Anticonvulsants for fibromyalgia

Understanding Non-Pharmacological Treatments for Fibromyalgia Functional and Well-Being Status: The Role of Literacy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Fibromyalgia (FM) affects up to 5% of the global population and is a leading cause of significant social and economic consequences. Higher health literacy leads to better understanding of treatment plans, improved self-care, and adherence to recommendations, enhancing overall quality of life. This study aims to determine whether different aspects of the disease are influenced by patients' education level and literacy when applying the same therapy and to assess how patients' perceptions of therapy outcomes vary over time based on their educational level.

METHODS

This study involved 140 fibromyalgia (FM) patients diagnosed using the 2016 ACR criteria, with 128 completing the study. Participants attended three visits over 28 weeks and were stratified into four groups based on educational level: Group 1-secondary school or less; Group 2-high school graduates; Group 3-college graduates; Group 4-university graduates. Patients were assigned to groups (n = 32, 32, 30, and 34, respectively) after the initial evaluation (T0). The treatment was assessed (T1) and followed up three months later (T2) to evaluate changes in functional status and quality of life. All patients underwent the same rehabilitation program, cognitive therapy, and kinesiotherapy.

RESULTS

Significant differences in disease impact on the patient's life (FIQ total score) were observed between groups from the initial evaluation (p = 0.000). The overall FIQ score was notably affected by non-pharmacological therapy in patients with higher education. These differences continued to be significant even three months after the treatment ended (p = 0.000). Functional limitations were evident from the start (p = 0.000) and improved significantly post-treatment in patients with higher education (p = 0.000). However, subjective evaluations of disease impact (assessed by the first item of FIQ) did not consistently align with objective findings (hand grip strength). Functional limitations did not significantly differ in subjective evaluations (F1Q1) across educational levels (p = 0.045), and inverse correlations were noted between functional status and SF-12 well-being components.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores that higher education enhances fibromyalgia management and functional outcomes, particularly when combined with non-pharmacological therapies. However, subjective perceptions may not always align with objective improvements, indicating that factors beyond education, such as personal and external influences, also impact disease management. Thus, improving health literacy through educational interventions could further benefit FM patients' quality of life.

[Modern ideas about the relationship between fibromyalgia and mental disorders]

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a pain syndrome with a high burden and an understudied etiology and pathogenesis. There is now considerable evidence that FM has a strong bidirectional relationship with psychiatric disorders and is associated with certain personality traits that contribute to the severity of key somatic symptoms and affect overall prognosis. In this article, the authors present data from recent epidemiological and neurobiological studies, discuss the multilevel relationship between FM and psychiatric disorders, and briefly review approaches to the treatment of co-morbid conditions.

Using High-Definition Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation to Treat Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Double-Blinded Controlled Study

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of high-definition transcranial alternating current stimulation (HD-tACS) to the left primary motor cortex (M1) in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) patients. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial, patients with FM were recruited in a teaching hospital. Thirty-eight patients were randomized to active HD-tACS (n = 19) or sham stimulation (n = 19). Active stimulation included a daily session of 20-min stimulation of 1 mA HD-tACS over the left M1 for ten sessions in two weeks. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity and quality of life, assessed using the numeric rating scale (NRS) and the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) at baseline and after two weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included other core symptoms of FM (psychological distress, sleep quality, hyperalgesia measured by pressure pain threshold) and changes in biomarkers’ total Tau and Aβ1-42. All analyses were based on intention-to-treat for a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: Of the 38 randomized patients, 35 completed the study. After two weeks, HD-tACS induced a significant reduction in FIQ score post-treatment. However, there were no significant differences in NRS and FIQ scores compared to sham stimulation. Most adverse events were mild in severity. Nevertheless, one patient receiving HD-tACS attempted suicide during the trial. Conclusions: These results suggest that HD-tACS may effectively reduce pain, psychological distress, and symptom impacts in FM patients. However, we found no significant differences between the two groups. Future studies investigating HD-tACS in FM are warranted.

Questions of effective treatment of fibromyalgia. Case report

A clinical case of effective treatment of fibromyalgia in a 58-year-old patient by an interdisciplinary team of neurologists and a psychiatrist-psychotherapist is presented. For 5 years before being hospitalized at the Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University) Clinic of Nervous System Diseases, a patient suffering from widespread chronic pain in the back and extremities was not diagnosed with fibromyalgia, she underwent numerous expensive examinations and various methods of therapy that were not effective, worsened her condition and increased the intensity of the pain syndrome. The establishment of fibromyalgia, the identification of concomitant mental disorders, allowed the use of pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological methods of treatment (cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotherapy), which led to a persistent improvement in the condition, a decrease in pain syndrome during 6 months of follow-up.

