Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Research Priorities for Endometriosis

The 3rd International Consensus Workshop on Research Priorities in Endometriosis was held in São Paulo on May 4, 2014, following the 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. The workshop was attended by 60 participants from 19 countries and was divided into 5 main sessions covering pathogenesis/pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis/classification/prognosis, disease/symptom management, and research policy. This research priorities consensus statement builds on earlier efforts to develop research directions for endometriosis. Of the 56 research recommendations from the 2011 meeting in Montpellier, a total of 41 remained unchanged, 13 were updated, and 2 were deemed to be completed. Fifty-three new research recommendations were made at the 2014 meeting in Sao Paulo, which in addition to the 13 updated recommendations resulted in a total of 66 new recommendations for research. The research recommendations published herein, as well as those from the 2 previous papers from international consensus workshops, are an attempt to promote high-quality research in endometriosis by identifying and agreeing on key issues that require investigation. New areas included in the 2014 recommendations include infertility, patient stratification, and research in emerging nations, in addition to an increased focus on translational research. A revised and updated set of research priorities that builds on this document will be developed at the 13th World Congress on Endometriosis to be held on May 17-20, 2017, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Assessment of the effectiveness and safety of Ethosuximide in the Treatment of non-Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: EDONOT-protocol of a randomised, parallel, controlled, double-blinded and multicentre clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Currently available analgesics are ineffective in 30-50% of patients suffering from neuropathic pain and often induce deleterious side effects. T-type calcium channel blockers (mibefradil, ethosuximide, NNC 55-0396) are of great interest for the development of new symptomatic treatments of neuropathic pain, due to their various effects on pain perception. Interestingly, ethosuximide, which has already been approved for treating epilepsy, is available on the European market for clinical use. Despite numerous preclinical data demonstrating an antinociceptive effect of ethosuximide in various animal models of neuropathic pain, no clinical studies have been published to date on the analgesic efficacy of ethosuximide in patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Ethosuximide in the Treatment of non-Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain (EDONOT) trial is a randomised, parallel, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre clinical study. It is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ethosuximide in the treatment of non-diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Adult patients exhibiting peripheral neuropathic pain (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥4 and Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4)≥4) for at least 3 months and under stable analgesic treatment for at least 1 month will be included. Patients (n=220) will be randomly assigned to receive either ethosuximide or control treatment for 6 weeks following a 1 week run-in period. The primary end point is the intensity of neuropathic pain, assessed by NRS (0-10) before and after 6 weeks of treatment. The secondary end points are safety (adverse events are collected during the study: daily by the patient on the logbook and during planned phone calls by investigators), the intensity and features of neuropathic pain (assessed by Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) questionnaires) and health-related quality of life (assessed by Medical Outcome Study Short Form 12 (MOS SF-12) and Leeds questionnaires).

ETHICS AND COMMUNICATION

The study was approved by an independent ethics committee (CPP Sud-Est VI, France, IRB00008526) and registered by the French competent authority (Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament (ANSM)).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02100046, Recruiting.

Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including fentanyl, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.Transdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.In the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.There was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. It has been estimated that 30% to 50% of people with cancer categorise their pain as moderate to severe, with between 75% and 90% of people with cancer experiencing pain that they describe as having a major impact on their daily life. Epidemiological studies suggest that approximately 15% of people with cancer pain fail to experience acceptable pain relief with conventional management. Uncontrolled pain can lead to physical and psychological distress and can, consequently, have a drastic effect on people's quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 2016. There were no language, document type or publication status limitations applied in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo or other active pain medication for cancer pain in both adults and children. The four main outcomes selected have previously been identified as important to people with cancer; pain no worse than mild pain, and the impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite and thirst. We did not consider physician-, nurse- or carer-reported measures of pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We used a random-effects model and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. A meta-analysis was not completed on any of the primary outcomes in this review due to the lack of data. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (604 adult participants), which compared hydromorphone to oxycodone (two studies) or morphine (two studies). Overall, the included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, rated unclear due to unknown status of blinding of outcome assessment; we rated three studies at high risk of bias for potential conflict of interest. Data for 504 participants were available for analysis. We collected data on endpoint participant-reported pain intensity measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean ± standard deviation (SD): hydromorphone 28.86 ± 17.08, n = 19; oxycodone 30.30 ± 25.33, n = 12; scale from 0 to 100 with higher score indicating worse pain), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24 hours worst pain subscale (mean ± SD: hydromorphone 3.5 ± 2.9, n = 99; morphine 4.3 ± 3.0, n = 101, scale from 0 to 10 with higher score indicating worse pain). The data demonstrated a similar effect between groups with both comparisons. The pain intensity data showed that participants in all four trials achieved no worse than mild pain. There were several adverse events: some were the expected opioid adverse effects such as nausea, constipation and vomiting; others were not typical opioid adverse effects (for example, decreased appetite, dizziness and pyrexia, as shown in Table 1 in the main review), but generally showed no difference between groups. There were three deaths in the morphine group during the trial period, considered to be due to disease progression and unrelated to the drug. Three trials had over 10% dropout, but the reason and proportion of dropout was balanced between groups. The overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. There were no data available for children or for several participant-important outcomes, including participant-reported pain relief and treatment impact on consciousness, appetite or thirst.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicated little difference between hydromorphone and other opioids in terms of analgesic efficacy. Data gathered in this review showed that hydromorphone had a similar effect on participant-reported pain intensity as reported for oxycodone and morphine. Participants generally achieved no worse than mild pain after taking hydromorphone, which is comparable with the other drugs. It produced a consistent analgesic effect through the night and could be considered for use in people with cancer pain experiencing sleep disturbance. However, the overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. This review only included four studies with limited sample size and a range of study designs. Data for some important outcomes, such as impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite or thirst, were not available. Therefore, we were unable to demonstrate superiority or inferiority of hydromorphone in comparison with other analgesics for these outcomes. We recommend that further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Indian psychiatric society multicentric study: Correlates of prescription patterns of psychotropics in India

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of information on the clinical and sociodemographic correlates of prescription of psychotropics by psychiatrists.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship of prescription patterns with various clinical and sociodemographic variables.

METHODOLOGY

Data of prescription patterns, psychiatric diagnosis, sociodemographic variables, and comorbid physical illnesses were collected for 4480 patients, across 11 centers.

RESULTS

Females are more often prescribed escitalopram, sertraline, amitriptyline, amisulpride, nonlithium mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines, whereas males are more often prescribed fluoxetine, olanzapine, two antipsychotics concurrently, typical antipsychotics, valproate, lithium, and more than one benzodiazepine. Elderly (>65 years) participants are more often prescribed sertraline when compared to adolescents. In addition, elderly more often receive quetiapine and less often are prescribed benzodiazepines. Those with comorbid neurological disorders are commonly prescribed antipsychotics, amitriptyline, and more than one antidepressant and are less commonly prescribed lithium, combination of two mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines. Those with cardiac ailments are more commonly prescribed sertraline, quetiapine, and lithium and less frequently prescribed amitriptyline, fluoxetine, olanzapine, risperidone, and typical antipsychotics. Those with diabetes mellitus more often received escitalopram and quetiapine. Presence of more than one psychiatric diagnosis was associated with the use of more number of medications. Further, diagnosis of affective disorders was associated with the use of a higher number of medications.

CONCLUSION

Findings of the present study suggest that sociodemographic variables and physical and psychiatric comorbidity influence the prescription patterns of psychotropics.

Pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Oxycodone for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.

Cannabinoids for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Prescription of Long-Acting Opioids and Mortality in Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain

IMPORTANCE

Long-acting opioids increase the risk of unintentional overdose deaths but also may increase mortality from cardiorespiratory and other causes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare all-cause mortality for patients with chronic noncancer pain who were prescribed either long-acting opioids or alternative medications for moderate to severe chronic pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study between 1999 and 2012 of Tennessee Medicaid patients with chronic noncancer pain and no evidence of palliative or end-of-life care.

EXPOSURES

Propensity score-matched new episodes of prescribed therapy for long-acting opioids or either analgesic anticonvulsants or low-dose cyclic antidepressants (control medications).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total and cause-specific mortality as determined from death certificates. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and risk differences (difference in incidence of death) were calculated for long-acting opioid therapy vs control medication.

