用于慢性疼痛成人患者疼痛治疗的抗抑郁药:网络荟萃分析。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health technology assessment Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3310/MKRT2948
Hollie Birkinshaw, Claire Friedrich, Peter Cole, Christopher Eccleston, Marc Serfaty, Gavin Stewart, Simon White, Andrew Moore, David Phillippo, Tamar Pincus
{"title":"用于慢性疼痛成人患者疼痛治疗的抗抑郁药:网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Hollie Birkinshaw, Claire Friedrich, Peter Cole, Christopher Eccleston, Marc Serfaty, Gavin Stewart, Simon White, Andrew Moore, David Phillippo, Tamar Pincus","doi":"10.3310/MKRT2948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic pain is common and costly. Antidepressants are prescribed to reduce pain. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions, so effectiveness and safety for most antidepressants for pain conditions remain unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for chronic pain (except headache) in adults. Our primary outcomes were as follows: substantial pain relief (50%), pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were as follows: moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events and withdrawal.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a systematic review with a network meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases for randomised controlled trials of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions up until 4 January 2022. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171855), and the protocol was published in the Cochrane Library (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014682).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>We analysed trials from all settings.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>We included trials in which participants had chronic pain, defined as longer than 3 months, from any condition excluding headache.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>We included all antidepressants.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Our primary outcome was substantial pain relief, defined as a reduction ˃ 50%. We also measured pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Secondary measures included moderate pain relief (above 30% reduction), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events, and withdrawal from trial.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. Most studies were placebo-controlled (<i>n</i> = 83) and parallel armed (<i>n</i> = 141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies), neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of randomised controlled trials was 10 weeks. Most 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. 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 for duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The evidence for antidepressants other than duloxetine is poor. For duloxetine, it is not clear whether the effect applies to groups with both pain and low mood, since these groups were excluded from trials. There is also insufficient evidence on long-term outcomes and on adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is only reliable evidence for duloxetine in the treatment of chronic pain. 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. Data for all other antidepressants were of low certainty. However, the findings should not be read as an encouragement to prescribe antidepressants where other non-pharmacological intervention could be equally effective, especially in the absence of good evidence on side effects and safety.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>There is a need for large, methodologically sound trials testing the effectiveness of antidepressants for chronic pain. These trials should examine long-term outcomes (> 6 months) and include people with low mood. There should also be better reporting of adverse events, tolerance of drugs, and long-term compliance.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171855.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128782) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 62. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"28 62","pages":"1-155"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474957/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hollie Birkinshaw, Claire Friedrich, Peter Cole, Christopher Eccleston, Marc Serfaty, Gavin Stewart, Simon White, Andrew Moore, David Phillippo, Tamar Pincus\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/MKRT2948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic pain is common and costly. Antidepressants are prescribed to reduce pain. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions, so effectiveness and safety for most antidepressants for pain conditions remain unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for chronic pain (except headache) in adults. Our primary outcomes were as follows: substantial pain relief (50%), pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were as follows: moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events and withdrawal.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a systematic review with a network meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases for randomised controlled trials of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions up until 4 January 2022. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171855), and the protocol was published in the Cochrane Library (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014682).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>We analysed trials from all settings.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>We included trials in which participants had chronic pain, defined as longer than 3 months, from any condition excluding headache.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>We included all antidepressants.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Our primary outcome was substantial pain relief, defined as a reduction ˃ 50%. We also measured pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Secondary measures included moderate pain relief (above 30% reduction), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events, and withdrawal from trial.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. Most studies were placebo-controlled (<i>n</i> = 83) and parallel armed (<i>n</i> = 141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies), neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of randomised controlled trials was 10 weeks. Most 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. 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 for duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The evidence for antidepressants other than duloxetine is poor. For duloxetine, it is not clear whether the effect applies to groups with both pain and low mood, since these groups were excluded from trials. There is also insufficient evidence on long-term outcomes and on adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is only reliable evidence for duloxetine in the treatment of chronic pain. 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. Data for all other antidepressants were of low certainty. However, the findings should not be read as an encouragement to prescribe antidepressants where other non-pharmacological intervention could be equally effective, especially in the absence of good evidence on side effects and safety.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>There is a need for large, methodologically sound trials testing the effectiveness of antidepressants for chronic pain. These trials should examine long-term outcomes (> 6 months) and include people with low mood. There should also be better reporting of adverse events, tolerance of drugs, and long-term compliance.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171855.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128782) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 62. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":\"28 62\",\"pages\":\"1-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474957/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/MKRT2948\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/MKRT2948","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性疼痛很常见,而且代价高昂。抗抑郁药是减轻疼痛的处方药。然而,目前还没有一项网络荟萃分析对所有慢性疼痛病症中的所有抗抑郁药进行研究,因此大多数抗抑郁药治疗疼痛病症的有效性和安全性仍然未知:目的:评估抗抑郁药治疗成人慢性疼痛(头痛除外)的有效性和安全性。我们的主要结果如下:疼痛明显缓解(50%)、疼痛强度、情绪和不良反应。我们的次要结果如下:中度疼痛缓解(30%)、身体功能、睡眠、生活质量、患者总体变化印象、严重不良事件和停药:设计:这是一项带有网络荟萃分析的系统性综述。我们在 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、LILACS、AMED 和 PsycINFO 数据库中检索了截至 2022 年 1 月 4 日的抗抑郁药治疗慢性疼痛的随机对照试验。本综述已在 PROSPERO(CRD42020171855)中注册,综述方案已在 Cochrane 图书馆(https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014682)中发布。环境:我们分析了所有环境下的试验:干预措施:我们纳入了所有抗抑郁药物:干预措施:我们纳入了所有抗抑郁药物:主要研究结果:我们的主要研究结果是疼痛明显缓解,即疼痛减轻了 50%。我们还测量了疼痛强度、情绪和不良事件。次要指标包括中度疼痛缓解(减轻 30% 以上)、身体功能、睡眠、生活质量、总体变化印象、严重不良事件和退出试验:我们确定了 176 项研究,共有 28,664 名参与者。大多数研究为安慰剂对照研究(83 项)和平行武装研究(141 项)。最常见的疼痛病症是纤维肌痛(59 项研究)、神经性疼痛(49 项研究)和肌肉骨骼疼痛(40 项研究)。随机对照试验的平均时间为 10 周。大多数研究仅测量了短期疗效,并排除了情绪低落和其他精神疾病患者。在所有疗效结果中,度洛西汀一直是具有中度至高度确定性证据的排名最高的抗抑郁药。在大多数疗效结果中,标准剂量与高剂量具有同等疗效。米那西普兰通常被列为疗效仅次于度洛西汀的抗抑郁药物,但其证据的确定性低于度洛西汀。没有足够的证据可以对任何其他抗抑郁药治疗慢性疼痛的疗效和安全性得出可靠的结论:除度洛西汀外,其他抗抑郁药的证据不足。对于度洛西汀,尚不清楚其疗效是否适用于同时伴有疼痛和情绪低落的群体,因为这些群体被排除在试验之外。关于长期疗效和不良反应的证据也不充分:结论:目前只有可靠的证据表明度洛西汀可用于治疗慢性疼痛。在标准剂量下,度洛西汀对所有结果均有中等疗效。米那西泮也有很好的疗效,但要对这些结论有信心,还需要进一步的高质量研究。所有其他抗抑郁药物的数据确定性较低。然而,这些研究结果不应被理解为鼓励在其他非药物干预措施可能同样有效的情况下处方抗抑郁药物,尤其是在缺乏有关副作用和安全性的充分证据的情况下:今后的工作:需要进行大型、方法合理的试验,测试抗抑郁药物对慢性疼痛的疗效。这些试验应检查长期疗效(大于 6 个月),并将情绪低落者包括在内。此外,还应更好地报告不良事件、药物耐受性和长期依从性:本研究注册为 PROSPERO CRD42020171855:本奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR128782),全文发表于《健康技术评估》第28卷第62期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.

