Safety and tolerability of duloxetine in the acute management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: analysis of pooled data from three placebo-controlled clinical trials

Tolerability and efficacy of duloxetine for the prevention of persistent musculoskeletal pain after trauma and injury: a pilot three-group randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the tolerability and preliminary efficacy of duloxetine as an alternative nonopioid therapeutic option for the prevention of persistent musculoskeletal pain (MSP) among adults presenting to the emergency department with acute MSP after trauma or injury. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible participants (n = 78) were randomized to 2 weeks of a daily dose of one of the following: placebo (n = 27), 30 mg duloxetine (n = 24), or 60 mg duloxetine (n = 27). Tolerability, the primary outcome, was measured by dropout rate and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes assessed drug efficacy as measured by (1) the proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale ≥ 4) at 6 weeks (pain persistence); and (2) average pain by group over the six-week study period. We also explored treatment effects by type of trauma (motor vehicle collision [MVC] vs non-MVC). In both intervention groups, duloxetine was well tolerated and there were no serious adverse events. There was a statistically significant difference in pain over time for the 60 mg vs placebo group ( P = 0.03) but not for the 30 mg vs placebo group ( P = 0.51). In both types of analyses, the size of the effect of duloxetine was larger in MVC vs non-MVC injury. Consistent with the role of stress systems in the development of chronic pain after traumatic stress, our data indicate duloxetine may be a treatment option for reducing the transition from acute to persistent MSP. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these promising results.

The Influence of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 Genetic Variation on Diabetes Mellitus Risk in People Taking Antidepressants and Antipsychotics

CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 enzymes are essential in the metabolism of antidepressants and antipsychotics. Genetic variation in these genes may increase risk of adverse drug reactions. Antidepressants and antipsychotics have previously been associated with risk of diabetes. We examined whether individual genetic differences in CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 contribute to these effects. We identified 31,579 individuals taking antidepressants and 2699 taking antipsychotics within UK Biobank. Participants were classified as poor, intermediate, or normal metabolizers of CYP2D6, and as poor, intermediate, normal, rapid, or ultra-rapid metabolizers of CYP2C19. Risk of diabetes mellitus represented by HbA1c level was examined in relation to the metabolic phenotypes. CYP2D6 poor metabolizers taking paroxetine had higher Hb1Ac than normal metabolizers (mean difference: 2.29 mmol/mol; p < 0.001). Among participants with diabetes who were taking venlafaxine, CYP2D6 poor metabolizers had higher HbA1c levels compared to normal metabolizers (mean differences: 10.15 mmol/mol; p < 0.001. Among participants with diabetes who were taking fluoxetine, CYP2D6 intermediate metabolizers and decreased HbA1c, compared to normal metabolizers (mean difference -7.74 mmol/mol; p = 0.017). We did not observe any relationship between CYP2D6 or CYP2C19 metabolic status and HbA1c levels in participants taking antipsychotic medication. Our results indicate that the impact of genetic variation in CYP2D6 differs depending on diabetes status. Although our findings support existing clinical guidelines, further research is essential to inform pharmacogenetic testing for people taking antidepressants and antipsychotics.

Extensive selective reporting of quality of life in clinical study reports and publications of placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants

BACKGROUND

Selective reporting of trial results is common.

OBJECTIVE

To study selective reporting in clinical study reports, company trial registers and publications of quality of life in placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants.

METHODS

We compared clinical study reports of four antidepressants (fluoxetine, duloxetine, paroxetine and sertraline) obtained from two European drug regulators, data from online company registers, and publications received or retrieved from Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline. Pfizer was also contacted but did not provide any publications.

RESULTS

We included 15 trials (19,015 pages) and 4717 patients. Six trials had used SF-36, seven EQ-5D and two both instruments. Nine of the 15 CSRs (60%) displayed selective reporting. In the companies' online registers, there was selective reporting for all 15 trials (100%). We received 20 publications from Eli Lilly and retrieved six from the GlaxoSmithKline register. There was selective reporting in 24 of the 26 publications (92%). Despite extensive selective reporting, we found only small differences between placebo and active drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to the full raw data from clinical trials and to case report forms for all patients are needed to evaluate the effect of antidepressants on quality of life. Regulatory agencies should refuse to approve drugs or new indications based on incomplete reporting.

