Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for fibromyalgia syndrome

[Modern ideas about the relationship between fibromyalgia and mental disorders]

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a pain syndrome with a high burden and an understudied etiology and pathogenesis. There is now considerable evidence that FM has a strong bidirectional relationship with psychiatric disorders and is associated with certain personality traits that contribute to the severity of key somatic symptoms and affect overall prognosis. In this article, the authors present data from recent epidemiological and neurobiological studies, discuss the multilevel relationship between FM and psychiatric disorders, and briefly review approaches to the treatment of co-morbid conditions.

Using High-Definition Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation to Treat Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Double-Blinded Controlled Study

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of high-definition transcranial alternating current stimulation (HD-tACS) to the left primary motor cortex (M1) in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) patients. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial, patients with FM were recruited in a teaching hospital. Thirty-eight patients were randomized to active HD-tACS (n = 19) or sham stimulation (n = 19). Active stimulation included a daily session of 20-min stimulation of 1 mA HD-tACS over the left M1 for ten sessions in two weeks. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity and quality of life, assessed using the numeric rating scale (NRS) and the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) at baseline and after two weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included other core symptoms of FM (psychological distress, sleep quality, hyperalgesia measured by pressure pain threshold) and changes in biomarkers’ total Tau and Aβ1-42. All analyses were based on intention-to-treat for a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: Of the 38 randomized patients, 35 completed the study. After two weeks, HD-tACS induced a significant reduction in FIQ score post-treatment. However, there were no significant differences in NRS and FIQ scores compared to sham stimulation. Most adverse events were mild in severity. Nevertheless, one patient receiving HD-tACS attempted suicide during the trial. Conclusions: These results suggest that HD-tACS may effectively reduce pain, psychological distress, and symptom impacts in FM patients. However, we found no significant differences between the two groups. Future studies investigating HD-tACS in FM are warranted.

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.

Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease

Sickle cell disease (SCD), which affects approximately 100,000 individuals in the USA and more than 3 million worldwide, is caused by mutations in the βb globin gene that result in sickle hemoglobin production. Sickle hemoglobin polymerization leads to red blood cell sickling, chronic hemolysis and vaso-occlusion. Acute and chronic pain as well as end-organ damage occur throughout the lifespan of individuals living with SCD resulting in significant disease morbidity and a median life expectancy of 43 years in the USA. In this review, we discuss advances in the diagnosis and management of four major complications: acute and chronic pain, cardiopulmonary disease, central nervous system disease and kidney disease. We also discuss advances in disease-modifying and curative therapeutic options for SCD. The recent availability of L-glutamine, crizanlizumab and voxelotor provides an alternative or supplement to hydroxyurea, which remains the mainstay for disease-modifying therapy. Five-year event-free and overall survival rates remain high for individuals with SCD undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant using matched sibling donors. However, newer approaches to graft-versus-host (GVHD) prophylaxis and the incorporation of post-transplant cyclophosphamide have improved engraftment rates, reduced GVHD and have allowed for alternative donors for individuals without an HLA-matched sibling. Despite progress in the field, additional longitudinal studies, clinical trials as well as dissemination and implementation studies are needed to optimize outcomes in SCD.

Milnacipran for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia

Purpose of review

This is a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the use of milnacipran in treating fibromyalgia. A chronic pain disorder with other system disturbances, fibromyalgia is often resistant to many therapeutic approaches. This review presents the background, evidence, and indications for using milnacipran as a treatment option for this condition.

Recent Findings

The definition of fibromyalgia has evolved over many years as it is a relatively tricky syndrome to measure objectively. Today, it is characterized by chronic, widespread pain accompanied by alterations in sleep, mood, and other behavioral aspects. A variety of therapeutic regimens currently used to treat the syndrome as a singular approach are rarely effective.Milnacipran is one of three drugs currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of fibromyalgia. It acts as a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, which results in decreased pain transmission. Milnacipran remains an effective treatment option for fibromyalgia in adults and needs to be further evaluated with existing therapeutic approaches.

Summary

Fibromyalgia is a broad-spectrum disorder primarily characterized by chronic pain coupled with disturbances in cognitive functioning and sleep. The progression of this syndrome is often debilitating and significantly affects the quality of life. Milnacipran is one of three FDA-approved drugs used to alleviate the symptom burden and is comparatively more therapeutic in specific domains of fibromyalgia. A more holistic approach is needed to treat fibromyalgia effectively and further research, including direct comparison studies, should be conducted to fully evaluate the usefulness of this drug.

Chronic Pain in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic pain is highly prevalent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can cause various physical and psychological impairments. Unfortunately, the appropriate diagnosis of chronic pain syndromes in this population can be challenging because pain may be primary to RA-specific inflammation and/or secondary to other conditions, typically osteoarthritis (OA) and fibromyalgia (FM). This disparity further poses a clinical challenge, given that chronic pain can often be discordant or undetected with standard RA-specific surveillance strategies, including serological markers and imaging studies. In this review, we provide a robust exploration of chronic pain in the RA population with emphasis on epidemiology, mechanisms, and management strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chronic pain associated with RA typically occurs in patients with anxiety, female sex, and elevated inflammatory status. Up to 50% of these patients are thought to have chronic pain despite appropriate inflammatory suppression, typically due to peripheral and central sensitization as well as secondary OA and FM. In addition to the standard-of-care management for OA and FM, patients with RA and chronic pain benefit from behavioral and psychological treatment options. Moreover, early and multimodal therapies, including non-pharmacological, pharmacological, interventional, and surgical strategies, exist, albeit with varying efficacy, to help suppress inflammation, provide necessary analgesia, and optimize functional outcomes. Overall, chronic pain in RA is a difficult entity for both patients and providers. Early diagnosis, improved understanding of its mechanisms, and initiation of early, targeted approaches to pain control may help to improve outcomes in this population.

