Amitriptyline for fibromyalgia in adults

Aerobic Exercise Prescription for Pain Reduction in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Fibromyalgia is a condition characterised by disabling levels of pain of varying intensity. Aerobic exercise may play a role in reducing pain in these patients. The aim of this review is to assess the dose of aerobic exercise needed, based on the frequency, intensity, type, time, volume and progression (FITT-VP) model, to obtain clinically relevant reductions in pain.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials was conducted in the Web of Science (WoS), PEDro, PubMed and Scopus databases, the search having been conducted between July and October of 2023. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool 2.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included. The risk of bias varied, with six studies showing low risk; five, some concerns; and six, high risk. Aerobic exercise interventions were analysed using the FITT-VP model. Frequency ranged from 1 to 10 times per week, intensity varied from light to vigorous, and the types of exercise included music-based exercise, interval training, pool-based exercise, stationary cycling, swimming and walking. The intervention durations ranged from 3 to 24 weeks, with session lengths ranging from 10 to 45 min. Most of the studies presented significant differences, favouring aerobic exercise (MD -0.49; CI [-0.90, -0.08; p = 0.02]), with moderate to low heterogeneity in subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings underscore the efficacy of aerobic exercise in alleviating pain among fibromyalgia patients, advocating for tailored exercise dosing to optimise adherence and outcomes.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Individuals with fibromyalgia should engage in aerobic exercises two to three times weekly, for twenty-five to forty minutes in each session, aiming for more than a hundred minutes per week. They should start at low intensity, gradually increasing to higher intensities over six to twelve weeks, for optimal pain management. Exercise types should be selected in collaboration with the patient and based on personal preferences and accessibility, such as walking, and swimming, to ensure long-term adherence to the regimen.

Early-Phase Intervention With Traditional Japanese Acupuncture and Moxibustion for Fibromyalgia: A Case Report

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common chronic pain with no established treatment. Acupuncture is an expected treatment for FM though a diagnosis of FM tends to be delayed, and the advantage is still unclear in early-phase intervention with acupuncture treatment for FM. A 51-year-old woman with panic disorder presented with a four-month history of whole-body pain and was diagnosed with FM. She was unable to do housework or control her pain with medication. And she took 10 mg of paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), to treat her depressive mood or panic disorder. A traditional Japanese acupuncture and moxibustion treatment, Hokushin-kai, was started. According to the Oriental medical diagnosis, she was categorized with "hyperactivity of liver yang," "dampness encumbering spleen," and "kidney yin deficiency" patterns. The treatment was administered once a week, and only one or two sterilized disposable needles were inserted into each acupoint (such as BL19, LR8, or KI3) for 10 minutes and with no manipulations. At the first presentation, the numerical rating scale (NRS) value was 6. After six weeks, her whole-body pain level remained around NRS 0-2 for 4-5 days after each treatment session. She was then able to resume housework after 12 weeks. Since ancient times, acupuncturists have recognized how acupuncture becomes less effective over time, especially for chronic pain. Moreover, the concept of a treatment-sensitive period for chronic pain prevention has recently been proposed. Further research, including early-phase interventions for acupuncture treatment, is required to evaluate the clinical effects of various treatments on FM.

Efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This study reassesses the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP).Materials & methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO and Cochrane CENTRAL, published through August 2024. Studies compared antidepressants with placebo or active comparators. The primary outcomes were pain relief and quality of life. Protocol registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42023307516.Results: Nine RCTs involving 1758 patients were analyzed. The antidepressants examined included duloxetine, escitalopram, bupropion, amitriptyline, imipramine and desipramine. Duloxetine 60 mg significantly reduced pain (MD = -0.57; 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.36) and improved quality of life compared with placebo, with side effects that were generally tolerable. Notably, higher doses of duloxetine (120 mg) were associated with an increase in adverse events. However, other antidepressants like amitriptyline and escitalopram demonstrated only modest or inconsistent effects.Conclusion: Duloxetine at 60 mg provides consistent pain relief and improves the quality of life in NCLBP, but higher doses increase adverse events. Escitalopram might offer modest benefits but should be considered a third-line treatment. Other antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, bupropion, imipramine and desipramine, have limited evidence supporting their efficacy and are associated with adverse effects.

