-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Major depressive disorder is a common mental disorder affecting a person's mind, behaviour and body. It is expressed as a variety of symptoms and is associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorder is a common mental disorder affecting a person's mind, behaviour and body. It is expressed as a variety of symptoms and is associated with substantial impairment. Despite a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options, there is still room for improvement of the pharmacological treatment of depression in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The latest available antidepressant is vortioxetine. It is assumed that vortioxetine's antidepressant action is related to a direct modulation of serotonergic receptor activity and inhibition of the serotonin transporter. The mechanism of action is not fully understood, but it is claimed to be novel. Vortioxetine was placed in the category of "Other" antidepressants and may therefore provide an alternative to existing antidepressant drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and acceptability of vortioxetine compared with placebo and other antidepressant drugs in the treatment of acute depression in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane's Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register to May 2016 without applying any restrictions to date, language or publication status. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, regulatory agency reports and trial databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy, tolerability, or both of vortioxetine versus placebo or any other antidepressant agent in the treatment of acute depression in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies and extracted data. We extracted data on study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. We analysed intention-to-treat (ITT) data only and used risk ratios (RR) as effect sizes for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses used random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies (7746 participants) in this review. Seven studies were placebo controlled; eight studies compared vortioxetine to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). We were unable to identify any study that compared vortioxetine to antidepressant drugs from other classes, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).Vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo across the three efficacy outcomes: response (Mantel-Haenszel RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49; 14 studies, 6220 participants), remission (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.53; 14 studies, 6220 participants) and depressive symptoms measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) (score range: 0 to 34; higher score means worse outcome: MD -2.94, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.80; 14 studies, 5566 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for response and remission and very low for depressive symptoms. We found no evidence of a difference in total dropout rates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; 14 studies, 6220 participants). More participants discontinued vortioxetine than placebo because of adverse effects (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81; 14 studies, 6220 participants) but fewer discontinued due to inefficacy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, P = 0.02; 14 studies, 6220 participants). The quality of the evidence for dropouts was moderate.The subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not reveal factors that significantly influenced the results.In comparison with other antidepressants, very low-quality evidence from eight studies showed no clinically significant difference between vortioxetine and SNRIs as a class for response (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 3159 participants) or remission (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 3155 participants). There was a small difference favouring SNRIs for depressive symptom scores on the MADRS (MD 1.52, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.53; 8 studies, 2807 participants). Very low quality evidence from eight studies (3159 participants) showed no significant differences between vortioxetine and the SNRIs as a class for total dropout rates (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08), dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.08) and dropouts due to inefficacy (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.30).Against individual antidepressants, analyses suggested that vortioxetine may be less effective than duloxetine in terms of response rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 6 studies, 2392 participants) and depressive symptoms scores on the MADRS scale (MD 1.99, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.83; 6 studies; 2106 participants). Against venlafaxine, meta-analysis of two studies found no statistically significant differences (response: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 767 participants; depressive symptom scores: MD 0.02, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.54; 701 participants). In terms of number of participants reporting at least one adverse effect (tolerability), vortioxetine was better than the SNRIs as a class (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94; 8 studies, 3134 participants) and duloxetine (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; 6 studies; 2376 participants). However, the sensitivity analysis casts some doubts on this result, as only two studies used comparable dosing.We judged none of the studies to have a high risk of bias for any domain, but we rated all studies to have an unclear risk of bias of selective reporting and other biases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The place of vortioxetine in the treatment of acute depression is unclear. Our analyses showed vortioxetine may be more effective than placebo in terms of response, remission and depressive symptoms, but the clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. Furthermore, the quality of evidence to support these findings was generally low. In comparison to SNRIs, we found no advantage for vortioxetine. Vortioxetine was less effective than duloxetine, but fewer people reported adverse effects when treated with vortioxetine compared to duloxetine. However, these findings are uncertain and not well supported by evidence. A major limitation of the current evidence is the lack of comparisons with the SSRIs, which are usually recommended as first-line treatments for acute depression. Studies with direct comparisons to SSRIs are needed to address this gap and may be supplemented by network meta-analyses to define the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of depression.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Patient Dropouts; Piperazines; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Sulfides; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine
