WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsants for fibromyalgia

Pain Medications Used by Persons Living With Fibromyalgia: A Comparison Between the Profile of a Quebec Sample and Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background

Pharmacological management of fibromyalgia is complex. Chronic pain management is characterized by off-label prescribing and use, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy.

Aims

This study aimed to describe pain medications use and perceived risk among people living with fibromyalgia and compare this use to evidence-based recommendations.

Methods

Directive telephone interviews were conducted with 63 individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of fibromyalgia (Quebec, Canada). The questionnaire addressed specific questions about their pain and pharmacological treatments currently used for pain management (prescribed and over-the-counter). Collected data were compared to the Canadian Fibromyalgia Clinical Practice Guidelines and to evidence reports published by recognized organizations.

Results

Despite a lack of robust scientific evidence to support opioids use to manage pain in fibromyalgia, 33% of our sample reported using them. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used by 54.0% of participants, although this medication is not recommended due to lack of efficacy. Tramadol, which is recommended, was used by 23.8% of participants. Among the medications strongly recommended, anticonvulsants were used by 36.5%, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor antidepressants by 55.6%, and tricyclic antidepressants by 22.2%. Cannabinoids (17.5%) and medical cannabis (34.9%) use were also reported. For all of these medication subclasses, no differences were found between participants not reporting (n = 35) or reporting (n = 28) more than one pain diagnosis (P < 0.05). Medication subclasses considered most at risk of adverse effects by participants were the least used.

Conclusions

Results reveal discordance between evidence-based recommendations and medications use, which highlights the complexity of pharmacological treatment of fibromyalgia.

Comparative efficacy of amitriptyline, duloxetine and pregabalin for treating fibromyalgia in adults: an overview with network meta-analysis

Treatment recommendations for fibromyalgia (FM) include a range of predominantly pharmacological treatment options designed to ensure the maintenance of symptoms and improvement in the quality of life of these patients. Our aim is to identify and compare the efficacy of amitriptyline (AMT), duloxetine (DLX), and pregabalin (PGB) for reducing pain intensity by 30% (R30%) and 50% (R50%) in adult patients with fibromyalgia. The review was conducted in the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to February 2022. This study included systematic reviews (SR) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) targeting adult patients over 18 years of age diagnosed with fibromyalgia according to the criteria of scientific societies, which include the basic clinical diagnosis characterized by the presence of pressure sensitivity in at least 11 of the 18 tender points, in addition to the presence of widespread musculoskeletal pain for a period longer than 3 months and a general assessment of the patient's health status. Pregnant women and children or adolescents were excluded. The Rob 2.0 tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The quality of evidence of the reviews included was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-GRADE. A meta-analysis for the evidence network was performed using the Bayesian approach, which allows simultaneous comparison of all treatment options (medication and dose). The different treatments were ranked according to the response rate according to the surface under the curve (SUCRA), which was expressed as a percentage. The results were presented in tables and figures. The protocol with the detailed methods was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229264). Eight systematic reviews were identified, and, from these, 15 clinical trials comparing AMT (n = 273), DLX (n = 2595), and PGB (n = 3,506) against placebo were selected. For the outcome R30%, PGB 450 mg was superior to DLX 30 mg and PGB 150 mg, while DLX 20 mg and 30 mg were not superior to placebo. For the outcome R50%, AMT 25 mg was superior to all other alternatives evaluated. The calculation of the SUCRA indicated that PGB 450 mg was the best performance option for R30% and AMT 25 mg for R50%. PGB 150 mg was the drug with the worst performance in the two outcomes evaluated. The drugs evaluated showed benefits for pain reduction in patients with fibromyalgia. In the absence of direct comparison studies, indirect comparison meta-analyses are an important resource for assisting in clinical decision-making. Our data only provide an indicator of the effectiveness of the three drugs evaluated, but as with other health conditions, tolerability and safety are important for the decision-making process and clinical management. In this regard, we encourage caution in interpreting our data.

The Importance of Daily Activity for Reducing Fibromyalgia Symptoms: A Retrospective "Real World" Data Comparison of two Multimodal Treatment Programs

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of two multidisciplinary fibromyalgia programs with different intensities.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective real-world comparison of patient data, pre- and post-program datasets of Short Form 36 (SF36) and Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) were obtained from a total of 210 female patients in two fibromyalgia multidisciplinary day hospital programs including one intensive program with daily treatments summing up to 20 treatment days during four weeks (P20, n=70) versus a less intensive program with 12 treatment days during four weeks (P12, n=140).

Results

Multiple subscales of SF36 and FIQ were improved in the pre-post comparison in both groups. In the comparison between the two groups, a statistically significantly higher improvement was found in the P20 group compared to the P12 group for the FIQ subscales of stiffness (p=0.001) and the number of days during which the patient felt “good” (p=0.007).

Conclusion

An intensive program of daily treatments and activity seems to be more effective in reducing fibromyalgia-associated stiffness and improving the number of days during which patients feel good than a less intensive program.

Non-Adherence to Pharmacotherapy: A Prospective Multicentre Study About Its Incidence and Its Causes Perceived by Chronic Pain Patients

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacological interventions remain the cornerstone of chronic pain treatment; however, nearly 40% of the prescription medicines are not taken as prescribed. The present study aims at understanding and describing non-adherence from the perspective of chronic pain patients during a 1-year follow-up study.

METHODS

A cohort of 950 consecutive patients referred to a first consultation in Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Clinics was followed with a standardized protocol for 1 year. This included assessment of pain characteristics; prescribed medication; therapeutic adherence; effectiveness of treatment, non-adherence and its perceived reasons; clinical outcomes and quality of life. We used a mixed methods approach, including qualitative and quantitative analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-nine percent of the 562 patients who responded to all assessments during follow-up were adherent after 1 year of chronic pain treatment. The core associations between each "non-adherence reason" and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code (ATC) group were perceived side effects (p=0.019) and delayed start (p=0.022) for narcotic analgesics (opioids); perceived non-efficacy (p=0.017) and delayed start (p=0.004) for antiepileptics and anticonvulsants; perceived low necessity (p=0.041) and delayed start (p=0.036) for analgesics antipyretics; change in prescriptions because of a new clinical condition for antidepressants (p=0.024); high concerns (p=0.045) and change in prescriptions because of a new clinical condition (p<0.001) for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; delayed start (p=0.016) and financial constraints (p=0.018) for other medications.

DISCUSSION

This study emphasizes the patient's perspective regarding non-adherence to pharmacological treatment of chronic pain, providing valuable and novel information to be used in future interventions to help patients make an informed choice about their adherence behavior.

The Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (TSPMR) guideline recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome

In the present study, we aimed to establish a national guideline including recommendations of the Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (TSPMR) for the management of Fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome. This guideline was built mainly in accordance with the 2017 revised European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guideline recommendations for the management of FM. A total of 46 physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists were included. A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Turkish Medical Index between 2000 and 2018. Evidence levels of the publications were evaluated, and the levels of recommendation were graded on the basis of relevant levels of evidence, The Assessment of Level of Agreement with opinions by task force members was established using the electronic Delphi technique. Recommendations were assessed by two Delphi rounds and 7 of 10 points were deemed necessary for agreement. The treatment recommendations were classified as non-pharmacological therapies (6 main items), pharmacological treatments (10 items), and complementary therapies (5 items). These were recommended in the light of evidence, depending on the clinical and general condition of each patient. This is the first national TSPMR guideline recommendations for the management of FM in Turkey. We believe our effort would be helpful for the physicians who are interested in the treatment of FM.

Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for fibromyalgia

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.