Milnacipran effects on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate in fibromyalgia patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study

Assessing Ethnic Minority Representation in Fibromyalgia Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Demographics

The under-representation of non-White participants in Western countries in clinical research has received increased attention, due to recognized physiological differences between ethnic groups, which may affect the efficacy and optimal dosage of some treatments. This review assessed ethnic diversity in pharmaceutical trials for fibromyalgia, a poorly understood chronic pain disorder. We also investigated longitudinal change to non-White participant proportions in trials and non-White participants' likelihood to discontinue with fibromyalgia research between trial stages (retention). First, we identified relevant trials conducted in the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2022, by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases. In trials conducted both across the United States and Canada, and exclusively within the United States, approximately 90% of participants were White. A longitudinal analysis also found no change in the proportion of non-White participants in trials conducted across the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2022. Finally, we found no significant differences in trial retention between White and non-White participants. This review highlights the low numbers of ethnic minorities in fibromyalgia trials conducted in the United States and Canada, with no change to these proportions over the past 22 years. Furthermore, non-White participants were not more likely to discontinue with the fibromyalgia research once they were recruited.

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

Duloxetine, Gabapentin, and the Risk for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Out-of-Hospital Death in Medicare Beneficiaries With Non-Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

Duloxetine is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor prescribed for musculoskeletal and other forms of chronic pain. Its dual pharmacologic properties have the potential to either raise or lower cardiovascular risk: adrenergic activity may increase the risk for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke, but antiplatelet activity may decrease risk. Gabapentin is another nonopioid medication used to treat pain, which is not thought to have adrenergic/antiplatelet effects. With the current emphasis on the use of nonopioid medications to treat patients with chronic pain, assessing cardiovascular risks associated with these medications among high-risk patients is important.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among a 20% sample of Medicare enrollees, aged 65 to 89, with chronic pain who were new users between 2015 and 2018 of either duloxetine (n = 34,009) or gabapentin (n = 233,060). We excluded individuals with cancer or other life-threatening conditions at study drug initiation. The primary outcome was a composite of AMI, stroke, and out-of-hospital mortality. We adjusted for comorbidity differences with time-dependent inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

During 115,668 person-years of follow-up, 2361 patients had the composite primary outcome; the rate among new users of duloxetine was 16.7/1000 person-years compared with new users of gabapentin (21.1/1000 person-years), adjusted hazard ratio = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.16). Results were similar for the individual components of the composite outcome as well as in analyses stratified by demographic and clinical characteristics.

DISCUSSION

In summary, cohort Medicare patients with non-cancer pain beginning treatment with duloxetine had rates of AMI, stroke, and out-of-hospital mortality comparable to those who initiated gabapentin.

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.

Antidepressant Drugs Effects on Blood Pressure

Individuals suffering from depressive disorders display a greater incidence of hypertension compared with the general population, despite reports of the association between depression and hypotension. This phenomenon may depend, at least in part, on the use of antidepressant drugs, which may influence blood pressure through different effects on adrenergic and serotoninergic pathways, as well as on histaminergic, dopaminergic, and cholinergic systems. This review summarizes extant literature on the effect of antidepressant drugs on blood pressure. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are characterized by limited effects on autonomic system activity and a lower impact on blood pressure. Thus, they represent the safest class-particularly among elderly and cardiovascular patients. Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, particularly venlafaxine, carry a greater risk of hypertension, possibly related to greater effects on the sympathetic nervous system. The norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor reboxetine is considered a safe option because of its neutral effects on blood pressure in long-term studies, even if both hypotensive and hypertensive effects are reported. The dopamine-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor bupropion can lead to blood pressure increases, usually at high doses, but may also cause orthostatic hypotension, especially in patients with cardiovascular diseases. The norepinephrine-serotonin modulators, mirtazapine and mianserin, have minimal effects on blood pressure but may rarely lead to orthostatic hypotension and falls. These adverse effects are also observed with the serotonin-reuptake modulators, nefazodone and trazodone, but seldomly with vortioxetine and vilazodone. Agomelatine, the only melatonergic antidepressant drug, may also have limited effects on blood pressure. Tricyclic antidepressants have been associated with increases in blood pressure, as well as orthostatic hypotension, particularly imipramine. Oral monoamine-oxidase inhibitors, less frequently skin patch formulations, have been associated with orthostatic hypotension or, conversely, with hypertensive crisis due to ingestion of tyramine-containing food (i.e., cheese reaction). Lastly, a hypertensive crisis may complicate antidepressant treatment as a part of the serotonin syndrome, also including neuromuscular, cognitive, and autonomic dysfunctions. Clinicians treating depressive patients should carefully consider their blood pressure status and cardiovascular comorbidities because of the effects of antidepressant drugs on blood pressure profiles and potential interactions with antihypertensive treatments.