Background: Chronic pain is common and costly. Antidepressants are prescribed to reduce pain. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions, so effectiveness and safety for most antidepressants for pain conditions remain unknown.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for chronic pain (except headache) in adults. Our primary outcomes were as follows: substantial pain relief (50%), pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were as follows: moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events and withdrawal.

Design: This was a systematic review with a network meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases for randomised controlled trials of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions up until 4 January 2022. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171855), and the protocol was published in the Cochrane Library (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014682).

Setting: We analysed trials from all settings.

Participants: We included trials in which participants had chronic pain, defined as longer than 3 months, from any condition excluding headache.

Interventions: We included all antidepressants.

Main outcome measures: Our primary outcome was substantial pain relief, defined as a reduction ˃ 50%. We also measured pain intensity, mood and adverse events. Secondary measures included moderate pain relief (above 30% reduction), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Global Impression of Change, serious adverse events, and withdrawal from trial.

Results: We identified 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. Most studies were placebo-controlled (n = 83) and parallel armed (n = 141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies), neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of randomised controlled trials was 10 weeks. Most 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. 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 for duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.

Limitations: The evidence for antidepressants other than duloxetine is poor. For duloxetine, it is not clear whether the effect applies to groups with both pain and low mood, since these groups were excluded from trials. There is also insufficient evidence on long-term outcomes and on adverse effects.

Conclusions: There is only reliable evidence for duloxetine in the treatment of chronic pain. 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. Data for all other antidepressants were of low certainty. However, the findings should not be read as an encouragement to prescribe antidepressants where other non-pharmacological intervention could be equally effective, especially in the absence of good evidence on side effects and safety.

Future work: There is a need for large, methodologically sound trials testing the effectiveness of antidepressants for chronic pain. These trials should examine long-term outcomes (> 6 months) and include people with low mood. There should also be better reporting of adverse events, tolerance of drugs, and long-term compliance.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171855.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128782) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 62. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
期刊最新文献
Early high-dose cryoprecipitate to reduce mortality in adult patients with traumatic haemorrhage: the CRYOSTAT-2 RCT with cost-effectiveness analysis. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for acute respiratory infection: a systematic review of reviews. The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT. Alitretinoin versus phototherapy as the first-line treatment in adults with severe chronic hand eczema: the ALPHA RCT. Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1