Study protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of duloxetine for the treatment and prevention of musculoskeletal pain: altering the transition from acute to chronic pain (ATTAC pain)

INTRODUCTION

Chronic musculoskeletal pain affects a substantial portion of adults visiting the emergency department (ED). Current treatment is limited in scope and does not effectively reduce musculoskeletal pain in patients. The study will evaluate the use of duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of chronic pain, as a promising option in its prevention. The proposed study may present a well-tolerated and effective non-opioid treatment for patients with acute musculoskeletal pain that may also be effective in preventing the transition to persistent or chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome of this study will be to assess the tolerability and preliminary effectiveness of duloxetine in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. The study will take place at two EDs in Rhode Island, USA. The study will involve randomisation to one of three arms: duloxetine 30 mg, duloxetine 60 mg or placebo. Tolerability will be assessed by comparing the proportion of participants that report an adverse event and that drop-out across the three study arms. Effectiveness will be determined by self-reported pain over 6 weeks of follow-up. Specifically, we will compare the proportion of participants with persistent pain (ongoing pain at 6-week follow-up), across the three study arms. 60 adults (aged 18-59) presenting to the ED with acute axial musculoskeletal pain within 7 days of onset are expected to be enrolled in the proposed study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). These results will be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03315533.

The Impact of Antidepressant Therapy on Glycemic Control in Canadian Primary Care Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Context: Depression is common in people with diabetes and is associated with poor glycemic control. Evidence suggests that certain antidepressants (AD) increase the risk of poor control. Few population-based studies have examined the impact of individual ADs on glycemic control. This study's objective is to measure the impact of Citalopram, Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, Trazodone and Escitalopram on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in Canadian primary care patients with diabetes.

Methods: A retrospective study of electronic medical records (EMR) from 115 primary care practices across Canada was undertaken. Data were obtained from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). The sample population comprised 1,084 diabetic patients with 1,127 prescriptions of one of the five selected ADs and with baseline and post-exposure HbA1c measurements. Generalized linear mixed models were computed to estimate the effect of the ADs on HbA1c.

Results: Mean HbA1c ratios for Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, Trazodone and Escitalopram were all numerically lower than Citalopram. The confidence intervals included the minimum detectable effect, however the differences were not statistically significant. The lowest clinically relevant HbA1c ratios, relative to Citalopram, were found in patients prescribed Trazodone and Escitalopram. Accounting for the prescription of Trazodone for indications other than depression, this research suggests that Escitalopram may be safer than Citalopram for people with diabetes and depression, in terms of its effect on blood glucose.

Conclusion: This study can inform future research examining the relationship between ADs and blood glucose and provides insight into the limitations pertaining to the use of health data in health research. Future research should seek to control for, across multiple time points: depression symptoms, depression severity, depression duration, weight, diabetes medication, tobacco and alcohol consumption and other medications with a known impact on blood glucose.

Current Ideas on the Treatment Of Diabetic Neuropathies

Diabetic neuropathies are common and their prevalence is rising with the growth in the global prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Several patterns of neuropathy have now been described, with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DPN) being the most common. Autonomic neuropathy, entrapment neuropathies including carpal tunnel syndrome and ulnar neuropathy at the elbow pose additional burdens. DPN can be detected in over half of all diabetic subjects and approximately 20% of all patients with DPN also experience neuropathic pain, a complication with major impacts on quality of life. Currently, the only available treatments for DPN are optimal glucose control and pain management, whereas interventions, beyond optimizing hyperglycemic control, to address the underlying polyneuropathy are not available. Here we review current treatment options and new literature relating to DPN, with an emphasis on novel and emerging treatments.

Efficacy and safety of 40 mg or 60 mg duloxetine in Japanese adults with diabetic neuropathic pain: Results from a randomized, 52-week, open-label study

Introduction

To examine the long‐term efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of Japanese patients with diabetic neuropathic pain, we carried out a 52‐week, randomized, open‐label extension of a 12‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study.

Materials and Methods

Japanese adults with diabetic neuropathic pain who completed the double‐blind study were eligible for this long‐term study, carried out at 71 sites in Japan (March 2008 to March 2010). Participants (n = 258) were re‐randomized (1:1) to 40 mg/day or 60 mg/day duloxetine. Pain (Brief Pain Inventory severity and interference), quality of life (Patient's Global Impression of Improvement), and safety (primary outcome; adverse events, vital signs, metabolic measures) were measured.