Diagnostic Challenges and Management of Fibromyalgia

The World Health Organization regards chronic pain to be a public health concern. In clinical medicine, fibromyalgia (FM) is the most prevalent chronic widespread pain disease. In terms of impairment, consumption of health and social resources, and impact on primary and speciality care systems, it has reached worrisome proportions. This disease is frequently managed by primary care providers. Because of its intricacy, fibromyalgia diagnosis and treatment can be difficult. Fibromyalgia is a controversial condition. It might appear ill-defined in comparison to other pain conditions, with no clear knowledge of pathophysiology and hence no particular targeted therapy. This invariably sparks debates and challenges. There is no obvious cut-off point that distinguishes FM from non-FM. The diagnosis of fibromyalgia has been complicated by several factors, including patients' health-seeking behaviour, symptom identification, and physician labelling of the disease. Fibromyalgia is currently considered a centralized pain condition, according to research that has improved our understanding of its etiopathology. A multidisciplinary strategy combining pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies based on a biopsychosocial paradigm can result in effective therapy. Cultural and psychosocial variables appear to be a recent development in fibromyalgia, and they appear to have a larger influence on physician diagnosis than severe symptom levels in FM patients. Although physicians rely on FM criteria as the only way to classify FM patients in research and clinical settings, some crucial elements of the diagnostic challenge of fibromyalgia remain unsolved - invalidation, psychosocial variables, and diverse illness manifestation are some examples. Beyond the existing constructional scores, physicians' judgment gained in real communicative contexts with patients, appears to be the only dependable route for a more accurate diagnosis for fibromyalgia. We have performed an exhaustive review of the literature using the keywords "Fibromyalgia", "challenges" and "diagnosis" in PubMed and Google Scholar indexes up to September 2021. This article aims to examine the causes, diagnosis, and current treatment protocols of FM, as well as discuss some continuing debates and diagnostic challenges which physicians face in accurately diagnosing fibromyalgia.

Medical cannabis for the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome: a retrospective, open-label case series

BACKGROUND

The use of cannabis for treating fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) has not been comprehensively investigated. Thus, we have assessed the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of short- and long-term medical cannabis (MC) treatment for FMS.

METHODS

Data were obtained from medical reports archived in the pain clinic of Ponderano (Italy; retrospective study). FMS patients, who were resistant to conventional therapy, received licensed MC with various Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) content, as powdered whole flowers (decoction or vaporization) or oil extracts. Demographic and clinical parameters, including Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Widespread Pain Index (WPI), Severity Score (SyS), and side effects, were obtained after 1, 3, and 12 months. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for paired data.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were included. Thirty, 18, and 12 patients continued therapy for 1, 3, and 12 months, respectively. Significant improvements (p < 0.01) were observed in NRS, ODI, WPI, and SyS at 1 month; in NRS, ODI, and WPI at 3 months; and in NRS, ODI, and SyS at 12 months. Therapy was interrupted by 17 patients (48.6%) owing to nonserious AEs according to the FDA. The most common side effects were mental confusion (37%), dizziness (14%), nausea/vomiting (14%), and restlessness/irritation (14%). The median daily dose of milled flowers administered as THC-dominant MC and hybrid MC (with similar THC/CBD ratio) was 200 mg/day and 400 mg/day, respectively. After 3 months of titration, the median content of THC administered with THC-dominant MC cultivars was 46.2 mg, and of THC + CBD administered as a hybrid MC cultivar, was 23.6 mg + 38 mg. At 3 months, median THC content administered in the oil extract of the THC-dominant MC cultivars was 9.7 mg, while that of THC + CBD administered in the oil extract of the hybrid MC cultivars was 1.8 mg + 2 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

MC may represent an alternative treatment for patients with FMS who are unresponsive to conventional therapy. However, its application may be limited by the incidence of nonserious AEs.

Efficacy and Safety of ASP0819 in Patients with Fibromyalgia: Results of a Proof-of-Concept, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

ASP0819 is a novel, non-opioid KCa3.1 channel opener that reverses abnormal nerve firing of primary sensory afferent nerves. Currently available treatments for fibromyalgia provide only modest relief and are accompanied by a host of adverse side effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this phase 2a, double-blind trial (NCT03056690), adults meeting fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg/day of oral ASP0819 (n=91) or placebo (n=95). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to Week 8 in the mean daily average pain score. Changes in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised (FIQR) symptoms, function, and overall impact subscales, as well as changes in the patients' global impression of change, were secondary endpoints; treatment effects on FIQR total score and impact on sleep were exploratory analyses.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between ASP0819 and placebo for the primary endpoint (P=0.086); however, ASP0819 versus placebo significantly improved daily average pain at Weeks 2, 6, and 7 (all P<0.05). Numerical improvements were observed on the FIQR total score and several sleep items showed statistically significant improvements with ASP0819 versus placebo. There were no major safety concerns with ASP0819. Headache was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) occurring in both study arms; most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity and no TEAEs suggestive of potential drug abuse were observed, as assessed by TEAE reporting and/or safety evaluations. Withdrawal effects also were not observed.

