect the lungs.

From 10% to 50% of people who receive the nasal live-attenuated vaccine develop runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, or cough shortly after receiving the vaccine, but these symptoms are usually mild and short-lived.

The most common reactions people have to flu vaccines are considerably less severe than the symptoms caused by actual flu illness.

While influenza illness results in natural immunity to the specific viral serotype causing it, this illness results in hospitalization in 2% and is fatal in 0.16% of people. Influenza vaccine results in immunity to the serotypes included in the vaccine, and multiple studies have not found a causal relationship between vaccination and death.⁹

In the United States, 3,000 to 6,000 people per year develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, or 1 to 2 of every 100,000, which translates to 80 to 160 cases per week.¹⁰ While the exact cause of Guillain-Barré syndrome is unknown, about two-thirds of people have an acute diarrheal or respiratory illness within 3 months before the onset of symptoms. In 1976, the estimated attributable risk of influenza vaccine-related Guillain-Barré syndrome in the US adult population was 1 case per 100,000 in the 6 weeks after vaccination.¹¹ Studies in subsequent influenza seasons have not shown similar findings.¹² In fact, one study showed that the risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome was 15 times higher after influenza illness than after influenza vaccination.¹³

Since 5% to 15% of the US population develop symptomatic influenza annually,¹⁴ the decision to vaccinate with respect to the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be obvious: vaccinate. The correct question to ask before influenza vaccination should be, “Have you previously developed Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks after receiving the flu vaccine?” If the answer is yes, the CDC considers this a caution, not a contraindication against receiving the influenza vaccine, since the benefit may still outweigh the risk.

‘I GOT THE FLU SHOT AND STILL GOT SICK’

The flu vaccine does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria that can make people sick during flu season. Influenza, the common cold, and streptococcal pharyngitis can have similar symptoms that make it difficult for patients—and, frequently, even healthcare providers—to distinguish between these illnesses with certainty.

One study suggested that influenza vaccine recipients had an increased risk of virologically confirmed noninfluenza respiratory viral infections,¹⁵ citing the phenomenon of virus interference that was described in the 1940s¹⁶ as a potential explanation. In essence, people protected against influenza by the vaccine may lack temporary nonspecific immunity against other respiratory viruses. However, these findings have not been replicated in subsequent studies.¹⁷

Viral gastroenteritis, mistakenly called “stomach flu,” is also not prevented by influenza vaccination.

‘I’M ALLERGIC TO EGGS’

The prevalence of egg allergy in US children is 0.5% to 2.5%.¹⁸ Most outgrow it by school age, but in one-third, the allergy persists into adulthood.

In general, people who can eat lightly cooked eggs (eg, scrambled eggs) without a reaction are unlikely to be allergic. On the other hand, the fact that egg-allergic people may tolerate egg included in baked products does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reaction to eggs and egg-containing foods, in addition to skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E directed against egg proteins.¹⁹

Most currently available influenza vaccines are prepared by propagation of virus in embryonated eggs and so may contain trace amounts of egg proteins such as ovalbumin, with the exception of the inactivated quadri­valent recombinant influenza vaccine (Flublok) and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine (Flucelvax).

The ACIP recommends that persons with a history of urticaria (hives) after exposure to eggs should receive any licensed, recommended influenza vaccine that is otherwise appropriate for their age and health status. Persons who report having angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent vomiting, or who required epinephrine or another emergency medical intervention after exposure to eggs, should receive the influenza vaccine in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under the supervision of a healthcare provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.

A history of severe allergic reaction such as anaphylaxis to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine, regardless of the vaccine component (including eggs) suspected of being responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to influenza vaccination. The ACIP recommends that vaccine providers consider observing patients for 15 minutes after administration of any vaccine (regardless of history of egg allergy) to decrease the risk of injury should syncope occur.²⁰

‘I DON’T WANT TO PUT POISONOUS MERCURY IN MY BODY’

A process of biomagnification of methylmercury occurs when humans eat large fish that have eaten smaller fish. Thus, larger fish such as shark can be hazardous for women who are or may become pregnant, for nursing mothers, and for young children, while smaller fish such as herring are relatively safe.

As a precautionary measure, thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001. Thimerosal-free influenza vaccine formulations include the nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine, the inactivated quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine, and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine.

