Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for fibromyalgia syndrome (Review)

Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität München, München,
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2013; 1(1):CD010292. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010292
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. Patients often report high disability levels and poor quality of life (QOL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and improving quality of life.
To assess the benefits and harms of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo for treating FMS symptoms in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2012), EMBASE (1980 to September 2012), (U.S.-marketed pharmaceuticals) (to September 2012) and (to September 2012) for published and ongoing trials and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.
We selected randomized, controlled trials of any formulation of SNRIs against placebo for the treatment of FMS in adults.
Two review authors independently extracted the data from the included studies, and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
Ten studies were included with a total of 6038 participants. Five studies investigated duloxetine against placebo, and five investigated milnacipran against placebo. A total of 3611 participants were included into duloxetine or milnacipran groups and 2427 participants into placebo groups. The studies had a low risk of bias in general. Duloxetine and milnacipran had a small incremental effect over placebo in reducing pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.18; 6.1% relative improvement). One-hundred and ninety-two participants per 1000 on placebo reported an at least 50% pain reduction compared to 280 per 1000 on SNRIs (Risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.64; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 9 to 15). Duloxetine and milnacipran did not reduce fatigue substantially (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.19 to -0.08; 2.5% relative improvement; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 29), and did not improve QOL substantially (SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.14; 4.6% relative improvement; NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 17) compared to placebo. There were no statistically significant differences between either duloxetine or milnacipran and placebo in reducing sleep problems (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; 2.5% relative improvement). One-hundred and seven participants per 1000 on placebo dropped out due to adverse events compared to 196 per 1000 on SNRIs. The dropout rate due to adverse events in the duloxetine and milnacipran groups was statistically significantly higher than in placebo groups (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.18; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 9 to 13). There was no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events between either duloxetine or milnacipran and placebo (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12).
The SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided a small incremental benefit over placebo in reducing pain. The superiority of duloxetine and milnacipran over placebo in reducing fatigue and limitations of QOL was not substantial. Duloxetine and milnacipran were not superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems. The dropout rates due to adverse events were higher for duloxetine and milnacipran than for placebo. The most frequently reported symptoms leading to stopping medication were nausea, dry mouth, constipation, headache, somnolence/dizziness and insomnia. Rare complications of both drugs may include suicidality, liver damage, abnormal bleeding, elevated blood pressure and urinary hesitation.


Available from: Winfried Häuser, Apr 17, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exercise training is commonly recommended for individuals with fibromyalgia. This review examined the effects of supervised group aquatic training programs (led by an instructor). We defined aquatic training as exercising in a pool while standing at waist, chest, or shoulder depth. This review is part of the update of the 'Exercise for treating fibromyalgia syndrome' review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2014; 10(10):CD011336. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011336 · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended pharmacological treatments (RPT; pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are effective treatment options for fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome and are currently recommended by clinical guidelines. We compared the cost-utility from the healthcare and societal perspectives of CBT versus RPT (combination of pregabalin¿+¿duloxetine) and usual care (TAU) groups in the treatment of FM.MethodsThe economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month, multicentre, randomised, blinded, parallel group, controlled trial. A total of 168 FM patients from 41 general practices in Zaragoza (Spain) were randomised to CBT (n¿=¿57), RPT (n¿=¿56) or TAU (n¿=¿55). The main outcome measures were Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs, assessed using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire) and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL, assessed using EuroQoL-5D visual analogue scale, EQ-VAS). The costs of healthcare utilisation were estimated from patient self-reports (Client Service Receipt Inventory). Cost-utility was assessed using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).ResultsOn average, the total costs per patient in the CBT group (1,847¿) were significantly lower than patients receiving RPT (3,664¿) or TAU (3,124¿). Patients receiving CBT reported a higher quality of life (QALYs and EQ-VAS scores); the differences between groups were significant only for EQ-VAS. From a complete case analysis approach (base case), the point estimates of the cost-effectiveness ratios resulted in dominance for the CBT group in all of the comparisons performed, using both QALYs and EQ-VAS as outcomes. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap analyses, net-benefit curves and CEACs. Two additional sensitivity analyses (intention-to-treat analysis and per protocol analysis) indicated that the results were robust. The comparison of RPT versus TAU yielded no clear preference for either treatment when using QALYs, although RPT was determined to be more cost-effective than TAU when evaluating EQ-VAS.ConclusionsDue to lower costs, CBT is the most cost-effective treatment for adult FM patients. Implementation in routine medical care would require policymakers to develop more widespread public access to trained and experienced therapists in group-based forms of CBT.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10804772. Registered 29 September 2008.
    Arthritis research & therapy 10/2014; 16(5):451. DOI:10.1186/s13075-014-0451-y · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The regular update of the German S3 guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), the"LONTS" (AWMF registration number 145/003), began in November 2013. The guidelines were developed by 26 scientific societies and two patient self-help organisations under the coordination of the Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft (German Pain Society). A systematic literature search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Scopus databases (up until October 2013) was performed. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The strength of the recommendations was established by multistep formal procedures, in order to reach a consensus according to German Association of the Medical Scientific Societies ("Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlich Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften", AWMF) regulations. The guidelines were reviewed by the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association, the Austrian Pain Society and the Swiss Association for the Study of Pain. Opioids are one drug-based treatment option for short- (4-12 weeks), intermediate- (13-25 weeks) and long-term (≥ 26 weeks) therapy of chronic osteoarthritis, diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia and low back pain. Contraindications are primary headaches, as well as functional somatic syndromes and mental disorders with the (cardinal) symptom pain. For all other clinical presentations, a short- and long-term therapy with opioid-containing analgesics should be evaluated on an individual basis. Long-term therapy with opioid-containing analgesics is associated with relevant risks (sexual disorders, increased mortality). Responsible application of opioid-containing analgesics requires consideration of possible indications and contraindications, as well as regular assessment of efficacy and adverse effects. Neither an uncritical increase in opioid application, nor the global rejection of opioid-containing analgesics is justified in patients with CNCP.