-
JAMA Network Open May 2022Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fatigue; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 35587348
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12939 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Oct 2022Multiple clinical trials with different exercise protocols have demonstrated efficacy in the management of migraine. However, there is no head-to-head comparison of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple clinical trials with different exercise protocols have demonstrated efficacy in the management of migraine. However, there is no head-to-head comparison of efficacy between the different exercise interventions.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed involving all clinical trials which determined the efficacy of exercise interventions in reducing the frequency of monthly migraine. Medical journal search engines included Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus spanning all previous years up to July 30, 2022. Both aerobic and strength/resistance training protocols were included. The mean difference (MD, 95% confidence interval) in monthly migraine frequency from baseline to end-of-intervention between the active and control arms was used as an outcome measure. Efficacy evidence from direct and indirect comparisons was combined by conducting a random effects model network meta-analysis. The efficacy of the three exercise protocols was compared, i.e., moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, high-intensity aerobic exercise, and strength/resistance training. Studies that compared the efficacy of migraine medications (topiramate, amitriptyline) to exercise were included. Additionally, the risk of bias in all included studies was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2 (RoB2).
RESULTS
There were 21 published clinical trials that involved a total of 1195 migraine patients with a mean age of 35 years and a female-to-male ratio of 6.7. There were 27 pairwise comparisons and 8 indirect comparisons. The rank of the interventions was as follows: strength training (MD = -3.55 [- 6.15, - 0.95]), high-intensity aerobic exercise (-3.13 [-5.28, -0.97]), moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (-2.18 [-3.25, -1.11]), topiramate (-0.98 [-4.16, 2.20]), placebo, amitriptyline (3.82 [- 1.03, 8.68]). The RoB2 assessment showed that 85% of the included studies demonstrated low risk of bias, while 15% indicated high risk of bias for intention-to-treat analysis. Sources of high risk of bias include randomization process and handling of missing outcome data.
CONCLUSION
Strength training exercise regimens demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing migraine burden, followed by high-intensity aerobic exercise.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Network Meta-Analysis; Resistance Training; Topiramate
PubMed: 36229774
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-022-01503-y -
Clinical Rheumatology Jul 2022Treatment recommendations for fibromyalgia (FM) include a range of predominantly pharmacological treatment options designed to ensure the maintenance of symptoms and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Treatment recommendations for fibromyalgia (FM) include a range of predominantly pharmacological treatment options designed to ensure the maintenance of symptoms and improvement in the quality of life of these patients. Our aim is to identify and compare the efficacy of amitriptyline (AMT), duloxetine (DLX), and pregabalin (PGB) for reducing pain intensity by 30% (R30%) and 50% (R50%) in adult patients with fibromyalgia. The review was conducted in the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to February 2022. This study included systematic reviews (SR) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) targeting adult patients over 18 years of age diagnosed with fibromyalgia according to the criteria of scientific societies, which include the basic clinical diagnosis characterized by the presence of pressure sensitivity in at least 11 of the 18 tender points, in addition to the presence of widespread musculoskeletal pain for a period longer than 3 months and a general assessment of the patient's health status. Pregnant women and children or adolescents were excluded. The Rob 2.0 tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The quality of evidence of the reviews included was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-GRADE. A meta-analysis for the evidence network was performed using the Bayesian approach, which allows simultaneous comparison of all treatment options (medication and dose). The different treatments were ranked according to the response rate according to the surface under the curve (SUCRA), which was expressed as a percentage. The results were presented in tables and figures. The protocol with the detailed methods was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229264). Eight systematic reviews were identified, and, from these, 15 clinical trials comparing AMT (n = 273), DLX (n = 2595), and PGB (n = 3,506) against placebo were selected. For the outcome R30%, PGB 450 mg was superior to DLX 30 mg and PGB 150 mg, while DLX 20 mg and 30 mg were not superior to placebo. For the outcome R50%, AMT 25 mg was superior to all other alternatives evaluated. The calculation of the SUCRA indicated that PGB 450 mg was the best performance option for R30% and AMT 25 mg for R50%. PGB 150 mg was the drug with the worst performance in the two outcomes evaluated. The drugs evaluated showed benefits for pain reduction in patients with fibromyalgia. In the absence of direct comparison studies, indirect comparison meta-analyses are an important resource for assisting in clinical decision-making. Our data only provide an indicator of the effectiveness of the three drugs evaluated, but as with other health conditions, tolerability and safety are important for the decision-making process and clinical management. In this regard, we encourage caution in interpreting our data.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35347488
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06129-8 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2023Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting.
METHODS
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication.
INTERPRETATION
To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Amitriptyline; England; Double-Blind Method; Primary Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37858323
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01523-4 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain May 2023While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Topiramate; Valproic Acid; Gabapentin; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Network Meta-Analysis; Amitriptyline; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 37208596
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1 -
The Medical Letter on Drugs and... Jan 2023
Topics: Humans; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 36630579
DOI: 10.58347/tml.2023.1667a -
World Journal of Psychiatry Jun 2023Available pharmacotherapies for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are reviewed based on clinical and research experience, highlighting some older drugs with emerging... (Review)
Review
Available pharmacotherapies for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are reviewed based on clinical and research experience, highlighting some older drugs with emerging evidence. Several medications show efficacy in ASD, though controlled studies in ASD are largely lacking. Only risperidone and aripiprazole have Federal Drug Administration approval in the United States. Methylphenidate (MPH) studies showed lower efficacy and tolerability for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than in the typically developing (TD) population; atomoxetine demonstrated lower efficacy but comparable tolerability to TD outcomes. Guanfacine improved hyperactivity in ASD comparably to TD. Dex-troamphetamine promises greater efficacy than MPH in ASD. ADHD medications reduce impulsive aggression in youth, and may also be key for this in adults. Controlled trials of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and fluoxetine demonstrated poor tolerability and lack of efficacy for repetitive behaviors. Trials of antiseizure medications in ASD remain inconclusive, however clinical trials may be warranted in severely disabled individuals showing bizarre behaviors. No identified drugs treat ASD core symptoms; oxytocin lacked efficacy. Amitriptyline and loxapine however, show promise. Loxapine at 5-10 mg daily resembled an atypical antipsychotic in positron emission tomography studies, but may be weight-sparing. Amitriptyline at approximately 1 mg/ kg/day used cautiously, shows efficacy for sleep, anxiety, impulsivity and ADHD, repetitive behaviors, and enuresis. Both drugs have promising neurotrophic properties.
PubMed: 37383284
DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v13.i6.262 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.
DESIGN
A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.
SETTING
Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.
OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.
RESULTS
A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].
LIMITATIONS
Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.
FUTURE WORK
Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS
The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pregabalin; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Amitriptyline; Quality of Life; Neuralgia; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 36259684
DOI: 10.3310/RXUO6757 -
The Medical Letter on Drugs and... Dec 2023
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 38133585
DOI: 10.58347/tml.2023.1691a