A Meta-Analysis of Pain Response in the Treatment of Fibromyalgia

Pregabalin administration in patients with fibromyalgia: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Several studies investigated the effectiveness and the safety of different doses of pregabalin in fibromyalgia. However, the optimal protocol remains controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing 300, 450, and 600 mg/daily of pregabalin for fibromyalgia was conducted. The literature search was conducted in January 2022. All the double-blind randomised clinical trials comparing two or more dose protocols of pregabalin for fibromyalgia were accessed. Studies enrolling less than 50 patients were not eligible, nor were those with a length of follow-up shorter than eight weeks. The outcomes of interests were: Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), sleep quality, and adverse events. The network meta-analyses were performed using the routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis, with log odd ratio (LOR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) effect measure. Data from 4693 patients (mean age 48.5 years) were retrieved. 93.1% (4370 of 4693 patients) were women. The median follow-up was 14.8 weeks. Pregabalin 450 mg/daily resulted in greater reduction in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (SMD − 1.83). Pregabalin 600 demonstrated the greatest sleep quality (SMD 0.15). Pregabalin 300 mg/daily evidenced the lowest rate of adverse events (LOR 0.12). The dose of pregabalin must be customised according to patients’ characteristics and main symptoms.

Efficiency of an Optimized Care Organization in Fibromyalgia Patients: The From Intent to Move (FIMOUV) Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by multiple symptoms including pain, fatigue, and sleep disorders, altering patient's quality of life. In the absence of effective pharmacological therapy, the last European guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary management based on exercise and education. Thus, our main objective was to measure the effectiveness of a healthcare organization offering a specific program of adapted physical activity combined with a therapeutic education program for FM patients.

Methods and Analysis: The From Intent To Move (FIMOUV) study will recruit 330 FM patients randomized into two groups: test and control. The test group will benefit from a 1-month mixed exercise training program supervised at the hospital, followed by 2 months in a community-based relay in a health-sport structure. In addition, each of the two groups will benefit from therapeutic patient education sessions. The main endpoint is the measurement of the level of physical activity by accelerometry at 1 year. The secondary endpoints concern adherence to the practice of physical activity, impact on lifestyle, state of health, and physical capacity, as well as an estimate of the budgetary impact of this management strategy.

Discussion: This interventional research will allow us to assess the evolution of behaviors in physical activity after an FM syndrome management based solely on patient education or based on a supervised and adapted practice of physical activity associated with this same therapeutic education program. It seems to be the first study evaluating the impact of its intervention on objective data for measuring physical activity and sedentary behavior via accelerometry among FM patients.

Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04107948.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of duloxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia: overview of systematic reviews

Background

Duloxetine and amitriptyline are antidepressants used in the treatment of fibromyalgia. In published systematic reviews, there is no agreement about which drug is more effective and safer. This study aimed to compare evidence of the efficacy and safety of duloxetine compared with amitriptyline in the treatment of adult patients with fibromyalgia. This work contributes to guiding clinicians on the use of duloxetine or amitriptyline for the treatment of fibromyalgia and provides information for public health decision-makers.

Methods

Overview of systematic reviews of clinical trials comparing duloxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. The reviews were screened in Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, and SRDR with no restrictions on language and year of publication, considering that the research was conducted in July 2018 and updated until May 2020. The selection was based on the following criteria: adult patients with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia treated with duloxetine or amitriptyline, comparing the efficacy and safety in pain, fatigue, sleep, and mood disorder symptoms and quality of life, in addition to the acceptability of these antidepressants. The methodological quality and strength of evidence were assessed using the AMSTAR and GRADE instruments.

Results

Eight systematic reviews were selected. Amitriptyline had low evidence for pain, moderate evidence for sleep and fatigue, and high evidence for quality of life. Duloxetine had high quality of evidence in patients with mood disorders. With low evidence, duloxetine has higher acceptability, but is safer in older patients, while amitriptyline is safer for non-elderly individuals.