The Role of Vitamin D in the Management of Chronic Pain in Fibromyalgia: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a complex disorder characterized primarily by chronic, widespread musculoskeletal pain. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of three medications to treat FM: pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran. The pharmaceutical intervention has lacked consistent pain relief among all patients. Therefore, the investigation into alternative treatment options has grown in interest. This narrative review aims to evaluate the evidence regarding vitamin D for the treatment of FM.

METHODS

Narrative review.

RESULTS

Low serum vitamin D has been linked to various chronic pain states. An association between vitamin D deficiency and FM has been reported but is controversial in the literature. Some studies have documented the beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation on reducing pain symptoms and improving the overall quality of life in those with FM. Despite these positive findings, many of the studies regarding this topic lack adequate power to make substantial conclusions about the effects of vitamin D on FM.

CONCLUSION

Existing studies provide promising results. However, additional high-quality data on vitamin D supplementation is needed before recommendations for pain management can be made. Vitamin D supplementation is inexpensive, has minimal side effects, and can benefit FM patients regardless of its efficacy in pain control. Additionally, high-quality studies are warranted to fully elucidate the potential of vitamin D to manage chronic pain in FM.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for sickle cell disease: management of acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

The management of acute and chronic pain for individuals living with sickle cell disease (SCD) is a clinical challenge. This reflects the paucity of clinical SCD pain research and limited understanding of the complex biological differences between acute and chronic pain. These issues collectively create barriers to effective, targeted interventions. Optimal pain management requires interdisciplinary care.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines developed by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in pain management decisions for children and adults with SCD.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including 2 patient representatives, that was thoroughly vetted to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic reviews. Clinical questions and outcomes were prioritized according to importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on 18 recommendations specific to acute and chronic pain. The recommendations reflect a broad pain management approach, encompassing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions and analgesic delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of low-certainty evidence and closely balanced benefits and harms, most recommendations are conditional. Patient preferences should drive clinical decisions. Policymaking, including that by payers, will require substantial debate and input from stakeholders. Randomized controlled trials and comparative-effectiveness studies are needed for chronic opioid therapy, nonopioid therapies, and nonpharmacological interventions.

Serotonergic Neurotransmission System Modulator, Vortioxetine, and Dopaminergic D2/D3 Receptor Agonist, Ropinirole, Attenuate Fibromyalgia-Like Symptoms in Mice

Fibromyalgia is a disease characterized by lowered pain threshold, mood disorders, and decreased muscular strength. It results from a complex dysfunction of the nervous system and due to unknown etiology, its diagnosis, treatment, and prevention are a serious challenge for contemporary medicine. Impaired serotonergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission are regarded as key factors contributing to fibromyalgia. The present research assessed the effect of serotonergic and dopaminergic system modulators (vortioxetine and ropinirole, respectively) on the pain threshold, depressive-like behavior, anxiety, and motor functions of mice with fibromyalgia-like symptoms induced by subcutaneous reserpine (0.25 mg/kg). By depleting serotonin and dopamine in the mouse brain, reserpine induced symptoms of human fibromyalgia. Intraperitoneal administration of vortioxetine and ropinirole at the dose of 10 mg/kg alleviated tactile allodynia. At 5 and 10 mg/kg ropinirole showed antidepressant-like properties, while vortioxetine had anxiolytic-like properties. None of these drugs influenced muscle strength but reserpine reduced locomotor activity of mice. Concluding, in the mouse model of fibromyalgia vortioxetine and ropinirole markedly reduced pain. These drugs affected emotional processes of mice in a distinct manner. Hence, these two repurposed drugs should be considered as potential drug candidates for fibromyalgia. The selection of a specific drug should depend on patient’s key symptoms.

Insomnia - A Heterogenic Disorder Often Comorbid With Psychological and Somatic Disorders and Diseases: A Narrative Review With Focus on Diagnostic and Treatment Challenges

