-
International Journal of Surgery... Apr 2023The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for postoperative recovery after total knee arthroplasty. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for postoperative recovery after total knee arthroplasty.
METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched for eligible trials: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, VIP, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search was performed from the inception dates to 10 August 2022. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Standard mean differences or mean differences with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. The primary outcomes were pain, physical function, and analgesic consumption. Secondary outcomes included range of motion (ROM) of the knee, depression, and mental health.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 11 studies, reporting on a total of 1019 patients. Results of analyses indicated that duloxetine showed a statistically significant reduction in pain at rest at 3 days, 1 week, 2, and 6 weeks and pain on movement at 5 days, 1 week, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. However, there was no statistical significance in pain at rest and on movement at 24 h, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Additionally, duloxetine had a significant improvement in physical function, ROM of the knee at 6 weeks, and emotional function (depression and mental health). Moreover, the cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h in the duloxetine groups was lower than in the control groups. But there was no statistical significance for the cumulative opioid consumption over 7 days between the duloxetine groups and controls.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, duloxetine might reduce pain mainly over a time span of 3 days-8 weeks and lower cumulative opioid consumption within 24 h. In addition, it improved physical function, ROM of the knee with a time span of 1-6 weeks and emotional function (depression and mental health).
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Analgesics, Opioid; Knee Joint; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37097617
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000230 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Sep 2023The purpose of this study was to investigate the analgesic effects of duloxetine, specifically on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and related side effects... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to investigate the analgesic effects of duloxetine, specifically on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and related side effects following total hip or knee arthroplasty.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until November 2022 for studies which compared duloxetine with placebo when added to routine pain management protocols. Individual study risk of bias assessment was conducted based on Cochrane risk of bias tool 2. Random effect model meta-analysis was done on mean differences, to evaluate the outcomes.
RESULTS
Nine randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included in the final analysis, totaling 806 patients. Duloxetine reduced opioid consumption (oral morphine milligram equivalents) on postoperative days (POD) 2 (mean difference (MD): -14.35, P = .02), POD 3 (MD: -13.6, P < .001), POD 7 (MD: -7.81, P < .001), and POD 14 (MD: -12.72, P < .001). Duloxetine decreased pain with activity on POD 1, 3, 7, 14, 90 (All P < .05), and pain at rest on POD 2, 3, 7, 14, and 90 (all P < .05). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of the side effects, except for increased risk of somnolence/drowsiness (risk ratio: 1.87, P = .007).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence shows low to moderate opioid sparing effects of perioperative duloxetine and a statistically but not clinically significant reduction in pain scores. Patients treated with duloxetine had an increased risk for somnolence and drowsiness.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Sleepiness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37027215
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnad045 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a key concern in clinical practice. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared duloxetine and placebo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a key concern in clinical practice. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared duloxetine and placebo treatments in terms of their efficacy and safety in patients with PDPN.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases for relevant English articles published before January 11, 2021. Treatment efficacy and safety were assessed in terms of pain improvement, patient-reported health-related performance, and patients' quality of life.
RESULTS
We reviewed a total of 7 randomized controlled trials. Regarding pain improvement, duloxetine was more efficacious than placebo (mean difference [MD] - 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.09 to - 0.69; P < .00001). Furthermore, duloxetine significantly improved the patients' quality of life, which was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression severity subscale (MD - 0.48; 95% CI - 0.61 to - 0.36; P < .00001), Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (MD - 0.50; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.37; P < .00001), and European Quality of Life Instrument 5D version (MD 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.07; P = .0002). Severe adverse events were rare, whereas nausea, somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, constipation, and decreased appetite were common; approximately, 12.6% of all patients dropped out because of the common symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
Duloxetine is more efficacious than placebo treatments in patients with PDPN. The rarity of severe adverse events indicates that duloxetine is safe. When a 60-mg dose is insufficient, 120 mg of duloxetine may improve PDPN symptoms. Our findings may help devise optimal treatment strategies for PDPN.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021225451.
