Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults

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.

Fatigue in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a scoping review on definitions, measurement instruments, determinants, consequences and interventions

OBJECTIVES

To scope published reviews addressing fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia in areas relevant for clinical practice: (1) definition, (2) measurement instruments and diagnosis, (3) determinants, (4) consequences and (5) effectiveness of interventions.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of reviews was performed in five bibliographical databases. A hierarchical data extraction was applied based on review type (Cochrane reviews (CRs), followed by non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and narrative reviews (NRs)) and year of publication. Extracted data were summarised in elaborated narrative syntheses. Results were discussed with a patient panel.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-four reviews were included (19 CRs, 44 SRs, 71 NRs). No agreed on definition was reported for general fatigue, nor for types of fatigue. Twenty-five measurement instruments were found, all self-reported. Five instruments proposed a threshold for excessive fatigue. Pain, physical function and depressive symptoms were the most frequently studied disease-related determinants of fatigue; female sex and stress the most frequent contextual determinants. Work performance, followed by impact on pain, physical activity and social roles were the most frequently studied consequences. Whenever quantified, associations between fatigue with determinants and consequences were on average small. For non-pharmacological interventions, if effect sizes were reported, these were negligible to small and for pharmacological interventions negligible to moderate. Patients recommended actions for research and practice.

CONCLUSION

Syntheses of reviews point to the complexity of fatigue. The extensive amount of evidence could be used to offer tailored management plans to patients in clinical practice and inform future research agendas.

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

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.

Effectiveness and adverse effects of the use of mirtazapine as compared to duloxetine for fibromyalgia: real-life data from a retrospective cohort

On the background of a restricted armamentarium of drugs available for the management of fibromyalgia (FM), we aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness of two serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), mirtazapine (MTZ) and duloxetine (DLX) in FM. A medical records review was done to identify patients diagnosed with FM and prescribed a stable dose of either MTZ or DLX for more than 6 months. Their present status was determined by a telephonic interview which included a subjective assessment of improvement (Likert scale), FIQR (Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire), adverse drug effects and compliance. One-fifty-eight patients were screened to include 81 patients [mean age 46.7 (± 13.0) years, 64 (79%) females]. Sixty (79%) had primary fibromyalgia and 66 (81.5%) were on DLX (20-40 mg) while 15(18.5%) were on MTZ (7.5 mg). In addition to the drugs, lifestyle modification was followed by 57 (70.3%). A moderate-to-good improvement was seen in 66 (81.5%), while 15 (18.5%) reported poor to no improvement overall. In the DLX group, a majority (59, 89.4%) showed moderate-to-good improvement compared to 7(46.7%) on MTZ [p = 0.001, 9.6(2.6-34)]. However, FIQR was similar for those on DLX (3.6 ± 0.9) and MTZ (3.8 ± 0.7). Adverse effects were reported for 51 (77%) of patients on DLX and all (100%) on MTZ with a poorer compliance with MTZ 5 (33.3%) compared to DLX 47 (71.2%) [p = 0.008, OR 0.1(0.03-0.4)]. On multivariate analysis, DLX use [OR 16.7 (95% CI 2.7-100); p = 0.008] and lifestyle modification [p = 0.002; OR 11.2(1.5-83.3)] were associated with better subjective outcomes. Low-dose MTZ appears to be inferior to DLX in the management of FM in this real-world cohort.

Fibromyalgia in Older Individuals

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a condition of chronic widespread pain (CWP) that can occur throughout the life cycle and is likely underrecognized in older patients. FM is associated with considerable suffering and reduction in quality of life and may occur as a unique condition, but in older patients is most likely to be associated with another medical illness. Understood mechanistically to be a sensitization of the nervous system, recently identified as nociplastic pain, FM is accepted as a valid medical illness that requires a positive diagnosis and directed treatments. The cornerstone of treatments for FM are nonpharmacologic interventions, with the understanding that medications provide only modest benefit for most patients, and with particular concern about adverse effects in older patients. If FM is not recognized, treatments may be misdirected to the other medical condition, with failure to address FM symptoms, leading to overall poor outcome. In contrast, new complaints in older patients should not immediately be attributed to FM, and physicians should be vigilant to ensure that onset of a new illness is not ignored. As FM is most often a lifelong condition, patients should be encouraged to identify their own personal strategies that can attenuate symptoms, especially when symptoms flare. Continued life participation should be the outcome goal.

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.

Current and Emerging Pharmacotherapy for Fibromyalgia

Introduction. Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a pain disorder with an estimated prevalence of 1–5%. It is associated with a variety of somatic and psychological disorders. Its exact pathogenesis is still unclear but is involved with neural oversensitization and decreased conditioned pain modulation (CPM), combined with cognitive dysfunction, memory impairment, and altered information processing. Connectivity between brain areas involved in pain processing, alertness, and cognition is increased in the syndrome, making its pharmacologic therapy complex. Only three drugs, pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are currently FDA-approved for FM treatment, but many other agents have been tested over the years, with varying efficacy. Areas Covered. The purpose of this review is to summarize current clinical experience with different pharmacologic treatments used for fibromyalgia and introduce future perspectives in developing therapies. Expert Opinion. Future insights into the fields of cannabinoid and opioid research, as well as an integrative approach towards the incorporation of genetics and functional imaging combined with additional fields of research relevant towards the study of complex CNS disorders, are likely to lead to new developments of novel tailor-made treatments for FMS patients.

Impact of Polypharmacy on Candidate Biomarker miRNomes for the Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Striking Back on Treatments

Fibromyalgia (FM) and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) are diseases of unknown etiology presenting complex and often overlapping symptomatology. Despite promising advances on the study of miRNomes of these diseases, no validated molecular diagnostic biomarker yet exists. Since FM and ME/CFS patient treatments commonly include polypharmacy, it is of concern that biomarker miRNAs are masked by drug interactions. Aiming at discriminating between drug-effects and true disease-associated differential miRNA expression, we evaluated the potential impact of commonly prescribed drugs on disease miRNomes, as reported by the literature. By using the web search tools SM2miR, Pharmaco-miR, and repoDB, we found a list of commonly prescribed drugs that impact FM and ME/CFS miRNomes and therefore could be interfering in the process of biomarker discovery. On another end, disease-associated miRNomes may incline a patient’s response to treatment and toxicity. Here, we explored treatments for diseases in general that could be affected by FM and ME/CFS miRNomes, finding a long list of them, including treatments for lymphoma, a type of cancer affecting ME/CFS patients at a higher rate than healthy population. We conclude that FM and ME/CFS miRNomes could help refine pharmacogenomic/pharmacoepigenomic analysis to elevate future personalized medicine and precision medicine programs in the clinic.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.