CONCLUSION

ASP0819 demonstrated some signals suggestive of efficacy and had a good tolerability profile in patients with fibromyalgia. Further studies are required to determine if ASP0819 can be a novel non-opioid treatment option in this patient group.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION

NCT03056690.

Facts and myths pertaining to fibromyalgia

Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by chronic widespread pain, unrefreshing sleep, physical exhaustion, and cognitive difficulties. It occurs in all populations throughout the world, with prevalence between 2% and 4% in general populations. Definition, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of FM remain points of contention, with some even contesting its existence. The various classification systems according to pain medicine, psychiatry, and neurology (pain disease; persistent somatoform pain disorder; masked depression; somatic symptom disorder; small fiber neuropathy; brain disease) mostly capture only some components of this complex and heterogeneous disorder. The diagnosis can be established in most cases by a general practitioner when the symptoms meet recognized criteria and a somatic disease sufficiently explaining the symptoms is excluded. Evidence-based interdisciplinary guidelines give a strong recommendation for aerobic exercise and cognitive behavioral therapies. Drug therapy is not mandatory. Only a minority of patients experience substantial symptom relief with duloxetine, milnacipran, and pregabalin.

Pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia in adults ‐ an overview of Cochrane Reviews

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Overview). The objectives are as follows:

To provide an overview of the therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. The major comparison of interest will be with placebo.

Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress

Functional somatic syndromes (FSS), like irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia and other symptoms reflecting bodily distress, are common in practically all areas of medicine worldwide. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to these symptoms and syndromes vary substantially across and within medical specialties from biomedicine to psychiatry. Patients may become frustrated with the lack of effective treatment, doctors may experience these disorders as difficult to treat, and this type of health problem forms an important component of the global burden of disease. This review intends to develop a unifying perspective on the understanding and management of FSS and bodily distress. Firstly, we present the clinical problem and review current concepts for classification. Secondly, we propose an integrated etiological model which encompasses a wide range of biopsychosocial vulnerability and triggering factors and considers consecutive aggravating and maintaining factors. Thirdly, we systematically scrutinize the current evidence base in terms of an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 and give recommendations for treatment for all levels of care, concentrating on developments over the last 10 years. We conclude that activating, patient-involving, and centrally acting therapies appear to be more effective than passive ones that primarily act on peripheral physiology, and we recommend stepped care approaches that translate a truly biopsychosocial approach into actual management of the patient.

[Drug therapy of fibromyalgia syndrome : Updated guidelines 2017 and overview of systematic review articles]

BACKGROUND

The regular update of the guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome, AWMF number 145/004, was scheduled for April 2017.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed by 13 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations coordinated by the German Pain Society. Working groups (n =8) with a total of 42 members were formed balanced with respect to gender, medical expertise, position in the medical or scientific hierarchy and potential conflicts of interest. A literature search for systematic reviews of randomized controlled drug trials from December 2010 to May 2016 was performed in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009. The strength of recommendations was achieved by multiple step formalized procedures to reach a consensus. Efficacy, risks, patient preferences and applicability of available therapies were weighed up against each other. The guidelines were reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the societies engaged in the development of the guidelines.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Amitriptyline and duloxetine are recommended in the case of comorbid depressive disorders or generalized anxiety disorder and pregabalin in the case of generalized anxiety disorder. Off-label use of duloxetine and pregabalin can be considered if there are no comorbid mental disorders or no generalized anxiety disorder. Strong opioids are not recommended.

Trends in Medicalization of Children with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome

Objective

The objective of this survey was to describe trends over time in medicalization of children with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome (AMPS).

Design

A retrospective evaluation was conducted using self-reported data from patients presenting to the pain clinic between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014, who were diagnosed with AMPS.

Setting and Subjects

This was a medical record review of 899 subjects ages 3-20 presenting with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome. Subjects were included if they presented to a single tertiary specialized clinic and obtained a diagnosis of AMPS between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014.

Methods

Information collected from subjects' medical records included: past medications, current outpatient medications, procedures, aids, therapies, studies, professionals seen, hospitalizations, and surgeries. Trends in medicalization were analyzed by year of initial visit.

Results

Medication use, procedures, studies, therapies, professionals seen, hospitalizations, and surgeries in children with AMPS all increased significantly by year ( P  < 0.001). The degree of physical dysfunction, pain, and the use of aids did not significantly increase.

