-
European Urology Focus May 2021The recommended treatment of postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (PPSUI) after failure of pelvic floor muscle training is primarily surgical intervention with... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The recommended treatment of postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (PPSUI) after failure of pelvic floor muscle training is primarily surgical intervention with a male sling or artificial urinary sphincter. The use of pharmacological therapy in this setting is unlicensed and controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence following prostate surgery (radical or endoscopic).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception up until April 17, 2020. All studies evaluating the role of duloxetine in men with PPSUI were included. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, searched the reference lists of retrieved articles, and performed data extraction. The quality of evidence and risk of bias were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE); Cochrane; and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The search yielded 234 studies. After excluding duplicates, 140 titles and abstracts were screened, and eight reports (348 patients) were eligible for inclusion in the final review. Duloxetine was assessed in two scenarios: (1) early use to reduce the time to attain continence and (2) treatment of persistent PPSUI. Most men had mild-to-moderate incontinence at baseline. Overall, duloxetine resulted in a mean dry rate of 58% (25-89%), mean improvement in pad number of 61% (12-100%), and mean improvement in 1-h pad weight of 68% (53-90%) at short-term follow-up (mean 1-9 mo; low to moderate certainty of evidence). However, mean adverse event rates were relatively high, and treatment was discontinued in 38% (low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Duloxetine has demonstrated good short-term cure and/or improvement in treating men with persistent PPSUI, as well as in reducing the time to attain continence. However, a proportion of men discontinue treatment due to adverse events. The overall certainty evidence is moderate to low, with heterogeneity between studies and methodological limitations. However, we have highlighted the need for further randomised trials with longer follow-up, utilising consistent outcome reporting measures. Despite these limitations, the findings from this review will aid patient counselling regarding this less invasive treatment option, thereby allowing personalisation of care centred around the values and preferences of individual patients.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Duloxetine has good success rates in the short term, in terms of improving incontinence symptoms in men who have undergone prostate surgery. However, some men experience side effects bad enough to require cessation of treatment. Further studies are needed to determine whether duloxetine maintains its effectiveness in the long term.
Topics: Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Male; Prostatectomy; Suburethral Slings; Urinary Incontinence; Urinary Incontinence, Stress
PubMed: 32605820
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.007 -
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 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Jan 2016Major depressive disorder is common among women in child-bearing age, and medical treatment is subject to substantial discussions and controversies. For Selective... (Review)
Review
Major depressive disorder is common among women in child-bearing age, and medical treatment is subject to substantial discussions and controversies. For Selective Serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, a vast amount of data are available. For the newer antidepressant group of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, SNRIs, significantly less data are available. Following the PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews, we performed a systematic search on the risk of major congenital malformations after first trimester in utero exposure to venlafaxine or duloxetine. We identified eight cohort studies reporting on the outcome upon in utero exposure to venlafaxine or duloxetine during the first trimester. The cumulated data for venlafaxine were 3186 exposed infants and 107 major malformations, resulting in a relative risk estimate and 95% confidence interval of 1.12 (0.92-1.35). The corresponding data for duloxetine were 668 infants and 16 major malformations, resulting in a relative risk estimate and 95% confidence interval of 0.80 (0.46-1.29). First-trimester in utero exposure to venlafaxine is not associated with an increased risk of major congenital malformations. The amount of data for duloxetine are significantly smaller but does not suggest a clinically important increased risk.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Cohort Studies; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 26435496
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12497 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated. Combining different agents could provide superior pain relief and possibly also fewer side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combination pharmacotherapy compared to monotherapy or placebo, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to September 2017. We also searched reference lists of other reviews and trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing combinations of two or more drugs to placebo or other comparators, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
