-
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Feb 2003Biologic studies have suggested that antidepressant use may increase breast cancer risk. We conducted a systematic review of trials and controlled epidemiologic studies... (Review)
Review
Biologic studies have suggested that antidepressant use may increase breast cancer risk. We conducted a systematic review of trials and controlled epidemiologic studies to assess this association. Pooled data from 31 primary efficacy drug company trials of fluoxetine suggested no increased risk but the short duration of these trials may have been insufficient to detect an association. In one prospective cohort study antidepressant use was associated with breast cancer, but this study was conducted among women attending for breast screening, and only limited data on antidepressant use were available. In a second large prospective drugs screening study no association was found between either amitriptyline or imipramine and breast cancer. In a large well-conducted retrospective cohort study there was no association between antidepressant use and breast cancer. A second retrospective cohort study was flawed, with exposure in those who developed breast cancer being measured over a shorter time period than in those who remained disease free. Two of four case-control studies found no association between antidepressant use and breast cancer after control for a number of potential confounding factors. We conclude that epidemiologic evidence does not support an association between antidepressant use and breast cancer.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 12654410
DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00568-1 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is challenging for clinicians, and many clinical trials and meta-analyses on CIPN are controversial....
Treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is challenging for clinicians, and many clinical trials and meta-analyses on CIPN are controversial. There are also few comparisons of the efficacy among drugs used to treat CIPN. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to study the efficacy of drugs in treating CIPN using existing randomized controlled trials. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any pharmaceutical intervention and/or combination therapy of treating CIPN. Seventeen RCTs investigating 16 drug categories, duloxetine, pregabalin, crocin, tetrodotoxin, venlafaxine, monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside (GM1), lamotrigine, KA (ketamine and amitriptyline) cream, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, topical (bitter apple) oil, BAK (baclofen, amitriptyline hydrochloride, and ketamine) pluronic lecithin organogel, gabapentin, and acetyl l-carnitine (ALC), in the treatment of CIPN were retrieved. Many of the included RCTs consisted of small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. It was difficult to quantify due to the highly variable nature of outcome indicators. Duloxetine, venlafaxine, pregabalin, crocin, tetrodotoxin, and monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside exhibited some beneficial effects in treating CIPN. Duloxetine, GM1, and crocin showed moderate benefits based on the evidence review, while lamotrigine, KA cream, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, and topical (bitter apple) oil were not beneficial. Further studies were necessary to confirm the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of CIPN because of the controversy of efficacy of gabapentin. Furthermore, BAK topicalcompound analgesic gel only had a tendency to improve the CIPN symptoms, but the difference was not statistically significant. ALC might result in worsening CIPN. Most studies were not of good quality because of small sample sizes. Therefore, standardized randomized controlled trials with large samples were needed to critically assess the effectiveness of these drugs in treating CIPN in the future.
PubMed: 36618919
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1080888 -
Alpha Psychiatry Sep 2021The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal... (Review)
Review
The aim of the article is to review systematically current researches investigating the relationship between intrauterine exposure to antidepressants and neonatal hypoglycemia. This paper included studies published in electronic databases from January 2005 to July 2020. The searched keywords were as follows: antidepressants, pregnancy, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, fluvoxamine, selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), neonatal outcomes, neonatal hypoglycemia, imipramine, clomipramine, amitriptyline, bupropion, trazodone, and mirtazapine. This review examined 10 relevant studies. The odds ratio/risk ratio reported in the studies were 1.33-1.73 for any antidepressant, 1.30-1.35 for SSRI, 1.42-2.11 for SNRI, and 2.07 for TCAs. The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants exposed to maternal TCAs appears to be slightly higher compared to infants exposed to maternal SSRIs. Data from current studies consistently show that exposure to maternal antidepressants during pregnancy may be related to increased risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in infants.
