Milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cording M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481368 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults.
Cording Malene M Derry Sheena S Phillips Tudor T Moore R Andrew RA Wiffen Philip J PJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20151020 10
<h4>Background</h4>This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of milnacipran for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review.Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia in some countries, including Canada, Russia, and the United States.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the anal ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMilnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.ObjectivesTo evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of milnacipran in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 4th of January 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.Selection criteriaWe included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Data collection and analysisWe extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently.Main resultsFive studies (4138 participants) were included, all of which were placebo-controlled, involved participants with fibromyalgia, and used titration to a target dose of 100 mg or 200 mg milnacipran. There were no other active comparators or studies in other neuropathic pain conditions. Study quality was generally good, although the imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Both doses of milnacipran provided moderate levels of pain relief to about 40% of those treated, compared to 30% with placebo, giving a number needed to treat of 8 to 10. Adverse events were common in both milnacipran (87%) and placebo (78%) groups, but serious adverse events (< 2%) did not differ between groups. Nausea and constipation were the most common events showing the greatest difference between groups (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome of 7 and 13 respectively, compared with placebo).Withdrawals for any reason were more common with milnacipran than placebo, and more common with 200 mg than 100 mg (NNH of 23 and 8.8 respectively, compared with placebo). This was largely driven by adverse event withdrawals, where the NNH compared with placebo was 14 for 100 mg, and 7.0 for 200 mg). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were more common with milnacipran than placebo but did not differ between doses (number needed to treat to prevent an additional unwanted outcome of 45 and 41 respectively).Authors' conclusionsThe evidence available indicates that milnacipran 100 mg or 200 mg is effective for a minority in the treatment of pain due to fibromyalgia, providing moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30%) to about 40% of participants, compared with about 30% with placebo. There were insufficient data to assess substantial levels of pain relief (at least 50%), and the use of last observation carried forward imputation may overestimate drug efficacy. Milnacipran is associated with increased adverse events and adverse event withdrawals, which were significantly greater for the higher dose. There were no data for the use of milnacipran for other chronic neuropathic pain conditions.
| S-EPMC4164830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of fibromyalgia increases worldwide and is characterized by widespread and chronic pain. Treatment is difficult and includes both drug and non-drug approaches. Milnacipran, an antidepressant, is used for fibromyalgia, with a possible beneficial effect on central pain modulation. Our hypothesis is that the efficacy of milnacipran in fibromyalgia depends on the performance of pain inhibitory controls.Methods/designA randomized, double blind, clinical trial (NCT01747044) with two parallel groups, in 48 women with fibromyalgia, is planned in the Clinical Pharmacology Center, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Conditioned pain modulation (estimated with thermal stimuli using a numeric pain rating scale), the primary endpoint measure, is evaluated before and one month after treatment with milnacipran or placebo. Secondary outcome measures include the predictability of pain descending pathways performance for milnacipran efficacy, tolerance and cognitive function. Data analysis is performed using mixed models; the tests are two-sided, with a type I error set at alpha = 0.05. Not only will this trial allow estimation of the beneficial effect of milnacipran on pain and on descending pain pathways but it will also evaluate whether the performance of this modulatory system could be predictive of its efficacy in alleviating pain.DiscussionThis method would allow clinicians to take a pro-active attitude by performing a rapid psychophysical test before starting milnacipran treatment and would avoid unnecessary prescription while preventing therapeutic failure in patients who often face this recurrent problem.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01747044 .
| S-EPMC4393595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Fibromyalgia is characterized by widespread and chronic pain, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Milnacipran, an antidepressant, is often prescribed for fibromyalgia with a possible beneficial effect on central pain modulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate if milnacipran could modify the status of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in patients suffering from fibromyalgia. Design and setting:Randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Subjects and methods:Women with fibromyalgia received milnacipran 100 mg or placebo. The primary end point was the evolution of CPM with treatments after a 30-second painful stimulus. Secondary outcomes included the predictability of milnacipran efficacy from CPM performance, evolution of global pain, mechanical sensitivity, thermal pain threshold, mechanical allodynia, cognitive function, and tolerance. Results:Fifty-four women with fibromyalgia (46.7±10.6 years) were included and randomized, and 24 patients were analyzed in each group. At inclusion, CPM was dysfunctional (CPM30=-0.5±1.9), and global pain was 6.5±1.8. After treatment, there was a nonsignificant CPM difference between milnacipran and placebo (CPM30=-0.46±1.22 vs -0.69±1.43, respectively, p=0.55) and 18.8% vs 6.3% (p=0.085) patients did reactivate CPM after milnacipran vs placebo. Initial CPM was not a predictor of milnacipran efficacy. Global pain, mechanical and thermal thresholds, allodynia, cognition, and tolerance were not significantly different between both groups. Conclusion:Milnacipran did not display a significant analgesic effect after 1-month treatment, but the tendency of milnacipran to reactivate CPM in a number of patients must be explored with longer treatment duration in future studies and pleads for possible subtypes of fibromyalgia patients.