Assessment of psychiatric comorbidities and serotonergic or noradrenergic medication use on blood pressure using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

In this study, the authors aimed to assess both nighttime and daytime blood pressure (BP) variability using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in persons with and without psychiatric conditions and with or without selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) treatment. In this retrospective study, patients who underwent psychiatric evaluation and ABPM within 6 months of each other between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017 were identified using billing data. Participants were divided into three groups-participants with no psychiatric diagnosis and no psychiatric medicine (-Diagnosis/-Medication), those with psychiatric diagnosis and on SSRIs/SNRIs (+Diagnosis/+Medication), and psychiatric diagnosis but no psychiatric medications (+Diagnosis/-Medication). Day and nighttime systolic and diastolic BPs were compared between groups controlling for relevant variables using multivariable linear regression models. A total of 475 participants met inclusion criteria including 135 in the -Diagnosis/-Medication group, 232 in the +Diagnosis/+Medication group, and 108 in the +Diagnosis/-Medication group. In adjusted multivariable analysis, the +Diagnosis/+Medication group had higher nighttime systolic BP (median 120 vs 110 mm (Hg); p = .01) and nighttime diastolic BP (median 68 vs 63 mm (Hg); p = .006) as compared to -Diagnosis/-Medication. No statistically significant differences in BPs between the -Diagnosis/-Medication and +Diagnosis/-Medication groups were observed, after adjustment. Use of SSRIs/SNRIs was associated with significantly higher nocturnal systolic and diastolic BP among patients with psychiatric diagnosis using SSRIs/SNRIs but not associated with psychiatric diagnosis without SSRI/SNRI use. SSRIs/SNRIs use may be associated with higher BP levels and this merits future prospective studies using ABPM to assess day and nighttime BP changes with SSRIs/SNRIs use.

Consensus statements on the clinical understanding and use of milnacipran in Hong Kong

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to develop a local consensus to guide medical practitioners and psychiatrists on the use of milnacipran in different psychiatric conditions.

METHODS

By utilizing the modified Delphi technique, 12 statements were electronically voted on anonymously for their practicability of recommendation.

RESULTS

There was a very high degree of agreement among the consensus group on 10 finalized consensus statements, but 2 statements were voted down due to a poor degree of agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The present consensus statements were developed as general recommendations for medical practitioners and psychiatrists to be practically referred to in clinical settings.

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.

Targeting ASIC3 for Relieving Mice Fibromyalgia Pain: Roles of Electroacupuncture, Opioid, and Adenosine

Many scientists are seeking better therapies for treating fibromyalgia (FM) pain. We used a mouse model of FM to determine if ASIC3 and its relevant signaling pathway participated in FM pain. We demonstrated that FM-induced mechanical hyperalgesia was attenuated by electroacupuncture (EA). The decrease in fatigue-induced lower motor function in FM mice was also reversed by EA. These EA-based effects were abolished by the opioid receptor antagonist naloxone and the adenosine A1 receptor antagonist rolofylline. Administration of opioid receptor agonist endomorphin (EM) or adenosine A1 receptor agonist N⁶-cyclopentyladenosine (CPA) has similar results to EA. Similar results were also observed in ASIC3^−/− or ASIC3 antagonist (APETx2) injected mice. Using western blotting, we determined that pPKA, pPI3K, and pERK were increased during a dual acidic injection priming period. Nociceptive receptors, such as ASIC3, Nav1.7, and Nav1.8, were upregulated in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and spinal cord (SC) of FM mice. Furthermore, pPKA, pPI3K, and pERK were increased in the central thalamus. These aforementioned mechanisms were completely abolished in ASIC3 knockout mice. Electrophysiological results also indicated that acid potentiated Nav currents through ASIC3 and ERK pathway. Our results highlight the crucial role of ASIC3-mediated mechanisms in the treatment of FM-induced mechanical hyperalgesia.

Effects of electroacupuncture in a mouse model of fibromyalgia: role of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors and related mechanisms

Objective

N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) activation and downstream transduction pathways are crucial for pain signalling. Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common pain syndrome of unclear aetiology that is often drug-refractory but may benefit from treatment with electroacupuncture (EA). We examined the contributions of NMDAR signalling to FM pain and EA responses in a mouse model.

