Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

Modulating a model membrane of sphingomyelin by a tricyclic antidepressant drug

Tricyclic medicine such as amitriptyline (AMT) hydrochloride, initially developed to treat depression, is also used to treat neuropathic pain, anxiety disorder, and migraines. The mechanism of functioning of this type of drugs is ambiguous. Understanding the mechanism is important for designing new drug molecules with higher pharmacological efficiency. Hence, in the present study, biophysical approaches have been taken to shed light on their interactions with a model cellular membrane of brain sphingomyelin in the form of monolayer and multi-lamellar vesicles. The surface pressure-area isotherm infers the partitioning of a drug molecule into the lipid monolayer at the air water interface, providing a higher surface area per molecule and reducing the in-plane elasticity. Further, the surface electrostatic potential of the lipid monolayer is found to increase due to the insertion of drug molecule. The interfacial rheology revealed a reduction of the in-plane viscoelasticity of the lipid film, which, depends on the adsorption of the drug molecule onto the film. Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) measurements on multilamellar vesicles (MLVs) have revealed that the AMT molecules partition into the hydrophobic core of the lipid membrane, modifying the organization of lipids in the membrane. The modified physical state of less rigid membrane and the transformed electrostatics of the membrane could influence its interaction with synaptic vesicles and neurotransmitters making higher availability of the neurotransmitters in the synaptic cleft.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Pharmacological and nutritional therapy of children and adults with chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction

INTRODUCTION

Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIPO) is a rare, heterogeneous and severe form of gastrointestinal dysmotility.

AREAS COVERED

Pertinent literature on pediatric and adult CIPO management has been assessed via PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE from inception to June 2022. Prokinetics, aimed at restoring intestinal propulsion (e.g. orthopramides and substituted benzamides, acetyl cholinesterase inhibitors, serotonergic agents and others), have been poorly tested and the available data showed only partial efficacy. Moreover, some prokinetic agents (e.g. orthopramides and substituted benzamides) can cause major side effects. The CIPO-related small intestinal bacterial overgrowth requires treatment preferably via poorly absorbable antibiotics to avoid bacterial resistance. Apart from opioids, which worsen gut motility, analgesics should be considered to manage visceral pain, which might dominate the clinical manifestations. Nutritional support, via modified oral feeding, enteral or parenteral nutrition, is key to halt CIPO-related malnutrition.

EXPERT OPINION

There have been significant roadblocks preventing the development of CIPO treatment. Nonetheless, the considerable advancement in neurogastroenterology and pharmacological agents cast hopes to test the actual efficacy of new prokinetics via well-designed clinical trials. Adequate dietary strategies and supplementation remain of crucial importance. Taken together, novel pharmacological and nutritional options are expected to provide adequate treatments for these patients.

Dual effect of amitriptyline in the control of vascular tone: Direct blockade of calcium channel in smooth muscle cells and reduction of TLR4-dependent NO production in endothelial cells

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Amitriptyline (AM) is a classical and typical tricyclic antidepressant drug. Despite its well-known effects on the nervous system, it has been described to work as a TLR4 antagonist and several clinical works suggested some unexpected cardiovascular effects. The role of amitriptyline on vascular tone is not clear, thus we hypothesized that amitriptyline has a double effect on vascular tone by both endothelial TLR4-dependent nitric oxide down-regulation and calcium channel blockade in smooth muscle cells.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Changes in isometric tension were recorded on a wire myograph. NO production was evaluated by fluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry in the mouse aorta and EAhy926 cells using DAF fluorescence intensity. Calcium influx was evaluated in A7r5 cells by flow cytometry. Western blot was used to analyze eNOS and nNOS phosphorylation.

KEY RESULTS

AM reduced PE-induced contraction by calcium influx diminution in smooth muscle cells (F/F₀ = 225.6 ± 15.9 and 118.6 ± 17.6 to CT and AM, respectively). AM impaired Ach-dependent vasodilation (Emax = 95.8 ± 1.4; 78.1 ± 1.8; 60.4 ± 2.9 and -7.4 ± 1.0 for CT, 0.01, 0,1 and 1 μmol/L AM, respectively) through reduction of calcium influx and NO availability and TLR4 antagonism in a concentration-dependent manner. AM or TLR4 gene deletion significantly reduced NO production (Fluorescence = 9503 ± 871.7, 2561 ± 282, 4771 ± 728 and 1029 ± 103 to CT, AM, TLR4^-/- and AM + TLR4^-/-, respectively) by an increase in nNOS^ser852 and reduction in eNOS^ser1177 phosphorylation in endothelial cells.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our data show that amitriptyline impaired vascular function through two different mechanisms: blockade of TLR4 in endothelial cells and consequent decrease in NO production and calcium influx reduction in smooth muscle and endothelial cells. We also suggest, for the first time, nNOS activity reduction by AM in non-neuronal cells.

Analgesic Alkaloids Derived From Traditional Chinese Medicine in Pain Management

Chronic pain is one of the most prevalent health problems. The establishment of chronic pain is complex. Current medication for chronic pain mainly dependent on anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants and opioidergic drugs. However, they have limited therapeutic efficacy, and some even with severe side effects. We turned our interest into alkaloids separated from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), that usually act on multiple drug targets. In this article, we introduced the best-studied analgesic alkaloids derived from TCM, including tetrahydropalmatine, aloperine, oxysophocarpine, matrine, sinomenine, ligustrazine, evodiamine, brucine, tetrandrine, Stopholidine, and lappaconitine, focusing on their mechanisms and potential clinical applications. To better describe the mechanism of these alkaloids, we adopted the concept of drug-cloud (dCloud) theory. dCloud illustrated the full therapeutic spectrum of multitarget analgesics with two dimensions, which are “direct efficacy”, including inhibition of ion channels, activating γ-Aminobutyric Acid/opioid receptors, to suppress pain signal directly; and “background efficacy”, including reducing neuronal inflammation/oxidative stress, inhibition of glial cell activation, restoring the balance between excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmission, to cure the root causes of chronic pain. Empirical evidence showed drug combination is beneficial to 30–50% chronic pain patients. To promote the discovery of effective analgesic combinations, we introduced an ancient Chinese therapeutic regimen that combines herbal drugs with “Jun”, “Chen”, “Zuo”, and “Shi” properties. In dCloud, “Jun” drug acts directly on the major symptom of the disease; “Chen” drug generates major background effects; “Zuo” drug has salutary and supportive functions; and “Shi” drug facilitates drug delivery to the targeted tissue. Subsequently, using this concept, we interpreted the therapeutic effect of established analgesic compositions containing TCM derived analgesic alkaloids, which may contribute to the establishment of an alternative drug discovery model.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been 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 has been gaining interest since the beginning of the century, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated for almost 20 years in clinical trials. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2015.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of TC compared with placebo or other drugs in adults aged 18 years or above with chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid) databases, and reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries. We also contacted experts in the field. The most recent search was performed on 27 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author if necessary. Where required, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with P values. We used Review Manager Web software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model.  The review primary outcomes were: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater; participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater; much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC); and very much improved on PGIC. Secondary outcomes included withdrawals due to adverse events; participants experiencing at least one adverse event; and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. All outcomes were measured at the longest follow-up period. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review (two new in this update), with a total of 743 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). TC (0.1% or 0.2%) was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily. The double-blind treatment phase of three studies lasted 8 weeks to 85 days and compared TC versus placebo. In the fourth study, the double-blind treatment phase lasted 12 weeks and compared TC versus topical capsaicin. We assessed the studies as at unclear or high risk of bias for most domains; all studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment; one study was at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel; two studies were at high risk of attrition bias; and three studies were at high risk of bias due to notable funding concerns. We judged the certainty of evidence (GRADE) to be moderate to very low, downgrading for study limitations, imprecision of results, and publication bias. TC compared to placebo There was no evidence of a difference in number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.86; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). However, the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater during longest follow-up period (8 to 12 weeks) was higher in the TC group compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77; 344 participants; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for this comparison was 8.33 (95% CI 4.3 to 50.0). Also, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes much or very much improved on the PGIC during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) or very much improved on PGIC during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49 and RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.72, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference between groups in withdrawals due to adverse events and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.18 and RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.92, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence) and participants experiencing at least one adverse event during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.05; 344 participants; 2 studies; low certainty evidence).  TC compared to active comparator There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.0; 139 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is an update of a review published in 2015, for which our conclusions remain unchanged. Topical clonidine may provide some benefit to adults with painful diabetic neuropathy; however, the evidence is very uncertain. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine whether it is possible to predict who or which groups of people will benefit from TC.

