-
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Aug 2021Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Evidence of larger drug effects in highly standardized studies (efficacy) compared to clinical routine (effectiveness) is discussed as efficacy-effectiveness gap. This study aimed to quantify effect size differences of RCTs and non-RCTs in the treatment of depression with venlafaxine and duloxetine and to identify effect modifying predictors.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including all prospective trials, which evaluated the treatment effects of duloxetine or venlafaxine in patients with depression. The primary outcome was the pre-post effect size after acute therapy, which were compared between RCTs and non-RCTs. Moreover, an exploratory analysis of predictors in a mixed meta-regression model within an information-theoretic approach was performed.
RESULTS
171 RCTs and 74 non-RCTs were included. The pre-post effect size differed significantly between RCTs and non-RCTs (-3.04 vs. -2.62, Δ = 0.41, p = 0.012, high heterogeneity). Study characteristics were very similar between RCTs and non-RCTs. Most important variables to predict effect sizes were 'depression severity', 'dose' and 'number of participants'.
CONCLUSION
Despite differences in effect sizes between RCTs and non-RCTs, study design is not clearly an important predictor for the effect sizes. Our results question the common assumption that non-RCTs are generally better suited to describe a drug's effectiveness in clinical practice than RCTs. Future studies and their reporting should put more emphasis on the description of external validity, in order to allow better assessments of clinical relevance.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Prospective Studies; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 33661520
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13293 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Jan 2015With anticonvulsant, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties, pregabalin has been evaluated for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (FM). These chronic conditions diminish... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With anticonvulsant, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties, pregabalin has been evaluated for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (FM). These chronic conditions diminish patients' quality of life and increase healthcare utilization and costs.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the current understanding of economic outcomes associated with pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM.
METHODS
Using keywords related to economic outcomes and pregabalin, we systematically searched MEDLINE- and EMBASE-indexed literature and nonindexed "grey" literature on neuropathic pain and FM published from March 2001 to October 2012. Included studies reported economic findings associated with pregabalin.
RESULTS
In the past 11 years, 55 publications assessed the direct costs, resource use, or cost-effectiveness of pregabalin for neuropathic pain and FM. Studies generally lacked comparability due to heterogeneous patient populations, assumptions, time periods, and geographies. In the US, following treatment initiation, pregabalin resulted in similar or higher levels of healthcare use for FM compared with duloxetine. In contrast, medical costs for neuropathic pain did not significantly differ after initiation of pregabalin vs. duloxetine or other standard therapies in the US, but in Spain and Sweden, retrospective database studies suggested that pregabalin was cost-saving vs. gabapentin. Few economic analyses estimated indirect costs.
CONCLUSIONS
Neuropathic pain and FM are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. Economic studies of pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM indicate some results favorable to other forms of care, but heterogeneity among study designs and populations hinder comparisons. Future economic analyses should aim to address data gaps regarding effects of pregabalin on productivity and resource use.
Topics: Amines; Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Chronic Disease; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Economics, Pharmaceutical; Fibromyalgia; Gabapentin; Health Services; Humans; Neuralgia; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Spain; Sweden; United States; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 24815038
DOI: 10.1111/papr.12193 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Feb 2018This updated systematic review aimed at evaluating the efficacy, acceptability and safety of cognitive behavioural therapies (CBTs) in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
This updated systematic review aimed at evaluating the efficacy, acceptability and safety of cognitive behavioural therapies (CBTs) in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS were searched from September 2013 to May 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBTs with controls were analysed. Primary outcomes were ≥50% pain relief, ≥20% improvement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), negative mood, fatigue, disability, acceptability and safety at end of therapy and at 6 months follow-up. Effects were summarized by a random effects model using risk differences (RD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). 29 RCTs with 2509 subjects were included. CBTs were superior to controls (waiting list, attention control, treatment as usual, other active non-pharmacological therapies) in pain relief of 50% or greater (RD 0.05 [95% CI 0.02-0.07] (high-quality evidence), improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (RD 0.13 [95% CI 0.00-0.26], (moderate quality evidence), and in reducing negative mood (SMD -0.43 [95% CI -0.62 to -0.24]) (high-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.30 [95% CI -0.52 to -0.08]) (high-quality evidence) and fatigue (SMD - 0-27 [95% CI -0.50 to -0.03]) (high-quality evidence). There were no statistically significant differences between CBTs and controls in acceptability and safety (high-quality evidence). The update did not change the major findings of the previous review. CBTs provided a clinically relevant benefit over control interventions in reducing some key symptoms of FMS and disability at the end of treatment.