Patients with insomnia complain of problems with sleep onset or sleep maintenance or early morning awakenings, or a combination of these, despite adequate opportunity and circumstances for sleep. In addition, to fulfill the diagnostic criteria for insomnia the complaints need to be associated with negative daytime consequences. For chronic insomnia, the symptoms are required to be present at least 3 days per week for a duration of at least 3 months. Lastly, for insomnia to be defined as a disorder, the sleep complaints and daytime symptoms should not be better explained by another sleep disorder. This criterion represents a diagnostic challenge, since patients suffering from other sleep disorders often complain of insomnia symptoms. For instance, insomnia symptoms are common in e.g., obstructive sleep apnea and circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders. It may sometimes be difficult to disentangle whether the patient suffers from insomnia disorder or whether the insomnia symptoms are purely due to another sleep disorder. Furthermore, insomnia disorder may be comorbid with other sleep disorders in some patients, e.g., comorbid insomnia and sleep apnea (COMISA). In addition, insomnia disorder is often comorbid with psychological or somatic disorders and diseases. Thus, a thorough assessment is necessary for correct diagnostics. For chronic insomnia disorder, treatment-of-choice is cognitive behavioral therapy, and such treatment is also effective when the insomnia disorder appears comorbid with other diagnoses. Furthermore, studies suggest that insomnia is a heterogenic disorder with many different phenotypes or subtypes. Different insomnia subtypes may respond differently to treatment, but more research on this issue is warranted. Also, the role of comorbidity on treatment outcome is understudied. This review is part of a Research Topic on insomnia launched by Frontiers and focuses on diagnostic and treatment challenges of the disorder. The review aims to stimulate to more research into the bidirectional associations and interactions between insomnia disorder and other sleep, psychological, and somatic disorders/diseases.

Non-Cancer Chronic Pain Conditions and Risk for Incident Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study of United States Medicare Beneficiaries, 2001-2013

Accumulating evidence suggests that certain chronic pain conditions may increase risk for incident Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Rigorous longitudinal research remains relatively sparse, and the relation of overall chronic pain condition burden to ADRD risk remains little studied, as has the potential mediating role of sleep and mood disorders. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the association of common non-cancer chronic pain conditions (NCPC) at baseline to subsequent risk for incident ADRD, and assessed the potential mediating effects of mood and sleep disorders, using baseline and 2-year follow-up data using 11 pooled cohorts (2001-2013) drawn from the U.S. Medicare Current Beneficiaries Survey (MCBS). The study sample comprised 16,934 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 and ADRD-free at baseline. NCPC included: headache, osteoarthritis, joint pain, back or neck pain, and neuropathic pain, ascertained using claims data; incident ADRD (N = 1149) was identified using claims and survey data. NCPC at baseline remained associated with incident ADRD after adjustment for sociodemographics, lifestyle characteristics, medical history, medications, and other factors (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for any vs. no NCPC = 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.40; p = 0.003); the strength and magnitude of this association rose significantly with increasing number of diagnosed NCPCs (AOR for 4+ vs. 0 conditions = 1.91, CI = 1.31-2.80, p-trend < 0.00001). Inclusion of sleep disorders and/or depression/anxiety modestly reduced these risk estimates. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings. NCPC was significantly and positively associated with incident ADRD; this association may be partially mediated by mood and sleep disorders. Additional prospective studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted to confirm and extend our findings.

Treatment preferences in fibromyalgia patients: A cross-sectional web-based survey

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic approaches to fibromyalgia (FM) are shifting towards a combined multi-treatment approach to tackle the variety of symptoms experienced in FM. Importantly, little is known about FM patients' attitude towards the available treatments.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web survey obtained responses from 464 individuals who satisfied diagnostic criteria for FM. Respondents were asked to report which treatments they adopted in their past, present and intend to adopt in the future. They also rated their level of well-being, depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing.

RESULTS

Data revealed a predominantly combined multi-treatment approach in a sample characterized by middle-aged, Caucasian women. Respondents reported pervasive use of pharmacological therapy but had also adopted non-pharmacological treatment in the past. Future intentions clustered on alternative treatment or no treatment. Regression analyses revealed that pharmacological treatment in the past was predictive of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in the present. However, use of non-pharmacological treatment in the past was uniquely predictive of its reuse in the present and future. This pattern was also accounted for by individual differences in pain magnification and well-being in the past.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment preferences of FM individuals reveal an ambivalent combination of heavy reliance on pharmacological treatment with lower but consistent reliance on non-pharmacological treatment for those individuals who used it in the past and present. This finding may inform longitudinal research into the relationship between pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment preference in FM patients, which could in turn inform guidelines for individualized therapeutic plans for clinicians.

SIGNIFICANCE

Individuals with fibromyalgia reported the use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments in the past but a predominant use of a pharmacological approach overall. Patterns of treatment experienced in the past were differentially related to future preferences. Pharmacological treatment in the past was likely to lead to both pharmacological and non-pharmacological choices in the present. However, non-pharmacological treatment in the past was more likely to be chosen again in the present and future, but unlikely to lead to a pharmacological choice.

The Comparison of the Biological Rhythms of Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome with Biological Rhythms of Healthy Controls

Background

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a rheumatic disease characterized by diffuse body pain and decreased muscle function. The aim of the present study was to compare the biological rhythms of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome with the biological rhythms of healthy controls.

Material/Methods

This was a cross-sectional, single blind, and single center case-control study. The patients with fibromyalgia were evaluated using a Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Biological Rhythms Interview of Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (BRIAN) Scale, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Results

The study included 77 female patients with FMS, and 32 healthy female individuals as the control group. We found that the patients in the FMS group achieved higher scores in VAS, BDI, PSQI, and the BRIAN scale than the patients in the control group (P<0.001). An evaluation of the relationship between FMS evaluation parameters and biological rhythm scores in patients with FMS revealed a significant positive correlation between total BRAIN and VAS, FIQ, BDI, and PSQI scores. When the relationship between FMS evaluation parameters and biological rhythm scores was evaluated in patients with FMS, a significant positive correlation was found between total BRAIN and VAS, FIQ, BDI, and PSQI scores (r=0.555, P<0.001; r=0.461, P<0.001; r=0.630, P<0.001; and r=0.551, P<0.001 respectively).