PubMed: 36447450
DOI: 10.1530/alphapsychiatry.2021.21143 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Cannabinoids; Dronabinol; Fibromyalgia; Health Status; Humans; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27428009
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011694.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2019This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of amitriptyline for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review. Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. It is usually used at doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of fibromyalgia, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews and other reviews, and two clinical trial registries. We also used our own hand searched database for older studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), and for harm we calculated the number needed to treat to harm (NNH) for adverse events and withdrawals. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies from the earlier review and two new studies (nine studies, 649 participants) of 6 to 24 weeks' duration, enrolling between 22 and 208 participants; none had 50 or more participants in each treatment arm. Two studies used a cross-over design. The daily dose of amitriptyline was 25 mg to 50 mg, and some studies had an initial titration period. There was no first or second tier evidence for amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Using third tier evidence the risk ratio (RR) for at least 50% pain relief, or equivalent, with amitriptyline compared with placebo was 3.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 4.9), with an NNT) of 4.1 (2.9 to 6.7) (very low quality evidence). There were no consistent differences between amitriptyline and placebo or other active comparators for relief of symptoms such as fatigue, poor sleep, quality of life, or tender points. More participants experienced at least one adverse event with amitriptyline (78%) than with placebo (47%). The RR was 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8) and the NNH was 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were more common with placebo (12% versus 5%; RR 0.42 (0.19 to 0.95)) (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for fibromyalgia for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against years of successful treatment in many patients with fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline will be one option in the treatment of fibromyalgia, while recognising that only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in fibromyalgia to establish efficacy statistically, or measure the size of the effect.
PubMed: 35658166
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011824 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Dec 2023Chronic migraine can be a profoundly disabling disorder that may be treated with preventive medications. However, uncertainty remains as to which preventive medication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic migraine can be a profoundly disabling disorder that may be treated with preventive medications. However, uncertainty remains as to which preventive medication is the most effective. We present a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and rank of preventive drugs for chronic migraine in adults.
METHODS
We identified, reviewed, and extracted data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs for chronic migraine with at least 200 participants. Data were analysed using network meta-analysis.
FINDINGS
We included 12 RCTs of six medications (Eptinezumab, Erenumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab, Onabotulinumtoxin A, and Topiramate) compared to placebo or each other. All drugs effectively reduced monthly headache and migraine days compared with placebo. The most effective drug for monthly headache days was Eptinezumab 300mg, with a mean difference of -2.46 days, 95% Credible Interval (CrI): -3.23 to -1.69. On the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Area (SUCRA) analysis, the probability that Eptinezumab 300mg was ranked highest was 0.82. For monthly migraine days, the most effective medication was Fremanezumab-monthly, with a mean difference: -2.77 days, 95% CrI: -3.36 to -2.17, and 0.98 probability of being ranked the highest. All included drugs, except Topiramate, improved headache-related quality of life. No eligible studies were identified for the other common preventive oral medications such as Amitriptyline, Candesartan, and Propranolol. The main reasons were that the studies did not define chronic migraine, were undertaken before the definition of chronic migraine, or were too small.
INTERPRETATION
All six medications were more effective than the placebo on monthly headache and migraine days. The absolute differences in the number of headache/migraine days are, at best, modest. No evidence was found to determine the relative effectiveness of the six included drugs with other oral preventive medications.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (number CRD42021265990).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Topiramate; Network Meta-Analysis; Migraine Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Headache; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 38057728
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01696-w -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Amidst rising global burden of depression and the associated challenges with conventional antidepressant therapies, there is a growing interest in exploring the...
Amidst rising global burden of depression and the associated challenges with conventional antidepressant therapies, there is a growing interest in exploring the efficacy and safety of alternative treatments. This study uses a Bayesian network meta-analysis to rigorously evaluate the therapeutic potential of Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of depression, focusing on their comparative efficacy and safety against standard pharmacological interventions. Five databases (PubMed, Wanfang Data, EMBASE, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library) and grey literature were searched from inception to end of July 2023 to identify studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicines in treating depression. The response rate, Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) scores, and rates of adverse events were assessed through both direct and indirect comparisons. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were meticulously performed. Statistical analysis used Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, with effect size estimates provided as odd ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. A total of 198 RCTs involving 8,923 patients were analyzed, assessing 17 Chinese herbal medicines. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking results indicated that the top three treatments with the best response rate were possibly , , and ; the top three treatments on the reduction of HAMD scores were , , and ; and the top three treatments with the lowest adverse effects rates were , , and . Interestingly, commonly used synthetic drugs such as , , , , , and , not only appeared to be less effective than specific Chinese herbal medicines (, , , , and ), but they were also related to substantially higher risk of adverse events. Our findings elucidate the promising therapeutic potential of Chinese herbal medicines as viable alternatives in the treatment of depression, with certain herbs demonstrating enhanced efficacy and safety profiles. The outcomes of this study advocate for the integration of these alternative modalities into contemporary depression management paradigms. However, it underscores the necessity for larger, methodologically robust trials to further validate and refine these preliminary findings. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023452109.