Conclusion

Both antidepressants are effective in the treatment of fibromyalgia, differing according to the patient’s symptoms and profile.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42019116101.

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.

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.

An evidence-based review of pregabalin for the treatment of fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVES

Pregabalin, an α2-δ agonist, is approved for the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) in the United States, Japan, and 37 other countries. The purpose of this article was to provide an in-depth, evidence-based summary of pregabalin for FM as demonstrated in randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies, including open-label extensions, meta-analyses, combination studies and post-hoc analyses of clinical study data.

METHODS

PubMed was searched using the term "pregabalin AND fibromyalgia" and the Cochrane Library with the term "pregabalin". Both searches were conducted on 2 March 2017 with no other date limits set.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies were identified including parallel group, two-way crossover and randomized withdrawal designs. One was a neuroimaging study. Five open-label extensions were also identified. Evidence of efficacy was demonstrated across the studies identified with significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain, sleep quality and patient status. The safety and tolerability profile of pregabalin is consistent across all the studies identified, including in adolescents, with dizziness and somnolence the most common adverse events reported. These efficacy and safety data are supported by meta-analyses (13 studies). Pregabalin in combination with other pharmacotherapies (7 studies) is also efficacious. Post-hoc analyses have demonstrated the onset of pregabalin efficacy as early as 1-2 days after starting treatment, examined the effect of pregabalin on other aspects of sleep beyond quality, and shown it is effective irrespective of the presence of a wide variety of patient demographic and clinical characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin is a treatment option for FM; its clinical utility has been comprehensively demonstrated.

Trends in Medicalization of Children with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome

Objective

The objective of this survey was to describe trends over time in medicalization of children with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome (AMPS).

Design

A retrospective evaluation was conducted using self-reported data from patients presenting to the pain clinic between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014, who were diagnosed with AMPS.

Setting and Subjects

This was a medical record review of 899 subjects ages 3-20 presenting with Amplified Musculoskeletal Pain Syndrome. Subjects were included if they presented to a single tertiary specialized clinic and obtained a diagnosis of AMPS between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014.

Methods

Information collected from subjects' medical records included: past medications, current outpatient medications, procedures, aids, therapies, studies, professionals seen, hospitalizations, and surgeries. Trends in medicalization were analyzed by year of initial visit.

Results

Medication use, procedures, studies, therapies, professionals seen, hospitalizations, and surgeries in children with AMPS all increased significantly by year ( P  < 0.001). The degree of physical dysfunction, pain, and the use of aids did not significantly increase.

Conclusions

Children with amplified musculoskeletal pain syndrome are becoming increasingly medicalized. Increased medicalization introduces risk of iatrogenic injury and burdens families with unnecessary medical costs. The significant increase in medicalization of children with AMPS is not related to an increase in patient reported pain, which is evidenced by the lack of significant increase in patients' pain score, pain duration, or functional disability at the time of their initial evaluation.

Evidências sobre relaxantes musculares de uso ambulatorial: uma revisão da literatura