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 and is associated with significant pain and disability. 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. This is the first update of the review originally published in Issue 2, 2016.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDro, Web of Science, DARE and Health Technology Assessments from February 2015 to July 2021 without language restrictions, we searched the reference lists of included studies and we contacted an expert in the field. We also searched additional online sources for unpublished trials and trials in progress.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physiotherapy interventions compared with placebo, no treatment, another intervention or usual care, or other physiotherapy interventions in adults with CRPS I and II. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were composite scores for CRPS symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient global impression of change (PGIC) scales and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened database searches for eligibility, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 new trials (600 participants) along with the 18 trials from the original review totalling 34 RCTs (1339 participants). Thirty-three trials included participants with CRPS I and one trial included participants with CRPS II. Included trials compared a diverse range of interventions including physical rehabilitation, electrotherapy modalities, cortically directed rehabilitation, electroacupuncture and exposure-based approaches. Most interventions were tested in small, single trials. Most were at high risk of bias overall (27 trials) and the remainder were at 'unclear' risk of bias (seven trials). For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Included trials rarely reported adverse effects. Physiotherapy compared with minimal care for adults with CRPS I One trial (135 participants) of multimodal physiotherapy, for which pain data were unavailable, found no between-group differences in pain intensity at 12-month follow-up. Multimodal physiotherapy demonstrated a small between-group improvement in disability at 12 months follow-up compared to an attention control (Impairment Level Sum score, 5 to 50 scale; mean difference (MD) -3.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.13 to -0.27) (very low-certainty evidence). Equivalent data for pain were not available. Details regarding adverse events were not reported. Physiotherapy compared with minimal care for adults with CRPS II We did not find any trials of physiotherapy compared with minimal care for adults with CRPS II.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physiotherapy interventions on pain and disability in CRPS. This conclusion is similar to our 2016 review. Large-scale, high-quality RCTs with longer-term follow-up are required to test the effectiveness of physiotherapy-based interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with CRPS I and II.

Comparison of Amitriptyline and US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Treatments for Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.

Objective

To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.

Data Sources

Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.

Results

A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.

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

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

Distinct CholinomiR Blood Cell Signature as a Potential Modulator of the Cholinergic System in Women with Fibromyalgia Syndrome

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a heterogeneous chronic pain syndrome characterized by musculoskeletal pain and other key co-morbidities including fatigue and a depressed mood. FMS involves altered functioning of the central and peripheral nervous system (CNS, PNS) and immune system, but the specific molecular pathophysiology remains unclear. Anti-cholinergic treatment is effective in FMS patient subgroups, and cholinergic signaling is a strong modulator of CNS and PNS immune processes. Therefore, we used whole blood small RNA-sequencing of female FMS patients and healthy controls to profile microRNA regulators of cholinergic transcripts (CholinomiRs). We compared microRNA profiles with those from Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients with pain as disease controls. We validated the sequencing results with quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) and identified cholinergic targets. Further, we measured serum cholinesterase activity in FMS patients and healthy controls. Small RNA-sequencing revealed FMS-specific changes in 19 CholinomiRs compared to healthy controls and PD patients. qRT-PCR validated miR-182-5p upregulation, distinguishing FMS patients from healthy controls. mRNA targets of CholinomiRs bone morphogenic protein receptor 2 and interleukin 6 signal transducer were downregulated. Serum acetylcholinesterase levels and cholinesterase activity in FMS patients were unchanged. Our findings identified an FMS-specific CholinomiR signature in whole blood, modulating immune-related gene expression.

Current Challenges in the Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women: From Bench to Bedside

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects a significant proportion of women worldwide And has a negative impact on several aspects of these women’s lives including mental health, work, relationships and sexual function, among others. This set of factors ultimately reflects negatively on quality Of life. The physiopathology of CPP is complex and remains to be fully clarified; however, recent advances have increased understanding of the mechanisms involved in chronic pain in general, and more specifically, CPP. Nonetheless, even when a detailed clinical history is obtained, meticulous physical examination is performed and imaging resources are appropriately used, the organic cause of the pain may still fail to be identified in a substantial number of women with CPP. Management of CPP may therefore be challenging. This narrative review was aimed at adding to the available literature on the subject, presenting and discussing the principal characteristics of CPP in women. The paper highlights gaps in the literature while providing the most up-to-date evidence associated with the physiopathology and classification of pain, its diagnosis and treatment. In addition, current challenges in the management of women with CPP are discussed.

Burning mouth syndrome: a review of therapeutic approach

Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is described by an intense burning sensation of the tongue or other oral areas without a clear etiopathology. The diagnosis of BMS is challenging due to variations of manifestations. The management of BMS is complicated due to the complex etiology of the disease. Many medications and treatment methods have been recommended for BMS management, but no one confirmed as the standard method. In this study, the therapeutic approaches of BMS were evaluated. The data of the article was obtained from PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The following terms including "burning mouth syndrome", "therapy", and "treatment" were used for search in the databases. A wide range of articles about the therapeutic approach of BMS was searched and reviewed. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches have been used for BMS management. Pharmacological treatments are including Capsaicin, Clonazepam, Low-dose aripiprazole, Alpha-lipoic acid, Duloxetine, Amitriptyline, Gabapentin, and Pregabalin, and ultra-micronized palmitoylethanolamide. Non-pharmacological therapies for BMS are cognitive therapy, Electroconvulsive therapy, Laser therapy, Acupuncture and auriculotherapy, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), Salivary Mechanical Stimulation, and Botulinum Toxin. A detailed assessment of the etiology and pathophysiology of BMS, and having information about novel therapeutic interventions are essential for the management of BMS.