PubMed: 28677828
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011520.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Feb 2015Fibromyalgia is a painful disease affecting 1-2% of the United States population. Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), such as duloxetine and... (Review)
Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Fibromyalgia is a painful disease affecting 1-2% of the United States population. Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), such as duloxetine and milnacipran, are well studied and frequently used for treating this disorder. However, efficacy data are limited for the SNRI venlafaxine despite its use in nearly a quarter of patients with fibromyalgia. Accordingly, we systematically reviewed the efficacy of venlafaxine for treatment of fibromyalgia.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database were searched using the terms 'venlafaxine' and 'fibromyalgia'. Results were classified as primary studies or review articles based on abstract review. References of review articles were evaluated to ensure no primary studies evaluating venlafaxine were overlooked. All clinical studies that investigated venlafaxine for the treatment of fibromyalgia were included and graded on strength of evidence.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Five studies met the inclusion criteria, including 4 open-label cohort studies and 1 randomized, controlled trial. Study durations ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months, and study sizes ranged from 11 to 102 participants. Four of the five published studies reported improvement in at least one outcome. Generally consistent improvements were observed in pain-related outcome measures, including the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (range, 26-29% reduction; n = 2 studies), Visual Analog Scale (range, 36-45% reduction; n = 2 studies), McGill Pain Questionnaire (48% reduction; n = 1 study) and Clinical Global Impression scale (51% had significant score change; n = 1 study). However, the few studies identified were limited by small sample size, inconsistent use of outcomes and methodological concerns.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Studies assessing the efficacy of venlafaxine in the treatment of fibromyalgia to date have been limited by small sample size, inconsistent venlafaxine dosing, lack of placebo control and lack of blinding. In the context of these limitations, venlafaxine appears to be at least modestly effective in treating fibromyalgia. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to further elucidate the full benefit of venlafaxine.
Topics: Cyclohexanols; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 25294655
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12216 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Duloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Duloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A number of trials have been conducted to investigate the use of duloxetine in neuropathic and nociceptive painful conditions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register (10 March 2009), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2009), and www.clinicaltrials.gov to March 2009 and the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of any formulation of duloxetine, used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain in adult participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data independently onto a specially designed proforma and cross checked them.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials were identified including 2220 participants. Three studies included participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and three treated participants with fibromyalgia. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short-term to 12 weeks with a risk ratio (RR) for 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.03), number needed to treat (NNT) 6 (95% CI 5 to 10). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective in fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNT 8, 95% CI 5 to 17) and 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27). Adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm with a dose dependent effect. Most side effects were minor, but 16% of participants stopped the drug due to side effects. Serious adverse events were rare.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderately strong evidence that duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia but 20 mg daily is not. Minor side effects are common at therapeutic doses but serious side effects are rare. Direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs already shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate and should include unbiased economic analyses.
Topics: Analgesics; Chronic Disease; Diabetic Neuropathies; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiophenes
PubMed: 19821395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007115.pub2 -
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 -
Rivista Di Psichiatria 2012The elderly population is more frequently subjected to depressive mood compared to the general population and show peculiarities affecting responsiveness; furthermore,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The elderly population is more frequently subjected to depressive mood compared to the general population and show peculiarities affecting responsiveness; furthermore, aged people need also special care. Duloxetine is a relatively new antidepressant that proved to be effective in adult depression, but has received little attention in elderly population heretofore.
AIM
To review the evidence of duloxetine in late-life major depressive disorder (MDD).
METHOD
A systematic review of studies focusing on the use of duloxetine in MDD in the elderly has been carried out through the principal specialized databases, including PubMed, PsycLIT, and Embase.
