Derry Sheena, Wiffen Philip J, Häuser Winfried, Mücke Martin, Tölle Thomas Rudolf, Bell Rae F, Moore R Andrew
Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LE.
Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Langerstr. 3, München, Germany, D-81675.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 27;3(3):CD012332. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012332.pub2.
Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective.
To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.
We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.
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), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.
口服非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)广泛用于治疗纤维肌痛的疼痛,尽管其被认为无效。
评估口服非甾体抗炎药对成人纤维肌痛的镇痛效果、耐受性(因不良事件退出试验)和安全性(严重不良事件)。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)和荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase),以查找从数据库建立至2017年1月的随机对照试验。我们还检索了检索到的研究和综述的参考文献列表以及在线临床试验注册库。
我们纳入了为期两周或更长时间的随机、双盲试验,比较任何口服非甾体抗炎药与安慰剂或其他活性治疗对纤维肌痛疼痛缓解的效果,由参与者进行主观疼痛评估。
两名综述作者独立提取数据,并评估试验质量和潜在偏倚。主要结局包括疼痛显著缓解的参与者(与基线相比疼痛缓解至少50%或在患者整体印象改变量表(PGIC)上有很大改善)或中度疼痛缓解(与基线相比疼痛缓解至少30%或在PGIC上有较大或很大改善)、严重不良事件以及因不良事件退出试验;次要结局包括不良事件、因缺乏疗效退出试验以及与睡眠、疲劳和生活质量相关的结局。在可能进行汇总分析的情况下,我们使用二分数据,采用标准方法计算风险差异(RD)和为获得额外有益结局所需治疗的人数(NNT)。我们使用GRADE评估证据质量,并创建了“结果总结”表。
我们的检索共识别出6项随机、双盲研究,涉及292名符合纤维肌痛特征的参与者。参与者的平均年龄在39至50岁之间,89%至100%为女性。初始疼痛强度在0至10分的疼痛量表上约为7/10,表明疼痛严重。所测试的非甾体抗炎药包括每日90毫克的依托考昔、每日2400毫克的布洛芬、每日1000毫克的萘普生和每日20毫克的替诺昔康;146名参与者接受非甾体抗炎药治疗,146名接受安慰剂治疗。双盲阶段的治疗持续时间在3至8周之间。并非所有研究都报告了所有感兴趣的结局。分析一致显示,非甾体抗炎药与安慰剂之间无显著差异:显著获益(疼痛强度降低至少50%)(风险差异(RD) -0.07(95%置信区间(CI) -0.18至0.04),2项研究,146名参与者;中度获益(疼痛强度降低至少30%)(RD -0.04(95% CI -0.16至0.08),3项研究,192名参与者;因不良事件退出试验(RD 0.04(95% CI -0.02至0.09),4项研究,230名参与者;经历任何不良事件的参与者(RD 0.08(95% CI -0.03至0.19),4项研究,230名参与者;全因退出试验(RD 0.03(95% CI -0.07至0.14),3项研究,192名参与者。无严重不良事件或死亡。尽管大多数研究对健康相关生活质量、纤维肌痛影响或其他结局有一些测量,但均未报告治疗组之间无差异或差异很小之外的结局。我们将所有结局的证据质量降为极低质量,这意味着该研究无法可靠地表明可能的效果。效果可能存在实质性差异的可能性非常高。这是基于研究、参与者和事件数量较少,以及报告研究质量的其他缺陷可能导致偏倚风险。
关于非甾体抗炎药在纤维肌痛中的应用,仅有少量极低质量的证据,且这些证据来自规模小、大多不充分且存在潜在偏倚风险的研究。通常这种偏倚会增加非甾体抗炎药的明显益处,但并未观察到此类益处。因此,非甾体抗炎药不能被视为对治疗纤维肌痛有用。