Expert review and recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain in Qatar

BACKGROUND

Pain management is an evolving area of expertise in Qatar. Gaps in knowledge, inadequate training for physicians and nurses, and the absence of policies/guidelines are the main barriers to effective pain management in Qatar. In addition, the use of certain pain medication, especially opioids, is highly regulated, limiting their availability in outpatient pain management. These factors are responsible for the undertreatment of pain in Qatar. This study aimed to standardize evidence-based local recommendations for pharmacological treatment of pain in Qatar.

METHODS

An expert panel of physicians from different disciplines, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of the three pain types (i.e., acute, chronic, and neuropathic), was convened for two face-to-face meetings in Doha, Qatar, on November 29, 2019, and on February 22, 2020, with subsequent virtual meetings. A literature search was performed on Medline and Google Scholar databases from inception till December 2019, and all relevant articles were selected. Based on these articles and repeated feedback from the authors, the final pain treatment protocols were developed.

RESULTS

Recommendations for the treatment of acute pain, based on pain severity, followed three approaches: acetaminophen/paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and moderate pain and referral to a pain specialist for severe pain. Acetaminophen/paracetamol or NSAIDs is recommended for chronic pain, and the use of opioids was strongly discouraged because of its long-term side effects. For neuropathic pain, tricyclic antidepressants or gabapentin or pregabalin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors were recommended first-line agents. Non-responders must be referred to neurologists or a pain specialist.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel provides recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain based on international guidelines adapted to local practice and treatment availability in Qatar. More importantly, the panel has recommended taking extreme caution in the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic pain and to refer the patient to a pain specialist clinician as required.

Bridging the Translational Divide in Pain Research: Biological, Psychological and Social Considerations

A gap exists between translating basic science research into effective pain therapies in humans. While preclinical pain research has primarily used animal models to understand biological processes, a lesser focus has been toward using animal models to fully consider other components of the pain experience, such as psychological and social influences. Herein, we provide an overview of translational studies within pain research by breaking them down into purely biological, psychological and social influences using a framework derived from the biopsychosocial model. We draw from a wide landscape of studies to illustrate that the pain experience is highly intricate, and every attempt must be made to address its multiple components and interactors to aid in fully understanding its complexity. We highlight our work where we have developed animal models to assess the cognitive and social effects on pain modulation while conducting parallel experiments in people that provide proof-of-importance for human pain modulation. In some instances, human pain research has sparked the development of novel animal models, with these animal models used to better understand the complexity of phenomena considered to be uniquely human such as placebo responses and empathy.

Beyond Amitriptyline: A Pediatric and Adolescent Oriented Narrative Review of the Analgesic Properties of Psychotropic Medications for the Treatment of Complex Pain and Headache Disorders

Children and adolescents with recurrent or chronic pain and headache are a complex and heterogenous population. Patients are best served by multi-specialty, multidisciplinary teams to assess and create tailored, individualized pain treatment and rehabilitation plans. Due to the complex nature of pain, generalizing pharmacologic treatment recommendations in children with recurrent or chronic pains is challenging. This is particularly true of complicated patients with co-existing painful and psychiatric conditions. There is an unfortunate dearth of evidence to support many pharmacologic therapies to treat children with chronic pain and headache. This narrative review hopes to supplement the available treatment options for this complex population by reviewing the pediatric and adult literature for analgesic properties of medications that also have psychiatric indication. The medications reviewed belong to medication classes typically described as antidepressants, alpha 2 delta ligands, mood stabilizers, anti-psychotics, anti-sympathetic agents, and stimulants.

Association between concurrent antidepressant and hypnotic treatment and the risk of dementia: A nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the risk of dementia among subgroups of patients receiving concurrent antidepressant and hypnotic treatment, antidepressants alone, and hypnotics alone.

METHODS

Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine the effects of antidepressants and hypnotics on dementia risk after adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Compared with the reference group, patients receiving concurrent antidepressant and hypnotic treatment had the highest adjusted hazard ratio (aHR: 2.390, 95% CI: 2.224-2.536; P < 0.001) for all-cause dementia, followed by those receiving antidepressants alone (aHR: 1.919, 95% CI: 1.811-2.012; P < 0.001) and hypnotics alone (aHR: 1.458, 95% CI: 1.397-1.527; P < 0.001). With regard to dementia subtypes, trends similar to those for all-cause dementia were observed for Alzheimer's dementia, vascular dementia and other types of dementia. The sensitivity analysis conducted also found the robustness of findings. Notably, inconsistent findings were observed in subgroup with depression, revealing a null association between concurrent antidepressant and hypnotic treatment (aHR: 0.496; 95% CI: 0.183-1.343; P = 0.175) or hypnotics alone (aHR: 2.750; 95% CI: 0.797-9.482; P = 0.102) and the risk of dementia, and a negative association between antidepressants alone (aHR: 0.351; 95% CI: 0.130-0.942; P = 0.032) and the risk of dementia.

CONCLUSION

A null or negative association was observed between concurrent antidepressant and hypnotic treatment, antidepressants alone, hypnotics alone, and the dementia risk in the subgroup of patients with depression, suggesting the absence of an association between dementia risk and antidepressants alone or hypnotics alone.

Pain management in hidradenitis suppurativa and a proposed treatment algorithm

Pain contributes substantially to reduced quality of life in individuals living with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Although improved understanding of HS pathogenesis and treatment has resulted in improved evidence-based HS management guidelines, comprehensive pain management guidelines have yet to be developed. Few HS-specific data exist to guide pharmacologic analgesia; however, recognizing HS pain as either acute or chronic and predominantly nociceptive (aching and gnawing pain due to tissue damage) versus neuropathic (burning-type pain due to somatosensory nervous system dysfunction) provides a conceptual framework for applying outside pain management practices to HS management. This article incorporates the best available evidence from the HS and pain literature to propose an HS pain algorithm that integrates psychological, pharmacologic, and complementary and alternative treatment modalities.