SIGNIFICANCE
This updated systematic review with meta-analysis on cognitive behavioural therapies (CBTs) including acceptance-based CBTs endorse the efficacy and tolerability of CBTs in reducing key symptoms and disability in FMS in the short- and long-term if compared to waiting list, treatment as usual, attention controls and active non-pharmacological therapies. CBTs did not differ in efficacy except superiority for coping with pain and tolerability from recommended drug therapy (pregabalin and/or duloxetine).
Topics: Adaptation, Psychological; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Pain Management; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28984402
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1121 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Jun 2018Our analysis aimed at comparing the placebo effect sizes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of two widely prescribed antidepressants, namely duloxetine and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Our analysis aimed at comparing the placebo effect sizes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of two widely prescribed antidepressants, namely duloxetine and venlafaxine, and at analysing a potential influence of the investigated drugs on the placebo response.
METHOD
We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled, double-blind RCTs, which examined the efficacy of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder.
RESULTS
We included 71 studies (29 duloxetine trials and 43 venlafaxine trials; one study provided data for the duloxetine and the venlafaxine data set). The placebo effect sizes, defined as pre-postscore change divided by baseline standard deviation, differed significantly between venlafaxine and duloxetine studies (-2.51 vs. -2.09; test for subgroup differences P = 0.028; high heterogeneity). The analysis of effect modifiers and the metaregression analyses confirmed the drug, next to baseline depression severity and publication status, as the most influential independent predictor.
CONCLUSION
Our analyses show a significant difference in the placebo response between venlafaxine and duloxetine trials and suggest that the investigated drug has an influence on the placebo response that is not related to baseline severity, changes over the years or other variables we included.
Topics: Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Placebo Effect; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 29603140
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12881 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbances,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. People with fibromyalgia often report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy, for example, with serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), focuses on reducing key symptoms and improving quality of life. This review updates and extends the 2013 version of this systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles, to 8 August 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized, controlled trials of any formulation of SNRIs against placebo or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data, examined study quality, and assessed risk of bias. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 50% or greater and of 30% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardized mean differences (SMD) for fatigue, sleep problems, health-related quality of life, mean pain intensity, depression, anxiety, disability, sexual function, cognitive disturbances and tenderness. For tolerability we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawals due to adverse events and for nausea, insomnia and somnolence as specific adverse events. For safety we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We added eight new studies with 1979 participants for a total of 18 included studies with 7903 participants. Seven studies investigated duloxetine and nine studies investigated milnacipran against placebo. One study compared desvenlafaxine with placebo and pregabalin. One study compared duloxetine with L-carnitine. The majority of studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in three to five domains.The quality of evidence of all comparisons of desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and milnacipran versus placebo in studies with a parallel design was low due to concerns about publication bias and indirectness, and very low for serious adverse events due to concerns about publication bias, imprecision and indirectness. The quality of evidence of all comparisons of duloxetine and desvenlafaxine with other active drugs was very low due to concerns about publication bias, imprecision and indirectness.Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater: 1274 of 4104 (31%) on duloxetine and milnacipran reported pain relief of 50% or greater compared to 591 of 2814 (21%) participants on placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.11; NNTB 11, 95% CI 9 to 14). Duloxetine and milnacipran had a clinically relevant benefit over placebo in patient's global impression to be much or very much improved: 888 of 1710 (52%) on duloxetine and milnacipran (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 8) reported to be much or very much improved compared to 354 of 1208 (29%) of participants on placebo. Duloxetine and milnacipran had a clinically relevant benefit compared to placebo for pain relief of 30% or greater. RD was 0.10; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.12; NNTB 10, 95% CI 8 to 12. Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit for fatigue (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.08; NNTB 18, 95% CI 12 to 29), compared to placebo. There were no differences between either duloxetine or milnacipran and placebo in reducing sleep problems (SMD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.15 to 0.01). Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit compared to placebo in improving health-related quality of life (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.15; NNTB 11, 95% CI 8 to 14).There were 794 of 4166 (19%) participants on SNRIs who dropped out due to adverse events compared to 292 of 2863 (10%) of participants on placebo (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; NNTH 14, 95% CI 10 to 25). There was no difference in serious adverse events between either duloxetine, milnacipran or desvenlafaxine and placebo (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00).There was no difference between desvenlafaxine and placebo in efficacy, tolerability and safety in one small trial.There was no difference between duloxetine and desvenlafaxine in efficacy, tolerability and safety in two trials with active comparators (L-carnitine, pregabalin).