Moore R Andrew, Derry Sheena, Aldington Dominic, Cole Peter, Wiffen Philip J
Plymouth, UK.
Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 May 28;5(7):CD011824. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011824.
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of amitriptyline for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review. Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. It is usually used at doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.
To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of fibromyalgia, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews and other reviews, and two clinical trial registries. We also used our own hand searched database for older studies.
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia.
We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), and for harm we calculated the number needed to treat to harm (NNH) for adverse events and withdrawals. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis.
We included seven studies from the earlier review and two new studies (nine studies, 649 participants) of 6 to 24 weeks' duration, enrolling between 22 and 208 participants; none had 50 or more participants in each treatment arm. Two studies used a cross-over design. The daily dose of amitriptyline was 25 mg to 50 mg, and some studies had an initial titration period. There was no first or second tier evidence for amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Using third tier evidence the risk ratio (RR) for at least 50% pain relief, or equivalent, with amitriptyline compared with placebo was 3.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 4.9), with an NNT) of 4.1 (2.9 to 6.7) (very low quality evidence). There were no consistent differences between amitriptyline and placebo or other active comparators for relief of symptoms such as fatigue, poor sleep, quality of life, or tender points. More participants experienced at least one adverse event with amitriptyline (78%) than with placebo (47%). The RR was 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8) and the NNH was 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were more common with placebo (12% versus 5%; RR 0.42 (0.19 to 0.95)) (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for fibromyalgia for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against years of successful treatment in many patients with fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline will be one option in the treatment of fibromyalgia, while recognising that only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in fibromyalgia to establish efficacy statistically, or measure the size of the effect.
这是2012年第12期发表的原始Cochrane综述的更新版本。该综述同时考虑了纤维肌痛和神经性疼痛,但阿米替林治疗神经性疼痛的疗效现在在另一篇综述中论述。阿米替林是一种三环类抗抑郁药,广泛用于治疗纤维肌痛,并且在许多指南中被推荐使用。它通常以低于作为抗抑郁药起效剂量的剂量使用。
评估阿米替林缓解纤维肌痛的镇痛疗效,以及在临床试验中与其使用相关的不良事件。
我们检索了截至2015年3月的Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE和EMBASE,同时检索了检索论文的参考文献列表、先前的系统评价和其他综述,以及两个临床试验注册库。我们还使用了自己手工检索的数据库来查找较早的研究。
我们纳入了至少为期四周的随机、双盲研究,这些研究比较了阿米替林与安慰剂或纤维肌痛的另一种活性治疗。
我们提取了疗效和不良事件数据,两位研究作者独立检查了研究质量问题。我们使用三级证据进行分析。一级证据来自符合当前最佳标准且偏倚风险最小的数据(结果相当于疼痛强度大幅降低,意向性分析,不补全失访数据;比较组中至少有200名参与者,为期8至12周,平行设计),二级证据来自未满足这些标准中的一项或多项且被认为存在一定偏倚风险但比较组中有足够数量参与者的数据,三级证据来自涉及少量参与者的数据,这些数据被认为很可能存在偏倚或使用的临床效用有限的结局,或两者皆有。对于疗效,我们计算了获益所需治疗人数(NNT),对于危害,我们计算了不良事件和退出治疗的危害所需治疗人数(NNH)。我们使用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析。
我们纳入了早期综述中的七项研究和两项新研究(共九项研究,649名参与者),研究持续时间为6至24周,每组纳入22至208名参与者;每个治疗组中均没有50名或更多参与者。两项研究采用了交叉设计。阿米替林的每日剂量为25毫克至五十毫克,一些研究有初始滴定期。没有一级或二级证据支持阿米替林治疗纤维肌痛。使用三级证据,与安慰剂相比,阿米替林至少使50%的疼痛缓解或等效的风险比(RR)为3.0(95%置信区间(CI)1.7至至4.9),NNT为4.1(2.9至6.7)(极低质量证据)。在缓解疲劳、睡眠不佳、生活质量或压痛点等症状方面,阿米替林与安慰剂或其他活性对照药物之间没有一致的差异。与安慰剂(47%)相比,更多使用阿米替林的参与者经历了至少一次不良事件(78%)。RR为1.5(1.3至1.8),NNH为3.3(2.5至4.9)。不良事件和全因退出治疗没有差异,但安慰剂组因缺乏疗效而退出治疗更为常见(12%对5%;RR 0.42(0.19至0.95))(极低质量证据)。
多年来,阿米替林一直是纤维肌痛的一线治疗药物。没有支持其有益效果的无偏倚证据这一事实令人失望,但必须与多年来许多纤维肌痛患者成功接受治疗的情况相权衡。没有充分证据表明其无效;相反,我们应该担心的是对治疗效果的高估。阿米替林将是纤维肌痛治疗的一种选择,同时要认识到只有少数患者能够实现令人满意的疼痛缓解。不太可能再进行任何关于阿米替林的大型随机试验来在统计学上确立其疗效或衡量其效果大小。