From all studies, we extracted data on: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater; patient global impression of clinical change (PGIC) much or very much improved or very much improved; any other pain-related outcome of improvement; withdrawals (lack of efficacy, adverse events), participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events, and specific adverse events (e.g. somnolence and dizziness). The primary comparison was between combination and one or all single-agent comparators. We also assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 16 studies with 1474 participants. Three studies combined a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a benzodiazepine (306 participants); two combined amitriptyline with fluoxetine (89 participants); two combined amitriptyline with a different agent (92 participants); two combined melatonin with an antidepressant (164 participants); one combined carisoprodol, paracetamol (acetaminophen), and caffeine (58 participants); one combined tramadol and paracetamol (acetaminophen) (315 participants); one combined malic acid and magnesium (24 participants); one combined a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with 5-hydroxytryptophan (200 participants); and one combined pregabalin with duloxetine (41 participants). Six studies compared the combination of multiple agents with each component alone and with inactive placebo; three studies compared combination pharmacotherapy with each individual component but did not include an inactive placebo group; two studies compared the combination of two agents with only one of the agents alone; and three studies compared the combination of two or more agents only with inactive placebo.Heterogeneity among studies in terms of class of agents evaluated, specific combinations used, outcomes reported, and doses given prevented any meta-analysis. None of the combinations of drugs found provided sufficient data for analysis compared with placebo or other comparators for our preferred outcomes. We therefore provide a narrative description of results. There was no or inadequate evidence in any comparison for primary and secondary outcomes. Two studies only reported any primary outcomes of interest (patient-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater). For each 'Risk of bias' item, only half or fewer of studies had unequivocal low risk of bias. Small size and selective reporting were common as high risk of bias.Our GRADE assessment was therefore very low for primary outcomes of pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater, PGIC much or very much improved or very much improved, any pain-related outcome, participants experiencing any adverse event, any serious adverse event, or withdrawing because of an adverse event.Three studies found some evidence that combination pharmacotherapy reduced pain compared to monotherapy; these trials tested three different combinations: melatonin and amitriptyline, fluoxetine and amitriptyline, and pregabalin and duloxetine. Adverse events experienced by participants were not serious, and where they were reported (in 12 out of 16 studies), all participants experienced them, regardless of treatment. Common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and headache.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are few, large, high-quality trials comparing combination pharmacotherapy with monotherapy for fibromyalgia, consequently limiting evidence to support or refute the use of combination pharmacotherapy for fibromyalgia.
Topics: 5-Hydroxytryptophan; Acetaminophen; Adult; Amitriptyline; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Carisoprodol; Drug Therapy, Combination; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Fluoxetine; Humans; Magnesium; Malates; Melatonin; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29457627
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010585.pub2 -
BMC Psychiatry Jul 2006Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions.
METHODS
The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run.
RESULTS
22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent.
CONCLUSION
Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Cyclohexanols; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Thiophenes; Treatment Outcome; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 16867188
DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-6-30 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Aug 2020Duloxetine administered during the acute perioperative period has been associated with lesser postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Duloxetine administered during the acute perioperative period has been associated with lesser postoperative pain and analgesic consumption.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The study aimed to quantify the pooled effects of duloxetine on postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and side-effects in the first 48 postoperative (PO) hours.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
SETTING
Postoperative pain management.
PATIENTS
Adult patients undergoing elective surgery. Search strategy and study selection. Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched without language restrictions for prospective, parallel randomized controlled trials comparing duloxetine to placebo for the management of postoperative pain in adult patients.