‘I DON’T LIKE NEEDLES’

At least 10% of US adults have aichmophobia, the fear of sharp objects including needles.²² Vasovagal syncope is the most common manifestation. Behavioral therapy, topical anesthetics, and systemic anxiolytics have variable efficacy in treating needle phobia. For those who are absolutely averse to needles, the nasal flu vaccine is an appropriate alternative.

‘I DON’T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING THAT CAN MESS WITH MY OTHER MEDICATIONS’

Some immunosuppressive medications may decrease influenza vaccine immunogenicity. Concomitant administration of the inactivated influenza vaccine with other vaccines is safe and does not alter immunogenicity of other vaccines.¹ The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children and adolescents taking aspirin or other salicylates due to the risk of Reye syndrome.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with asthma exacerbation.²³ However, the nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children 2 to 4 years old who have asthma and should be used with caution in persons with asthma 5 years old and older. In the systematic review, influenza vaccine prevented 59% to 78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits or hospitalization.²³ In other immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, influenza vaccine does not precipitate exacerbations.²⁴

‘I HAD AN ORGAN TRANSPLANT, AND I’M AFRAID THE FLU SHOT WILL CAUSE ORGAN REJECTION’

A study of 51,730 kidney transplant recipients found that receipt of the inactivated influenza vaccine in the first year after transplant was associated with a lower risk of subsequent allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.85; P < .001) and death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76–0.89; P < .001).²⁵ In the same study, although acute rejection in the first year was not associated with influenza vaccination, influenza infection in the first year was associated with rejection (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.10–2.26; P < 0.001), but not with graft loss or death. Solid organ transplant recipients should receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 months after transplant.²⁶

Influenza vaccination has not been shown to precipitate graft-vs-host disease in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. These patients should also receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 to 6 months after transplant.²⁷

The nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in these immunocompromised patients.

‘I’M PREGNANT, AND I DON’T WANT TO EXPOSE MY UNBORN BABY TO ANYTHING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL’

The morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is high in children under 2 years old because of low immunogenicity to flu vaccine. This is particularly true in children younger than 6 months, but the vaccine is not recommended in this population. The best way to protect infants is for all household members to be vaccinated against the flu.

Equally important, morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is much higher in pregnant women than in the general population. Many studies have shown the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy for both mothers and their infants. A recently published study showed that 18% of infants who developed influenza required hospitalization.²⁸ In that study, prenatal and postpartum maternal influenza vaccination decreased the odds of influenza in infants by 61% and 53%, respectively. Another study showed that vaccine effectiveness did not vary by gestational age at vaccination.²⁹ A post hoc analysis of an influenza vaccination study in pregnant women suggested that the vaccine was also associated with decreased rates of pertussis in these women.³⁰

Healthcare providers should try to understand the public’s misconceptions³¹ about seasonal influenza and influenza vaccines in order to best address them.

To the Editor: In their paper on colorectal cancer screening, Mankaney and colleagues noted the increasing rates of colorectal cancer in young adults in the United States.¹ Recent epidemiologic data demonstrate an increasing incidence of the disease in people ages 40 through 49 since the mid-1990s.² Even though screening starting at age 45 is not uniformly accepted,¹ there is evidence supporting earlier screening.

During the mid-1990s, the US government mandated that all enriched flour and uncooked cereal grains were to be fortified with folic acid in order to prevent births complicated by neural tube defects.³ Subsequently, there was a 2-fold increase in plasma folate concentrations and, disturbingly, a temporally associated significant increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer.³

Notably, a US trial⁴ testing the efficacy of folic acid 1 mg taken daily for 6 years to prevent colorectal adenomas in those with a history of colorectal adenomas failed to show a reduction in adenoma risk. Instead, participants randomized to folic acid exhibited a significantly increased risk of an advanced adenoma. Another trial,⁵ conducted in the Netherlands, where there is no mandatory folic acid fortification, investigated folic acid 400 µg and vitamin B₁₂ 500 µg daily over 2 to 3 years for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures. The group randomized to the vitamins had a nearly 2-fold increase in the risk of colorectal cancer.

Folic acid can be a double-edged sword.^3,5 Although folic acid intake may protect against carcinogenesis through increased genetic stability, if precancerous or neoplastic cells are present, excess folic acid may promote cancer by increasing DNA synthesis and cell proliferation. Cancer cells have folic acid receptors.

Since screening colonoscopy is typically done in individuals over 50, advanced adenomas from folic acid exposure in people younger than 50 likely go undiagnosed. Therefore, colorectal cancer screening should start at a younger age in countries where folic acid fortification is mandatory.

