BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.
MAIN RESULTS: This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.
Background: For patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. Objective: To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases. Eligibility criteria: English language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Data extraction and synthesis: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale −0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.96 to −0.40, I2 = 8%, P <.00001; n = 16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] >.05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain (P[interaction] =.05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] >.05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo. Conclusions: There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.
This review summarizes studies that examined the effectiveness of cannabinoids in treating spasticity, with a focus on understanding the relevance of the existing evidence to paediatric populations. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies that examined the use of cannabinoids in spasticity. We identified 32 studies in adult and paediatric populations. Results were summarized by condition, with adult and paediatric studies considered separately. There is evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials that cannabinoids are more effective than placebo in reducing symptoms of spasticity in adults with multiple sclerosis. Most positive effects were based on patient‐rated rather than clinician‐rated measures, were modest in size, and should be considered in the context of the narrow therapeutic index of cannabinoids for spasticity and adverse effects. There were comparatively few, and no large studies, of spasticity in conditions other than multiple sclerosis. Few studies have been conducted in paediatric populations. Paediatric studies of spasticity provide low quality evidence and are inadequate to inform clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain. Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients. With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P < 0.00001], and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.
This review examines evidence for the effectiveness of cannabinoids in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and addresses gaps in the literature by: considering differences in outcomes based on cannabinoid type and specific CNCP condition; including all study designs; and following IMMPACT guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in July 2017. Analyses were conducted using Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.0. A total of 91 publications containing 104 studies were eligible (n = 9958 participants), including 47 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 57 observational studies. Forty-eight studies examined neuropathic pain, 7 studies examined fibromyalgia, 1 rheumatoid arthritis, and 48 other CNCP (13 multiple sclerosis–related pain, 6 visceral pain, and 29 samples with mixed or undefined CNCP). Across RCTs, pooled event rates (PERs) for 30% reduction in pain were 29.0% (cannabinoids) vs 25.9% (placebo); significant effect for cannabinoids was found; number needed to treat to benefit was 24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15-61); for 50% reduction in pain, PERs were 18.2% vs 14.4%; no significant difference was observed. Pooled change in pain intensity (standardised mean difference: −0.14, 95% CI −0.20 to −0.08) was equivalent to a 3 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analogue scale greater than placebo groups. In RCTs, PERs for all-cause adverse events were 81.2% vs 66.2%; number needed to treat to harm: 6 (95% CI 5-8). There were no significant impacts on physical or emotional functioning, and low-quality evidence of improved sleep and patient global impression of change. Evidence for effectiveness of cannabinoids in CNCP is limited. Effects suggest that number needed to treat to benefit is high, and number needed to treat to harm is low, with limited impact on other domains. It seems unlikely that cannabinoids are highly effective medicines for CNCP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.
INTRODUCTION: The neuroinflammatory response plays a key role in several pain syndromes. Intravenous (iv) lidocaine is beneficial in acute and chronic pain. This review delineates the current literature concerning in vitro mechanisms and in vivo efficacy of iv lidocaine on the neuroinflammatory response in acute and chronic pain. Databases and data treatment: We searched PUBMED and the Cochrane Library for in vitro and in vivo studies from July 1975 to August 2014. In vitro articles providing an explanation for the mechanisms of action of lidocaine on the neuroinflammatory response in pain were included. Animal or clinical studies were included concerning iv lidocaine for acute or chronic pain or during inflammation. RESULTS: Eighty-eight articles regarding iv lidocaine were included: 36 in vitro studies evaluating the effect on ion channels and receptors; 31 animal studies concerning acute and chronic pain and inflammatory models; 21 clinical studies concerning acute and chronic pain. Low-dose lidocaine inhibits in vitro voltage-gated sodium channels, the glycinergic system, some potassium channels and Gαq-coupled protein receptors. Higher lidocaine concentrations block potassium and calcium channels, and NMDA receptors. Animal studies demonstrate lidocaine to have analgesic effects in acute and neuropathic pain syndromes and anti-inflammatory effects early in the inflammatory response. Clinical studies demonstrate lidocaine to have advantage in abdominal surgery and in some neuropathic pain syndromes. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous lidocaine has analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antihyperalgesic properties mediated by an inhibitory effect on ion channels and receptors. It attenuates the neuroinflammatory response in perioperative pain and chronic neuropathic pain. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVE: To update a systematic review of published research on pharmacotherapy for pain post-spinal cord injury (SCI).
DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles from 2009 to September 2015 examining treatment of pain post-SCI.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included for analysis if they met the following 4 a priori criteria: (1) written in the English language; (2) ≥50% of subjects had an SCI, unless results were stratified by population type; (3) participants included ≥3 subjects with an SCI; and (4) any intervention involving pharmacologic treatment for the improvement of pain.
DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodologic quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scoring system. All research designs were given a level of evidence according to a modified Sackett Scale.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven new studies met our inclusion criteria. The new studies fell into the following categories: analgesics (n=1), anticonvulsants (n=2), antidepressants (n=2), antispastics (n=1), and cannabinoids (n=1). There was evidence for 5 new pharmacotherapies among the SCI population; these included the following: oxycodone, duloxetine, venlafaxine, phenol block, and dronabinol. Levels of evidence for all therapy modalities were updated based on the new evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Anticonvulsants remain the most studied and supported pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain post-SCI. Antidepressants showed reduction in pain only among those with comorbid depression. Botulinum toxin and phenol blocks were supported for the reduction of mixed pain post-SCI.
Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.
MAIN RESULTS:
This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
