Duloxetine and suicide attempts: a possible relation

Pregabalin for Neuropathic Pain and Itch in Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Importance

Patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) experience neuropathic pain and itch. There is a lack of evidence on any treatment for these symptoms in patients with RDEB.

Objectives

To test the efficacy of pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain and itch in patients with RDEB.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial of oral pregabalin (50-300 mg/d) vs placebo was conducted at 2 sites, Toronto (Canada) and Santiago (Chile) from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Patients eligible to participate were diagnosed with RDEB, aged 8 to 40 years, not pregnant or lactating (if female), and had evidence of probable neuropathic pain and itching defined as distal thermal sensory loss (confirmed by thermal roller), score of 4 or greater on the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire (DN4), and score greater than 4 on the 10-point visual analog scale [VAS]). Patients with a clinically important or poorly controlled medical or psychiatric condition or pregabalin intolerance or allergy were excluded. Of 41 patients screened, 3 were not eligible and 28 declined enrollment. Data analyses were performed in 2021 through 2023.

Intervention

Participants received both pregabalin and matched placebo (titrated to a maximum-tolerated dose of 300 mg/day) in a randomized sequence so that comparisons could be made within participants and between groups.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Difference in the mean pain and itch scores between pregabalin and placebo treatment (measured using VAS) before and after intervention.

Results

In all, 10 participants were randomized to 2 groups, 6 patients (mean [SD] age, 26.7 [8.1] years; 3 females [50%]) in group 1, and 4 patients (mean [SD] age, 26.5 [7.8] years, 2 females [50%]) in group 2. Group 1 received a sequence of pregabalin-placebo while group 2 received placebo-pregabalin. Pregabalin significantly reduced mean (SD) pain scores by 1.9 (1.5) points when controlling for sequence and treatment period vs baseline, while placebo had 0.1 (2.0) points of reduction. The effect of pregabalin was a mild but significant reduction in itch compared to baseline (mean [SD] points, 0.9 [2.2]), whereas the placebo produced no reduction (0.1 [2.5]). The mean pregabalin dose was generally well tolerated.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this randomized crossover trial indicate that pregabalin significantly reduced pain and itch scores from baseline compared to placebo in patients with RDEB. This feasibility study provided preliminary data on the efficacy of pregabalin in managing pain and itch in RDEB and gathered essential data to inform the design of a larger cohort trial.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03928093.

Integrative review on the non-invasive management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men following treatments for pelvic malignancies

AIM

To develop a non-invasive management strategy for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after treatment for pelvic cancer, that is suitable for use in a primary healthcare context.

METHODS

PubMed literature searches of LUTS management in this patient group were carried out, together with obtaining a consensus of management strategies from a panel of authors for the management of LUTS from across the UK.

RESULTS

Data from 41 articles were investigated and collated. Clinical experience was sought from authors where there was no clinical evidence. The findings discussed in this paper confirm that LUTS after the cancer treatment can significantly impair men's quality of life. While many men recover from LUTS spontaneously over time, a significant proportion require long-term management. Despite the prevalence of LUTS, there is a lack of consensus on best management. This article offers a comprehensive treatment algorithm to manage patients with LUTS following pelvic cancer treatment.

CONCLUSION

Based on published research literature and clinical experience, recommendations are proposed for the standardisation of management strategies employed for men with LUTS after the pelvic cancer treatment. In addition to implementing the algorithm, understanding the rationale for the type and timing of LUTS management strategies is crucial for clinicians and patients.

Observational study on safety and tolerability of duloxetine in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence in German routine practice

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of duloxetine during routine clinical care in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in Germany, and in particular, to identify previously unrecognized safety issues as uncommon adverse reactions, and the influence of confounding factors present in clinical practice on the safety profile of duloxetine.