Objetivo: Avaliar as evidências sobre eficácia e efeitos adversos dos relaxantes musculares de uso oral disponíveis no Brasil para espasticidade, condições musculoesqueléticas, fibromialgia e cefaleia tensional. Métodos: Realizou-se uma revisão da literatura a partir de revisões sistemáticas publicadas no Medline, BVS, biblioteca Cochrane e National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) até dezembro de 2016, que avaliaram os fármacos considerados relaxantes musculares pela Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) e disponíveis no Brasil na forma oral: ciclobenzaprina, tizanidina, carisoprodol, orfenadrina e baclofeno. Resultados: Foram identificados 20 estudos, sendo 17 revisões sistemáticas e três meta-análises. As evidências de eficácia dos relaxantes musculares consistem principalmente em estudos com concepção metodológica ruim. Estudos de comparação não mostraram que um relaxante muscular esquelético seja superior a outro. Ciclobenzaprina demonstrou eficácia em condições musculoesqueléticas, como dor miofascial mandibular, fibromialgia e dor lombar. Na fibromialgia, demonstrou benefício na melhora geral e no sono. No manejo da dor lombar, a ciclobenzaprina mostrou efeito modesto, mais presente nos quatro primeiros dias. Carisoprodol na dor lombar baixa não parece ter diferença de ciclobenzaprina, mas esse medicamento pode causar dependência. Baclofeno e tizanidina parecem ser eficazes em comparação com placebo e equivalentes em doentes com espasticidade. Conclusões: Os relaxantes musculares em geral, comparados a placebo ou entre si, apresentaram poucas evidências com estatística significante. Portanto, a seleção do medicamento deve ser baseada no perfil de efeitos adversos, preferência do paciente, potencial de abuso, potencial de interação com outros medicamentos, custo e outras características dos fármacos.

Nonvitamin, Nonmineral Dietary Supplement Use among Adults with Fibromyalgia: United States, 2007-2012

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FMS) is a pain condition affecting 2-6% of US adults; effective treatment remains limited. Determinants of nonvitamin, nonmineral dietary supplement (NVNM) use among adults with FMS are not well-studied. We investigated the relation of NVNM use to FMS, and trends, in two nationally representative samples of US adults ≥18 years.

METHODS

Data were drawn from 2007 and 2012 National Health Interview Surveys (N's = 20127 and 30672, resp.). Logistic regression was used to examine associations of FMS to NVNM use (past 12 months) and evaluate potential modifying influences of gender and comorbidities. Multivariate models adjusted for sampling design, demographic, lifestyle, and health-related factors.

RESULTS

FMS was significantly higher in 2012 than in 2007 (1.7% versus 1.3%), whereas NVNM use decreased (57% versus 41%; p < 0.0001). Adults reporting diagnosis were more likely to use NVNMs within 12 months, 30 days, or ever relative to adults without; positive associations remained significant after controlling for demographics, lifestyle characteristics, medical history, and other confounders (ranges: 2007 and 2012 AORs = 2.3-2.7; 1.5-1.6, resp.; p's < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In this cross-sectional study of two national samples, NVNM use was strongly and positively associated with FMS, highlighting the need for further study.

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.

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.

EULAR revised recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

The original European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for managing fibromyalgia assessed evidence up to 2005. The paucity of studies meant that most recommendations were 'expert opinion'.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group from 12 countries assessed evidence with a focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerned with pharmacological/non-pharmacological management for fibromyalgia. A review, in May 2015, identified eligible publications and key outcomes assessed were pain, fatigue, sleep and daily functioning. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used for making recommendations.

RESULTS

2979 titles were identified: from these 275 full papers were selected for review and 107 reviews (and/or meta-analyses) evaluated as eligible. Based on meta-analyses, the only 'strong for' therapy-based recommendation in the guidelines was exercise. Based on expert opinion, a graduated approach, the following four main stages are suggested underpinned by shared decision-making with patients. Initial management should involve patient education and focus on non-pharmacological therapies. In case of non-response, further therapies (all of which were evaluated as 'weak for' based on meta-analyses) should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual and may involve psychological therapies (for mood disorders and unhelpful coping strategies), pharmacotherapy (for severe pain or sleep disturbance) and/or a multimodal rehabilitation programme (for severe disability).

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are underpinned by high-quality reviews and meta-analyses. The size of effect for most treatments is relatively modest. We propose research priorities clarifying who will benefit from specific interventions, their effect in combination and organisation of healthcare systems to optimise outcome.