To the Editor: In their paper on colorectal cancer screening, Mankaney and colleagues noted the increasing rates of colorectal cancer in young adults in the United States.¹ Recent epidemiologic data demonstrate an increasing incidence of the disease in people ages 40 through 49 since the mid-1990s.² Even though screening starting at age 45 is not uniformly accepted,¹ there is evidence supporting earlier screening.

During the mid-1990s, the US government mandated that all enriched flour and uncooked cereal grains were to be fortified with folic acid in order to prevent births complicated by neural tube defects.³ Subsequently, there was a 2-fold increase in plasma folate concentrations and, disturbingly, a temporally associated significant increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer.³

Notably, a US trial⁴ testing the efficacy of folic acid 1 mg taken daily for 6 years to prevent colorectal adenomas in those with a history of colorectal adenomas failed to show a reduction in adenoma risk. Instead, participants randomized to folic acid exhibited a significantly increased risk of an advanced adenoma. Another trial,⁵ conducted in the Netherlands, where there is no mandatory folic acid fortification, investigated folic acid 400 µg and vitamin B₁₂ 500 µg daily over 2 to 3 years for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures. The group randomized to the vitamins had a nearly 2-fold increase in the risk of colorectal cancer.

Folic acid can be a double-edged sword.^3,5 Although folic acid intake may protect against carcinogenesis through increased genetic stability, if precancerous or neoplastic cells are present, excess folic acid may promote cancer by increasing DNA synthesis and cell proliferation. Cancer cells have folic acid receptors.

Since screening colonoscopy is typically done in individuals over 50, advanced adenomas from folic acid exposure in people younger than 50 likely go undiagnosed. Therefore, colorectal cancer screening should start at a younger age in countries where folic acid fortification is mandatory.

To the Editor: In their paper on colorectal cancer screening, Mankaney and colleagues noted the increasing rates of colorectal cancer in young adults in the United States.¹ Recent epidemiologic data demonstrate an increasing incidence of the disease in people ages 40 through 49 since the mid-1990s.² Even though screening starting at age 45 is not uniformly accepted,¹ there is evidence supporting earlier screening.

During the mid-1990s, the US government mandated that all enriched flour and uncooked cereal grains were to be fortified with folic acid in order to prevent births complicated by neural tube defects.³ Subsequently, there was a 2-fold increase in plasma folate concentrations and, disturbingly, a temporally associated significant increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer.³

Notably, a US trial⁴ testing the efficacy of folic acid 1 mg taken daily for 6 years to prevent colorectal adenomas in those with a history of colorectal adenomas failed to show a reduction in adenoma risk. Instead, participants randomized to folic acid exhibited a significantly increased risk of an advanced adenoma. Another trial,⁵ conducted in the Netherlands, where there is no mandatory folic acid fortification, investigated folic acid 400 µg and vitamin B₁₂ 500 µg daily over 2 to 3 years for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures. The group randomized to the vitamins had a nearly 2-fold increase in the risk of colorectal cancer.

Folic acid can be a double-edged sword.^3,5 Although folic acid intake may protect against carcinogenesis through increased genetic stability, if precancerous or neoplastic cells are present, excess folic acid may promote cancer by increasing DNA synthesis and cell proliferation. Cancer cells have folic acid receptors.

Since screening colonoscopy is typically done in individuals over 50, advanced adenomas from folic acid exposure in people younger than 50 likely go undiagnosed. Therefore, colorectal cancer screening should start at a younger age in countries where folic acid fortification is mandatory.

To the Editor: In the article, “Colorectal cancer screening: Choosing the right test,” the authors offer an excellent review, but restrict the discussion to just 2 of the many options. Screening compliance improves when clinicians and patients can select their preferred screening approach, and other noninvasive or minimally invasive approaches also deserve consideration and may well be superior. It is important that both the patient and the healthcare provider be fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

The article is overly generous in its description of the accuracy and sensitivity of optical colonoscopy. The statement that colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases is not supported by the biomedical literature or clinical experience. The measure of colonoscopy accuracy is best quantified by a review of more than 15,000 tandem colonoscopies that showed an average polyp miss rate of 22% using standard colonoscopes, and a 69% polyp miss rate compared with full-spectrum colonoscopes with greater fields of view.^1–3 Between 5% and 10% of colonoscopies are technically incomplete and do not reach the cecum. Only 35% of colonoscopy bowel preps are excellent, and 21% are so poor that the procedure cannot be completed.^4–8 Colorectal cancers are frequently missed at colonoscopy, with a rate of 7% quoted in the literature for interval cancer development.^9–16 Studies of computed tomography colonography (virtual colonoscopy) have confirmed that between 10% and 20% of the colonic mucosa is hidden from view on optical colonoscopy by tall haustral mucosal folds.^17,18 The operator variation measured by adenoma detection rates can exceed a 10-fold differential.

