Antidepressants and the relief of osteoarthritic pain - findings from a study examining adjunctive duloxetine

Antidepressants for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000.  Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.

Investigation to identify individual socioeconomic and health determinants of suicidal ideation using responses to a cross-sectional, community-based public health survey

OBJECTIVES

To address a gap in knowledge by simultaneously assessing a broad spectrum of individual socioeconomic and potential health determinants of suicidal ideation (SI) using validated measures in a large UK representative community sample.

DESIGN

In this cross-sectional design, participants were recruited via random area probability sampling to participate in a comprehensive public health survey. The questionnaire examined demographic, health and socioeconomic factors. Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify predictors of SI.

SETTING

Community setting from high (n=20) and low (n=8) deprivation neighbourhoods across the North West of England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

4319 people were recruited between August 2015 and January 2016. There were 809 participants from low-deprivation neighbourhoods and 3510 from high-deprivation neighbourhoods. The sample comprised 1854 (43%) men and 2465 (57%) women.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

SI was the dependent variable which was assessed using item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 instrument.

RESULTS

454 (11%) participants reported having SI within the last 2 weeks. Model 1 (excluding mental health variables) identified younger age, black and minority ethnic (BME) background, lower housing quality and current smoker status as key predictors of SI. Higher self-esteem, empathy and neighbourhood belonging, alcohol abstinence and having arthritis were protective against SI. Model 2 (including mental health variables) found depression and having cancer as key health predictors for SI, while identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ) and BME were significant demographic predictors. Alcohol abstinence, having arthritis and higher empathy levels were protective against SI.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that it could be useful to increase community support and sense of belonging using a public health approach for vulnerable groups (e.g. those with cancer) and peer support for people who identify as LGBTQ and/or BME. Also, interventions aimed at increasing empathic functioning may prove effective for reducing SI.

Effects of Pain, Insomnia, and Depression on Psychoactive Medication Supply in Older Adults With Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Determinants of prescribing psychoactive medications for symptom management in older adults remain underexamined despite known risks and cautions concerning these medications.

OBJECTIVE

To examine independent and combined effects of pain, concurrent insomnia and depression symptoms on psychoactive medications supplied to older adults with osteoarthritis (OA).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Survey data on pain, insomnia, and depression obtained from OA patients screened for a randomized controlled trial were used to identify predictors of psychoactive medication supply [opioids, sedatives, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and non-TCAs] over a 4-year period.

SUBJECTS

Group Health Cooperative patients with a diagnosis of OA (N=2976).

MEASURES

Survey data on pain (Graded Chronic Pain Scale), insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8); and medications supply assessed from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

In negative binomial models, pain [incidence rate ratio (IRR), 2.8-3.5; P<0.001], insomnia (IRR, 2.0; P<0.001), and depression (IRR, 1.5; P<0.05) each independently predicted opioid supply. Insomnia (IRR, 3.2; P<0.001) and depression (IRR, 3.0; P<0.001) each independently predicted sedative supply. Pain (IRR, 2.1; P<0.05) and insomnia (IRR, 2.0; P<0.05) independently predicted TCA supply, whereas only depression (IRR, 2.2; P<0.001) independently predicted non-TCA supply. Combined effects of pain and insomnia/depression on these medications were additive and increased the rate of medication supply 1.5-7.5 times. Combined effects increased with insomnia or depression severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent insomnia and depressive symptoms predicted increased supply of opioids, sedatives, and antidepressants after accounting for pain, indicating the importance of sleep and mood disorders as factors increasing supply of these medications.

Fluoxetine ameliorates cartilage degradation in osteoarthritis by inhibiting Wnt/β-catenin signaling

Abnormal activation of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling is implicated in the osteoarthritis (OA) pathology. We searched for a pre-approved drug that suppresses abnormally activated Wnt/β-catenin signaling and has a potency to reduce joint pathology in OA. We introduced the TOPFlash reporter plasmid into HCS-2/8 human chondrosarcoma cells to estimate the Wnt/β-catenin activity in the presence of 10 μM each compound in a panel of pre-approved drugs. We found that fluoxetine, an antidepressant in the class of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), down-regulated Wnt/β-catenin signaling in human chondrosarcoma cells. Fluoxetine inhibited both Wnt3A- and LiCl-induced loss of proteoglycans in chondrogenically differentiated ATDC5 cells. Fluoxetine increased expression of Sox9 (the chondrogenic master regulator), and decreased expressions of Axin2 (a marker for Wnt/β-catenin signaling) and Mmp13 (matrix metalloproteinase 13). Fluoxetine suppressed a LiCl-induced increase of total β-catenin and a LiCl-induced decrease of phosphorylated β-catenin in a dose-dependent manner. An in vitro protein-binding assay showed that fluoxetine enhanced binding of β-catenin with Axin1, which is a scaffold protein forming the degradation complex for β-catenin. Fluoxetine suppressed LiCl-induced β-catenin accumulation in human OA chondrocytes. Intraarticular injection of fluoxetine in a rat OA model ameliorated OA progression and suppressed β-catenin accumulation.

5-HT2CR blockade in the amygdala conveys analgesic efficacy to SSRIs in a rat model of arthritis pain

BACKGROUND

Pain, including arthritic pain, has a negative affective component and is often associated with anxiety and depression. However, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRIs) show limited effectiveness in pain. The amygdala plays a key role in the emotional-affective component of pain, pain modulation and affective disorders. Neuroplasticity in the basolateral and central amygdala (BLA and CeA, respectively) correlate positively with pain behaviors. Evidence suggests that serotonin receptor subtype 5-HT2CR in the amygdala contributes critically to anxiogenic behavior and anxiety disorders. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that 5-HT2CR in the amygdala accounts for the limited effectiveness of SSRIs in reducing pain behaviors and that 5-HT2CR blockade in the amygdala renders SSRIs effective.

RESULTS

Nocifensive reflexes, vocalizations and anxiety-like behavior were measured in adult male Sprague-Dawley rats. Behavioral experiments were done in sham controls and in rats with arthritis induced by kaolin/carrageenan injections into one knee joint. Rats received a systemic (i.p.) administration of an SSRI (fluvoxamine, 30 mg/kg) or vehicle (sterile saline) and stereotaxic application of a selective 5-HT2CR antagonist (SB242084, 10 μM) or vehicle (ACSF) into BLA or CeA by microdialysis. Compared to shams, arthritic rats showed decreased hindlimb withdrawal thresholds (increased reflexes), increased duration of audible and ultrasonic vocalizations, and decreased open-arm choices in the elevated plus maze test suggesting anxiety-like behavior. Fluvoxamine (i.p.) or SB242084 (intra-BLA) alone had no significant effect, but their combination inhibited the pain-related increase of vocalizations and anxiety-like behavior without affecting spinal reflexes. SB242084 applied into the CeA in combination with systemic fluvoxamine had no effect on vocalizations and spinal reflexes.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that 5-HT2CR in the amygdala, especially in the BLA, limits the effectiveness of SSRIs to inhibit pain-related emotional-affective behaviors.