A randomized controlled trial of gabapentin for chronic low back pain with and without a radiating component

Gabapentin is prescribed for analgesia in chronic low back pain, yet there are no controlled trials supporting this practice. This randomized, 2-arm, 12-week, parallel group study compared gabapentin (forced titration up to 3600 mg daily) with inert placebo. The primary efficacy measure was change in pain intensity from baseline to the last week on treatment measured by the Descriptor Differential Scale; the secondary outcome was disability (Oswestry Disability Index). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 108 randomized patients with chronic back pain (daily pain for ≥6 months) whose pain did (43%) or did not radiate into the lower extremity. Random effects regression models which did not impute missing scores were used to analyze outcome data. Pain intensity decreased significantly over time (P < 0.0001) with subjects on gabapentin or placebo, reporting reductions of about 30% from baseline, but did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.423). The same results pertained for disability scores. In responder analyses of those who completed 12 weeks (N = 72), the proportion reporting at least 30% or 50% reduction in pain intensity, or at least "Minimal Improvement" on the Physician Clinical Global Impression of Change did not differ significantly between groups. There were no significant differences in analgesia between participants with radiating (n = 46) and nonradiating (n = 62) pain either within or between treatment arms. There was no significant correlation between gabapentin plasma concentration and pain intensity. Gabapentin appears to be ineffective for analgesia in chronic low back pain with or without a radiating component.

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.

Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

From each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value <1 indicated larger treatment effects in mITT trials than in other trial categories).

RESULTS

50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ(2)=0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ(2)=0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ(2)=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Trials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.

Fibromyalgia: disease synopsis, medication cost effectiveness and economic burden

Fibromyalgia (FM) primarily affects women, and it is increasingly recognized by health care providers as more patients seek assistance for their chronic pain conditions. FM patients suffer from reduced quality of life, daily functioning and productivity. A single FM patient can cost society tens of thousands of dollars each year, with the overall expense increasing alongside disease severity. Indirect costs account for the majority of total expenditures and involve losses in productivity, reduced work hours, absenteeism, disability, unemployment, early retirement, informal care and other out-of-pocket costs. Health care utilization increases in concert with the severity of illness. Moreover, FM patients often have several comorbid illnesses (e.g. depression, anxiety and sleep disturbances), resulting in extreme escalation of overall health care expenditures. Medications with the best efficacy in the treatment of FM include the tricyclic antidepressants amitriptyline and nortriptyline, cyclobenzaprine (a skeletal muscle relaxant), tramadol, duloxetine, milnacipran, pregabalin and gabapentin. Corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, benzodiazepines and opioid analgesics, with the exception of tramadol, are not considered efficacious. Medication selection should be individualized and influenced by the severity of illness and the presence of comorbidities and functional disabilities.

Safety and effectiveness of vibration massage by deep oscillations: a prospective observational study

The objective of this study is to assess the safety of treatment with vibration massage using a deep oscillation device and the effects on symptom severity and quality of life in patients with primary fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Outpatients with FMS performed an observational prospective study with visits 2-4 weeks after the last treatment (control) and after further 2 months (follow-up). Patients were treated with 10 sessions of 45 min deep oscillation massage, 2/week. Primary outcome parameters were safety and tolerability (5-level Likert scale (1 = very good)) (after each treatment session and at control visit). Secondary outcome parameters were symptom severity (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), pain) and quality of life (SF-36). Seventy patients (97.1% females) were included. At control visit, 41 patients (58.6%) reported 63 mild and short-lasting adverse events, mainly worsening of prevalent symptoms such as pain and fatigue. Tolerability was rated as 1.8 (95% confidence interval: 1.53; 2.07). Symptoms and quality of life were significantly improved at both control and follow-up visits (at least P < 0.01). In conclusion, deep oscillation massage is safe and well tolerated in patients with FMS and might improve symptoms and quality of life rather sustained.