RESULTS
Only a handful of papers were specifically dedicated to this issue. Duloxetine was found to be effective and safe in old-age MDD, to be better than placebo on many clinical measures in all studies, and to better differentiate from placebo with respect to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Compared to placebo, its side-effect profile is slightly unfavorable and its drop-out rate is slightly higher. Furthermore, when pain is present in old-age MDD, duloxetine is able to reduce it.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy and safety of duloxetine in old-age depression are similar to those encountered in adult MDD. There is a relative lack of comparative studies other than with placebo. The special needs of elderly patients with MDD must be addressed with close patient contact to avoid the perils of inappropriate dosing.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aging; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Pain; Severity of Illness Index; Thiophenes; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23160108
DOI: 10.1708/1178.13054 -
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 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Sep 2023Duloxetine has been used as an adjunct in multimodal analgesia for acute postoperative pain in clinical studies. This meta-analysis aims to conclude whether oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Duloxetine has been used as an adjunct in multimodal analgesia for acute postoperative pain in clinical studies. This meta-analysis aims to conclude whether oral duloxetine, when given perioperatively, is any better than a placebo in managing postoperative pain. Effects of duloxetine on postoperative pain scores, time to first rescue analgesia, postoperative rescue analgesia consumption, side effects attributable to duloxetine, and patient satisfaction profile were assessed.
METHOD
MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scholar Google, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched with keywords including "Duloxetine" AND "postoperative pain", "Duloxetine" AND "acute pain" and with "Duloxetine" till October 2022. This meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials in which perioperative duloxetine 60 mg per oral was administered not more than 7 days before surgery and for at least 24 after surgery but not more than 14 days after surgery. All RCTs in which the comparator is placebo and outcomes related to analgesic efficacy like pain scores, opioid consumption, and side effects of duloxetine until 48 h postoperatively were included. Data were extracted from the studies and a risk of bias summary was formed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Effect sizes were given as standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) by the Mantel-Haenszel test for the categorical outcome. Confirmation of publication bias was done by Egger's regression test (p < 0.05). If publication bias or heterogeneity was detected, the trim-and-fill method was used to calculate the adjusted effect size. Sensitivity analysis was done by leaving one out method after excluding the study with a high risk of bias. Subgroup analysis was done based on the type of surgery and gender. The study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42019139559.
FINDINGS
29 studies with 2043 patients met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed for this meta-analysis. Postoperative pain scores at 24 h [Std. Mean Difference (95% CI); -0.69 (-1.07, -0.32)] and at 48 h [-1.13 (-1.68, -0.58)] are significantly less with duloxetine (p-value < 0.05). Time to first rescue analgesia was significantly more in patients where duloxetine was administered [1.27 (1.10, 1.45); p-value > 0.05]. Opioid consumption up to 24 h [-1.82 (-2.46, -1.18)] and 48 h [-2.48 (-3.46, -1.50)] was significantly less (p-value < 0.05) in patients who received duloxetine. Complications and recovery profiles were similar in patients receiving either duloxetine or a placebo.