Conclusions

Children with amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome are becoming increasingly medicalized. Increased medicalization introduces risk of iatrogenic injury and burdens families with unnecessary medical costs. The significant increase in medicalization of children with AMPS is not related to an increase in patient reported pain, which is evidenced by the lack of significant increase in patients' pain score, pain duration, or functional disability at the time of their initial evaluation.

Unravelling Fibromyalgia-Steps Toward Individualized Management

The heterogeneity of the clinical presentation and the pathophysiologic mechanisms associated with fibromyalgia (FM), and the modest results on average for any therapy, call for a more individualized management strategy. Individualized treatment can be on the basis of subgrouping of patients according to associated conditions (mental health problems, chronic overlapping pain conditions, other somatic diseases) or on disease severity. Categorizing FM as mild, moderate, or severe can be on the basis of clinical assessment (eg, degree of daily functioning) or on questionnaires. Shared decision-making regarding treatment options can be directed according to patient preferences, comorbidities, and availability in various health care settings. The European League Against Rheumatism guidelines recommend a tailored approach directed by FM key symptoms (pain, sleep disorders, fatigue, depression, disability), whereas the German guidelines recommend management tailored to disease severity, with mild disease not requiring any specific treatment, and more severe disease requiring multicomponent therapy (combination of drug treatment with aerobic exercise and psychological treatments). When indicated, treatments should follow a stepwise approach beginning with easily available therapies such as aerobic exercise and amitriptyline. Successful application of a tailored treatment approach that is informed by individual patient characteristics should improve outcome of FM.

PERSPECTIVE

This article presents suggestions for an individualized treatment strategy for FM patients on the basis of subgroups and disease severity. Categorizing FM as mild, moderate, or severe can be on the basis of clinical assessment (eg, degree of daily functioning) or questionnaires. Subgroups can be defined according to mental health and somatic comorbidities.

Association of Alterations in Gray Matter Volume With Reduced Evoked-Pain Connectivity Following Short-Term Administration of Pregabalin in Patients With Fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

Pregabalin (PGB) is an α2 δ calcium-channel subunit ligand that has previously been shown to reduce chronic pain in multiple conditions. Preclinical studies indicate that PGB may down-regulate brain glutamate release while also inhibiting astrocyte induction of glutamatergic synapse formation, and recent clinical findings support the notion that PGB modulates glutamatergic activity and functional brain connectivity in order to produce analgesia. The present study was undertaken to examine concurrent changes in brain gray matter volume (GMV) or evoked-pain connectivity in humans receiving PGB.

METHODS

Sixteen female fibromyalgia patients participated in a randomized double-blind 2-period crossover study of PGB versus placebo. Before and after each period, patients underwent high-resolution structural and evoked pressure-pain functional brain imaging. GMV was analyzed using voxel-based morphometry, and functional connectivity during evoked pressure-pain was assessed.

RESULTS

PGB administration significantly reduced GMV within the posterior insula bilaterally, whereas there were no significant changes in insular GMV following placebo treatment. GMV reductions in the medial frontal gyrus were also observed when comparing PGB versus placebo treatment, and were associated with reduced clinical pain. These reductions in insular GMV were associated with concomitant reductions in connectivity to the default mode network, which was also associated with reduced clinical pain.

CONCLUSION

Short-term PGB treatment altered brain structure and evoked-pain connectivity, and these decreases were associated with reduced clinical pain. We speculate that these fairly rapid changes in GMV may be related to brain neuroplasticity. It is unknown whether these effects are generalizable to other chronic pain states.

Update on Treatment Guideline in Fibromyalgia Syndrome with Focus on Pharmacology

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a chronic condition with unknown aetiology. The pathophysiology of the disease is incompletely understood; despite advances in our knowledge with regards to abnormal central and peripheral pain processing, and hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal dysfunction, there is no clear specific pathophysiological therapeutic target. The management of this complex condition has thus perplexed the medical community for many years, and several national and international guidelines have aimed to address this complexity. The most recent guidelines from European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (2016), Canadian Pain Society (2012), and The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) (2012) highlight the change in attitudes regarding the overall approach to FMS, but offer varying advice with regards to the use of pharmacological agents. Amitriptyline, Pregabalin and Duloxetine are used most commonly in FMS and though modestly effective, are useful adjunctive treatment to non-pharmaceutical measures.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids in chronic pain associated with rheumatic diseases (fibromyalgia syndrome, back pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis): A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In the absence of an ideal treatment for chronic pain associated with rheumatic diseases, there is interest in the potential effects of cannabinoid molecules, particularly in the context of global interest in the legalization of herbal cannabis for medicinal use.