METHODS

Office-based urologists, gynaecologists and primary care physicians were asked to document women newly started on treatment for moderate to severe symptoms of SUI. Six thousand eight hundred and fifty-four patients from urologist/gynaecologist practices and 5879 primary care patients were assessed. In a two-armed, observational study with parallel 12 week (urologists and gynaecologists) or 24 week (primary care physicians) design, patients were treated with duloxetine or other conservative treatment. The main outcome measure was the occurrence of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics differed slightly between patient groups and studies. Duloxetine doses in most patients were lower than recommended. Overall, AE frequency with duloxetine was lower than in controlled studies (15.9% (95% CI 14.9, 16.9) and 9.1% (95% CI 8.2, 10.0) in the 12 and 24 week treatment groups, respectively), but exhibited a similar qualitative spectrum. In the logistic regression models, the following factors were associated with greater AE risk: investigator specialization (gynaecologist vs. urologist and primary care physician), initial duloxetine dose (80 vs. 20 mg day(-1) ) and use of any concomitant medication. Within the 24 week study, a positive screen for depressive disorder was surprisingly common, but no case of attempted suicide was reported in either study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results from German clinical practice show that women with SUI were often treated with duloxetine doses lower than recommended. This was associated with a low incidence of AEs. Suicide attempts were not reported.

A review of duloxetine 60 mg once-daily dosing for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic musculoskeletal pain due to chronic osteoarthritis pain and low back pain

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine is a selective dual neuronal serotonin (5-Hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSNRI). It is indicated in the United States for treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and several chronic pain conditions, including management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic musculoskeletal pain due to chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain and chronic low back pain (LBP). Its use for antidepressant and anxiolytic actions has been extensively reviewed previously. We here review the evidence for the efficacy of 60 mg once-daily dosing of duloxetine for chronic pain conditions.

METHOD

The literature was searched for clinical trials in humans conducted in the past 10 years involving duloxetine.

RESULTS

There were 199 results in the initial search. Studies not in the English language were excluded. We then included only studies of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic musculoskeletal pain (OA and LBP). Studies of painful symptoms reported in mental health studies were excluded. This resulted in 32 studies. Articles that did not include a 60 mg/day daily dose as a study arm were excluded. This resulted in 30 studies, broken down as follows: 12 for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, 9 for fibromyalgia, 6 for LBP, and 3 for OA pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies reviewed report that duloxetine 60 mg once-daily dosing is an effective option for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic musculoskeletal pain due to chronic OA pain and chronic LBP. As these pains are often comorbid with MDD or GAD, duloxetine might possess the pharmacologic properties to be a versatile agent able to address several symptoms in these patients. With adequate attention to FDA prescribing guidance regarding safety and drug-drug interactions, duloxetine 60 mg once-daily dosing appears to be an effective option in the appropriate pain patient population.

Duloxetine in the acute and continuation treatment of major depressive disorder

Duloxetine is a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor with indications for use in the short term, continuation and maintenance treatment of major depression. Although clinicians currently have access to a range of medications for the treatment of depression, a significant number of patients fail to respond or remit from their illness despite adequate trials of treatment with multiple agents. A developing concept is that antidepressant strategies that combine multiple mechanisms of action may have advantages over agents with single mechanisms (i.e., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). As a dual-acting agent, duloxetine offers the promise of advantages in terms of efficacy over selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors while retaining a favorable safety and tolerability profile in comparison to older agents. Likewise, duloxetine is of interest in the treatment of certain conditions commonly seen in conjunction with major depression, particularly anxiety and pain, both of which may respond more favorably to agents that act on both serotonin and noradrenaline neurotransmitter systems.

Continuation treatment of major depressive disorder: is there a case for duloxetine?

Duloxetine is a serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor with established efficacy for the short-term treatment of major depressive disorder. Efficacy in continuation treatment (greater than six months of continuous treatment) has been established from both open and placebo-controlled relapse prevention and comparative studies. Seven published studies were available for review and showed that in both younger and older populations (aged more than 65 years) the acute efficacy of duloxetine was maintained for up to one year. Response to treatment was based on accepted criteria for remission of depression and in continuation studies remission rates were greater than 70%. Comparative studies showed that duloxetine was superior to placebo and comparable to paroxetine and escitalopram in relapse prevention. Importantly a study of duloxetine in patients prone to relapse of major depressive disorder showed that the medication was more effective than placebo in this difficult to treat population. Side effects of duloxetine during continuation treatment were predictable on the basis of the known pharmacology of the drug. In particular there were no significant life-threatening events which emerged with continued use of the medication. On the other hand vigilance is required since the data base on which to judge very rare events is limited by the relatively low exposure to the drug. Duloxetine has established both efficacy and safety for continuation treatment but its place as a first-line treatment of relapse prevention requires further experience. In particular further comparative studies against established agents would be useful in deciding the place of duloxetine in therapy.