Conclusions

We consider that an evaluation of the biological rhythm of female patients with FMS, and appropriate treatment when required, would contribute significantly to the treatment and follow-up process of the patients.

Acupuncture for Fibromyalgia: An Open-Label Pragmatic Study on Effects on Disease Severity, Neuropathic Pain Features, and Pain Catastrophizing

The treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is still far from being optimally coded, and pharmacological strategies are often unsatisfactory. Acupuncture plays a role among nonpharmacological intervention approaches; however, there is still no clarity as to when to integrate it into therapy. The objective of this study is to explore the role of acupuncture, in terms of efficacy on main disease severity measures and pain features, in patients with nonresponsive disease, defining nonresponsive FMS characterized by a revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-R) ≥39 and a Patient Health Questionnaire 15-item (PHQ15) ≥5 despite optimal drug therapy. Patients were treated with weekly sessions, for a total of eight acupuncture sessions. At the baseline and at the end of the treatment cycle, a comprehensive clinical evaluation was carried out to evaluate improvements in terms of disease severity and impact on neuropathic pain features (measured with the painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ)) and pain catastrophizing (measured with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)). At the end of the eight-week treatment, patients experienced a significant improvement in all evaluated parameters (for FIQ-R, PDQ, and PHQ15 p < 0.0001, for PCS p=0.001). Of particular note is the effectiveness on manifestations that are difficult to treat such as neuropathic pain features and on negative psychological perceptions such as pain catastrophizing. It can be stated that acupuncture can be proposed also in phases of high severity of disease. Intervention with multimodal strategies, including acupuncture, could be of great benefit to patients.

Current and Emerging Pharmacotherapy for Fibromyalgia

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

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.

Impact of water therapy on pain management in patients with fibromyalgia: current perspectives

Exercise-related interventions have been recommended as one of the main components in the management of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Water therapy, which combines water's physical properties and exercise benefits, has proven effective in improving the clinical symptoms of FMS, especially pain, considered the hallmark of this syndrome. However, to our knowledge, the mechanisms underlying water therapy effects on pain are still scarcely explored in the literature. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to present the current perspectives on water therapy and the physiological basis for the mechanisms supporting its use for pain management in patients with FMS. Furthermore, the effects of water therapy on the musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, cardiovascular, respiratory, and neuroendocrine systems and inflammation are also addressed. Taking into account the aspects reviewed herein, water therapy is recommended as a nonpharmacologic therapeutic approach in the management of FMS patients, improving pain, fatigue, and quality of life. Future studies should focus on clarifying whether mechanisms and long-lasting effects are superior to other types of nonpharmacological interventions, as well as the economic and societal impacts that this intervention may present.

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.

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.

Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress

Functional somatic syndromes (FSS), like irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia and other symptoms reflecting bodily distress, are common in practically all areas of medicine worldwide. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to these symptoms and syndromes vary substantially across and within medical specialties from biomedicine to psychiatry. Patients may become frustrated with the lack of effective treatment, doctors may experience these disorders as difficult to treat, and this type of health problem forms an important component of the global burden of disease. This review intends to develop a unifying perspective on the understanding and management of FSS and bodily distress. Firstly, we present the clinical problem and review current concepts for classification. Secondly, we propose an integrated etiological model which encompasses a wide range of biopsychosocial vulnerability and triggering factors and considers consecutive aggravating and maintaining factors. Thirdly, we systematically scrutinize the current evidence base in terms of an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 and give recommendations for treatment for all levels of care, concentrating on developments over the last 10 years. We conclude that activating, patient-involving, and centrally acting therapies appear to be more effective than passive ones that primarily act on peripheral physiology, and we recommend stepped care approaches that translate a truly biopsychosocial approach into actual management of the patient.

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.

[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.

Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Case Report on Controlled Remission of Symptoms by a Dietary Strategy

A 34-year-old woman suffered from significant chronic pain, depression, non-restorative sleep, chronic fatigue, severe morning stiffness, leg cramps, irritable bowel syndrome, hypersensitivity to cold, concentration difficulties, and forgetfulness. Blood tests were negative for rheumatic disorders. The patient was diagnosed with Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Due to the lack of effectiveness of pharmacological therapies in FMS, she approached a novel metabolic proposal for the symptomatic remission. Its core idea is supporting serotonin synthesis by allowing a proper absorption of tryptophan assumed with food, while avoiding, or at least minimizing the presence of interfering non-absorbed molecules, such as fructose and sorbitol. Such a strategy resulted in a rapid improvement of symptoms after only few days on diet, up to the remission of most symptoms in 2 months. Depression, widespread chronic pain, chronic fatigue, non-restorative sleep, morning stiffness, and the majority of the comorbidities remitted. Energy and vitality were recovered by the patient as prior to the onset of the disease, reverting the occupational and social disabilities. The patient episodically challenged herself breaking the dietary protocol leading to its negative test and to the evaluation of its benefit. These breaks correlated with the recurrence of the symptoms, supporting the correctness of the biochemical hypothesis underlying the diet design toward remission of symptoms, but not as a final cure. We propose this as a low risk and accessible therapeutic protocol for the symptomatic remission in FMS with virtually no costs other than those related to vitamin and mineral salt supplements in case of deficiencies. A pilot study is required to further ground this metabolic approach, and to finally evaluate its inclusion in the guidelines for clinical management of FMS.