METHODS

A systematic search until April 2015 was conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, www.cannabis-med.org and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials with a study duration of at least 2 weeks and at least ten patients per treatment arm with herbal cannabis or pharmaceutical cannabinoid products in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), osteoarthritis (OA), chronic spinal pain, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pain. Outcomes were reduction of pain, sleep problems, fatigue and limitations of quality of life for efficacy, dropout rates due to adverse events for tolerability, and serious adverse events for safety. The methodology quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

Two RCTs of 2 and 4 weeks duration respectively with nabilone, including 71 FMS patients, one 4-week trial with nabilone, including 30 spinal pain patients, and one 5-week study with tetrahydrocannbinol/cannabidiol, including 58 RA patients were included. One inclusion criterion was pain refractory to conventional treatment in three studies. No RCT with OA patients was found. The risk of bias was high for three studies. The findings of a superiority of cannabinoids over controls (placebo, amitriptyline) were not consistent. Cannabinoids were generally well tolerated despite some troublesome side effects and safe during the study duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence for recommendation for any cannabinoid preparations for symptom management in patients with chronic pain associated with rheumatic diseases.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Management of Widespread Pain and Fibromyalgia

Specialists' views of fibromyalgia (FM) are typically colored by their experiences of the selected, complex cases that they are regularly called to evaluate. At a population level, it is crucial to recognize that education which promotes patient empowerment and non-pharmacological interventions which support self-management are very effective. The temptation, for both physician and patient, to first reach for pharmacological interventions should be resisted until such holistic approaches are explored. In particular, a strong evidence base supports graded exercise and cognitive behavioral therapies, but such treatments must be intelligently "prescribed." As reflected by the recent ACR criteria, FM is a highly heterogeneous disorder and is not simply a disorder of pain. For some patients, co-occurring symptoms, such as fatigue, can be equally as impactful and so management strategies should be sufficiently versatile to target those dimensions which are considered priorities at the level of the individual patient. In those patients who do require pharmacological support, patients should not be led to expect significant gains in isolation. The importance of self-management requires emphasis at each and every tier of management. It is true that advances in our understanding of neurobiology have greatly informed the selection of adjunctive drug classes which may provide benefit (as well as those which do not-as is the case of opioids). However, further unpicking of pathogenesis is still required if the FM landscape is to move further towards drug-led management.

Pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane review on 'Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults' (Moore 2009), and considers only fibromyalgia pain.Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic pain conditions, including fibromyalgia. Pain response with pregabalin is associated with major benefits for other symptoms, and improved quality of life and function in people with chronic painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults, compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to May 2009 for the original review and to 16 March 2016 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, and reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified two new published studies with classic design, and one new published study with an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design.We included eight studies. Five (3283 participants) had a classic design in which participants were randomised at the start of the study to pregabalin (150, 300, 450, or 600 mg daily) or placebo, with assessment after 8 to 13 weeks of stable treatment. No studies included active comparators. Studies had low risk of bias, except that the last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment (450 mg: RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1, 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence)). Substantial benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 14% of participants with placebo, but about 9% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (22% to 24%) (high quality evidence). Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment) (450 mg: RR 1.5, 95% CI (1.3 to 1.7), 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence). Moderate benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 28% of participants with placebo, but about 11% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (39% to 43%) (high quality evidence). A similar magnitude of effect was found using PGIC of 'very much improved' and 'much or very much improved'. NNTs for these outcomes ranged between 7 and 14 (high quality evidence).A small study (177 participants) compared nightly with twice-daily pregabalin, and concluded there was no difference in effect.Two studies (1492 participants began initial dose titration, 687 participants randomised) had an EERW design in which those with good pain relief after titration were randomised, double blind, to continuing the effective dose (300 to 600 mg pregabalin daily) or a short down-titration to placebo for 13 or 26 weeks. We calculated the outcome of maintained therapeutic response (MTR) without withdrawal, equivalent to a moderate benefit. Of those randomised, 40% had MTR with pregabalin and 20% with placebo (high quality evidence). The NNT was 5, but normalised to the starting population tested it was 12. About 10% of the initial population would have achieved the MTR outcome, similar to the result from studies of classic design. MTR had no imputation concerns.The majority (70% to 90%) of participants in all treatment groups experienced adverse events. Specific adverse events were more common with pregabalin than placebo, in particular dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral oedema, with number needed to harm of 3.7, 7.4, 18, and 19 respectively for all doses combined (high quality evidence). Serious adverse events did not differ between active treatment groups and placebo (very low quality evidence). Withdrawals for any reason were more common with pregabalin than placebo only with the 600 mg dose in studies of classic design. Withdrawals due to adverse events were about 10% higher with pregabalin than placebo, but withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were about 6% lower (high quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin 300 to 600 mg produces a major reduction in pain intensity over 12 to 26 weeks with tolerable adverse events for a small proportion of people (about 10% more than placebo) with moderate or severe pain due to fibromyalgia. The degree of pain relief is known to be accompanied by improvements in other symptoms, quality of life, and function. These results are similar to other effective medicines in fibromyalgia (milnacipran, duloxetine).