Pharmacologic and Non-Pharmacologic Interventions for HIV-Neuropathy Pain. A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Among HIV infection symptoms, sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) remains a main cause of suffering, with incidence varying from 13-50%. So far, numerous pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments have been tested, although few evidence-based analgesic options are available. We conducted an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for pain control, in patients with HIV neuropathy. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus/Elsevier, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), USA Clinical Trials registry, and The International Web of Science up to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies were included. Efficacy was defined as pain reduction during the study period. Safety was estimated from adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed whenever possible. Results: 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for analysis (7 evaluating non pharmacologic interventions, 20 pharmacologic therapies). Non-pharmacologic studies (n = 742) involved seven different therapeutic modalities. Only Acupuncture/Moxibustion showed pain reduction over placebo, Gracely Pain Scale Mean (SD): Acu/Moxa 0.85 (0.12), placebo 1.10 (0.09), p = 0.05. Pharmacologic studies, involving 2516 patients revealed efficacy for capsaicin 8% over placebo (mean difference -8.04 [95% CI: -14.92 -1.15], smoked cannabis (where pooling data for meta-analysis was not possible) and recombinant Nerve Growth Factor. Conclusion: Despite various modalities for pain control in HIV-SN, strongest evidence exists for capsaicin 8% and smoked cannabis, although of low methodological quality. Among non-pharmacologic modalities, only Acu/Moxa gave a marginal beneficial effect in one study, possibly limited by inherent methodological flaws.

[Generating knowledge from complex data sets in human experimental pain research]

Pain has a complex pathophysiology that is expressed in multifaceted and heterogeneous clinical phenotypes. This makes research on pain and its treatment a potentially data-rich field as large amounts of complex data are generated. Typical sources of such data are investigations with functional magnetic resonance imaging, complex quantitative sensory testing, next-generation DNA sequencing and functional genomic research approaches, such as those aimed at analgesic drug discovery or repositioning of drugs known from other indications as new analgesics. Extracting information from these big data requires complex data scientific-based methods belonging more to computer science than to statistics. A particular interest is currently focused on machine learning, the methods of which are used for the detection of interesting and biologically meaningful structures in high-dimensional data. Subsequently, classifiers can be created that predict clinical phenotypes from, e.g. clinical or genetic features acquired from subjects. In addition, knowledge discovery in big data accessible in electronic knowledge bases, can be used to generate hypotheses and to exploit the accumulated knowledge about pain for the discovery of new analgesic drugs. This enables so-called data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) approaches to be followed in pain research. This article highlights current examples from pain research to provide an overview about contemporary data scientific methods used in this field of research.

Flexibility exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Exercise training is commonly recommended for adults with fibromyalgia. We defined flexibility exercise training programs as those involving movements of a joint or a series of joints, through complete range of motion, thus targeting major muscle-tendon units. This review is one of a series of reviews updating the first review published in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of flexibility exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2017, unrestricted by language, and we reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials (RCTs) including adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia based on published criteria. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, trial withdrawals, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, performed 'Risk of bias' assessments, and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. All discrepancies were rechecked, and consensus was achieved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs (743 people). Among these RCTs, flexibility exercise training was compared to an untreated control group, land-based aerobic training, resistance training, or other interventions (i.e. Tai Chi, Pilates, aquatic biodanza, friction massage, medications). Studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection bias (due to lack of adequate randomization and allocation concealment, lack of participant or personnel blinding, and lack of blinding for self-reported outcomes). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcomes were self-reported and were expressed on a 0-to-100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs) indicate improvement). We prioritized the findings of flexibility exercise training compared to land-based aerobic training and present them fully here.Very low-certainty evidence showed that compared with land-based aerobic training, flexibility exercise training (five trials with 266 participants) provides no clinically important benefits with regard to HRQoL, pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function. Low-certainty evidence showed no difference between these groups for withdrawals at completion of the intervention (8 to 20 weeks).Mean HRQoL assessed on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) Total scale (0 to 100, higher scores indicating worse HRQoL) was 46 mm and 42 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (2 studies, 193 participants); absolute change was 4% worse (6% better to 14% worse), and relative change was 7.5% worse (10.5% better to 25.5% worse) in the flexibility group. Mean pain was 57 mm and 52 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (5 studies, 266 participants); absolute change was 5% worse (1% better to 11% worse), and relative change was 6.7% worse (2% better to 15.4% worse). Mean fatigue was 67 mm and 71 mm in the aerobic and flexibility groups, respectively (2 studies, 75 participants); absolute change was 4% better (13% better to 5% worse), and relative change was 6% better (19.4% better to 7.4% worse). Mean physical function was 23 points and 17 points in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (1 study, 60 participants); absolute change was 6% worse (4% better to 16% worse), and relative change was 14% worse (9.1% better to 37.1% worse). We found very low-certainty evidence of an effect for stiffness. Mean stiffness was 49 mm to 79 mm in the flexibility and aerobic groups, respectively (1 study, 15 participants); absolute change was 30% better (8% better to 51% better), and relative change was 39% better (10% better to 68% better). We found no evidence of an effect in all-cause withdrawal between the flexibility and aerobic groups (5 studies, 301 participants). Absolute change was 1% fewer withdrawals in the flexibility group (8% fewer to 21% more), and relative change in the flexibility group compared to the aerobic training intervention group was 3% fewer (39% fewer to 55% more). It is uncertain whether flexibility leads to long-term effects (36 weeks after a 12-week intervention), as the evidence was of low certainty and was derived from a single trial.Very low-certainty evidence indicates uncertainty in the risk of adverse events for flexibility exercise training. One adverse effect was described among the 132 participants allocated to flexibility training. One participant had tendinitis of the Achilles tendon (McCain 1988), but it is unclear if the tendinitis was a pre-existing condition.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with aerobic training, it is uncertain whether flexibility improves outcomes such as HRQoL, pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Flexibility exercise training may lead to little or no difference for all-cause withdrawals. It is also uncertain whether flexibility exercise training has long-term effects due to the very low certainty of the evidence. We downgraded the evidence owing to the small number of trials and participants across trials, as well as due to issues related to unclear and high risk of bias (selection, performance, and detection biases). While flexibility exercise training appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), evidence on adverse events was scarce, therefore its safety is uncertain.

Psychology of Chronic Pelvic Pain: Prevalence, Neurobiological Vulnerabilities, and Treatment

Patients with pelvic pain suffer from psychological conditions at a disproportionately high rate compared with their peers. We review environmental, genetic, inflammatory, and neurobiological factors that increase vulnerability to developing both of these conditions. We review treatment strategies for chronic pelvic pain in patients who have comorbid psychological conditions, including both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic options.

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

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

Amitriptyline for fibromyalgia 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 efficacy of amitriptyline for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review. Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. It is usually used at doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews and other reviews, and two clinical trial registries. 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 fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. 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. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), and for harm we calculated the number needed to treat to harm (NNH) for adverse events and withdrawals. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies from the earlier review and two new studies (nine studies, 649 participants) of 6 to 24 weeks' duration, enrolling between 22 and 208 participants; none had 50 or more participants in each treatment arm. Two studies used a cross-over design. The daily dose of amitriptyline was 25 mg to 50 mg, and some studies had an initial titration period. There was no first or second tier evidence for amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Using third tier evidence the risk ratio (RR) for at least 50% pain relief, or equivalent, with amitriptyline compared with placebo was 3.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 4.9), with an NNT) of 4.1 (2.9 to 6.7) (very low quality evidence). There were no consistent differences between amitriptyline and placebo or other active comparators for relief of symptoms such as fatigue, poor sleep, quality of life, or tender points. More participants experienced at least one adverse event with amitriptyline (78%) than with placebo (47%). The RR was 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8) and the NNH was 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were more common with placebo (12% versus 5%; RR 0.42 (0.19 to 0.95)) (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for fibromyalgia for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against years of successful treatment in many patients with fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline will be one option in the treatment of fibromyalgia, while recognising that only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in fibromyalgia to establish efficacy statistically, or measure the size of the effect.