Neuromodulators for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction): A Rome Foundation Working Team Report

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Central neuromodulators (antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other central nervous system-targeted medications) are increasingly used for treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), now recognized as disorders of gut-brain interaction. However, the available evidence and guidance for the use of central neuromodulators in these conditions is scanty and incomplete. In this Rome Foundation Working Team report, a multidisciplinary team summarized available research evidence and clinical experience to provide guidance and treatment recommendations.

METHODS

The working team summarized the literature on the pharmacology of central neuromodulators and their effects on gastrointestinal sensorimotor function and conducted an evidence-based review on their use for treating FGID syndromes. Because of the paucity of data for FGIDs, we included data for non-gastrointestinal painful disorders and specific symptoms of pain, nausea, and vomiting. This information was combined into a final document comprising a synthesis of available evidence and recommendations for clinical use guided by the research and clinical experience of the experts on the committee.

RESULTS

The evidence-based review on neuromodulators in FGID, restricted by the limited available controlled trials, was integrated with open-label studies and case series, along with the experience of experts to create recommendations using a consensus (Delphi) approach. Due to the diversity of conditions and complexity of treatment options, specific recommendations were generated for different FGIDs. However, some general recommendations include: (1) low to modest dosages of tricyclic antidepressants provide the most convincing evidence of benefit for treating chronic gastrointestinal pain and painful FGIDs and serotonin noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors can also be recommended, though further studies are needed; (2) augmentation, that is, adding a second treatment (adding quetiapine, aripiprazole, buspirone α2δ ligand agents) is recommended when a single medication is unsuccessful or produces side effects at higher dosages; (3) treatment should be continued for 6-12 months to potentially prevent relapse; and (4) implementation of successful treatment requires effective communication skills to improve patient acceptance and adherence, and to optimize the patient-provider relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on systematic and selectively focused review and the consensus of a multidisciplinary panel, we have provided summary information and guidelines for the use of central neuromodulators in the treatment of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms and FGIDs. Further studies are needed to confirm and refine these recommendations.

Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. People with fibromyalgia often report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy, for example, with serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), focuses on reducing key symptoms and improving quality of life. This review updates and extends the 2013 version of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles, to 8 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized, controlled trials of any formulation of SNRIs against placebo or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data, examined study quality, and assessed risk of bias. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 50% or greater and of 30% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardized mean differences (SMD) for fatigue, sleep problems, health-related quality of life, mean pain intensity, depression, anxiety, disability, sexual function, cognitive disturbances and tenderness. For tolerability we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawals due to adverse events and for nausea, insomnia and somnolence as specific adverse events. For safety we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We added eight new studies with 1979 participants for a total of 18 included studies with 7903 participants. Seven studies investigated duloxetine and nine studies investigated milnacipran against placebo. One study compared desvenlafaxine with placebo and pregabalin. One study compared duloxetine with L-carnitine. The majority of studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in three to five domains.The quality of evidence of all comparisons of desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and milnacipran versus placebo in studies with a parallel design was low due to concerns about publication bias and indirectness, and very low for serious adverse events due to concerns about publication bias, imprecision and indirectness. The quality of evidence of all comparisons of duloxetine and desvenlafaxine with other active drugs was very low due to concerns about publication bias, imprecision and indirectness.Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater: 1274 of 4104 (31%) on duloxetine and milnacipran reported pain relief of 50% or greater compared to 591 of 2814 (21%) participants on placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.11; NNTB 11, 95% CI 9 to 14). Duloxetine and milnacipran had a clinically relevant benefit over placebo in patient's global impression to be much or very much improved: 888 of 1710 (52%) on duloxetine and milnacipran (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 8) reported to be much or very much improved compared to 354 of 1208 (29%) of participants on placebo. Duloxetine and milnacipran had a clinically relevant benefit compared to placebo for pain relief of 30% or greater. RD was 0.10; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.12; NNTB 10, 95% CI 8 to 12. Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit for fatigue (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.08; NNTB 18, 95% CI 12 to 29), compared to placebo. There were no differences between either duloxetine or milnacipran and placebo in reducing sleep problems (SMD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.15 to 0.01). Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit compared to placebo in improving health-related quality of life (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.15; NNTB 11, 95% CI 8 to 14).There were 794 of 4166 (19%) participants on SNRIs who dropped out due to adverse events compared to 292 of 2863 (10%) of participants on placebo (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; NNTH 14, 95% CI 10 to 25). There was no difference in serious adverse events between either duloxetine, milnacipran or desvenlafaxine and placebo (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00).There was no difference between desvenlafaxine and placebo in efficacy, tolerability and safety in one small trial.There was no difference between duloxetine and desvenlafaxine in efficacy, tolerability and safety in two trials with active comparators (L-carnitine, pregabalin).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The update did not change the major findings of the previous review. Based on low- to very low-quality evidence, the SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided no clinically relevant benefit over placebo in the frequency of pain relief of 50% or greater, but for patient's global impression to be much or very much improved and in the frequency of pain relief of 30% or greater there was a clinically relevant benefit. The SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided no clinically relevant benefit over placebo in improving health-related quality of life and in reducing fatigue. Duloxetine and milnacipran did not significantly differ from placebo in reducing sleep problems. The dropout rates due to adverse events were higher for duloxetine and milnacipran than for placebo. On average, the potential benefits of duloxetine and milnacipran in fibromyalgia were outweighed by their potential harms. However, a minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically relevant adverse events with duloxetine or milnacipran.We did not find placebo-controlled studies with other SNRIs than desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and milnacipran.

