Blog
About

10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (Snris) for fibromyalgia

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors for fibromyalgia

          Bottom line

          Duloxetine and milnacipran may reduce pain in people with fibromyalgia. However, some of these people may also experience side effects, such as nausea (feeling sick) and drowsiness. A minority of people with fibromyalgia experience symptom relief without side effects from duloxetine and milnacipran.

          Background

          People with fibromyalgia often have chronic (longer than three months) widespread pain, as well as problems with sleep, thinking and exhaustion. They often report poor health-related quality of life. There is no cure for fibromyalgia at present, so the treatments aim to relieve the symptoms and to improve health-related quality of life.

          Serotonin and noradrenaline are chemicals which are produced by the human body, involved in the regulation of pain, sleep and mood. Low concentrations of serotonin have been reported in people with fibromyalgia. Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are a class of antidepressants that increase the concentration of serotonin and noradrenaline in the brain.

          Study characteristics

          In August 2017, we updated our searches for clinical trials in which SNRIs were used to treat symptoms of fibromyalgia in adults. We found eight new studies since the previous version of the review. In total, we found 18 studies with 7903 participants. The studies were four to 27 weeks long and compared the SNRIs desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and milnacipran against a fake medication (placebo). We rated the quality of the evidence from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate, or high. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High-quality evidence means that we are very confident in the results.

          Key results and quality of the evidence

          Duloxetine and milnacipran were better than placebo in reducing pain by 50% or more and in improving global well-being (low-quality evidence). Duloxetine and milnacipran were better than placebo in improving health-related quality of life and in reducing fatigue (low-quality evidence). Duloxetine and milnacipran were not better than placebo in reducing sleep problems (low-quality evidence). More people dropped out of the trial due to side effects with duloxetine and milnacipran than with placebo (low-quality evidence). More people reported nausea and drowsiness with duloxetine and milnacipran than with placebo (low-quality evidence). Duloxetine, milnacipran and placebo did not differ in the frequency of serious side effects experienced (very low-quality evidence).

          Related collections

          Most cited references 115

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia and measurement of symptom severity.

            To develop simple, practical criteria for clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia that are suitable for use in primary and specialty care and that do not require a tender point examination, and to provide a severity scale for characteristic fibromyalgia symptoms. We performed a multicenter study of 829 previously diagnosed fibromyalgia patients and controls using physician physical and interview examinations, including a widespread pain index (WPI), a measure of the number of painful body regions. Random forest and recursive partitioning analyses were used to guide the development of a case definition of fibromyalgia, to develop criteria, and to construct a symptom severity (SS) scale. Approximately 25% of fibromyalgia patients did not satisfy the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1990 classification criteria at the time of the study. The most important diagnostic variables were WPI and categorical scales for cognitive symptoms, unrefreshed sleep, fatigue, and number of somatic symptoms. The categorical scales were summed to create an SS scale. We combined the SS scale and the WPI to recommend a new case definition of fibromyalgia: (WPI > or =7 AND SS > or =5) OR (WPI 3-6 AND SS > or =9). This simple clinical case definition of fibromyalgia correctly classifies 88.1% of cases classified by the ACR classification criteria, and does not require a physical or tender point examination. The SS scale enables assessment of fibromyalgia symptom severity in persons with current or previous fibromyalgia, and in those to whom the criteria have not been applied. It will be especially useful in the longitudinal evaluation of patients with marked symptom variability.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                cd
                The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                1469-493X
                28 February 2018
                : 2
                :
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Care Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health Saarbrücken, Germany
                [2 ]Department of Neurology, University of Würzburg Würzburg, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Faculty of Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen Essen, Germany
                [4 ]National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, USA
                [5 ]Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München München, Germany
                Author notes
                , Health Care Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany. whaeuser@ 123456klinikum-saarbruecken.de
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD010292.pub2
                5846183
                29489029
                Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial Licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article