Association of Aromatase Inhibitor-Induced Musculoskeletal Symptoms with Central Sensitization-Related Symptoms: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-induced musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS) can decrease health-related quality of life and lead to discontinuation of AI therapy for postmenopausal women with breast cancer (BC). Although central sensitization (CS) may contribute to AIMSS, the relevance of CS-related symptoms to AIMSS has not been fully clarified. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between AIMSS and CS-related symptoms in women with BC who received AI therapy.

Methods

This cross-sectional study recruited women who underwent BC surgery before at least 1 year and were taking AI for at least 6 months. Participants were assessed for joint pain and CS-related symptoms using the central sensitization inventory (CSI). The severity of CS-related symptoms was classified into three groups, and the prevalence of AIMSS was calculated. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between AIMSS and factors of possible relevance to AIMSS, including CSI severity.

Results

Of the 73 women who were included in this study, 31 (42.4%) were categorized into the AIMSS group and 42 (57.6%) into the non-AIMSS group. Participants with a history of chemotherapy and higher CSI score were significantly more likely to have AIMSS. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a history of chemotherapy (odds ratio = 4.21) and higher CSI severity (odds ratio = 13.43) had significantly associated with AIMSS.

Conclusion

CS-related symptoms assessed using CSI may be strongly associated with AIMSS. Further longitudinal studies to investigate the causal relationship and effectiveness of CS-targeted interventions are needed to prevent and treat AIMSS effectively.

Chronic pain, a narrative review for the internist in 2024

Chronic pain is a complex and pervasive condition that profoundly affects individuals physically, emotionally, and socially. This narrative review aims to provide internists and healthcare professionals with a comprehensive overview of chronic pain, its various types, pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical presentation, evaluation tools, and the burden it imposes on patients. We discuss the importance of recognizing chronic pain as a legitimate condition and the need for a compassionate, individualized approach to management. The review highlights the role of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in treating chronic pain, emphasizing the value of reducing pain, improving function, enhancing quality of life, and minimizing medication dependence. Additionally, we touch upon the promising future of pain treatment, including advancements in technology and personalized medicine. While not a comprehensive systematic review, this article serves as a valuable resource for healthcare providers seeking to understand, manage, and treat chronic pain effectively in their daily practice.

Fibromyalgia interventions, obstacles and prospects: narrative review

This review aims to increase awareness and improve understanding, diagnosis, and management of fibromyalgia - a complex, distressing health challenge that significantly impacts people's lives due to its variable nature and lack of clear diagnostic markers. Healthcare professionals must assist those with this condition and improve their general quality of life. Further, they can do a lot to improve the lives of people with Fibromyalgia by resolving diagnostic hurdles, promoting collaboration, supporting patient advocacy, advancing medical technology, and adopting novel approaches.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview was originally published in 2017, and is being updated in 2022.  Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue, for which opioids are prescribed by some physicians for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for CNCP lacks evidence of effectiveness, and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for CNCP.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and overviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library. The date of the last search was 21 July 2022. Two overview authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at a high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews that met the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses, where all doses were analysed as a single group; we were unable to extract any data for high-dose use only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence, in the form of Cochrane Reviews, about how well high-dose opioids work for the management of CNCP in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events.  No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Considering that high-dose opioids have been, and are still being used in clinical practice to treat CNCP, knowing about the efficacy and safety of these higher doses is imperative.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults: overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework.

RESULTS

26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -3.3), postoperative pain (-7.3, -12.9 to -1.7), neuropathic pain (-6.8, -8.7 to -4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews-seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022311073.

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.