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.

Fibromyalgia: Treating Pain in the Juvenile Patient

Presently, evidence for the efficacy of medications for the treatment of juvenile fibromyalgia syndrome (JFMS) is limited. While there are medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (duloxetine, milnacipran and pregabalin) for adults with fibromyalgia syndrome, there are none for the treatment of JFMS. A variety of medications have been prescribed for the treatment of JFMS, including (but not limited to) non-opioid analgesics, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and muscle relaxants. Psychological therapies, most prominently cognitive behavioral therapy, are the most evidenced-based treatment modalities for JFMS. A multidisciplinary approach, combining pharmacological, behavioral and exercise-based modalities is currently the standard of care for JFMS. In the future, more stringent randomized, controlled trials with longer follow-up periods are needed in order to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of medications in the treatment of JFMS. Additionally, improved recognition of JFMS will allow for better patient recruitment to permit for adequately powered study designs.

Adverse Effects of Antidepressants for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Antidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain.

Methods

Systematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis.

Results

Out of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects.

Conclusion

Our synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients’ comorbidities and co-medication.

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.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids in chronic pain associated with rheumatic diseases (fibromyalgia syndrome, back pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis): A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In the absence of an ideal treatment for chronic pain associated with rheumatic diseases, there is interest in the potential effects of cannabinoid molecules, particularly in the context of global interest in the legalization of herbal cannabis for medicinal use.

METHODS

A systematic search until April 2015 was conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, www.cannabis-med.org and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials with a study duration of at least 2 weeks and at least ten patients per treatment arm with herbal cannabis or pharmaceutical cannabinoid products in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), osteoarthritis (OA), chronic spinal pain, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pain. Outcomes were reduction of pain, sleep problems, fatigue and limitations of quality of life for efficacy, dropout rates due to adverse events for tolerability, and serious adverse events for safety. The methodology quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

Two RCTs of 2 and 4 weeks duration respectively with nabilone, including 71 FMS patients, one 4-week trial with nabilone, including 30 spinal pain patients, and one 5-week study with tetrahydrocannbinol/cannabidiol, including 58 RA patients were included. One inclusion criterion was pain refractory to conventional treatment in three studies. No RCT with OA patients was found. The risk of bias was high for three studies. The findings of a superiority of cannabinoids over controls (placebo, amitriptyline) were not consistent. Cannabinoids were generally well tolerated despite some troublesome side effects and safe during the study duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence for recommendation for any cannabinoid preparations for symptom management in patients with chronic pain associated with rheumatic diseases.

Reduced Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines after Eight Weeks of Low-Dose Naltrexone for Fibromyalgia

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a complex, multi-symptom condition that predominantly affects women. The majority of those affected are unlikely to gain significant symptomatic control from the few treatments that are approved for FM. In this 10-week, single-blind, crossover trial we tested the immune effects of eight weeks of oral administration of low-dose naltrexone (LDN). We enrolled eight women with an average age of 46 years, symptom severity of 62 out of 100, and symptom duration of 14 years. We found that LDN was associated with reduced plasma concentrations of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-1Ra, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12p40, IL-12p70, IL-15, IL-17A, IL-27, interferon (IFN)-α, transforming growth factor (TGF)-α, TGF-β, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). We also found a 15% reduction of FM-associated pain and an 18% reduction in overall symptoms. The findings of this pilot trial suggest that LDN treatment in fibromyalgia is associated with a reduction of several key pro-inflammatory cytokines and symptoms. The potential role of LDN as an atypical anti-inflammatory medication should be explored further.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Recommendations of the updated LONTS guidelines. Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain]

BACKGROUND

The regular update of the German S3 guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), the"LONTS" (AWMF registration number 145/003), began in November 2013.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed by 26 scientific societies and two patient self-help organisations under the coordination of the Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft (German Pain Society). A systematic literature search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Scopus databases (up until October 2013) was performed. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The strength of the recommendations was established by multistep formal procedures, in order to reach a consensus according to German Association of the Medical Scientific Societies ("Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlich Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften", AWMF) regulations. The guidelines were reviewed by the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association, the Austrian Pain Society and the Swiss Association for the Study of Pain.

RESULTS

Opioids are one drug-based treatment option for short- (4-12 weeks), intermediate- (13-25 weeks) and long-term (≥ 26 weeks) therapy of chronic osteoarthritis, diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia and low back pain. Contraindications are primary headaches, as well as functional somatic syndromes and mental disorders with the (cardinal) symptom pain. For all other clinical presentations, a short- and long-term therapy with opioid-containing analgesics should be evaluated on an individual basis. Long-term therapy with opioid-containing analgesics is associated with relevant risks (sexual disorders, increased mortality).