RESULTS

There were 22,912 new episodes of prescribed therapy for both long-acting opioids and control medications (mean [SD] age, 48 [11] years; 60% women). The long-acting opioid group was followed up for a mean 176 days and had 185 deaths and the control treatment group was followed up for a mean 128 days and had 87 deaths. The HR for total mortality was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.26-2.12) with a risk difference of 68.5 excess deaths (95% CI, 28.2-120.7) per 10,000 person-years. Increased risk was due to out-of-hospital deaths (154 long-acting opioid, 60 control deaths; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.58; risk difference, 67.1; 95% CI, 30.1-117.3) excess deaths per 10,000 person-years. For out-of-hospital deaths other than unintentional overdose (120 long-acting opioid, 53 control deaths), the HR was 1.72 (95% CI, 1.24-2.39) with a risk difference of 47.4 excess deaths (95% CI, 15.7-91.4) per 10,000 person-years. The HR for cardiovascular deaths (79 long-acting opioid, 36 control deaths) was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.10-2.46) with a risk difference of 28.9 excess deaths (95% CI, 4.6-65.3) per 10,000 person-years. The HR during the first 30 days of therapy (53 long-acting opioid, 13 control deaths) was 4.16 (95% CI, 2.27-7.63) with a risk difference of 200 excess deaths (95% CI, 80-420) per 10,000 person-years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prescription of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain, compared with anticonvulsants or cyclic antidepressants, was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality, including deaths from causes other than overdose, with a modest absolute risk difference. These findings should be considered when evaluating harms and benefits of treatment.

Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events.The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a painful and disabling condition that usually manifests in response to trauma or surgery. When it occurs, it is associated with significant pain and disability. It is thought to arise and persist as a consequence of a maladaptive pro-inflammatory response and disturbances in sympathetically-mediated vasomotor control, together with maladaptive peripheral and central neuronal plasticity. CRPS can be classified into two types: type I (CRPS I) in which a specific nerve lesion has not been identified, and type II (CRPS II) where there is an identifiable nerve lesion. Guidelines recommend the inclusion of a variety of physiotherapy interventions as part of the multimodal treatment of people with CRPS, although their effectiveness is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for treating the pain and disability associated with CRPS types I and II.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception up to 12 February 2015: CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDro, Web of Science, DARE and Health Technology Assessments, without language restrictions, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physiotherapy interventions for treating pain and disability in people CRPS. We also searched additional online sources for unpublished trials and trials in progress.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of physiotherapy interventions (including manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, electrotherapy, physiotherapist-administered education and cortically directed sensory-motor rehabilitation strategies) employed in either a stand-alone fashion or in combination, compared with placebo, no treatment, another intervention or usual care, or of varying physiotherapy interventions compared with each other in adults with CRPS I and II. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient-centred outcomes of pain intensity and functional disability.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated those studies identified through the electronic searches for eligibility and subsequently extracted all relevant data from the included RCTs. Two review authors independently performed 'Risk of bias' assessments and rated the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs (739 participants) that tested the effectiveness of a broad range of physiotherapy-based interventions. Overall, there was a paucity of high quality evidence concerning physiotherapy treatment for pain and disability in people with CRPS I. Most included trials were at 'high' risk of bias (15 trials) and the remainder were at 'unclear' risk of bias (three trials). The quality of the evidence was very low or low for all comparisons, according to the GRADE approach.We found very low quality evidence that graded motor imagery (GMI; two trials, 49 participants) may be useful for improving pain (0 to 100 VAS) (mean difference (MD) -21.00, 95% CI -31.17 to -10.83) and functional disability (11-point numerical rating scale) (MD 2.30, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.48), at long-term (six months) follow-up, in people with CRPS I compared to usual care plus physiotherapy; very low quality evidence that multimodal physiotherapy (one trial, 135 participants) may be useful for improving 'impairment' at long-term (12 month) follow-up compared to a minimal 'social work' intervention; and very low quality evidence that mirror therapy (two trials, 72 participants) provides clinically meaningful improvements in pain (0 to 10 VAS) (MD 3.4, 95% CI -4.71 to -2.09) and function (0 to 5 functional ability subscale of the Wolf Motor Function Test) (MD -2.3, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.72) at long-term (six month) follow-up in people with CRPS I post stroke compared to placebo (covered mirror).There was low to very low quality evidence that tactile discrimination training, stellate ganglion block via ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy compared to placebo, and manual lymphatic drainage combined with and compared to either anti-inflammatories and physical therapy or exercise are not effective for treating pain in the short-term in people with CRPS I. Laser therapy may provide small clinically insignificant, short-term, improvements in pain compared to interferential current therapy in people with CRPS I.Adverse events were only rarely reported in the included trials. No trials including participants with CRPS II met the inclusion criteria of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The best available data show that GMI and mirror therapy may provide clinically meaningful improvements in pain and function in people with CRPS I although the quality of the supporting evidence is very low. Evidence of the effectiveness of multimodal physiotherapy, electrotherapy and manual lymphatic drainage for treating people with CRPS types I and II is generally absent or unclear. Large scale, high quality RCTs are required to test the effectiveness of physiotherapy-based interventions for treating pain and disability of people with CRPS I and II. Implications for clinical practice and future research are considered.