MEASUREMENTS
Pain scores (11-point scales), opioid consumption (i.v. morphine equivalents), and frequency of side-effects were compared between duloxetine and placebo. Effect sizes were summarized as mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) with the respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to classify the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. Duloxetine decreased pain at 24 h (MD = -0.66 points; 95% CI = -1.14 to -0.19 points; SMD = -0.59; 95% CI = -1.06 to -0.12; p = 0.01; I2 = 88%), and at 48 PO hours (MD = -0.90 points; 95% CI = -1.54 to -0.26 points; SMD = -0.66; 95% CI = -0.94 to -0.38; p = 0.01; I2 = 93%); and opioid consumption at 24 PO hours (MD = -8.21 mg; 95% CI = -13.32 mg to -3.10 mg; SMD = -2.17; 95% CI = -3.10 to -1.24; p < 0.001; I2 = 95%), and at 48 PO hours (MD = 7.71 mg; 95% CI = -13.86 mg to -1.56 mg; SMD = -2.13; 95% CI = -3.51 to -0.75; p = 0.02; I2 = 97%). Duloxetine did not affect the prevalence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) pruritus, headache or dizziness. High inter-study heterogeneity and within-study bias resulted in very-low quality of evidence for the primary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Although statistically significant effects of duloxetine were found on postoperative pain and opioid consumption during the first 48 postoperative hours, the effect sizes were below the expected minimal clinically relevant differences. Also, high risk-of-bias and inter-study heterogeneity caused the very-low quality of evidence (GRADE). We conclude that the currently available evidence does not support the clinical use of duloxetine for the management of acute postoperative pain.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 32179396
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109785 -
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 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Mar 2018Second-generation antidepressants dominate the medical management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Levomilnacipran, vilazodone and vortioxetine are the latest... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of levomilnacipran, vilazodone and vortioxetine compared with other second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Second-generation antidepressants dominate the medical management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Levomilnacipran, vilazodone and vortioxetine are the latest therapeutic options approved for the treatment of MDD. This systematic review aims to compare the benefits and harms of vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine with one another and other second-generation antidepressants.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases up to September 2017 and reviewed reference lists and pharmaceutical dossiers to detect published and unpublished studies. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full text articles, and rated the risk of bias of included studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies including adult outpatients with MDD were eligible for inclusion. We conducted network meta-analyses on response to treatment using frequentist multivariate meta-analyses models. Placebo- and active-controlled trials were eligible for network meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. Direct comparisons were limited to vilazodone versus citalopram, and vortioxetine versus duloxetine, paroxetine, or venlafaxine XR (extended release). Results of head-to-head trials and network meta-analyses, overall, indicated similar efficacy among levomilnacipran, vilazodone, or vortioxetine and other second-generation antidepressants. Although rates of overall adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events were similar, RCTs reported several differences in specific adverse events. For most outcomes the strength of evidence was low.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations are the focus of literature searches on studies published in English, possible reporting biases, and general methodological limitations of network meta-analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the available evidence does not indicate greater benefits or fewer harms of levomilnacipran, vilazodone, and vortioxetine compared with other second-generation antidepressants.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Cyclopropanes; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Piperazines; Sulfides; Vilazodone Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine
PubMed: 29197738
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.056 -
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 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Feb 2014To contrast the analgesic effect of duloxetine with antidepressants reported in other published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and review articles in patients with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To contrast the analgesic effect of duloxetine with antidepressants reported in other published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and review articles in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).
METHODS
In this narrative review, the results of 13 RCTs and 5 systematic reviews examining the analgesic effect of various antidepressants in CLBP were contrasted with those of 3 placebo-controlled duloxetine RCTs. Treatment effects based on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average score in the duloxetine RCTs were assessed in all completers (by study and overall) and in last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analyses (extracted from study reports). 30%- and 50%-reduction response rates were compared between duloxetine and placebo.
RESULTS
Eleven different antidepressants were examined in 13 individual RCTs. Sample sizes, treatment durations, and analysis methods varied across studies. Reviews each included 5 to 9 of the RCTs and came to different conclusions regarding the analgesic effect of antidepressants: 2 found no evidence while 3 reported some evidence. The completer analysis showed greater improvements in BPI average scores with duloxetine vs. placebo (significant in 2 studies). Overall, the least square mean (standard error) difference between treatments was - 0.7 (0.15) (P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were significantly larger with duloxetine than with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the diversity of previous studies and the pooling methods used, the conclusions regarding the analgesic effect of antidepressants in CLBP drawn from systematic reviews must be interpreted with caution. Appropriately designed and powered studies similar to recently published duloxetine studies are recommended to demonstrate the analgesic effect of antidepressants.
Topics: Analgesics; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Low Back Pain; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Thiophenes
PubMed: 24460577
DOI: 10.1111/papr.12119