Methods

A model of FM was established by acid saline injection in 32 mice and subgroups (n=8 each) were treated with EA (2 Hz, 15 min daily for 4 days) or minimal acupuncture (MA). Expression of NMDAR subunits, calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII), cyclic AMP response element binding protein (pCREB) and their corresponding phospho-activated forms were measured by Western blotting and immunohistochemistry.

Results

Acid saline injection induced significant mechanical hyperalgesia (paw withdrawal threshold 2.18±0.27 g, p<0.05 vs controls), which was reversed by EA (4.23±0.33 g, p<0.05 vs FM group) but not by MA (2.37±0.14 g, p<0.05 vs EA group). Expression levels of phosphorylated N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (pNR)1 and pNR2B were significantly increased in the dorsal root ganglion of FM model mice (132.21±14.4% and 116.69±3.22% of control values), whereas NR1 and NR2B levels were unchanged (97.31±3.79% and 97.07%±2.27%, respectively). Expression levels of pCaMKIIα and pCREB were also higher in the FM group, and these changes were reversed by EA but not by MA. Similar changes in expression were observed in spinal cord neurons.

Conclusions

Reduced NMDAR−CaMKIIα−pCREB signalling is implicated in the positive effects of EA in FM. NMDAR signalling components may represent promising therapeutic targets for FM treatment.

A randomised, double-blinded study comparing giving etoricoxib vs. placebo to female patients with fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVES

Current therapeutic approaches to fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) do not provide satisfactory pain control to a high percentage of patients. This unmet need constantly fuels the pursuit for new modalities for pain relief. This randomised, double-blind, controlled study assessed the efficacy and safety of adding etoricoxib vs. placebo to the current therapeutic regimen of female patients with FMS.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, female patients were randomised to receive either 90 mg etoricoxib once daily or placebo for 6 weeks. Several physical and mental parameters were assessed throughout the study. The primary end-point was the response to treatment, defined as ≥ 30% reduction in the average Brief Pain Inventory score. Secondary outcomes were changes in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, SF-36 Quality of Life assessment questionnaire and Hamilton rating scales for anxiety and depression.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 patients were recruited. Although many outcome measures improved throughout the study, no difference was recorded between the etoricoxib- and placebo-treated groups. The Brief Pain Inventory, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, The Hamilton Anxiety and Depression scores did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomised, double-blind study assessing the effect of adding etoricoxib to pre-existing medications for female patients with FMS. Although being mildly underpowered this study clearly has shown that etoricoxib did not improve pain scores and did not lead to any beneficial mental or physical effects.

Efficacy of long-term milnacipran treatment in patients meeting different thresholds of clinically relevant pain relief: subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal study

Background

Fibromyalgia patients from a long-term, open-label study of milnacipran (50–200 mg/day) were eligible to participate in a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled withdrawal study. The withdrawal study evaluated loss of therapeutic response in patients who achieved ≥50% pain improvements after receiving up to 3.25 years of milnacipran. This post-hoc analysis investigated whether patients who met lower thresholds of pain improvement also experienced worsening of fibromyalgia symptoms upon treatment withdrawal.

Method

Among patients who received milnacipran ≥100 mg/day during the long-term study, three subgroups were identified based on percentage of pain reduction at randomization: ≥50% (protocol-defined “responders”; n=150); ≥30% to <50% (patients with clinically meaningful pain improvement; n=61); and <30% (n=110). Efficacy assessments included the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Results

In the ≥30 to <50% subgroup, significant worsening in pain was detected after treatment withdrawal. The difference between placebo and milnacipran in mean VAS score changes for this subgroup (+9.0, P<0.05) was similar to the difference in protocol-defined responders (+9.4, P<0.05). In the <30% subgroup, no worsening in pain was observed in either treatment arm. However, patients in this subgroup experienced significant worsening in FIQR scores after treatment withdrawal (placebo, +6.9; milnacipran, −2.8; P<0.001), as well as worsening in SF-36 PCS and BDI scores.

Conclusion

Patients who experienced ≥30% to <50% pain reduction with long-term milnacipran had significant worsening of fibromyalgia symptoms after treatment withdrawal. These results suggest that the conventional ≥30% pain responder cutoff may be adequate to demonstrate efficacy in randomized withdrawal studies of fibromyalgia. Patients in the <30% pain reduction subgroup had worsening scores on the FIQR and other multidimensional measures after treatment withdrawal, indicating the importance of identifying and managing the multiple symptoms of fibromyalgia.