Colonoscopy is an important and valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool. The disadvantages include significant cancer and polyp miss rates, high discomfort, high expense, potentially life-threatening complications, time- and resource-intensive utilization, high loss of patient work productivity, challenging and frequently inadequate preparation, higher risk of metachronous cancer and polyp spread, and high operator variability of quality.^19–24 Unfortunately, while colonoscopy is an important tool, it does not come anywhere close to a score of 98% and should not be considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening.²⁵

To the Editor: In the article, “Colorectal cancer screening: Choosing the right test,” the authors offer an excellent review, but restrict the discussion to just 2 of the many options. Screening compliance improves when clinicians and patients can select their preferred screening approach, and other noninvasive or minimally invasive approaches also deserve consideration and may well be superior. It is important that both the patient and the healthcare provider be fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

The article is overly generous in its description of the accuracy and sensitivity of optical colonoscopy. The statement that colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases is not supported by the biomedical literature or clinical experience. The measure of colonoscopy accuracy is best quantified by a review of more than 15,000 tandem colonoscopies that showed an average polyp miss rate of 22% using standard colonoscopes, and a 69% polyp miss rate compared with full-spectrum colonoscopes with greater fields of view.^1–3 Between 5% and 10% of colonoscopies are technically incomplete and do not reach the cecum. Only 35% of colonoscopy bowel preps are excellent, and 21% are so poor that the procedure cannot be completed.^4–8 Colorectal cancers are frequently missed at colonoscopy, with a rate of 7% quoted in the literature for interval cancer development.^9–16 Studies of computed tomography colonography (virtual colonoscopy) have confirmed that between 10% and 20% of the colonic mucosa is hidden from view on optical colonoscopy by tall haustral mucosal folds.^17,18 The operator variation measured by adenoma detection rates can exceed a 10-fold differential.

Colonoscopy is an important and valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool. The disadvantages include significant cancer and polyp miss rates, high discomfort, high expense, potentially life-threatening complications, time- and resource-intensive utilization, high loss of patient work productivity, challenging and frequently inadequate preparation, higher risk of metachronous cancer and polyp spread, and high operator variability of quality.^19–24 Unfortunately, while colonoscopy is an important tool, it does not come anywhere close to a score of 98% and should not be considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening.²⁵

To the Editor: In the article, “Colorectal cancer screening: Choosing the right test,” the authors offer an excellent review, but restrict the discussion to just 2 of the many options. Screening compliance improves when clinicians and patients can select their preferred screening approach, and other noninvasive or minimally invasive approaches also deserve consideration and may well be superior. It is important that both the patient and the healthcare provider be fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

The article is overly generous in its description of the accuracy and sensitivity of optical colonoscopy. The statement that colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases is not supported by the biomedical literature or clinical experience. The measure of colonoscopy accuracy is best quantified by a review of more than 15,000 tandem colonoscopies that showed an average polyp miss rate of 22% using standard colonoscopes, and a 69% polyp miss rate compared with full-spectrum colonoscopes with greater fields of view.^1–3 Between 5% and 10% of colonoscopies are technically incomplete and do not reach the cecum. Only 35% of colonoscopy bowel preps are excellent, and 21% are so poor that the procedure cannot be completed.^4–8 Colorectal cancers are frequently missed at colonoscopy, with a rate of 7% quoted in the literature for interval cancer development.^9–16 Studies of computed tomography colonography (virtual colonoscopy) have confirmed that between 10% and 20% of the colonic mucosa is hidden from view on optical colonoscopy by tall haustral mucosal folds.^17,18 The operator variation measured by adenoma detection rates can exceed a 10-fold differential.

Colonoscopy is an important and valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool. The disadvantages include significant cancer and polyp miss rates, high discomfort, high expense, potentially life-threatening complications, time- and resource-intensive utilization, high loss of patient work productivity, challenging and frequently inadequate preparation, higher risk of metachronous cancer and polyp spread, and high operator variability of quality.^19–24 Unfortunately, while colonoscopy is an important tool, it does not come anywhere close to a score of 98% and should not be considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening.²⁵