INTERPRETATION
Based on GRADE findings, we conclude that there is low to moderate evidence to advocate the use of duloxetine for managing postoperative pain. Further trials are needed to replicate or refute these results based on robust methodology.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain Management; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37246352
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13253 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. Patients often report high disability levels and poor quality of life (QOL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and improving quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo for treating FMS symptoms in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2012), EMBASE (1980 to September 2012), www.clinicalstudyresults.org (U.S.-marketed pharmaceuticals) (to September 2012) and www.clinicaltrials.gov (to September 2012) for published and ongoing trials and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized, controlled trials of any formulation of SNRIs against placebo for the treatment of FMS in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data from the included studies, and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies were included with a total of 6038 participants. Five studies investigated duloxetine against placebo, and five investigated milnacipran against placebo. A total of 3611 participants were included into duloxetine or milnacipran groups and 2427 participants into placebo groups. The studies had a low risk of bias in general. Duloxetine and milnacipran had a small incremental effect over placebo in reducing pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.18; 6.1% relative improvement). One-hundred and ninety-two participants per 1000 on placebo reported an at least 50% pain reduction compared to 280 per 1000 on SNRIs (Risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.64; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 9 to 15). Duloxetine and milnacipran did not reduce fatigue substantially (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.19 to -0.08; 2.5% relative improvement; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 29), and did not improve QOL substantially (SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.14; 4.6% relative improvement; NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 17) compared to placebo. There were no statistically significant differences between either duloxetine or milnacipran and placebo in reducing sleep problems (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; 2.5% relative improvement). One-hundred and seven participants per 1000 on placebo dropped out due to adverse events compared to 196 per 1000 on SNRIs. The dropout rate due to adverse events in the duloxetine and milnacipran groups was statistically significantly higher than in placebo groups (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.18; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 9 to 13). There was no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events between either duloxetine or milnacipran and placebo (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided a small incremental benefit over placebo in reducing pain. The superiority of duloxetine and milnacipran over placebo in reducing fatigue and limitations of QOL was not substantial. Duloxetine and milnacipran were not superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems. The dropout rates due to adverse events were higher for duloxetine and milnacipran than for placebo. The most frequently reported symptoms leading to stopping medication were nausea, dry mouth, constipation, headache, somnolence/dizziness and insomnia. Rare complications of both drugs may include suicidality, liver damage, abnormal bleeding, elevated blood pressure and urinary hesitation.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Adult; Cyclopropanes; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Milnacipran; Norepinephrine; Quality of Life; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Syndrome; Thiophenes
PubMed: 23440848
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010292 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Dec 2021Selective-serotonin-noradrenaline-reuptake inhibitors (SSNRI) might be an interesting option for postoperative pain treatment. Objective was to investigate postoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Selective-serotonin-noradrenaline-reuptake inhibitors (SSNRI) might be an interesting option for postoperative pain treatment. Objective was to investigate postoperative pain outcomes of perioperative SSNRI compared to placebo or other additives in adults undergoing surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) with meta-analysis and GRADE assessment.
SETTING
Acute and chronic postoperative pain treatment.
PATIENTS
Adult patients undergoing surgery.
INTERVENTIONS
Perioperative administration of SSNRI.
MEASUREMENTS
Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain at rest/during movement (measured on a scale from 0 to 10), number of patients with chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and with SSNRI-related adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs (908 patients) were included. We have high-quality evidence that duloxetine has no effect on pain at rest at 2 h (MD: -0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.51 to 0.47), but probably reduces it at 48 h (MD: -1.16; 95%CI -1.78 to -0.54). There is low- and moderate-quality evidence that duloxetine has no effects on pain during movement at 2 h (MD: -0.42; 95%CI -1.53 to 0.69) and 48 h (MD: -0.91; 95% CI -2.08 to 0.26), respectively. We have very low-quality evidence that duloxetine might reduce pain at rest (MD: -0.45; 95%CI -0.74 to -0.15) and movement (MD: -1.19; 95%CI -2.32 to -0.06) after 24 h. We have low-quality evidence that duloxetine may reduce the risk of CPSP at 6 months (RR:0.35; 95%CI 0.14 to 0.90). There is moderate-quality evidence that duloxetine increases the risk of dizziness (RR:1.72; 95%CI 1.26 to 2.34).
CONCLUSION
At the expense of a higher risk for dizziness, SSNRI may be effective in reducing postoperative pain between 24 and 48 h after surgery. However, the results of the meta-analyses are mostly imprecise and duloxetine might only be used in individual cases. Protocol registration: CRD42018094699.
Topics: Adult; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Humans; Norepinephrine; Pain, Postoperative; Serotonin; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 34311244
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110451