Pain Treatment Strategy and Readmission Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries Post-Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Madhav Sankaranarayanan, Rebeka Bustamante Rocha, Julianne D Brooks, Maria A Donahue, Shuo Sun, Sonia Hernandez Diaz, Alexander Tsai, Joseph P Newhouse, Sebastien Haneuse, Lidia M V R Moura
{"title":"Pain Treatment Strategy and Readmission Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries Post-Acute Ischemic Stroke.","authors":"Madhav Sankaranarayanan, Rebeka Bustamante Rocha, Julianne D Brooks, Maria A Donahue, Shuo Sun, Sonia Hernandez Diaz, Alexander Tsai, Joseph P Newhouse, Sebastien Haneuse, Lidia M V R Moura","doi":"10.1101/2025.09.25.25336638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Stroke is highly prevalent and commonly presents with pain. Primary care providers generally manage follow-up care, although ideal pain management strategies remain unclear. Treatment options include gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, and various antiseizure medications. We aim to analyze differences in hospital readmissions, a quality metric, for those initiating gabapentin in contrast to other medicines for post-stroke pain in older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this matched cohort study, we analyzed a 20% sample of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and over hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) between December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2021, who were discharged home. Individuals met insurance coverage criteria and did not take pain medications before hospitalization. We matched individuals on days from discharge to medication initiation. Individuals who initiated Gabapentin within 90 days of discharge (N = 1,546) were matched to individuals who initiated first-line pharmacological treatments for nerve pain other than Gabapentin within 90 days of discharge (N = 285). We investigated the time to re-admissions using a semi-competing risk framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The matched cohort of 1,831 initiators had a median age of 76 (IQR 11) and was 57.2% female and 81.3% Non-Hispanic White. Using the semi-competing risk framework, the hazard of readmissions, given that death had not occurred, was not different for Gabapentin initiators, compared to if they had initiated other medications, hazard ratio 0.871 (95% CI: 0.517, 1.466).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no significant difference in hospital readmission rates between gabapentin and other post-stroke pain treatment strategies. Our findings contribute to the pharmacosurveillance of gabapentin in real-world Medicare beneficiaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":94281,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12486021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.25.25336638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Stroke is highly prevalent and commonly presents with pain. Primary care providers generally manage follow-up care, although ideal pain management strategies remain unclear. Treatment options include gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, and various antiseizure medications. We aim to analyze differences in hospital readmissions, a quality metric, for those initiating gabapentin in contrast to other medicines for post-stroke pain in older adults.

Methods: In this matched cohort study, we analyzed a 20% sample of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and over hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) between December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2021, who were discharged home. Individuals met insurance coverage criteria and did not take pain medications before hospitalization. We matched individuals on days from discharge to medication initiation. Individuals who initiated Gabapentin within 90 days of discharge (N = 1,546) were matched to individuals who initiated first-line pharmacological treatments for nerve pain other than Gabapentin within 90 days of discharge (N = 285). We investigated the time to re-admissions using a semi-competing risk framework.

Results: The matched cohort of 1,831 initiators had a median age of 76 (IQR 11) and was 57.2% female and 81.3% Non-Hispanic White. Using the semi-competing risk framework, the hazard of readmissions, given that death had not occurred, was not different for Gabapentin initiators, compared to if they had initiated other medications, hazard ratio 0.871 (95% CI: 0.517, 1.466).

Conclusion: We found no significant difference in hospital readmission rates between gabapentin and other post-stroke pain treatment strategies. Our findings contribute to the pharmacosurveillance of gabapentin in real-world Medicare beneficiaries.

急性缺血性卒中后医疗保险受益人的疼痛治疗策略和再入院率。
目的:中风非常普遍,通常表现为疼痛。虽然理想的疼痛管理策略尚不清楚,但初级保健提供者通常负责后续护理。治疗方案包括加巴喷丁类药物、三环抗抑郁药和各种抗癫痫药物。我们的目的是分析再入院的差异,这是一项质量指标,与其他药物相比,加巴喷丁治疗老年人中风后疼痛。方法:在这项匹配队列研究中,我们分析了2016年12月31日至2021年12月31日期间因急性缺血性卒中(AIS)住院的65岁及以上美国医疗保险受益人中20%的样本。个人符合保险覆盖标准,住院前没有服用止痛药。我们匹配个体从出院到开始用药的天数。在出院90天内开始使用加巴喷丁的个体(N = 1546)与在出院90天内开始使用加巴喷丁以外的一线神经疼痛药物治疗的个体(N = 285)相匹配。我们使用半竞争风险框架调查了重新入院的时间。结果:匹配队列1831例启动者的中位年龄为76岁(IQR 11), 57.2%为女性,81.3%为非西班牙裔白人。使用半竞争风险框架,考虑到未发生死亡,加巴喷丁起始者再入院的风险与使用其他药物的患者相比没有差异,风险比为0.871 (95% CI: 0.517, 1.466)。结论:我们发现加巴喷丁与其他脑卒中后疼痛治疗策略在再入院率上无显著差异。我们的发现有助于加巴喷丁在现实世界医疗保险受益人中的药物监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信