CONCLUSION

Responsible application of opioid-containing analgesics requires consideration of possible indications and contraindications, as well as regular assessment of efficacy and adverse effects. Neither an uncritical increase in opioid application, nor the global rejection of opioid-containing analgesics is justified in patients with CNCP.

Management of Widespread Pain and Fibromyalgia

Specialists' views of fibromyalgia (FM) are typically colored by their experiences of the selected, complex cases that they are regularly called to evaluate. At a population level, it is crucial to recognize that education which promotes patient empowerment and non-pharmacological interventions which support self-management are very effective. The temptation, for both physician and patient, to first reach for pharmacological interventions should be resisted until such holistic approaches are explored. In particular, a strong evidence base supports graded exercise and cognitive behavioral therapies, but such treatments must be intelligently "prescribed." As reflected by the recent ACR criteria, FM is a highly heterogeneous disorder and is not simply a disorder of pain. For some patients, co-occurring symptoms, such as fatigue, can be equally as impactful and so management strategies should be sufficiently versatile to target those dimensions which are considered priorities at the level of the individual patient. In those patients who do require pharmacological support, patients should not be led to expect significant gains in isolation. The importance of self-management requires emphasis at each and every tier of management. It is true that advances in our understanding of neurobiology have greatly informed the selection of adjunctive drug classes which may provide benefit (as well as those which do not-as is the case of opioids). However, further unpicking of pathogenesis is still required if the FM landscape is to move further towards drug-led management.

Pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Section 3. Pharmacological Treatments

BACKGROUND

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) conducted a revision of the 2009 guidelines by updating the evidence and recommendations. The scope of the 2016 guidelines remains the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, with a target audience of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.

METHODS

Using the question-answer format, we conducted a systematic literature search focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Evidence was graded using CANMAT-defined criteria for level of evidence. Recommendations for lines of treatment were based on the quality of evidence and clinical expert consensus. "Pharmacological Treatments" is the third of six sections of the 2016 guidelines. With little new information on older medications, treatment recommendations focus on second-generation antidepressants.

RESULTS

Evidence-informed responses are given for 21 questions under 4 broad categories: 1) principles of pharmacological management, including individualized assessment of patient and medication factors for antidepressant selection, regular and frequent monitoring, and assessing clinical and functional outcomes with measurement-based care; 2) comparative aspects of antidepressant medications based on efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including summaries of newly approved drugs since 2009; 3) practical approaches to pharmacological management, including drug-drug interactions and maintenance recommendations; and 4) managing inadequate response and treatment resistance, with a focus on switching antidepressants, applying adjunctive treatments, and new and emerging agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based pharmacological treatments are available for first-line treatment of MDD and for management of inadequate response. However, given the limitations of the evidence base, pharmacological management of MDD still depends on tailoring treatments to the patient.

Oxycodone for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cannabinoids for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Three-Quarters of Persons in the US Population Reporting a Clinical Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia Do Not Satisfy Fibromyalgia Criteria: The 2012 National Health Interview Survey

OBJECTIVES

Although fibromyalgia criteria have been in effect for decades, little is known about how the fibromyalgia diagnosis is applied and understood by clinicians and patients. We used the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to determine the prevalence of self-reported clinician diagnosed fibromyalgia and then compared demographics, symptoms, disability and medical utilization measures of persons with a clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia that did not meet diagnostic criteria (false-positive or prior [F/P] fibromyalgia) to persons with and without criteria-positive fibromyalgia.

METHODS

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) collected information about both clinical diagnosis and symptoms of fibromyalgia that was appropriately weighted to represent 225,726,257 US adults. Surrogate NHIS diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia were developed based on the level of polysymptomatic distress (PSD) as characterized in the 2011 modified American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR) for fibromyalgia. Persons with F/P fibromyalgia were compared with persons who do not have fibromyalgia and those meeting surrogate NHIS fibromyalgia criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 1.78% of persons reporting a clinical diagnosis, 73.5% did not meet NHIS fibromyalgia criteria. The prevalence of F/P fibromyalgia is 1.3%. F/P fibromyalgia is associated with a mild degree of polysymptomatic distress (NHIS PSD score 6.2) and characterized by frequent but not widespread pain and insomnia. Measures of work disability and medical utilization in F/P fibromyalgia were equal to that seen with NHIS criteria positive fibromyalgia and were 6-7x greater in F/P fibromyalgia than in non-fibromyalgia persons. F/P fibromyalgia was best predicted by being female (Odds Ratio [OR] 8.81), married (OR 3.27), and white (OR 1.96). In contrast, being a white, married woman was only modestly predictive of NHIS (criteria positive) fibromyalgia (OR 2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of clinically diagnosed fibromyalgia cases in the US do not reach levels of severity necessary and sufficient for diagnosis. The clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia is disproportionally dependent on demographic and social factors rather than the symptoms themselves. Diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia appear to be used as a vague guide by clinicians and patients, and allow for substantial diagnostic expansion of fibromyalgia.