Pharmacogenetics of analgesic drugs

• Individual variability in pain perception and differences in the efficacy of analgesic drugs are complex phenomena and are partly genetically predetermined.

• Analgesics act in various ways on the peripheral and central pain pathways and are regarded as one of the most valuable but equally dangerous groups of medications.

• While pharmacokinetic properties of drugs, metabolism in particular, have been scrutinised by genotype–phenotype correlation studies, the clinical significance of inherited variants in genes governing pharmacodynamics of analgesics remains largely unexplored (apart from the µ-opioid receptor).

• Lack of replication of the findings from one study to another makes meaningful personalised analgesic regime still a distant future.

• This narrative review will focus on findings related to pharmacogenetics of commonly used analgesic medications and highlight authors’ views on future clinical implications of pharmacogenetics in the context of pharmacological treatment of chronic pain.

Treatment of Neuropathic Pain

OPINION STATEMENT

Neuropathic pain is notoriously variable in its severity and impact on patients, as well as in its response to treatment. Certain therapies for neuropathic pain have better evidence for their use; however, it is apparent that although some therapies provide relief for only a minority of patients, the relief may be significant. Without a trial of therapy, there is no way to know if that relief is achievable. Our treatment experiences have shown that occasionally unexpected benefit is obtained through a thorough investigation of all options, even in the setting of failure of those with the most compelling evidence or indication. Chronic neuropathic pain is generally best treated with regularly dosed medications, balancing efficacy and tolerability. Evidence supports first-line trials of anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, alone or in certain combinations. While opioid medications, particularly methadone, can be effective in treating neuropathic pain, they are best used only in refractory cases and by experienced clinicians, due to concerns for both short- and long-term safety. Some therapies have a long history of successful use for certain syndromes (e.g., carbamazepine for trigeminal neuralgia pain), but these should not be considered to the exclusion of other more recent, less-supported therapies (e.g., botulinum toxin A for the same), particularly in refractory cases. We find the principles of palliative care highly applicable in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain, including managing expectations, mutually agreed-upon meaningful outcomes, and a carefully cultivated therapeutic relationship.

Milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of milnacipran for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review.Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia in some countries, including Canada, Russia, and the United States.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 18 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two clinical trial registries. For the earlier review, we also contacted the manufacturer.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two review authors examined issues of study quality independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new study with 100 participants for the pooled analysis. We identified two additional reports of a study using an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design that included participants from earlier randomised controlled trials and an open-label study. Because this study used the same participants already included in our main analysis, and a different design, we dealt with it separately.The main analysis included six studies (five from the earlier review; 4238 participants in total), all of which were placebo-controlled, and used titration to a target dose of milnacipran 100 or 200 mg, with assessment after 8 to 24 weeks of stable treatment. There were no studies with active comparators. Study quality was generally good, although the imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Both doses of milnacipran provided moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) to about 40% of participants treated, compared to 30% with placebo, giving a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) of 6 to 10 (high quality evidence). Using a stricter definition for responder and a more conservative method of analysis gave lower levels of response (while maintaining a 10% difference between milnacipran and placebo) and increased the NNT to 11 (high quality evidence). One EERW study was broadly supportive.Adverse events were common in both milnacipran (86%) and placebo (78%) groups (high quality evidence), but serious adverse events did not differ between groups (less than 2%) (low quality evidence). Nausea, constipation, and headache were the most common events showing the greatest difference between groups (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) of 5.7 for nausea, 13 for constipation, and 29 for headache) (moderate quality evidence).Withdrawals for any reason were more common with milnacipran than placebo, and more common with 200 mg (NNH 9) than 100 mg (NNH 23), compared with placebo. This was largely driven by adverse event withdrawals, where the NNH compared with placebo was 14 for 100 mg and 7.0 for 200 mg (high quality evidence). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less common with milnacipran than placebo but did not differ between doses (number needed to treat to prevent an additional unwanted outcome (NNTp) of 41) (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence available indicates that milnacipran 100 mg or 200 mg is effective for a minority in the treatment of pain due to fibromyalgia, providing moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30%) to about 40% of participants, compared with about 30% with placebo. There were insufficient data to assess substantial levels of pain relief (at least 50%), and the use of last observation carried forward imputation may overestimate drug efficacy. Using stricter criteria for 'responder' and a more conservative method of analysis gave lower response rates (about 26% with milnacipran versus 17% with placebo). Milnacipran was associated with increased adverse events and adverse event withdrawals, which were significantly greater for the higher dose.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs is currently gaining interest, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated recently in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the analgesic efficacy of TC for chronic neuropathic pain in adults and to assess the frequency of adverse events associated with clinical use of TC for chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Online (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries, and we contacted experts in the field. We performed the most recent search on 17 September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data from the studies and assessed bias. We planned three tiers of evidence analysis. The first tier was designed to analyse data meeting current best standards, by which studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent) without use of the last observation carried forward or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted eight weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design and included at least 200 participants (preferably at least 400) in the comparison. The second tier was designed to use data from at least 200 participants but in cases in which one of the above conditions was not met. The third tier of evidence was assumed in other situations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies in the review, with a total of 344 participants. Studies lasted 8 weeks and 12 weeks and compared TC versus placebo. 0.1%. TC was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily.Studies included in this review were subject to potential bias and were classified as of moderate or low quality. One drug manufacturer supported both studies.We found no top-tier evidence for TC in neuropathic pain. Second-tier evidence indicated slight improvement after the drug was used in study participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). A greater number of participants in the TC group had at least 30% reduction in pain compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8.33, 95% CI 4.3 to 50). Third-tier evidence indicated that TC was no better than placebo for achieving at least 50% reduction in pain intensity and on the Patient Global Impression of Change Scale. The two included studies could be subject to significant bias. We found no studies that reported other neuropathic pain conditions.The rate of adverse events did not differ between groups, with the exception of a higher incidence of mild skin reactions in the placebo group, which should have no clinical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from a small number of studies of moderate to low quality suggests that TC may provide some benefit in peripheral diabetic neuropathy. The drug may be useful in situations for which no better treatment options are available because of lack of efficacy, contraindications or adverse events. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine how patients who have a chance to respond to the drug should be selected for treatment.

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.

Milnacipran for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. This is an update of an earlier review of milnacipran for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults originally published in The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2012. We split that review so that this one looked only at neuropathic pain, and a separate review looks at fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of milnacipran for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 23 February 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a single study of 40 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. It found no difference in pain scores between milnacipran 100 mg to 200 mg daily or placebo after six weeks (very low quality evidence). Adverse event rates were similar between treatments, with too few data to draw conclusions (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence to support the use of milnacipran to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for fibromyalgia syndrome

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Trial of Amitriptyline for Analgesia in Painful HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathy

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study at a single center in South Africa, to ascertain whether amitriptyline is an effective analgesic for painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy of moderate to severe intensity in: i) antiretroviral drug naive individuals, and ii) antiretroviral drug users. 124 HIV-infected participants (antiretroviral drug naive = 62, antiretroviral drug users = 62) who met the study criteria for painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy were randomized to once-daily oral amitriptyline (titrated to a median: interquartile range of 50: 25-50 mg) or placebo for six weeks, followed by a three-week washout period and subsequent treatment crossover. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in worst pain intensity of the feet (measured by participant self-report using an 11-point numerical pain rating scale) after six weeks of treatment. 122 of 124 participants completed all study visits and were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. In the antiretroviral drug-naive group (n = 61) there was no significant difference in the mean change in pain score from baseline after six weeks of treatment with placebo or amitriptyline [amitriptyline: 2.8 (SD 3.3) vs. placebo: 2.8 (3.4)]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the change in pain score after six weeks of treatment with placebo or amitriptyline in the antiretroviral drug-user group (n = 61) [amitriptyline: 2.7 (3.3) vs. placebo: 2.1 (2.8)]. Controlling for period effects and treatment order effects did not alter the outcome of the analyses. Nor did analyzing the intention-to-treat cohort (missing data interpolated using baseline observation carried forward) alter the outcome of the analyses. In summary, amitriptyline, at the doses used here, was no more effective than an inactive placebo at reducing pain intensity in individuals with painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy of moderate to severe intensity, irrespective of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy or not.