Antidepressant use in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden between 2009 and 2014: Incidence and comorbidities of antidepressant initiators

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe patterns of use and characteristics of 10 commonly used antidepressants for the period 2009-2014 in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden.

METHODS

Adult initiators from 2009 to 2014 of each study antidepressant were identified in four countries using five data sources: the Danish National registers, GePaRD (Germany), EpiChron (Aragon, Spain), SIDIAP (Catalonia, Spain), and the Swedish National Registers. The study included 10 study antidepressants: citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, amitriptyline, mirtazapine, and agomelatine.

RESULTS

Citalopram was the most prescribed study antidepressant, followed by mirtazapine. Paroxetine and agomelatine were the least prescribed antidepressants. Mirtazapine was widely used among older antidepressant initiators with higher percentages of comorbidities at baseline, and fluoxetine was used among young patients. Citalopram and amitriptyline had the lowest percentage of multiple antidepressant use in the 12 months prior to the current treatment episode, while agomelatine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine had the highest percentage of multiple antidepressant use in the year prior to the current treatment episode.

LIMITATIONS

The most important limitations are exposure information based on filled prescriptions, focus on antidepressant initiators only, lack of information on the indication, and heterogeneity of the type of data across data sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study including 4.8 million study antidepressant initiators of study antidepressants suggest that citalopram and mirtazapine are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. Agomelatine and paroxetine were the least used antidepressants in the participating populations. Mirtazapine was the antidepressant most commonly prescribed among older antidepressant initiators with high percentage of comorbidities at baseline, whereas fluoxetine was commonly used among young patients.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Facts and myths pertaining to fibromyalgia

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

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

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

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

Predictors of pain, urinary symptoms and quality of life in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS): A prospective 12-month follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

Chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) can affect both men and women and often causes substantial impairment to quality of life. Although cross-sectional studies have suggested that psychosocial aspects may constitute important factors in the etiology and maintenance of CPPS, longitudinal studies are rare. Therefore, the present study examines psychosocial factors as prospective predictors of pain intensity, urinary symptoms and impediments to quality of life in men and women with CPPS.

METHODS

Data were collected from patients during visits to a specialized, interdisciplinary outpatient clinic and after 12 months. Outcomes included pain intensity, urinary symptoms and impediments to quality of life, all of which were measured with the NIH-CPSI. Age, sex, depressive-anxious symptomatology (PHQ-ADS), pain catastrophizing (PCS), health anxiety (WI-7) and social support (FSozU) were examined as predictors in multivariate linear regressions.

RESULTS

Data from 109 patients (59.6% female; age M = 49.3, SD = 16.7) were analyzed. Pain severity (β = .30, p = .004), age (β = .22, p = .02), urinary symptoms (β = .24, p = .01) and depressive-anxious symptomatology (β = .29, p = .009) at baseline emerged as predictors of pain at follow-up. Urinary symptoms were predicted by urinary symptoms (β = .53, p < .001) and depressive-anxious symptomatology (β = .25, p = .01) at baseline; impediments to quality of life were predicted by depressive-anxious symptomatology (β = .27, p = .01).

CONCLUSION

Psychological factors, especially depressive-anxious symptomatology, predict CPPS-specific symptom severity and impediments to quality of life after 12 months and thus substantially contribute to the chronification of CPPS. It is recommended to address anxiety and depression in patients with CPPS as early as possible in biopsychosocially oriented treatment approaches.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The effect of amitriptyline administration on pain-related behaviors in morphine-dependent rats: Hypoalgesia or hyperalgesia?

Pain control in opioid-dependent individuals is a clinical complication. The present study investigated the effects of different doses of amitriptyline in the three stages of the formalin test in morphine-dependent rats (MDRs). Morphine dependency was induced using the oral method, and then, amitriptyline-induced antinociceptive effects were measured at 4 doses (2.5, 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg) and compared with the control group in a formalin-based model of pain. There was no observed antinociceptive effect in the MDRs and morphine-naïve rats (MNRs) in phase I. In the interphase, amitriptyline induced pain suppression at doses of 5 and 20 mg/kg. In phase II, at doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg, the hypoalgesic effect on pain-related behaviors was seen in the MNRs. In MDRs, amitriptyline at doses of 2.5 and 5 mg/kg caused the hyperalgesic effect, whereas at 10 and 20 mg/kg doses, it induced a hypoalgesic effect. A significant attenuation was observed in the latency to fall from the accelerating rotarod at doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg in the MDRs, and at a dose of 20 mg/kg in the MNRs. Data showed that amitriptyline dose-dependently induced paradoxical hypo- and hyper-algesic effects in MDRs.

A machine-learned analysis of human gene polymorphisms modulating persisting pain points to major roles of neuroimmune processes

Background

Human genetic research has implicated functional variants of more than one hundred genes in the modulation of persisting pain. Artificial intelligence and machine‐learning techniques may combine this knowledge with results of genetic research gathered in any context, which permits the identification of the key biological processes involved in chronic sensitization to pain.

Methods

Based on published evidence, a set of 110 genes carrying variants reported to be associated with modulation of the clinical phenotype of persisting pain in eight different clinical settings was submitted to unsupervised machine‐learning aimed at functional clustering. Subsequently, a mathematically supported subset of genes, comprising those most consistently involved in persisting pain, was analysed by means of computational functional genomics in the Gene Ontology knowledgebase.

Results

Clustering of genes with evidence for a modulation of persisting pain elucidated a functionally heterogeneous set. The situation cleared when the focus was narrowed to a genetic modulation consistently observed throughout several clinical settings. On this basis, two groups of biological processes, the immune system and nitric oxide signalling, emerged as major players in sensitization to persisting pain, which is biologically highly plausible and in agreement with other lines of pain research.

Conclusions

The present computational functional genomics‐based approach provided a computational systems‐biology perspective on chronic sensitization to pain. Human genetic control of persisting pain points to the immune system as a source of potential future targets for drugs directed against persisting pain. Contemporary machine‐learned methods provide innovative approaches to knowledge discovery from previous evidence.

