Suppr超能文献

用于纤维肌痛的5-羟色胺和去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂(SNRIs)

Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for fibromyalgia.

作者信息

Welsch Patrick, Üçeyler Nurcan, Klose Petra, Walitt Brian, Häuser Winfried

机构信息

Health Care Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 28;2(2):CD010292. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010292.pub2.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

纤维肌痛是一种临床定义的病因不明的慢性疾病,其特征为慢性广泛性疼痛,常伴有睡眠障碍、认知功能障碍和疲劳。纤维肌痛患者常报告残疾程度高和生活质量差。药物治疗,例如使用5-羟色胺和去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂(SNRIs),侧重于减轻关键症状和改善生活质量。本综述更新并扩展了该系统综述的2013年版本。

目的

评估5-羟色胺和去甲肾上腺素再摄取抑制剂(SNRIs)与安慰剂或其他活性药物相比,在治疗成人纤维肌痛中的疗效、耐受性和安全性。

检索方法

为了此次更新,我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、美国国立卫生研究院数据库以及世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台,以查找已发表和正在进行的试验,并查阅了综述文章的参考文献列表,检索截止至2017年8月8日。

选择标准

我们选择了比较任何剂型的SNRIs与安慰剂或任何其他治疗成人纤维肌痛的活性药物的随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

三位综述作者独立提取数据、检查研究质量并评估偏倚风险。对于疗效,我们计算了疼痛缓解50%或更高、30%或更高时的额外有益结果所需治疗人数(NNTB)、患者整体印象为明显或非常明显改善、因疗效不佳导致的退出率,以及疲劳、睡眠问题、健康相关生活质量、平均疼痛强度、抑郁、焦虑、残疾、性功能、认知障碍和压痛的标准化均数差(SMD)。对于耐受性,我们计算了因不良事件导致退出以及恶心、失眠和嗜睡等特定不良事件的额外有害结果所需治疗人数(NNTH)。对于安全性,我们计算了严重不良事件的NNTH。我们使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。我们使用GRADE评估证据并创建了“结果总结”表。

主要结果

我们新增了8项研究,共1979名参与者,纳入研究总数达到18项,共7903名参与者。7项研究调查了度洛西汀,9项研究调查了米那普明与安慰剂的对比。1项研究比较了去文拉法辛与安慰剂及普瑞巴林。1项研究比较了度洛西汀与L-肉碱。大多数研究在三到五个领域存在偏倚风险不明确或较高的情况。由于担心发表偏倚和间接性,平行设计研究中度洛西汀、去文拉法辛和米那普明与安慰剂所有比较的证据质量都很低,而对于严重不良事件,由于担心发表偏倚、不精确性和间接性,证据质量非常低。由于担心发表偏倚、不精确性和间接性,度洛西汀和去文拉法辛与其他活性药物所有比较的证据质量都非常低。度洛西汀和米那普明在疼痛缓解50%或更高方面与安慰剂相比没有临床相关益处:度洛西汀和米那普明组4104名参与者中有1274名(31%)报告疼痛缓解50%或更高,而安慰剂组2814名参与者中有591名(21%)(风险差(RD)0.09,95%置信区间(CI)0.07至0.11;NNTB 11,95% CI 9至14)。度洛西汀和米那普明在患者整体印象为明显或非常明显改善方面与安慰剂相比有临床相关益处:度洛西汀和米那普明组1710名参与者中有888名(52%)(RD 0.19,95% CI 0.12至0.26;NNTB 5,95% CI 4至8)报告明显或非常明显改善,而安慰剂组1208名参与者中有354名(29%)。度洛西汀和米那普明在疼痛缓解30%或更高方面与安慰剂相比有临床相关益处。RD为0.10;95% CI 0.08至0.12;NNTB 10,95% CI 8至12。度洛西汀和米那普明与安慰剂相比在疲劳方面没有临床相关益处(SMD -0.13,95% CI -0.18至-0.08;NNTB 18,95% CI 12至29)。度洛西汀或米那普明与安慰剂在减少睡眠问题方面没有差异(SMD -0.07;95% CI -0.15至0.01)。度洛西汀和米那普明与安慰剂相比在改善健康相关生活质量方面没有临床相关益处(SMD -0.20,95% CI -0.25至-0.15;NNTB 11,95% CI 8至14)。SNRIs组4166名参与者中有794名(19%)因不良事件退出,而安慰剂组2863名参与者中有292名(10%)(RD 0.07,95% CI 0.04至0.10;NNTH 14,95% CI 10至25)。度洛西汀、米那普明或去文拉法辛与安慰剂在严重不良事件方面没有差异(RD -0.00,95% CI -0.01至0.00)。在一项小型试验中,去文拉法辛与安慰剂在疗效、耐受性和安全性方面没有差异。在两项有活性对照(L-肉碱、普瑞巴林)的试验中,度洛西汀和去文拉法辛在疗效、耐受性和安全性方面没有差异。

作者结论

此次更新未改变之前综述的主要发现。基于低至极低质量的证据,SNRIs度洛西汀和米那普明在疼痛缓解50%或更高的频率上与安慰剂相比没有临床相关益处,但在患者整体印象为明显或非常明显改善以及疼痛缓解30%或更高的频率上有临床相关益处。SNRIs度洛西汀和米那普明在改善健康相关生活质量和减轻疲劳方面与安慰剂相比没有临床相关益处。度洛西汀和米那普明在减少睡眠问题方面与安慰剂没有显著差异。度洛西汀和米那普明因不良事件导致的退出率高于安慰剂。总体而言,度洛西汀和米那普明在纤维肌痛中的潜在益处被其潜在危害所抵消。然而,少数纤维肌痛患者使用度洛西汀或米那普明可能会在无临床相关不良事件的情况下获得显著的症状缓解。我们未找到除去文拉法辛、度洛西汀和米那普明之外的其他SNRIs的安慰剂对照研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3776/6491100/165f193b652e/nCD010292-FIG-01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验