More ubiquitous effects from non-pharmacologic than from pharmacologic treatments for fibromyalgia syndrome: a meta-analysis examining six core symptoms

This study aimed to characterize and compare the efficacy profile on six fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) core symptoms associated with pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments. We screened PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for FM articles from 1990 to September 2012 to analyse randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic treatments to placebo or sham. Papers including assessments of at least 2 of the 6 main FM symptom domains - pain, sleep disturbance, fatigue, affective symptoms (depression/anxiety), functional deficit and cognitive impairment - were selected for analysis. Studies exploring pharmacologic approaches (n = 21) were mainly dedicated to treating a small number of dimensions, mostly pain. They were of good quality but were not prospectively designed to simultaneously document efficacy for the management of multiple core FM symptom domains. Only amitriptyline demonstrated a significant effect on as many as three core FM symptoms, but it exhibited many adverse effects and was subject to early tachyphylaxis. Studies involving non-pharmacologic approaches (n = 64) were typically of poorer quality but were more often dedicated to multidimensional targets. Pool therapy demonstrated significant effects on five symptom domains, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on four domains, balneotherapy on three domains and exercise, cognitive behaviour therapy and massage on two domains each. Differences between pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic approaches may be related to different modes of action, tolerability profiles and study designs. Very few drugs in well-designed clinical trials have demonstrated significant relief for multiple FM symptom domains, whereas non-pharmacologic treatments with weaker study designs have demonstrated multidimensional effects. Future therapeutic trials for FM should prospectively examine each of the core domains and should attempt to combine pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies in well-designed clinical trials.

Antidepressants Are Effective in Decreasing Neuropathic Pain After SCI: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and assess the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants for neuropathic pain among individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using multiple databases for relevant articles published from 1980 to April 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving antidepressant treatment of neuropathic pain with ≥ 3 individuals and ≥ 50% of study population with SCI were included. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on inclusion criteria and then extracted data. Pooled analysis using Cohen's d to calculate standardized mean difference, standard error, and 95% confidence interval for primary (pain) and other secondary outcomes was conducted.

RESULTS

Four RCTs met inclusion criteria. Of these, 2 studies assessed amitriptyline, 1 trazadone, and 1 duloxetine among individuals with neuropathic SCI pain. A small effect was seen in the effectiveness of antidepressants in decreasing pain among individuals with SCI (standardized mean difference = 0.34 ± 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.62; P = .02). A number needed to treat of 3.4 for 30% or more pain relief was found by pooling 2 studies. Of these, significantly higher risk of experiencing constipation (risk ratio [RR] = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.09-2.78; P = .02) and dry mouth (RR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04-1.85; P = .02) was found amongst individuals receiving antidepressant treatment compared to those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis demonstrates that antidepressants are effective in reducing neuropathic SCI pain. However, this should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies. Further evaluation of long-term therapeutic options may be required.

Pharmacological treatment for pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is common, yet it is often under recognised and poorly managed. In recent years, a variety of pharmacological treatment options have been investigated in clinical trials for people with GBS-associated pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for various pain symptoms associated with GBS, during both the acute and convalescent (three months or more after onset) phases of GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 November 2014, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in participants with confirmed GBS, with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. For cross-over trials, an adequate washout period between phases was required for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the risk of bias of each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Three short-term RCTs, which enrolled 277 randomised participants with acute phase GBS, were included. Risk of bias in the included studies was generally unclear due to insufficient information. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome selected for this review, which was number of patients with self reported pain relief of 50% or greater. One small study investigated seven-day regimens of gabapentin versus placebo. Pain was rated on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). Amongst the 18 participants, significantly lower mean pain scores were found at the endpoint (day 7) in the gabapentin phase compared to the endpoint of the placebo phase (mean difference -3.61, 95% CI -4.12 to -3.10) (very low quality evidence). For adverse events, no significant differences were found in the incidence of nausea (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04) or constipation (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.54). A second study enrolling 36 participants compared gabapentin, carbamazepine and placebo, all administered over seven days. Participants in the gabapentin group had significantly lower median pain scores on all treatment days in comparison to the placebo and carbamazepine groups (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the median pain scores between the carbamazepine and placebo groups from day 1 to day 3, but from day 4 until the end of the study significantly lower median pain scores were noted in the carbamazepine group (P < 0.05) (very low quality evidence). There were no adverse effects of gabapentin or carbamazepine reported, other than sedation. One large RCT (223 participants, all also treated with intravenous immunoglobulin), compared a five-day course of methylprednisolone with placebo and found no statistically significant differences in number of participants developing pain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.16), number of participants with decreased pain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42) or number of participants with increased pain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41) (low quality evidence). The study did not report whether there were any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review we found no new studies. While management of pain in GBS is essential and pharmacotherapy is widely accepted as being an important component of treatment, this review does not provide sufficient evidence to support the use of any pharmacological intervention in people with pain in GBS. Although reductions in pain severity were found when comparing gabapentin and carbamazepine with placebo, the evidence was limited and its quality very low. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required to further investigate the efficacy and safety of potential interventions for patients with pain in GBS. Additionally, interventions for pain in the convalescent phase of GBS should be investigated.