Significance

We show that knowledge discovery in genetic databases and contemporary machine‐learned techniques can identify relevant biological processes involved in Persitent pain.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

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

Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain, despite a number of clinical trials being undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 14 February 2017. We also cross checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with treatment duration of eight weeks or longer comparing acupuncture (either given alone or in combination with other therapies) with sham acupuncture, other active therapies, or treatment as usual, for neuropathic pain in adults. We searched for studies of acupuncture based on needle insertion and stimulation of somatic tissues for therapeutic purposes, and we excluded other methods of stimulating acupuncture points without needle insertion. We searched for studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture or other acupuncture techniques used in clinical practice (such as warm needling, fire needling, etc).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain relief. The secondary outcomes were any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement, withdrawals, participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We also calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where possible. We combined all data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies involving 462 participants with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (442 completers (251 male), mean ages 52 to 63 years). The included studies recruited 403 participants from China and 59 from the UK. Most studies included a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm) and all studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (four out of six studies), allocation concealment (five out of six) and selective reporting (all included studies). All studies investigated manual acupuncture, and we did not identify any study comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, nor any study investigating other acupuncture techniques (such as electroacupuncture, warm needling, fire needling).One study compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the two interventions on reducing pain intensity (n = 45; MD -0.4, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence), and neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain' (visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10) average score was 5.8 and 6.2 respectively in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, where 0 = no pain). There was limited data on quality of life, which showed no clear difference between groups. Evidence was not available on pain relief, adverse events or other pre-defined secondary outcomes for this comparison.Three studies compared acupuncture alone versus other therapies (mecobalamin combined with nimodipine, and inositol). Acupuncture may reduce the risk of 'no clinical response' to pain than other therapies (n = 209; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51), however, evidence was not available for pain intensity, pain relief, adverse events or any of the other secondary outcomes.Two studies compared acupuncture combined with other active therapies (mecobalamin, and Xiaoke bitong capsule) versus other active therapies used alone. We found that the acupuncture combination group had a lower VAS score for pain intensity (n = 104; MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.95) and improved quality of life (n = 104; MD -2.19, 95% CI -2.39 to -1.99), than those receiving other therapy alone. However, the average VAS score of the acupuncture and control groups was 3.23 and 4.25 respectively, indicating neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Furthermore, this evidence was from a single study with high risk of bias and a very small sample size. There was no evidence on pain relief and we identified no clear differences between groups on other parameters, including 'no clinical response' to pain and withdrawals. There was no evidence on adverse events.The overall quality of evidence is very low due to study limitations (high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias, and high risk of bias confounded by small study size) or imprecision. We have limited confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of acupuncture for neuropathic pain in general, or for any specific neuropathic pain condition when compared with sham acupuncture or other active therapies. Five studies are still ongoing and seven studies are awaiting classification due to the unclear treatment duration, and the results of these studies may influence the current findings.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.Two studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.Only one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.There were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.There was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.One study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.The quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.

WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsants for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. 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. Anticonvulsants (antiepileptic drugs) are drugs frequently used for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticonvulsants for treating FM symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), PsycINFO (1966 to August 2013), SCOPUS (1980 to August 2013) and the reference lists of reviewed articles for published studies and www.clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any formulation of anticonvulsants used for the treatment of people with FM of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies: five with pregabalin and one study each with gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam. A total of 2480 people were included into anticonvulsants groups and 1099 people in placebo groups. The median therapy phase of the studies was 13 weeks. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM. The amount and quality of evidence was sufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in FM. Therefore, we focused on our interpretation of the evidence for pregabalin due to our greater certainty about its effects and its greater relevance to clinical practice. All pregabalin studies had a low risk of bias. Reporting a 50% or greater reduction in pain was more frequent with pregabalin use than with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33 to 1.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12; 95% CI 9 to 21). The number of people who reported being 'much' or 'very much' improved was higher with pregabalin than with placebo (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; NNTB 9; 95% CI 7 to 15). Pregabalin did not substantially reduce fatigue (SMD -0.17; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.09; 2.7% absolute improvement on a 1 to 50 scale) compared with placebo. Pregabalin had a small benefit over placebo in reducing sleep problems by 6.2% fewer points on a scale of 0 to 100 (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.27). The dropout rate due to adverse events was higher with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.07; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 13; 95% CI 9 to 23). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between pregabalin and placebo use (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49). Dizziness was reported as an adverse event more frequently with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 3.77; 95% CI 3.06 to 4.63; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The anticonvulsant, pregabalin, demonstrated a small benefit over placebo in reducing pain and sleep problems. Pregabalin use was shown not to substantially reduce fatigue compared with placebo. Study dropout rates due to adverse events were higher with pregabalin use compared with placebo. Dizziness was a particularly frequent adverse event seen with pregabalin use. At the time of writing this review, pregabalin is the only anticonvulsant drug approved for treating FM in the US and in 25 other non-European countries. However, pregabalin has not been approved for treating FM in Europe. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM.

Whole body vibration exercise training for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Exercise training is commonly recommended for adults with fibromyalgia. We defined whole body vibration (WBV) exercise as use of a vertical or rotary oscillating platform as an exercise stimulus while the individual engages in sustained static positioning or dynamic movements. The individual stands on the platform, and oscillations result in vibrations transmitted to the subject through the legs. This review is one of a series of reviews that replaces the first review published in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate benefits and harms of WBV exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, AMED, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 2016, unrestricted by language, to identify potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia based on published criteria including a WBV intervention versus control or another intervention. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessments, and assessed the quality of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. We used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies involving 150 middle-aged female participants from one country. Two studies had two treatment arms (71 participants) that compared WBV plus mixed exercise plus relaxation versus mixed exercise plus relaxation and placebo WBV versus control, and WBV plus mixed exercise versus mixed exercise and control; two studies had three treatment arms (79 participants) that compared WBV plus mixed exercise versus control and mixed relaxation placebo WBV. We judged the overall risk of bias as low for selection (random sequence generation), detection (objectively measured outcomes), attrition, and other biases; as unclear for selection bias (allocation concealment); and as high for performance, detection (self-report outcomes), and selective reporting biases.The WBV versus control comparison reported on three major outcomes assessed at 12 weeks post intervention based on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) (0 to 100 scale, lower score is better). Results for HRQL in the control group at end of treatment (59.13) showed a mean difference (MD) of -3.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] -10.81 to 3.35) for absolute HRQL, or improvement of 4% (11% better to 3% worse) and relative improvement of 6.7% (19.6% better to 6.1% worse). Results for withdrawals indicate that 14 per 100 and 10 per 100 in the intervention and control groups, respectively, withdrew from the intervention (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.67; absolute change 4%, 95% CI 16% fewer to 24% more; relative change 43% more, 95% CI 73% fewer to 667% more). The only adverse event reported was acute pain in the legs, for which one participant dropped out of the program. We judged the quality of evidence for all outcomes as very low. This study did not measure pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, or physical function. No outcomes in this comparison met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance.The WBV plus mixed exercise (aerobic, strength, flexibility, and relaxation) versus control study (N = 21) evaluated symptoms at six weeks post intervention using the FIQ. Results for HRQL at end of treatment (59.64) showed an MD of -16.02 (95% CI -31.57 to -0.47) for absolute HRQL, with improvement of 16% (0.5% to 32%) and relative change in HRQL of 24% (0.7% to 47%). Data showed a pain intensity MD of -28.22 (95% CI -43.26 to -13.18) for an absolute difference of 28% (13% to 43%) and a relative change of 39% improvement (18% to 60%); as well as a fatigue MD of -33 (95% CI -49 to -16) for an absolute difference of 33% (16% to 49%) and relative difference of 47% (95% CI 23% to 60%); and a stiffness MD of -26.27 (95% CI -42.96 to -9.58) for an absolute difference of 26% (10% to 43%) and a relative difference of 36.5% (23% to 60%). All-cause withdrawals occurred in 8 per 100 and 33 per 100 withdrawals in the intervention and control groups, respectively (two studies, N = 46; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.12) for an absolute risk difference of 24% (3% to 51%). One participant exhibited a mild anxiety attack at the first session of WBV. No studies in this comparison reported on physical function. Several outcomes (based on the findings of one study) in this comparison met the 15% threshold for clinical relevance: HRQL, pain intensity, fatigue, and stiffness, which improved by 16%, 39%, 46%, and 36%, respectively. We found evidence of very low quality for all outcomes.The WBV plus mixed exercise versus other exercise provided very low quality evidence for all outcomes. Investigators evaluated outcomes on a 0 to 100 scale (lower score is better) for pain intensity (one study, N = 23; MD -16.36, 95% CI -29.49 to -3.23), HRQL (two studies, N = 49; MD -6.67, 95% CI -14.65 to 1.31), fatigue (one study, N = 23; MD -14.41, 95% CI -29.47 to 0.65), stiffness (one study, N = 23; MD -12.72, 95% CI -26.90 to 1.46), and all-cause withdrawal (three studies, N = 77; RR 0.72, 95% CI -0.17 to 3.11). Adverse events reported for the three studies included one anxiety attack at the first session of WBV and one dropout from the comparison group ("other exercise group") due to an injury that was not related to the program. No studies reported on physical function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whether WBV or WBV in addition to mixed exercise is superior to control or another intervention for women with fibromyalgia remains uncertain. The quality of evidence is very low owing to imprecision (few study participants and wide confidence intervals) and issues related to risk of bias. These trials did not measure major outcomes such as pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, and physical function. Overall, studies were few and were very small, which prevented meaningful estimates of harms and definitive conclusions about WBV safety.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.