Antipsychotics for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. It affects approximately 2% of the general population. Up to 70% of patients with fibromyalgia meet the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving health-related quality of life. Antipsychotics might reduce fibromyalgia and associated mental health symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of antipsychotics in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE to 20 May 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews and two clinical trial registries. We also contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected controlled trials of at least four weeks duration of any formulation of antipsychotics used for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the data from all included studies and two review authors independently assessed study risks of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. We derived first tier evidence from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs, at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of four studies with 296 participants.Three studies with 206 participants compared quetiapine, an atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic, with placebo. One study used a cross-over design and two studies a parallel-group design. Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. Quetiapine was used in all studies with a bedtime dosage between 50 and 300 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias and we judged them to be at moderate risk of bias overall. The primary outcomes in this review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety).Second tier evidence indicated that quetiapine was not statistically superior to placebo in the number of participants with a 50% or more pain reduction (very low quality evidence). No study reported data on PGIC. A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a 30% or more pain reduction (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 100) (very low quality evidence). A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a clinically relevant improvement of health-related quality of life compared to placebo ( RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 20) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.23), depression (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.04) and anxiety (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing the risk of withdrawing from the study due to a lack of efficacy (RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05) (very low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and placebo in the proportion of participants withdrawing due to adverse events (tolerability) (very low quality evidence), in the frequency of serious adverse events (safety) (very low quality evidence) and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness and somnolence as an adverse event (very low quality evidence). In more participants in the quetiapine group a substantial weight gain was noted (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; number needed to treat for an additional harm (NNTH) 12, 95% CI 6 to 50) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels to a very low quality rating because of limitations of study design, indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed).One parallel design study with 90 participants compared quetiapine (50 to 300 mg/day flexible at bedtime) to amitriptyline (10 to 75 mg/day flexible at bedtime). The study had three major risks of bias and we judged it to be at moderate risk of bias overall. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels to a low quality rating because of indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed). Third tier evidence indicated no statistically significant differences between the two drugs. Both drugs did not statistically significantly differ in the reduction of average scores for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, depression, anxiety and for limitations of health-related quality of life and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness, somnolence and weight gain as a side effect (low quality evidence). Compared to amitriptyline, more participants left the study due to adverse events (low quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).We found no relevant study with other antipsychotics than quetiapine in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine may be considered for a time-limited trial (4 to 12 weeks) to reduce pain, sleep problems, depression and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients with major depression. Potential side effects such as weight gain should be balanced against the potential benefits in shared decision making with the patient.

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain--United States, 2016

IMPORTANCE

Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose.

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.

PROCESS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

Characterizing "fibrofog": Subjective appraisal, objective performance, and task-related brain activity during a working memory task

The subjective experience of cognitive dysfunction ("fibrofog") is common in fibromyalgia. This study investigated the relation between subjective appraisal of cognitive function, objective cognitive task performance, and brain activity during a cognitive task using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Sixteen fibromyalgia patients and 13 healthy pain-free controls completed a battery of questionnaires, including the Multiple Ability Self-Report Questionnaire (MASQ), a measure of self-perceived cognitive difficulties. Participants were evaluated for working memory performance using a modified N-back working memory task while undergoing Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) fMRI measurements. Fibromyalgia patients and controls did not differ in working memory performance. Subjective appraisal of cognitive function was associated with better performance (accuracy) on the working memory task in healthy controls but not in fibromyalgia patients. In fibromyalgia patients, increased perceived cognitive difficulty was positively correlated with the severity of their symptoms. BOLD response during the working memory task did not differ between the groups. BOLD response correlated with task accuracy in control subjects but not in fibromyalgia patients. Increased subjective cognitive impairment correlated with decreased BOLD response in both groups but in different anatomic regions. In conclusion, "fibrofog" appears to be better characterized by subjective rather than objective impairment. Neurologic correlates of this subjective experience of impairment might be separate from those involved in the performance of cognitive tasks.

Effect of Milnacipran on Pain in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Widespread Pain: A Randomized Blinded Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have shown that serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, such as milnacipran, decrease pain in noninflammatory pain conditions such as fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. We examined the effect of milnacipran on self-reported pain intensity and experimental pain sensitivity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with widespread pain and stable RA disease activity.

METHODS

In this double-blind, crossover study, patients with RA with widespread pain, receiving a stable treatment regimen, were randomized (by a random number generator) to receive milnacipran 50 mg twice daily or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by a 3-week washout and crossed over to the other arm for the remaining 6 weeks. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity, assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory short form. The sample size was calculated to detect a 30% improvement in pain with power = 0.80 and α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 43 randomized subjects, 41 received the study drug, and 32 completed the 15-week study per protocol. On a 0-10 scale, average pain intensity decreased by 0.39 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.49, p = 0.37) more points during 6 weeks of milnacipran treatment compared with placebo. In the subgroup of subjects with swollen joint count ≤ 1, average pain intensity decreased by 1.14 more points during 6 weeks of milnacipran compared with placebo (95% CI -2.26 to -0.01, p = 0.04). Common adverse events included nausea (26.8%) and loss of appetite (9.7%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, milnacipran did not improve overall, self-reported pain intensity among subjects with widespread pain receiving stable RA medications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01207453.

Milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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