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Diabetic Neuropathies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 36945033
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02185-6 -
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 -
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 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine; Fluoxetine; Paroxetine; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluvoxamine; Reboxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36253442
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01824-z -
PloS One 2022To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different antidepressants and anticonvulsants in the treatment of central poststroke pain (CPSP) by network meta-analysis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different antidepressants and anticonvulsants in the treatment of central poststroke pain (CPSP) by network meta-analysis and provide an evidence-based foundation for clinical practice.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, APA PsycINFO, Wanfang, VIP and other databases were searched by computer to find clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) on drug treatment of CPSP. The retrieval time limit was from the establishment of each database to July 2022. The quality of the included RCTs was evaluated using the bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane. Stata 14.0 was used for network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 13 RCTs, 1040 patients and 9 drugs were finally included. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the effectiveness ranking as rated by the visual analog scale (VAS) was gabapentin > pregabalin > fluoxetine > lamotrigine > duloxetine > serqulin > amitriptyline > carbamazepine > vitamin B. Ranking according to the numerical rating scale (NRS) was pregabalin > gabapentin > carbamazepine. Ranking derived from the Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) was pregabalin > duloxetine > gabapentin > amitriptyline.
CONCLUSION
All nine drugs can relieve the pain of CPSP patients to different degrees; among them pregabalin and gabapentin have the most significant effect, and gabapentin and pregabalin also have the most adverse reactions. In the future, more multicenter, large sample, double-blind clinical randomized controlled trials need to be carried out to supplement and demonstrate the results of this study.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Carbamazepine; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Gabapentin; Humans; Lamotrigine; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuralgia; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamins
PubMed: 36227855
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276012 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Mar 2023Duloxetine has previously been reported to be promising in the setting of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The aim of this study was to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Duloxetine has previously been reported to be promising in the setting of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, on the use of duloxetine in prevention and treatment of CIPN.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from database inception up until April 2022. Articles were included in this review if they reported on duloxetine use in the setting of CIPN, in a multiarm comparative human trial. A random effects DerSimonian-Laird model was used to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% CIs, comparing duloxetine to placebo. This review was registered on.
RESULTS
Seven randomised controlled trials that included 645 patients were identified. Five reported on duloxetine for treatment of CIPN, and two for prevention of CIPN. Two studies had some concern for bias. Duloxetine was statistically similar to placebo in its efficacy, both in the treatment (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01) and prevention (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19) of CIPN. Safety profile was similar, in the treatment (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.89) and prevention (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.38) setting.
CONCLUSION
There is currently limited evidence supporting duloxetine's use for CIPN. There is a need for more comprehensive and higher-quality trials assessing duloxetine in the setting of CIPN, before further clinical practice recommendations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO (CRD42022327487).
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Antineoplastic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36194493
DOI: 10.1136/spcare-2022-003815 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Sep 2022To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were carried out in the PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, Lilacs, OpenGrey, and Clinical Trials databases.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
The searches were carried out by two of the authors, not delimiting publication date or original language. The following descriptors were used: OR , associated with MESH/ENTREE/DeCS: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , with the Boolean operator . Case reports and systematic reviews were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION
The following data were extracted: author, year of publication, setting, type of study, sample size, intervention details, follow-up time, and results.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 218 articles were found, with 79 being excluded because they were repeated, leaving 139 articles for analysis: 90 were excluded in the analysis of the titles, 37 after reading the abstract, and 4 after reading the articles in full, and 1 could not be found, therefore, leaving 7 articles that were included in the review.
CONCLUSION
Most of the studies analyzed have shown pain improvement with the help of neuromodulators for chronic pain. However, no improvement was found in the study with the highest statistical power. There is still not enough evidence that neuromodulatory drugs reduce the intensity of pain in women with CPP.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Chronic Pain; Citalopram; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Gabapentin; Humans; Imipramine; Norepinephrine; Nortriptyline; Pelvic Pain; Pregabalin; Serotonin; Sertraline; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 36044916
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755459 -
JAMA Network Open May 2022Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fatigue; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 35587348
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12939