Results

Significant (P < 0.0001) and sustained improvements (change ± standard deviation; n = 257) were observed in Brief Pain Inventory severity (average pain score −2.1 ± 1.7). Improvements were also seen in Brief Pain Inventory interference (mean of subscores −0.96 ± 1.52) and Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (−0.9 ± 1.1) scores; these scores decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) during the long‐term study. Frequently reported adverse events included somnolence (13.6%), constipation (13.2%) and nausea (10.5%). Increases were observed in plasma glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin and total cholesterol levels, and in bodyweight and heart rate; however, none of these were clinically meaningful. Overall, there were no clinically significant safety concerns.

Conclusions

This is the first publication of a long‐term study carried out in Asia with an entirely Japanese patient population to suggest that long‐term duloxetine therapy for diabetic neuropathic pain is effective and has an acceptable safety profile.

Effectiveness of duloxetine compared with pregabalin and gabapentin in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: results from a German observational study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of duloxetine (DLX) and the anticonvulsants pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in routine clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from a 6-month, noninterventional study involving 2575 patients in whom treatment of DPNP was initiated with or changed to DLX, PGB, or GBP (n=1523) were analyzed post hoc; patients treated with other medications or combinations were excluded from this analysis. Propensity scoring was used to compare patient groups, assessing Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Clinical and Patient Global Impression (CGI/PGI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Short Form Health Survey (SF 12).

RESULTS

Mean median daily dosage over 6 months was 53.9 mg for DLX (N=931), 173.5 mg for PGB (N=248), and 727.8 mg for GBP (N=351). BPI average pain severity (last observation carried forward, mean [SD]) decreased by 2.3 [2.30] points for DLX patients, and by 1.9 [2.22] in PGB, and 1.1 [2.15] in GBP patients. This difference remained statistically significant (DLX vs. PGB: P=0.029; DLX vs. GBP: P<0.001) after adjustment by propensity scores. Similar findings were also seen for the BPI interference score, CGI and PGI, the HADS anxiety score, the HADS depression score.

DISCUSSION

When compared with DLX, the low doses of PGB and GBP used in this noninterventional study might have contributed to the lower effectiveness found for both anticonvulsants in the treatment of patients with DPNP.

Comparative safety and tolerability of duloxetine vs. pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

The safety and tolerability of three treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were compared.

METHODS

A 12-week, randomized, open-label study confirming the non-inferiority of duloxetine (N = 138) vs. pregabalin (N = 134) and the combination of duloxetine plus gabapentin (N = 135) as the primary outcome was previously published. Patients had an inadequate pain response to a stable dose of gabapentin (≥ 900 mg/day) for ≥ 5 weeks prior to study enrolment. Data from that study were assessed in this current analysis for a detailed report of safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Completion rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Discontinuation because of adverse events was significantly greater in the duloxetine (19.6%) vs. pregabalin group (10.4%; p = 0.04); no differences emerged between the duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin (13.3%) groups (p = 0.19) or pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin groups (p = 0.57). Adverse event rates varied: nausea, insomnia, hyperhidrosis and decreased appetite were reported significantly more often in patients treated with duloxetine vs. patients treated with pregabalin (each p ≤ 0.01); insomnia significantly more in patients treated with duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin (p = 0.01); peripheral oedema significantly more in patients treated with pregabalin vs. duloxetine and duloxetine plus gabapentin (p ≤ 0.001 each) and nausea, hyperhidrosis, decreased appetite and vomiting significantly more in patients treated with duloxetine plus gabapentin vs. pregabalin (each p ≤ 0.05). At end-point, weight change differed significantly among treatment groups: patients in the pregabalin group on average gained weight (1.0 ± 0.04 kg); while, patients in the duloxetine and duloxetine plus gabapentin groups on average lost weight (-2.39 ± 0.04 and -1.06 ± 0.04 kg, respectively) (pregabalin vs. duloxetine, p ≤ 0.001; pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin, p ≤ 0.001; duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine, pregabalin and duloxetine plus gabapentin were generally safe and tolerable for the treatment of DPNP.