Aerobic exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review is one of a series of reviews about exercise training for people with fibromyalgia that will replace the "Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome" review first published in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

• To evaluate the benefits and harms of aerobic exercise training for adults with fibromyalgia• To assess the following specific comparisons ० Aerobic versus control conditions (eg, treatment as usual, wait list control, physical activity as usual) ० Aerobic versus aerobic interventions (eg, running vs brisk walking) ० Aerobic versus non-exercise interventions (eg, medications, education) We did not assess specific comparisons involving aerobic exercise versus other exercise interventions (eg, resistance exercise, aquatic exercise, flexibility exercise, mixed exercise). Other systematic reviews have examined or will examine these comparisons (Bidonde 2014; Busch 2013).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Thesis and Dissertation Abstracts, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry up to June 2016, unrestricted by language, and we reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia that compared aerobic training interventions (dynamic physical activity that increases breathing and heart rate to submaximal levels for a prolonged period) versus no exercise or another intervention. Major outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain intensity, stiffness, fatigue, physical function, withdrawals, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed a risk of bias assessment, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for major outcomes using the GRADE approach. We used a 15% threshold for calculation of clinically relevant differences between groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs (839 people). Studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection bias (owing to lack of blinding for self-reported outcomes) and had low risk of attrition and reporting bias. We prioritized the findings when aerobic exercise was compared with no exercise control and present them fully here.Eight trials (with 456 participants) provided low-quality evidence for pain intensity, fatigue, stiffness, and physical function; and moderate-quality evidence for withdrawals and HRQL at completion of the intervention (6 to 24 weeks). With the exception of withdrawals and adverse events, major outcome measures were self-reported and were expressed on a 0 to 100 scale (lower values are best, negative mean differences (MDs)/standardized mean differences (SMDs) indicate improvement). Effects for aerobic exercise versus control were as follows: HRQL: mean 56.08; five studies; N = 372; MD -7.89, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.55; absolute improvement of 8% (3% to 13%) and relative improvement of 15% (5% to 24%); pain intensity: mean 65.31; six studies; N = 351; MD -11.06, 95% CI -18.34 to -3.77; absolute improvement of 11% (95% CI 4% to 18%) and relative improvement of 18% (7% to 30%); stiffness: mean 69; one study; N = 143; MD -7.96, 95% CI -14.95 to -0.97; absolute difference in improvement of 8% (1% to 15%) and relative change in improvement of 11.4% (21.4% to 1.4%); physical function: mean 38.32; three studies; N = 246; MD -10.16, 95% CI -15.39 to -4.94; absolute change in improvement of 10% (15% to 5%) and relative change in improvement of 21.9% (33% to 11%); and fatigue: mean 68; three studies; N = 286; MD -6.48, 95% CI -14.33 to 1.38; absolute change in improvement of 6% (12% improvement to 0.3% worse) and relative change in improvement of 8% (16% improvement to 0.4% worse). Pooled analysis resulted in a risk ratio (RR) of moderate quality for withdrawals (17 per 100 and 20 per 100 in control and intervention groups, respectively; eight studies; N = 456; RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.89 to 1.77; absolute change of 5% more withdrawals with exercise (3% fewer to 12% more).Three trials provided low-quality evidence on long-term effects (24 to 208 weeks post intervention) and reported that benefits for pain and function persisted but did not for HRQL or fatigue. Withdrawals were similar, and investigators did not assess stiffness and adverse events.We are uncertain about the effects of one aerobic intervention versus another, as the evidence was of low to very low quality and was derived from single trials only, precluding meta-analyses. Similarly, we are uncertain of the effects of aerobic exercise over active controls (ie, education, three studies; stress management training, one study; medication, one study) owing to evidence of low to very low quality provided by single trials. Most studies did not measure adverse events; thus we are uncertain about the risk of adverse events associated with aerobic exercise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with control, moderate-quality evidence indicates that aerobic exercise probably improves HRQL and all-cause withdrawal, and low-quality evidence suggests that aerobic exercise may slightly decrease pain intensity, may slightly improve physical function, and may lead to little difference in fatigue and stiffness. Three of the reported outcomes reached clinical significance (HRQL, physical function, and pain). Long-term effects of aerobic exercise may include little or no difference in pain, physical function, and all-cause withdrawal, and we are uncertain about long-term effects on remaining outcomes. We downgraded the evidence owing to the small number of included trials and participants across trials, and because of issues related to unclear and high risks of bias (performance, selection, and detection biases). Aerobic exercise appears to be well tolerated (similar withdrawal rates across groups), although evidence on adverse events is scarce, so we are uncertain about its safety.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

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). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Update on Treatment Guideline in Fibromyalgia Syndrome with Focus on Pharmacology

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

Imipramine versus placebo for multiple functional somatic syndromes (STreSS-3): a double-blind, randomised study

BACKGROUND

Functional somatic syndromes, including chronic fatigue syndrome or irritable bowel syndrome, often co-exist. Treatment guidelines supported by high quality evidence exist for most functional somatic syndromes, but are lacking for multiple comorbid functional somatic syndromes. We aimed to assess the effect of the tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, in patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes defined by the criteria for multiorgan bodily distress syndrome, a unifying diagnosis that encompasses most functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders.