PubMed: 38633609
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1295564 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Dec 2011To conduct a systematic review of available data from reports of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of drugs used to treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of available data from reports of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of drugs used to treat postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), a common type of neuropathic pain.
DATA SOURCES
The MEDLINE (1950-June 30, 2009) and EMBASE (1974-June 30, 2009) databases were used to identify source studies, in conjunction with a review of reference citations from identified published reports.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
We selected all English-language reports of randomized placebo-controlled trials of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of drugs (oral or transdermal) used for treatment in patients with PHN. Studies with treatment duration less than 4 weeks were excluded. From each identified trial, we extracted information on (1) placebo-corrected percentage reductions in pain intensity from randomization to end of active treatment; (2) relative risks of withdrawal due to lack of efficacy; (3) relative risks of various adverse events; and (4) relative risks of withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twelve reports of randomized controlled trials in patients with PHN were identified, involving 8 different agents (amitriptyline, capsaicin, divalproex sodium, gabapentin, morphine, nortriptyline, pregabalin, tramadol). Most studies were small, involving fewer than 200 patients. Pain intensity was reported to have been reduced significantly with all drugs (range: 13.8% [tramadol] to 42.4% [amitriptyline]); data were pooled using techniques of meta-analysis when information was available from more than 1 trial. No clinical trial reported a significant reduction in risk of withdrawal as a result of lack of efficacy. Analysis of adverse events was greatly limited by erratic and inconsistent reporting and wide variation in sample sizes.
CONCLUSIONS
While available literature establishes the efficacy of 8 drugs in treatment of PHN, it does not provide adequate guidance as to which agents are best to treat this condition, in part because of inadequate reporting of data on tolerability and safety.
Topics: Analgesics; Humans; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Sensory System Agents
PubMed: 22085778
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1P777 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36269595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012157.pub2 -
The Laryngoscope Jun 2021To evaluate the effectiveness of neuromodulating agents for the management of atypical facial pain and primary facial neuralgias. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of neuromodulating agents for the management of atypical facial pain and primary facial neuralgias.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for original research articles that examine the effectiveness and adverse reactions of pharmacologic therapy for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia and atypical facial pain. Studies that included surgical interventions for atypical facial pain or facial pain secondary to other causes were excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted for reductions in symptom scores and adverse effects.
RESULTS
Of 3,409 articles screened, 73 full-text articles were included, consisting of 45 observational studies and 29 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-four different pharmacological agents were assessed; carbamazepine was the most frequently studied while botulinum toxin A demonstrated the highest consistency in reduction of symptom scores. Pooled estimate of three randomized controlled trials revealed that patients with trigeminal neuralgia who received botulinum toxin A had higher odds (odds ratio 7.46; 95% CI 3.53-15.78) of achieving a ≥50% reduction in visual analogue scale scores compared to controls. Pooled estimate of 15 observational studies showed that three-fourths of patients with trigeminal neuralgia who received carbamazepine experienced clinically significant pain reduction (prevalence proportion 0.75; 95% CI 0.66-0.83).
CONCLUSIONS
Patients receiving botulinum toxin A for trigeminal neuralgia had higher odds of achieving ≥50% reduction in pain scores. A significant proportion of patients with trigeminal neuralgia experienced positive response to carbamazepine. There was moderate evidence for amitriptyline in patients with atypical facial pain. Standardization of outcome reporting would facilitate future quantitative comparisons of therapeutic effectiveness. Laryngoscope, 131:1235-1253, 2021.
Topics: Adult; Amitriptyline; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Carbamazepine; Facial Nerve; Facial Pain; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Neurotransmitter Agents; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Trigeminal Neuralgia
PubMed: 33037835
DOI: 10.1002/lary.29162