| S-EPMC6089099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate whether milnacipran is safe and effective in improving cognitive function in patients with fibromyalgia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive milnacipran or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by a 1-week washout and then crossover to the other arm for another 6 weeks. The overall trial lasted 13 weeks and was conducted between July 2011 and May 2013. Assessments were performed at each visit. Neurocognition was measured by the Brief Assessment of Cognition (BAC) and MATRICS. Pain was assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Global assessment of fibromyalgia symptoms was measured by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) and tender point examination. Depression was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Fatigue was assessed by the Fatigue Severity Scale. Functional outcome was evaluated by the Health Assessment Questionnaire. The Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales and the Patients Clinical Global Impression of Change were used to measure the global impression of severity and improvement. 26 subjects were screened, and 20 subjects completed the trial. The change in verbal memory (P = .001) and the composite T score (P = .044) of the BAC and the change in the attention-vigilance domain T score (P = .042) were significantly improved, but there were no differences between the drug and placebo groups. The changes in the CGI-S scores were not significant, but the changes in the Clinical Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scores showed worsening in the placebo group at week 1 (P = .032), week 2 (P = .024), week 4 (P = .024), and week 6 (P = .60) compared to baseline. The change in FIQ scores was not significant. Milnacipran may have a potential role in the improvement of pain, disability, and mood. The effect of milnacipran on cognition in fibromyalgia needs further research. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01829243.
| S-EPMC3977772 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6457745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some seem to be especially useful for neuropathic pain. Lacosamide is an antiepileptic drug that has recently been investigated for neuropathic pain relief, although it failed to get approval for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency.ObjectivesTo evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of lacosamide in the management of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (2011, Issue 4), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 2000 to August 2011) and EMBASE (2000 to August 2011) without language restriction, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.Selection criteriaWe included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks duration or longer, comparing lacosamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted data for efficacy and adverse events and examined issues of study quality, including risk of bias assessments. Where possible, we calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals.Main resultsWe included six studies; five (1863 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and one (159 participants) in fibromyalgia. All were placebo-controlled and titrated to a target dose of 200 mg, 400 mg or 600 mg lacosamide daily, given as a divided dose. Study reporting quality was generally good, although the imputation method of last observation carried forward used in analyses of the primary outcomes is known to known to impart major bias where, as here, adverse event withdrawal rates were high. This, together with small numbers of patients and events for most outcomes at most doses meant that most results were of low quality, with moderate quality evidence available for some efficacy outcomes for 400 mg lacosamide.There were too few data for analysis of the 200 mg dose for painful diabetic neuropathy or any dose for fibromyalgia.In painful diabetic neuropathy, lacosamide 400 mg provided statistically increased rates of achievement of "moderate" and "substantial" benefit (at least 30% and at least 50% reduction from baseline in patient-reported pain respectively) and the patient global impression of change outcome of "much or very much improved". In each case the extra proportion benefiting above placebo was about 10%, yielding numbers needed to treat to benefit compared with placebo of 10 to 12. For lacosamide 600 mg there was no consistent benefit over placebo.There was no significant difference between any dose of lacosamide and placebo for participants experiencing any adverse event or a serious adverse event, but adverse event withdrawals showed a significant dose response. The number needed to treat to harm for adverse event withdrawal was 11 for lacosamide 400 mg and 4 for the 600 mg dose.Authors' conclusionsLacosamide has limited efficacy in the treatment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Higher doses did not give consistently better efficacy, but were associated with significantly more adverse event withdrawals. Where adverse event withdrawals are high with active treatment compared with placebo and when last observation carried forward imputation is used, as in some of these studies, significant overestimation of treatment efficacy can result. It is likely, therefore, that lacosamide is without any useful benefit in treating neuropathic pain; any positive interpretation of the evidence should be made with caution if at all.