METHODS

In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial done in a Danish university hospital setting, participants were patients consecutively referred (age 20-50 years) fulfilling criteria for multiorgan bodily distress syndrome with no concurrent comorbid depression or anxiety disorder. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 10 weeks of low-dose imipramine or placebo (oral daily doses of 25-75 mg). The hospital pharmacy handled randomisation (computer-generated) and masking, providing sequentially numbered packs of study drug that were given serially to the participants. All others involved were masked to allocation. Primary outcome was patient-rated overall health improvement on a 5-point clinical global improvement scale. Improvement was defined as patients responding "better" or "much better" as opposed to "unchanged" and "worse" or "much worse" when rating their overall health status after 10 weeks of minimum 25 mg study drug. Analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01518634.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 30, 2012, and Nov 24, 2014, 138 patients were randomly assigned; 70 to receive imipramine and 68 to receive placebo. The study was completed on May 1, 2015. 125 patients received at least one dose of study drug: 65 received imipramine and 60 received placebo. Treatment was terminated prematurely for eight (12%) patients receiving imipramine and seven (12%) patients receiving placebo. Data were missing for two (3%) patients receiving imipramine and three (5%) patients receiving placebo. Of the 120 patients (96%) who provided primary outcome data, 33 (53%) receiving imipramine reported their overall health status as "better" or "much better" compared with 14 patients (25%) receiving placebo. The improvement after imipramine was significantly greater than after placebo (odds ratio 3·3 [95% CI 1·6-6·8]; p=0·001). Number needed to treat was 3·6 (95% CI 2·3-8·9). Analysis of the worst-case scenario for patients with missing outcome did not change the interpretation of the results. 32 patients (49%) receiving imipramine and 10 patients (17%) receiving placebo had at least one adverse event of moderate intensity (p=0·0001); eight patients (12%) receiving imipramine and three patients (5%) receiving placebo had at least one adverse event of severe intensity (p=0·1496). One patient (1%) receiving placebo experienced a serious adverse event (a subdural haematoma sustained after an accident). Adverse events caused dropout in four patients (6%) receiving imipramine and three patients (5%) receiving placebo.

INTERPRETATION

Imipramine treatment compared with placebo significantly improved overall health in patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes when both treatments were supported by regular contacts with clinicians. Adverse events were more common in the imipramine group, but only rarely led to discontinuation of treatment.

FUNDING

The Danish Foundation, Trygfonden.

Risk analysis of use of different classes of antidepressants on subsequent dementia: A nationwide cohort study in Taiwan

Depression and dementia are common mental health problems and are associated in several ways. Early-life depression is associated with increased risk of later life dementia, and depression can present as a preclinical symptom or consequence of dementia. Despite the plausible relationship between these two clinical entities, the potential association between antidepressant medication and dementia has rarely been investigated. We conducted a 9-year retrospective analysis of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), enrolling 5819 cases who had received prescriptions of antidepressants between 2003 and 2006, and 23,276 (with ratio of 1:4) age, sex, and index date-matched controls. The hazard ratio (HR) of dementia among antidepressant users with depression was 2.42 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15–5.10), for those without depression was 4.05 (95% CI: 3.19–5.15), compared to antidepressant non-users respectively. Among the 6 classes of common antidepressants used in Taiwan, the adjusted HRs were 3.66 (95% CI: 2.62–5.09) for SSRIs, 4.73 (95% CI: 2.54–8.80) for SNRI, 3.26 (95% CI: 2.30–4.63) for TCAs, 6.62 (95% CI: 3.34–13.13) for TeCA, 4.94 (95% CI: 2.17–11.24) for MAOI, and 4.48 (95% CI: 3.13–6.40) for SARI. Furthermore, the multivariate analysis result showed that the adjusted HRs of cumulative defined daily doses (cDDDs) were 3.74 (95% CI: 2.91–4.82), 3.73 (95% CI: 2.39–5.80) and 5.22 (95% CI: 3.35–8.14) for those who had cDDDs of <90, 90–180 and >180 compared to those who had taken no antidepressant medication. This is a retrospective study based on secondary data, hence, we could not claim causality between antidepressant medication and dementia. However, a potential association between antidepressant and occurrence of dementia after controlling for the status of depression was observed. Lack of patients’ data about smoking status and body mass index in NHIRD, which are considered related to dementia, was also a limitation in this study. In this study, we concluded that antidepressant medication is a potential risk factor for dementia, independent from any effect of depression itself.

Capsaicin 8% Patch Versus Oral Neuropathic Pain Medications for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, aiming to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of the capsaicin 179-mg (8% weight for weight) cutaneous patch (capsaicin 8% patch) compared with oral, centrally acting agents (ie, pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline) in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN).

METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials. Data from eligible studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, and analyses were based on aggregate-level data. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in pain, and tolerability outcomes were somnolence, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, headache, fatigue, insomnia, and rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed by using a Bayesian NMA. Fixed and random effects models were estimated. Relative treatment effect was presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Sources of heterogeneity were assessed.

FINDINGS

The NMA included 25 randomized controlled trials. For ≥30% pain reduction, the capsaicin 8% patch was significantly more effective than placebo (OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.19-4.03]), exhibited a numerical advantage compared with pregabalin (OR, 1.83 [95% CI, 0.91-3.34]) and gabapentin (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.74-3.23]), and had similar efficacy compared with duloxetine (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.5-1.79]). The evidence available was not sufficient to assess the relative efficacy of amitriptyline. In the NMA for tolerability, the capsaicin 8% patch was only included for headache because the incidence was 0% for the other outcomes. Oral, centrally acting agents had a significantly elevated risk compared with placebo for somnolence (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), dizziness (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), nausea (duloxetine), diarrhea (duloxetine), fatigue (duloxetine), and discontinuation because of AEs (pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine). Compared with pregabalin and gabapentin, duloxetine had a significantly lower risk of dizziness but a significantly higher risk of nausea.

IMPLICATIONS

This NMA suggests that the efficacy observed with the capsaicin 8% patch is similar to that observed with oral agents (ie, pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin) in patients with PDPN. The oral agents were associated with a significantly elevated risk of somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, and discontinuation because of AEs compared with placebo. The capsaicin 8% patch was as effective as oral centrally acting agents in these patients with PDPN but offers systemic tolerability benefits.