Effect of duloxetine on pain, function, and quality of life among patients with chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

There are no known effective treatments for painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of duloxetine, 60 mg daily, on average pain severity.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial at 8 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded cooperative research networks that enrolled 231 patients who were 25 years or older being treated at community and academic settings between April 2008 and March 2011. Study follow-up was completed July 2012. Stratified by chemotherapeutic drug and comorbid pain risk, patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine followed by placebo or placebo followed by duloxetine. Eligibility required that patients have grade 1 or higher sensory neuropathy according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and at least 4 on a scale of 0 to 10, representing average chemotherapy-induced pain, after paclitaxel, other taxane, or oxaliplatin treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The initial treatment consisted of taking 1 capsule daily of either 30 mg of duloxetine or placebo for the first week and 2 capsules of either 30 mg of duloxetine or placebo daily for 4 additional weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary hypothesis was that duloxetine would be more effective than placebo in decreasing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain severity was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form "average pain" item with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing as bad as can be imagined.

RESULTS

Individuals receiving duloxetine as their initial 5-week treatment reported a mean decrease in average pain of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.72-1.40) vs 0.34 (95% CI, 0.01-0.66) among those who received placebo (P = .003; effect size, 0.513). The observed mean difference in the average pain score between duloxetine and placebo was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.26-1.20). Fifty-nine percent of those initially receiving duloxetine vs 38% of those initially receiving placebo reported decreased pain of any amount.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, the use of duloxetine compared with placebo for 5 weeks resulted in a greater reduction in pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00489411.

Painful diabetic polyneuropathy: approach to diagnosis and management

OBJECTIVES

To provide a current overview of the diagnostic work-up and management of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN).

METHODS

A review covering the literature from 2004 to 2011, which describes the tools designed to diagnose neuropathic pain and assess its severity, including self-administered questionnaires, validated laboratory tests and simple handheld screening devices, and the evidence-based therapeutic approaches to PDPN.

RESULTS

The clinical aspects, pathogenesis, and comorbidities of PDPN, as well as its impact on health related quality of life (HR-QoL), are the main drivers for the management of patients with suspected PDPN. PDPN treatment consists first of all in improving glycemic control and lifestyle intervention. A number of symptomatic pharmacological agents are available for pain control: tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (venlafaxine and duloxetine), α2-delta ligands (gabapentin and pregabalin), opioid analgesics (tramadol and oxycodone), and agents for topical use, such as lidocaine patch and capsaicin cream. With the exception of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, physical treatment is not supported by adequate evidence.

DISCUSSION

As efficacy and tolerability of current therapy for PDPN are not ideal, the need for a better approach in management further exists. Novel compounds should be developed for the treatment of PDPN.

Diabetic neuropathies: diagnosis and management

INTRODUCTION

Changes in human behaviour and lifestyle over the last century have resulted in a dramatic increase in the incidence of diabetes worldwide. Neuropathy is a common and costly complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The prevalence of neuropathy is estimated to be about 8% in newly diagnosed patients and greater than 50% in patients with long-standing disease. There are two main types of diabetic neuropathies, named as sensorimotor and autonomic neuropathies. Sensorimotor neuropathy is marked by pain, paraesthesia and sensory loss, and autonomic neuropathy may contribute to myocardial infarction, malignant arrhythmia and sudden death.

METHODS

In this article we reviewed the pathogenesis, clinical manifestations diagnosis and treatment of diabetic neuropathies.

CONCLUSION

Sensorimotor and autonomic neuropathies (cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and genitourinary autonomic neuropathies) are common in diabetic patients. Apart from strict glycaemic control, no further therapeutic approach exists in the prevention of this phenomenon. Intensive diabetes therapy, intensive multifactorial cardiovascular risk reduction and lifestyle intervention are recommended in patients with cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy. Gastroparesis is the most debilitating complication of gastrointestinal autonomic neuropathy and genitourinary autonomic neuropathy can cause sexual dysfunction and neurogenic bladder; these conditions are hard to manage. The symptomatic treatment of sensory symptoms includes tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, pregabalin and opioids. Other treatment strategies are not so effective.

Pain in neurological conditions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To address the issues of the scale and diversity of chronic pain in neurological disorders and the evidence for effective treatment of pain in these conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contemporary literature supports the notion that pain in neurological conditions is common and has tended to be underestimated.

SUMMARY

Pain in neurological disease displays great diversity in putative mechanisms and clinical presentation. Rational management requires an analysis of likely mechanisms of pain generation as a guide to treatment. Some common neurological disorders are briefly discussed, primarily to provide an indication of the range of pain phenotypes observed across the spectrum of neurological disease. Treatments are reviewed with an emphasis on systemic drugs and the current best evidence for their use.