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The update did not change the major findings of the previous review. Based on low- to very low-quality evidence, the SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided no clinically relevant benefit over placebo in the frequency of pain relief of 50% or greater, but for patient's global impression to be much or very much improved and in the frequency of pain relief of 30% or greater there was a clinically relevant benefit. The SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided no clinically relevant benefit over placebo in improving health-related quality of life and in reducing fatigue. Duloxetine and milnacipran did not significantly differ from placebo in reducing sleep problems. The dropout rates due to adverse events were higher for duloxetine and milnacipran than for placebo. On average, the potential benefits of duloxetine and milnacipran in fibromyalgia were outweighed by their potential harms. However, a minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically relevant adverse events with duloxetine or milnacipran.We did not find placebo-controlled studies with other SNRIs than desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and milnacipran.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Adult; Carnitine; Cyclopropanes; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Milnacipran; Norepinephrine; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Syndrome
PubMed: 29489029
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010292.pub2 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Jun 2020To evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or chronic low back pain (CLBP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or chronic low back pain (CLBP).
METHODS
Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Included RCTs compared the efficacy and safety of duloxetine vs placebo in the treatment of OA or CLBP. Weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated for continuous outcomes while risk ratio (RR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. Duloxetine had significant improvement over placebo in Brief Pain Inventory 24-h average pain [WMD: -0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI):-0.80, -0.53], weekly mean of the 24-h average pain (WMD: -0.65; 95% CI: -0.79, -0.52), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (WMD: -0.41; 95% CI: -0.49, -0.32), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (WMD: -0.32; 95% CI: -0.38, -0.25), European Quality of Life Questionnaire-5 Dimension (WMD: 0.04; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.07). In addition, duloxetine is associated with more treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.33) and discontinuations for adverse events (AEs) (RR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.81, 2.94). However, there was no statistically significant difference in serious AEs between duloxetine and placebo.
CONCLUSION
Duloxetine had modest to moderate effects on pain relief, function improvement, mood regulation and improvement in quality of life with mild AEs in the treatment of OA or CLBP. Future RCTs should focus on comparing duloxetine with other oral drugs and assessing the long-term safety of duloxetine.
Topics: Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Low Back Pain; Osteoarthritis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32169731
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2020.03.001 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Sep 2023The purpose of this study was to investigate the analgesic effects of duloxetine, specifically on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and related side effects... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to investigate the analgesic effects of duloxetine, specifically on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and related side effects following total hip or knee arthroplasty.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until November 2022 for studies which compared duloxetine with placebo when added to routine pain management protocols. Individual study risk of bias assessment was conducted based on Cochrane risk of bias tool 2. Random effect model meta-analysis was done on mean differences, to evaluate the outcomes.
RESULTS
Nine randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included in the final analysis, totaling 806 patients. Duloxetine reduced opioid consumption (oral morphine milligram equivalents) on postoperative days (POD) 2 (mean difference (MD): -14.35, P = .02), POD 3 (MD: -13.6, P < .001), POD 7 (MD: -7.81, P < .001), and POD 14 (MD: -12.72, P < .001). Duloxetine decreased pain with activity on POD 1, 3, 7, 14, 90 (All P < .05), and pain at rest on POD 2, 3, 7, 14, and 90 (all P < .05). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of the side effects, except for increased risk of somnolence/drowsiness (risk ratio: 1.87, P = .007).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence shows low to moderate opioid sparing effects of perioperative duloxetine and a statistically but not clinically significant reduction in pain scores. Patients treated with duloxetine had an increased risk for somnolence and drowsiness.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Sleepiness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37027215
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnad045 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Mar 2024To update the major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment guidelines of the Japanese Society of Mood Disorders, we conducted a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To update the major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment guidelines of the Japanese Society of Mood Disorders, we conducted a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of available antidepressants in Japan for older adults with MDD.