| S-EPMC8406928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies of long-term treatment response in fibromyalgia and other chronic pain states have generally been limited to approximately one year, leaving questions about the longer-term durability of response. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate continuing efficacy of milnacipran by characterizing changes in pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms after discontinuing long-term treatment. The mean length of milnacipran treatment at the time of randomized withdrawal was 36.1 months from initial exposure to milnacipran (range, 17.9 to 54.4 months).MethodsAfter completing a long-term, open-label, lead-in study of milnacipran (which followed varying periods of exposure in previous studies), adult patients with fibromyalgia entered the four-week open-label period of the current study for evaluation of ongoing treatment response. After the four-week period to confirm new baseline status, 151 patients taking milnacipran ≥100 mg/day and reporting ≥50% improvement from pre-milnacipran exposure in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores were classified as responders. These responders entered the 12-week, double-blind withdrawal period in which they were randomized 2:1 to continue milnacipran or switched to placebo. The prespecified primary parameter was loss of therapeutic response (LTR), defined as increase in VAS pain score to <30% reduction from pre-milnacipran exposure or worsening of fibromyalgia requiring alternative treatment. Adverse events and vital signs were also monitored.ResultsTime to LTR was shorter in patients randomized to placebo than in patients continuing milnacipran (P < 0.001). Median time to LTR was 56 days with placebo and was not calculable for milnacipran, because less than half of the latter group of patients lost therapeutic response by study end. Additionally, 81% of patients continuing on milnacipran maintained clinically meaningful pain response (≥30% improvement from pre-milnacipran exposure), compared with 58% of patients switched to placebo (sensitivity analysis II; P < 0.001). The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were 58% and 47% for placebo and milnacipran, respectively. Mean decreases in blood pressure and heart rate were found in both groups, with greater decreases for patients switched to placebo.ConclusionsContinuing efficacy of milnacipran was demonstrated by the loss of effect following withdrawal of treatment in patients who received an average of three years of milnacipran treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01014585.
| S-EPMC3978750 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6464253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are no approved medications for juvenile fibromyalgia (JFM), a disorder that is often under-diagnosed. The effects of milnacipran, a drug approved for the management of fibromyalgia (FM) in adults, was assessed in a clinical trial program for JFM.MethodsPatients, ages 13-17 years who met the Yunus and Masi criteria for JFM and/or 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for FM, were enrolled in a responder-enriched, randomized withdrawal trial. After receiving open-label milnacipran (8 weeks), patients with ≥50 % improvement in pain underwent double-blind randomization (1:2) to either placebo or continuing treatment with milnacipran (8 weeks). All patients, including those who did not meet the randomization criteria for double-blind withdrawal, were allowed to enter an extension study with open-label milnacipran (up to 52 weeks). The primary endpoint was loss of therapeutic response (LTR) during the double-blind period. Additional outcome measures included the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL: Generic Core Scales, Multidimensional Fatigue Scale), and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, electrocardiograms, and laboratory tests.ResultsThe milnacipran program was terminated early due to low enrollment. Because only 20 patients were randomized into the double-blind withdrawal period, statistical analyses were not conducted for the LTR endpoint. However, 116 patients entered the open-label period of the initial study and 57 participated in the open-label extension study. Their experience provides preliminary information about the use of milnacipran in JFM patients. During both open-label periods, there were mean improvements in pain severity, PGIC, PedsQL, and MASC scores. No unexpected safety issues were detected. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent AEs were nausea, headache, vomiting, and dizziness. Mean increases in heart rate and blood pressure were observed, and were consistent with the AE profile in adults with FM.ConclusionsThe open-label findings provide preliminary evidence that milnacipran may improve symptoms of JFM, with a safety and tolerability profile that is consistent with the experience in adult FM patients. Future trial designs for JFM should consider the relatively low recognition of this condition compared to adult FM and the difficulties with enrollment.Trial registrationNCT01328002 ; NCT01331109.
| S-EPMC4480575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adding milnacipran to pregabalin in patients with fibromyalgia who have experienced an incomplete response to pregabalin.MethodsIn this randomized, multicenter, open-label study, patients received pregabalin 300 or 450 mg/day during a 4- to 12-week run-in period. Patients with weekly recall visual analog scale (VAS) pain score of at least 40 and up to 90, Patient Global Impression of Severity score of at least 4, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score of at least 3 were classified as incomplete responders and randomized to continue pregabalin alone (n = 180) or receive milnacipran 100 mg/day added to pregabalin (n = 184). The primary efficacy parameter was responder status based on PGIC score of up to 2. The secondary efficacy parameter was change from randomization in weekly recall VAS pain score. Safety parameters included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and clinical laboratory tests.ResultsThe percentage of PGIC responders was significantly higher with milnacipran added to pregabalin (46.4%) than with pregabalin alone (20.8%; p < 0.001). Mean improvement from randomization in weekly recall VAS pain scores was greater in patients receiving milnacipran added to pregabalin (-20.77) than in patients receiving pregabalin alone (-6.43; p < 0.001). During the run-in period, the most common treatment-emergent AEs with pregabalin were dizziness (22.8%), somnolence (17.3%), and fatigue (9.1%). During the randomized period, the most common treatment-emergent AEs with milnacipran added to pregabalin were nausea (12.5%), fatigue (10.3%), and constipation (9.8%).ConclusionsIn this exploratory, open-label study, adding milnacipran to pregabalin improved global status, pain, and other symptoms in patients with fibromyalgia with an incomplete response to pregabalin treatment.
| S-EPMC3707344 | biostudies-literature