Oxycodone for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Opioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Cannabinoids for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.

Three-Quarters of Persons in the US Population Reporting a Clinical Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia Do Not Satisfy Fibromyalgia Criteria: The 2012 National Health Interview Survey

OBJECTIVES

Although fibromyalgia criteria have been in effect for decades, little is known about how the fibromyalgia diagnosis is applied and understood by clinicians and patients. We used the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to determine the prevalence of self-reported clinician diagnosed fibromyalgia and then compared demographics, symptoms, disability and medical utilization measures of persons with a clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia that did not meet diagnostic criteria (false-positive or prior [F/P] fibromyalgia) to persons with and without criteria-positive fibromyalgia.

METHODS

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) collected information about both clinical diagnosis and symptoms of fibromyalgia that was appropriately weighted to represent 225,726,257 US adults. Surrogate NHIS diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia were developed based on the level of polysymptomatic distress (PSD) as characterized in the 2011 modified American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR) for fibromyalgia. Persons with F/P fibromyalgia were compared with persons who do not have fibromyalgia and those meeting surrogate NHIS fibromyalgia criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 1.78% of persons reporting a clinical diagnosis, 73.5% did not meet NHIS fibromyalgia criteria. The prevalence of F/P fibromyalgia is 1.3%. F/P fibromyalgia is associated with a mild degree of polysymptomatic distress (NHIS PSD score 6.2) and characterized by frequent but not widespread pain and insomnia. Measures of work disability and medical utilization in F/P fibromyalgia were equal to that seen with NHIS criteria positive fibromyalgia and were 6-7x greater in F/P fibromyalgia than in non-fibromyalgia persons. F/P fibromyalgia was best predicted by being female (Odds Ratio [OR] 8.81), married (OR 3.27), and white (OR 1.96). In contrast, being a white, married woman was only modestly predictive of NHIS (criteria positive) fibromyalgia (OR 2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of clinically diagnosed fibromyalgia cases in the US do not reach levels of severity necessary and sufficient for diagnosis. The clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia is disproportionally dependent on demographic and social factors rather than the symptoms themselves. Diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia appear to be used as a vague guide by clinicians and patients, and allow for substantial diagnostic expansion of fibromyalgia.

Antipsychotics for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. It affects approximately 2% of the general population. Up to 70% of patients with fibromyalgia meet the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving health-related quality of life. Antipsychotics might reduce fibromyalgia and associated mental health symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of antipsychotics in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE to 20 May 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews and two clinical trial registries. We also contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected controlled trials of at least four weeks duration of any formulation of antipsychotics used for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the data from all included studies and two review authors independently assessed study risks of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. We derived first tier evidence from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs, at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of four studies with 296 participants.Three studies with 206 participants compared quetiapine, an atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic, with placebo. One study used a cross-over design and two studies a parallel-group design. Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. Quetiapine was used in all studies with a bedtime dosage between 50 and 300 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias and we judged them to be at moderate risk of bias overall. The primary outcomes in this review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety).Second tier evidence indicated that quetiapine was not statistically superior to placebo in the number of participants with a 50% or more pain reduction (very low quality evidence). No study reported data on PGIC. A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a 30% or more pain reduction (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 100) (very low quality evidence). A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a clinically relevant improvement of health-related quality of life compared to placebo ( RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 20) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.23), depression (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.04) and anxiety (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing the risk of withdrawing from the study due to a lack of efficacy (RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05) (very low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and placebo in the proportion of participants withdrawing due to adverse events (tolerability) (very low quality evidence), in the frequency of serious adverse events (safety) (very low quality evidence) and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness and somnolence as an adverse event (very low quality evidence). In more participants in the quetiapine group a substantial weight gain was noted (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; number needed to treat for an additional harm (NNTH) 12, 95% CI 6 to 50) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels to a very low quality rating because of limitations of study design, indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed).One parallel design study with 90 participants compared quetiapine (50 to 300 mg/day flexible at bedtime) to amitriptyline (10 to 75 mg/day flexible at bedtime). The study had three major risks of bias and we judged it to be at moderate risk of bias overall. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels to a low quality rating because of indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed). Third tier evidence indicated no statistically significant differences between the two drugs. Both drugs did not statistically significantly differ in the reduction of average scores for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, depression, anxiety and for limitations of health-related quality of life and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness, somnolence and weight gain as a side effect (low quality evidence). Compared to amitriptyline, more participants left the study due to adverse events (low quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).We found no relevant study with other antipsychotics than quetiapine in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine may be considered for a time-limited trial (4 to 12 weeks) to reduce pain, sleep problems, depression and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients with major depression. Potential side effects such as weight gain should be balanced against the potential benefits in shared decision making with the patient.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for fibromyalgia syndrome