METHODS
Outcome measures included response rate (primary), improvement in depressive symptom scale score, remission rate, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and at least one adverse event. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
RESULTS
Nine double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n = 2145) were identified. No study has been conducted in Japan. Our meta-analysis included the following antidepressants: duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine. Antidepressants have significantly higher response rates than placebo (RR [95% CI] = 1.38 [1.04, 1.83], p = 0.02). Antidepressants outperformed placebo in terms of improving depressive symptom scale score (SMD [95% CI] = -0.62 [-0.92, -0.33], p < 0.0001). However, antidepressants were associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events (RR [95% CI] = 1.94 [1.30, 2.88], p = 0.001) and a higher incidence of at least one adverse event (RR [95% CI] = 1.11 [1.02, 1.21], p = 0.02) compared to placebo. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of remission rate or all-cause discontinuation.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis concluded that treatment with antidepressants available in Japan is only weakly recommended for moderate to severe MDD in older adults.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Depressive Disorder, Major; Japan; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38318955
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12422 -
The International Journal of... Jan 2020The objective of this systematic review was to assess the analgesic efficacy of duloxetine (DLX) for fibromyalgia (FM) and find out which dosage between 60 mg/d DLX... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the analgesic efficacy of duloxetine (DLX) for fibromyalgia (FM) and find out which dosage between 60 mg/d DLX and 120 mg/d DLX was more suitable for clinical application. A systematic search through multiple databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ProQuest, PubMed) was conducted from 2000 until 7 March 2019. All steps were performed by two or more independent reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed to report the effects of DLX on pain reduction and its accompanied adverse events. This meta-analysis, including seven studies with 2642 FM patients, demonstrated that DLX could produce greater pain relief in FM than placebo (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to -0.16). The risk ratio (RR) of at least 30% pain relief was 1.31 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.44); the RR of at least 50% pain relief was 1.46 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.67). However, the patients with DLX who suffered adverse events were more common than the ones with placebo (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.23). The withdrawal effect included adverse event withdrawal and lack of efficacy withdrawal. The subgroup analyses of withdrawal effects demonstrated that 120 mg/d DLX had a higher incidence (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.15) than 60 mg/d DLX (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93). In general, DLX was a great choice for pain relief in FM. Moreover, 60 mg/d DLX produced less withdrawal effects than 120 mg/d DLX. HighlightsFibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic condition of unknown aetiology, characterized by widespread pain and often associated with other symptoms.Duloxetine (DLX), a serotonin norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), is used to treat FM in many countries.DLX can produce greater pain relief in FM than placebo.DLX can bring about more adverse events than placebo.60 mg/d DLX produces less withdrawal than 120 mg/d DLX for FM patients.
Topics: Analgesics; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Pain
PubMed: 31487217
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2019.1664510 -
International Journal of Clinical... Nov 2021In patients with diabetes mellitus, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a frequent complication and can cause poor quality of life. We compared the efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of efficacy and safety of gabapentin and duloxetine in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
In patients with diabetes mellitus, painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a frequent complication and can cause poor quality of life. We compared the efficacy and safety of duloxetine with those of gabapentin in patients with PDPN through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published from database inception to January 2021. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), sleep interference score, Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom (DNS) score, Diabetic Neuropathic Examination (DNE) score, Neuropathic Disability Score (NDS) and side effects were used to compare duloxetine and gabapentin in patients with PDPN.
RESULTS
Three eligible randomised controlled trials involving 290 patients were included. No significant differences were observed between patients receiving duloxetine and gabapentin with respect to VAS (mean change difference = -1.23, 95% CI, -6.09 to 3.62; P = .62), sleep interference score (mean change difference = 0.42, 95% CI, -0.15 to 1.00; P = .15), CGIC (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.20; P = .60), PGIC (mean difference= 0.24, 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.60; P = .21), DNS (mean change difference = 0.14, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.63; P = .58), DNE (mean change difference = 0.26, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.86; P = .41) and NDS (mean change difference = 0.30, 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.63; P = .07).
CONCLUSIONS
No significant differences were observed in the efficacy of duloxetine and gabapentin when treating patients with PDPN.
Topics: Analgesics; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Neuropathies; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Gabapentin; Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34171158
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14576