Chronic opioid use in fibromyalgia syndrome: a clinical review

Chronic opioid therapy in the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain has increased drastically over the past decade. This is a worrisome trend in general, but specifically, given pathophysiologic characteristics seen in fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome patients, the use of this class of medication deserves special scrutiny. We first describe the current understanding of the etiology and pathophysiology of FM, including the role of genetic and environmental factors in the development of this syndrome. We then discuss the biologic effects of opioid use. Next, we review the pharmaceutical treatment options for FM, including 3 Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, and the evolution of treatment guidelines since 2004. We then highlight the various consequences associated with the mechanism of action of opioids and the specific concerns for FM patients.Finally, summarizing the existing literature, we make the case that chronic opioid use is inappropriate in the treatment of FM because of the interaction of unique pathophysiologic characteristics of the patients and effects associated with chronic opioid use.

Interpreting effect sizes and clinical relevance of pharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia

Duloxetine, milnacipran, and pregabalin are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the management of fibromyalgia. A number of meta-analyses, pooled analyses, and systematic reviews have been published in recent years involving the efficacy of these three medications for pain in fibromyalgia. Despite being based on the same clinical data, some analyses found these treatments to have a clinically relevant effect on pain, while others concluded that the advantages were small or of questionable clinical relevance. This commentary discussed possible reasons behind these differing conclusions and explored ways of evaluating the clinical relevance of pharmacological treatments for fibromyalgia. In particular, we considered: (1) the importance of judicious and careful interpretation of average treatment effect size and the recognition that average treatment effect sizes do not always tell the whole story; (2) the utility of individual patient response data to assess clinical relevance; and (3) the importance of considering pain reduction within the context of other benefits due to the presence of associated symptoms in patients with fibromyalgia.

Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions

BACKGROUND

The assumption of consistency, defined as agreement between direct and indirect sources of evidence, underlies the increasingly popular method of network meta-analysis. No evidence exists so far regarding the extent of inconsistency in full networks of interventions or the factors that control its statistical detection.

METHODS

In this paper we assess the prevalence of inconsistency from data of 40 published networks of interventions involving 303 loops of evidence. Inconsistency is evaluated in each loop by contrasting direct and indirect estimates and by employing an omnibus test of consistency for the entire network. We explore whether different effect measures for dichotomous outcomes are associated with differences in inconsistency, and evaluate whether different ways to estimate heterogeneity affect the magnitude and detection of inconsistency.

RESULTS

Inconsistency was detected in from 2% to 9% of the tested loops, depending on the effect measure and heterogeneity estimation method. Loops that included comparisons informed by a single study were more likely to show inconsistency. About one-eighth of the networks were found to be inconsistent. The proportions of inconsistent loops do not materially change when different effect measures are used. Important heterogeneity or the overestimation of heterogeneity was associated with a small decrease in the prevalence of statistical inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that changing the effect measure might improve statistical consistency, and that an analysis of sensitivity to the assumptions and an estimator of heterogeneity might be needed before reaching a conclusion about the absence of statistical inconsistency, particularly in networks with few studies.

Milnacipran for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of milnacipran in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 4th of January 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (4138 participants) were included, all of which were placebo-controlled, involved participants with fibromyalgia, and used titration to a target dose of 100 mg or 200 mg milnacipran. There were no other active comparators or studies in other neuropathic pain conditions. 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 to about 40% of those treated, compared to 30% with placebo, giving a number needed to treat of 8 to 10. Adverse events were common in both milnacipran (87%) and placebo (78%) groups, but serious adverse events (< 2%) did not differ between groups. Nausea and constipation were the most common events showing the greatest difference between groups (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome of 7 and 13 respectively, compared with placebo).Withdrawals for any reason were more common with milnacipran than placebo, and more common with 200 mg than 100 mg (NNH of 23 and 8.8 respectively, 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). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were more common with milnacipran than placebo but did not differ between doses (number needed to treat to prevent an additional unwanted outcome of 45 and 41 respectively).

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. Milnacipran is associated with increased adverse events and adverse event withdrawals, which were significantly greater for the higher dose. There were no data for the use of milnacipran for other chronic neuropathic pain conditions.