The Association between Antidepressant Medications and Coronary Heart Disease in Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Analysis on the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brazil)

Background: Recent studies have highlighted associations between use of antidepressant medications and coronary heart disease (CHD). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) are not recommended in patients with CHD as they may increase morbidity and mortality. However, this class of antidepressants is freely prescribed in public health pharmacies, while access to other classes of antidepressants is restricted in Brazil. Here, we examine the associations between antidepressant use and prevalent CHD in a large cohort from Brazil.

Methods: Participants included 14,994 civil servants aged 35–74 years from the baseline assessment of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). CHD (n = 710) included stable angina, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization. Univariate (unadjusted) and multivariate (adjusted) logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate odds ratios and confidence intervals.

Results: After full adjustment for covariates, TCA use (n = 156) was associated with a twofold increase in prevalent CHD, relative to non-use (n = 14,076). Additional sensitivity analysis revealed a threefold association for myocardial infarction (OR: 2.96, 95% CI: 1.41–6.21) and coronary revascularization (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.28–6.66). There were no significant associations between antidepressant use and stable angina pectoris.

Conclusion: Findings highlight a strong association between TCA use and prevalent CHD. While the cross-sectional design is an important limitation of the present study, findings have important implications for the treatment of cardiac patients in Brazil.

Zonisamide for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of zonisamide for the relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of zonisamide for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 1 August 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing zonisamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. 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 evidence derived 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 evidence derived from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) for one additional event using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a single study treating 25 participants (13 zonisamide, 12 placebo) with painful diabetic neuropathy over 12 weeks. No first or second tier evidence was available for any outcome. The small size of the study and potential major bias due to a high proportion of early study withdrawals with zonisamide precluded any conclusions being drawn. There were two serious adverse events (one death) in zonisamide-treated participants, which were apparently not related to treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found a lack of evidence suggesting that zonisamide provides pain relief in any neuropathic pain condition. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.

Nortriptyline for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain, and is recommended in European, UK, and USA guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of nortriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 7 January 2015, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing nortriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. 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 evidence 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 evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) and harmful outcome (NNH) using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies treating 310 participants (mean or median age 49 to 64 years) with various neuropathic pain conditions. Five studies used a cross-over design, and one used a parallel-group design; 272 participants were randomised to treatment with nortriptyline, 145 to placebo, 94 to gabapentin, 56 to gabapentin plus nortriptyline, 55 to morphine, 55 to morphine plus nortriptyline, 39 to chlorimipramine, and 33 to amitriptyline. Treatment periods lasted from three to eight weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. Only one study reported our primary outcome of people with at least 50% reduction in pain. There was no indication that either nortriptyline or gabapentin was more effective in postherpetic neuralgia (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported the number of people with at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number who were satisfied with their pain relief and had tolerable adverse effects. We considered these outcomes to be equivalent to our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved.We could not pool data, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated similar efficacy to other active interventions (gabapentin, morphine, chlorimipramine, and amitriptyline), and to placebo in the conditions studied (very low quality evidence). Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. More participants reported adverse events with nortriptyline than with placebo, similar numbers with nortriptyline and other antidepressants (amitriptyline and chlorimipramine) and gabapentin, and slightly more with morphine (very low quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events or deaths.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to support the use of nortriptyline to treat the neuropathic pain conditions included in this review. There were no studies in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. The studies were methodologically flawed, largely due to small size, and potentially subject to major bias. The results of this review do not support the use of nortriptyline as a first line treatment. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available, such as duloxetine and pregabalin.