Effect of low-dose amitriptyline on reducing pain in clinical knee osteoarthritis compared to benztropine: study protocol of a randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis is a major cause of pain and disability. Pain control is poor, with most patients remaining in moderate to severe pain. This may be because central causes of pain, a common contributor to knee pain, are not affected by current treatment strategies. Antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, have been used to treat chronic pain in other conditions. The aim of this randomised, double blind, controlled trial, is to determine whether low dose amitriptyline reduces pain in people with painful knee osteoarthritis over 3 months compared to benztropine, an active placebo.

METHODS/DESIGN

One hundred and sixty people with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis will be recruited via clinicians, local and social media advertising. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either low dose amitriptyline (25 mg) or active placebo (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg) for 3 months. The primary outcome is change from baseline in knee pain (WOMAC pain subscale) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include change in function (total WOMAC) and the proportion of individuals achieving a substantial response (≥ 50% reduction in pain intensity, measured by Visual Analog Scale, VAS, from no pain to worst pain imaginable, 0-100 mm) and moderate response (≥ 30% reduction in pain intensity, measured by VAS) at 12 weeks. Intention to treat analyses will be performed. Subgroup analyses will be done.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide high level evidence regarding the effectiveness of low dose amitriptyline compared to benztropine in reducing pain and improving function in knee OA. This trial has the potential to provide an effective new therapeutic approach for pain management in knee osteoarthritis, with the potential of ready translation into clinical practice, as it is repurposing an old drug, which is familiar to clinicians and with a well described safety record.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry prior to recruitment commencing ( ACTRN12615000301561 , March 31, 2015, amended 14 December 2018, February 2021). Additional amendment requested 18 July 2021.

Functional pain disorders - more than nociplastic pain

BACKGROUND

Nociplastic pain has been recently introduced as a third mechanistic descriptor of pain arising primarily from alterations of neural processing, in contrast to pain due to tissue damage leading to nociceptor activation (nociceptive) or due to lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system (neuropathic). It is characterized by hyperalgesia and allodynia, inconsistency and reversibility, as well as dynamic cross-system interactions with biological and psychobehavioral factors. Along with this renewed understanding, functional pain disorders, also classified as chronic primary pain, are being reframed as biopsychosocial conditions that benefit from multimodal treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current understanding of nociplastic pain and functional pain disorders, with a focus on conditions that are common in neurology practice.

METHODS

This was a narrative literature review.

RESULTS

Chronic back pain, fibromyalgia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome are best understood within a biopsychosocial framework of pain perception that considers structural factors (predispositions and sequelae) and psychobehavioral mechanisms. Although pain is often the primary complaint, it should not be the only focus of treatment, as accompanying symptoms such as sleep or mood problems can significantly impact quality of life and offer useful leverage points for multimodal treatment. Analgesic pharmacotherapy is rarely helpful on its own, and should always be imbedded in a multidisciplinary setting.

Fibromyalgia: Recent Advances in Diagnosis, Classification, Pharmacotherapy and Alternative Remedies

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a syndrome that does not present a well-defined underlying organic disease. FM is a condition which has been associated with diseases such as infections, diabetes, psychiatric or neurological disorders, rheumatic pathologies, and is a disorder that rather than diagnosis of exclusion requires positive diagnosis. A multidimensional approach is required for the management of FM, including pain management, pharmacological therapies, behavioral therapy, patient education, and exercise. The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent advances in classification criteria and diagnostic criteria for FM as well as to explore pharmacotherapy and the use of alternative therapies including the use of plant bioactive molecules.

Adverse drug reactions associated with amitriptyline - protocol for a systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-the-counter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals.

METHODS

A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using meta-regression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment.