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition with a biopsychosocial aetiology. Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain, sleep problems, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Patients often report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Since there is no specific treatment that alters the pathogenesis of fibromyalgia, drug therapy focuses on pain reduction and improvement of other aversive symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the benefits and harms of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1946 to June 2014), and the reference lists of reviewed articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomized, double-blind trials of SSRIs used for the treatment of fibromyalgia symptoms in adult participants. We considered the following SSRIs in this review: citalopram, fluoxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors extracted the data of all included studies and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

The quality of evidence was very low for each outcome. We downgraded the quality of evidence to very low due to concerns about risk of bias and studies with few participants. We included seven placebo-controlled studies, two with citalopram, three with fluoxetine and two with paroxetine, with a median study duration of eight weeks (4 to 16 weeks) and 383 participants, who were pooled together.All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias. There was a small (10%) difference in patients who reported a 30% pain reduction between SSRIs (56/172 (32.6%)) and placebo (39/171 (22.8%)) risk difference (RD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.20; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10, 95% CI 5 to 100; and in global improvement (proportion of patients who reported to be much or very much improved: 50/168 (29.8%) of patients with SSRIs and 26/162 (16.0%) of patients with placebo) RD 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 17.SSRIs did not statistically, or clinically, significantly reduce fatigue: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.03; 7.0% absolute improvement on a 0 to 10 scale, 95% CI 14.6% relative improvement to 0.8% relative deterioration; nor sleep problems: SMD 0.03, 95 % CI -0.26 to 0.31; 0.8 % absolute deterioration on a 0 to 100 scale, 95% CI 8.3% relative deterioration to 6.9% relative improvement.SSRIs were superior to placebo in the reduction of depression: SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; 7.6% absolute improvement on a 0 to 10 scale, 95% CI 2.7% to 13.8% relative improvement; NNTB 13, 95% CI 7 to 37. The dropout rate due to adverse events was not higher with SSRI use than with placebo use (23/146 (15.8%) of patients with SSRIs and 14/138 (10.1%) of patients with placebo) RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.14. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in serious adverse events with SSRI use and placebo use (3/84 (3.6%) in patients with SSRIs and 4/84 (4.8%) and patients with placebo) RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.05.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no unbiased evidence that SSRIs are superior to placebo in treating the key symptoms of fibromyalgia, namely pain, fatigue and sleep problems. SSRIs might be considered for treating depression in people with fibromyalgia. The black box warning for increased suicidal tendency in young adults aged 18 to 24, with major depressive disorder, who have taken SSRIs, should be considered when appropriate.