Salicylate-containing rubefacients for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Rubefacients containing salicylates cause irritation of the skin and are believed to relieve various musculoskeletal pains. They are available on prescription, and are common components in over-the-counter remedies. This is an update of a review of rubefacients for acute and chronic pain, originally published in 2009, which found limited evidence for efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topically applied salicylates in acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, from inception to 22 August 2014, together with the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of topical rubefacients containing salicylates to treat musculoskeletal pain in adults, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, and reporting outcomes at close to 7 (minimum 3, maximum 10) days for acute conditions and 14 (minimum 7) days or longer for chronic conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit or harm (NNT or NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. We analysed acute and chronic conditions separately.

MAIN RESULTS

New searches for this update identified one new study that satisfied our inclusion criteria, although it contributed information only for withdrawals. Six placebo- and one active-controlled studies (560 and 137 participants, respectively) in acute pain, and seven placebo- and three active-controlled studies (489 and 182 participants, respectively) in chronic pain were included in the review. All studies were potentially at risk of bias, and there were substantial differences between studies in terms of the participants (for example the level of baseline pain), the treatments (different salicylates combined with various other potentially active ingredients), and the methods (for example the outcomes reported). Not all of the studies contributed usable information for all of the outcomes sought.For the primary outcome of clinical success at seven days in acute conditions (mostly sprains, strains, and acute low back pain), the RR was 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.5) and the NNT was 3.2 (2.4 to 4.9) for salicylates compared with placebo, but this result was not robust (very low quality evidence). Using a random-effects model for analysis the RR was 2.7 (1.05 to 7.0). For the same outcome in chronic conditions (mostly osteoarthritis, bursitis, and chronic back pain), the RR was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.0) and the NNT was 6.2 (4.0 to 13) (very low quality evidence). This result was not substantially changed using a random-effects model for analysis. In both categories there were a number of factors might have influenced the results but sensitivity analysis was limited because of the small number of studies and participants.For both acute and chronic painful conditions any evidence of efficacy came from the older, smaller studies, while the larger, more recent studies showed no effect.Adverse events were more common with salicylate than with placebo but most of the events occurred in only two studies. There was no difference when these studies were removed from the analysis (very low quality evidence). Local adverse events (at the application site) were again more common with salicylate but were nearly all in one study (in which salicylate was combined with another irritant). There was no difference when this study was removed (very low quality evidence).There were insufficient data to draw conclusions against active controls.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for acute injuries or chronic conditions. They seem to be relatively well tolerated in the short-term, based on limited data. The amount and quality of the available data mean that uncertainty remains about the effects of salicylate-containing rubefacients.

Management of chronic neuropathic pain: a protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2%; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63%). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0%).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42%; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0%).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23%).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14%; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0% to 32%), but low for NPs (0% to 1.7%).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4%) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7%) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2%) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

Aquatic exercise training for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Desipramine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Desipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of desipramine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 April 2014, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also used our own hand searched database to identify older studies, and two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks duration comparing desipramine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for 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 and considered very likely to be biased or that used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies treated 177 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (104) or postherpetic neuralgia (73). The mean or median ages in the studies were 55 to 72 years. Four studies used a cross-over, and one a parallel group design; 145 participants were randomised to receive desipramine 12.5 mg to 250 mg daily, with most taking 100 mg to 150 mg daily following titration. Comparators were placebo in three studies (an 'active placebo' in two studies), fluoxetine, clomipramine (one study each), and amitriptyline (two studies), and treatment was for two to six weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. No data were available on the proportion of people with at least 50% or 30% reduction in pain, but data were available from three studies for our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change, reported as patient evaluation of pain relief that was 'complete' or 'a lot'. No pooling of data was possible, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated some improvement in pain relief with desipramine compared with placebo, although this was very low quality evidence, derived mainly from group mean data and completer analyses in small, short duration studies where major bias was possible. There were too few participants in comparisons of desipramine with another active treatment to draw any conclusions.All studies reported some information about adverse events, but reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. Participants taking desipramine experienced more adverse events, and a higher rate of withdrawal due to adverse events, than did participants taking placebo (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found little evidence to support the use of desipramine to treat neuropathic pain. There was very low quality evidence of benefit and harm, but this came from studies that were methodologically flawed and potentially subject to major bias. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available. There may be a role for desipramine in patients who have not obtained pain relief from other treatments.