DISCUSSION

We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Submitted to PROSPERO; assignment is in progress.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated. Combining different agents could provide superior pain relief and possibly also fewer side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combination pharmacotherapy compared to monotherapy or placebo, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to September 2017. We also searched reference lists of other reviews and trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing combinations of two or more drugs to placebo or other comparators, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

From all studies, we extracted data on: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater; patient global impression of clinical change (PGIC) much or very much improved or very much improved; any other pain-related outcome of improvement; withdrawals (lack of efficacy, adverse events), participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events, and specific adverse events (e.g. somnolence and dizziness). The primary comparison was between combination and one or all single-agent comparators. We also assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 studies with 1474 participants. Three studies combined a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a benzodiazepine (306 participants); two combined amitriptyline with fluoxetine (89 participants); two combined amitriptyline with a different agent (92 participants); two combined melatonin with an antidepressant (164 participants); one combined carisoprodol, paracetamol (acetaminophen), and caffeine (58 participants); one combined tramadol and paracetamol (acetaminophen) (315 participants); one combined malic acid and magnesium (24 participants); one combined a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with 5-hydroxytryptophan (200 participants); and one combined pregabalin with duloxetine (41 participants). Six studies compared the combination of multiple agents with each component alone and with inactive placebo; three studies compared combination pharmacotherapy with each individual component but did not include an inactive placebo group; two studies compared the combination of two agents with only one of the agents alone; and three studies compared the combination of two or more agents only with inactive placebo.Heterogeneity among studies in terms of class of agents evaluated, specific combinations used, outcomes reported, and doses given prevented any meta-analysis. None of the combinations of drugs found provided sufficient data for analysis compared with placebo or other comparators for our preferred outcomes. We therefore provide a narrative description of results. There was no or inadequate evidence in any comparison for primary and secondary outcomes. Two studies only reported any primary outcomes of interest (patient-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater). For each 'Risk of bias' item, only half or fewer of studies had unequivocal low risk of bias. Small size and selective reporting were common as high risk of bias.Our GRADE assessment was therefore very low for primary outcomes of pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater, PGIC much or very much improved or very much improved, any pain-related outcome, participants experiencing any adverse event, any serious adverse event, or withdrawing because of an adverse event.Three studies found some evidence that combination pharmacotherapy reduced pain compared to monotherapy; these trials tested three different combinations: melatonin and amitriptyline, fluoxetine and amitriptyline, and pregabalin and duloxetine. Adverse events experienced by participants were not serious, and where they were reported (in 12 out of 16 studies), all participants experienced them, regardless of treatment. Common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and headache.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few, large, high-quality trials comparing combination pharmacotherapy with monotherapy for fibromyalgia, consequently limiting evidence to support or refute the use of combination pharmacotherapy for fibromyalgia.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue where opioids are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain lacks evidence of effectiveness and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and Overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (here defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for chronic non-cancer pain.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and Overviews through a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library). The date of the last search was 18 April 2017. Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews meeting the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses where all doses were analysed as a single group; no data for high dose only could be extracted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence regarding how well high-dose opioids work for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events. No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Trials typically used doses below our cut-off; we need to know the efficacy and harm of higher doses, which are often used in clinical practice.

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.

Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the effects of amitriptyline for fibromyalgia are now dealt with in a separate review.Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). It is recommended as a first line treatment in many guidelines. Neuropathic pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of chronic neuropathic pain, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own hand searched database for older studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence 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 dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies from the earlier review and two new studies (17 studies, 1342 participants) in seven neuropathic pain conditions. Eight cross-over studies with 302 participants had a median of 36 participants, and nine parallel group studies with 1040 participants had a median of 84 participants. Study quality was modest, though most studies were at high risk of bias due to small size.There was no first-tier or second-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating any neuropathic pain condition. Only third-tier evidence was available. For only two of seven studies reporting useful efficacy data was amitriptyline significantly better than placebo (very low quality evidence).More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 55% of participants taking amitriptyline and 36% taking placebo. The risk ratio (RR) was 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 5.2 (3.6 to 9.1) (low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were rare. Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but were rarely reported (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many people with neuropathic pain. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain, but only a minority of people will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.