Aquatic exercise training for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review examined the effects of supervised group aquatic training programs (led by an instructor). We defined aquatic training as exercising in a pool while standing at waist, chest, or shoulder depth. This review is part of the update of the 'Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome' review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of aquatic exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2 (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and AMED, as well as other sources (i.e., reference lists from key journals, identified articles, meta-analyses, and reviews of all types of treatment for fibromyalgia) from inception to October 2013. Using Cochrane methods, we screened citations, abstracts, and full-text articles. Subsequently, we identified aquatic exercise training studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Selection criteria were: a) full-text publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia based on published criteria, and b) between-group data for an aquatic intervention and a control or other intervention. We excluded studies if exercise in water was less than 50% of the full intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data (24 outcomes), of which we designated seven as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, stiffness, muscle strength, submaximal cardiorespiratory function, withdrawal rates and adverse effects. We resolved discordance through discussion. We evaluated interventions using mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out meta-analysis. In addition, we set and used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 aquatic exercise training studies (N = 881; 866 women and 15 men). Nine studies compared aquatic exercise to control, five studies compared aquatic to land-based exercise, and two compared aquatic exercise to a different aquatic exercise program.We rated the risk of bias related to random sequence generation (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias), and other bias as low. We rated blinding of participants and personnel (selection and performance bias) and allocation concealment (selection bias) as low risk and unclear. The assessment of the evidence showed limitations related to imprecision, high statistical heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals. Aquatic versus controlWe found statistically significant improvements (P value < 0.05) in all of the major outcomes. Based on a 100-point scale, multidimensional function improved by six units (MD -5.97, 95% CI -9.06 to -2.88; number needed to treat (NNT) 5, 95% CI 3 to 9), self reported physical function by four units (MD -4.35, 95% CI -7.77 to -0.94; NNT 6, 95% CI 3 to 22), pain by seven units (MD -6.59, 95% CI -10.71 to -2.48; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 8), and stiffness by 18 units (MD -18.34, 95% CI -35.75 to -0.93; NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 24) more in the aquatic than the control groups. The SMD for muscle strength as measured by knee extension and hand grip was 0.63 standard deviations higher compared to the control group (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 12) and cardiovascular submaximal function improved by 37 meters on six-minute walk test (95% CI 4.14 to 69.92). Only two major outcomes, stiffness and muscle strength, met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance (improved by 27% and 37% respectively). Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and control groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects reported. Aquatic versus land-basedThere were no statistically significant differences between interventions for multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain or stiffness: 0.91 units (95% CI -4.01 to 5.83), -5.85 units (95% CI -12.33 to 0.63), -0.75 units (95% CI -10.72 to 9.23), and two units (95% CI -8.88 to 1.28) respectively (all based on a 100-point scale), or in submaximal cardiorespiratory function (three seconds on a 100-meter walk test, 95% CI -1.77 to 7.77). We found a statistically significant difference between interventions for strength, favoring land-based training (2.40 kilo pascals grip strength, 95% CI 4.52 to 0.28). None of the outcomes in the aquatic versus land comparison reached clinically relevant differences of 15%. Withdrawals were similar in the aquatic and land groups and adverse effects were poorly reported, with no serious adverse effects in either group. Aquatic versus aquatic (Ai Chi versus stretching in the water, exercise in pool water versus exercise in sea water)Among the major outcomes the only statistically significant difference between interventions was for stiffness, favoring Ai Chi (1.00 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.69).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low to moderate quality evidence relative to control suggests that aquatic training is beneficial for improving wellness, symptoms, and fitness in adults with fibromyalgia. Very low to low quality evidence suggests that there are benefits of aquatic and land-based exercise, except in muscle strength (very low quality evidence favoring land). No serious adverse effects were reported.

Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy versus U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended drugs and usual care in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: an economic evaluation alongside a 6-month randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended pharmacologic treatments (RPTs; pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are effective treatment options for fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome and are currently recommended by clinical guidelines. We compared the cost-utility from the healthcare and societal perspectives of CBT versus RPT (combination of pregabalin + duloxetine) and usual care (TAU) groups in the treatment of FM.

Methods

The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel group, controlled trial. In total, 168 FM patients from 41 general practices in Zaragoza (Spain) were randomized to CBT (n = 57), RPT (n = 56), or TAU (n = 55). The main outcome measures were Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs, assessed by using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire) and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL, assessed by using EuroQoL-5D visual analogue scale, EQ-VAS). The costs of healthcare use were estimated from patient self-reports (Client Service Receipt Inventory). Cost-utility was assessed by using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).

Results

On average, the total costs per patient in the CBT group (1,847€) were significantly lower than those in patients receiving RPT (3,664€) or TAU (3,124€). Patients receiving CBT reported a higher quality of life (QALYs and EQ-VAS scores); the differences between groups were significant only for EQ-VAS. From a complete case-analysis approach (base case), the point estimates of the cost-effectiveness ratios resulted in dominance for the CBT group in all of the comparisons performed, by using both QALYs and EQ-VAS as outcomes. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap analyses, net-benefit curves, and CEACs. Two additional sensitivity analyses (intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis) indicated that the results were robust. The comparison of RPT with TAU yielded no clear preference for either treatment when using QALYs, although RPT was determined to be more cost-effective than TAU when evaluating EQ-VAS.

Conclusions

Because of lower costs, CBT is the most cost-effective treatment for adult FM patients. Implementation in routine medical care would require policymakers to develop more-widespread public access to trained and experienced therapists in group-based forms of CBT.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10804772. Registered 29 September 2008.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-014-0451-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Review of pharmacological therapies in fibromyalgia syndrome

This review addresses the current status of drug therapy for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and is based on interdisciplinary FMS management guidelines, meta-analyses of drug trial data, and observational studies. In the absence of a single gold-standard medication, patients are treated with a variety of drugs from different categories, often with limited evidence. Drug therapy is not mandatory for the management of FMS. Pregabalin, duloxetine, milnacipran, and amitriptyline are the current first-line prescribed agents but have had a mostly modest effect. With only a minority of patients expected to experience substantial benefit, most will discontinue therapy because of either a lack of efficacy or tolerability problems. Many drug treatments have undergone limited study and have had negative results. It is unlikely that these failed pilot trials will undergo future study. However, medications, though imperfect, will continue to be a component of treatment strategy for these patients. Both the potential for medication therapy to relieve symptoms and the potential to cause harm should be carefully considered in their administration.