III. Detecting Treatment Effects in Clinical Trials With Different Indices of Pain Intensity Derived From Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Pain intensity represents the primary outcome in most pain clinical trials. Identifying methods to measure aspects of pain that are most sensitive to treatment may facilitate discovery of effective interventions. In this third of 3 articles examining alternative indices of pain intensity derived from ecological momentary assessments (EMA), we compare treatment effects based on Average Pain, Maximum Pain, Minimum Pain, Pain Variability, Time in High Pain, Time in Low Pain, and Pain After Wake-Up. We also examine which indices contribute to Patient Global Impressions of Change (PGIC). Data came from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of milnacipran for fibromyalgia treatment; 2,084 patients provided >1 million EMA pain intensity ratings over 24 (Study 1) or 26 (Study 2) treatment weeks. Pain Variability and Time in High Pain produced significantly smaller treatment effects than Average Pain; other pain indices showed effects that were numerically smaller, but not significantly different from Average Pain. Changes in all pain indices were significantly associated with PGIC, with improvements in Maximum Pain and in Pain Variability offering small incremental contributions to understanding PGIC over Average Pain. Results suggest that different pain indices could be used to detect treatment effects in pain clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Alternative summary measures of pain intensity derived from EMA may broaden the scope of outcomes useful in pain clinical trials. In this analysis of a pharmacological treatment for fibromyalgia, most pain summary measures indicated similar effects; improvements in Maximum Pain and Pain Variability contributed to understanding PGIC over Average Pain.

Efficacy of pregabalin as a monotherapy versus combined pregabalin and milnacipran in the management of fibromyalgia.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of combined pregabalin (PGB) and milnacipran (MLN) in female patients with fibromyalgia (FM) versus PGB as a monotherapy. METHODS: The present randomized open study included 58 female patients diagnosed with FM (registered on 4/2/19: NCT03905486). Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (2:2); group 1 included 29 patients who received PGB monotherapy (150 mg twice daily) and group 2 included 29 patients who received combined PGB (150 mg twice daily) and MLN (50 mg twice daily) for 3 months. At the initial visit, patients were subjected to demographic data collection and assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the FM impact questionnaire (FIQ). Outcome measures after 3 months: FIQ, VAS and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. RESULTS: The median disease duration was 2 years in group 1 (6 months to 5 years) and 2 years in group 2 (6 months to 12 years). The dropout rate was 20.7% in group 1 (n = 6) and 10.3% in group 2 (n = 3). At the follow-up evaluation, a statistically significant improvement was observed in VAS and FIQ scores in both groups (P < 0.001). Although the percentage of patients demonstrating significant improvement in pain, disease impact and sleep pattern were higher in group 2, this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Although PGB as a monotherapy and in combination with MLN have both shown adequate efficacy in the treatment of patients with FM, the combined therapy did not demonstrate superiority over the monotherapy.

Milnacipran poorly modulates pain in patients suffering from fibromyalgia: a randomized double-blind controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: Fibromyalgia is characterized by widespread and chronic pain, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Milnacipran, an antidepressant, is often prescribed for fibromyalgia with a possible beneficial effect on central pain modulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate if milnacipran could modify the status of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in patients suffering from fibromyalgia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Women with fibromyalgia received milnacipran 100 mg or placebo. The primary end point was the evolution of CPM with treatments after a 30-second painful stimulus. Secondary outcomes included the predictability of milnacipran efficacy from CPM performance, evolution of global pain, mechanical sensitivity, thermal pain threshold, mechanical allodynia, cognitive function, and tolerance. RESULTS: Fifty-four women with fibromyalgia (46.7±10.6 years) were included and randomized, and 24 patients were analyzed in each group. At inclusion, CPM was dysfunctional (CPM30=-0.5±1.9), and global pain was 6.5±1.8. After treatment, there was a nonsignificant CPM difference between milnacipran and placebo (CPM30=-0.46±1.22 vs -0.69±1.43, respectively, p=0.55) and 18.8% vs 6.3% (p=0.085) patients did reactivate CPM after milnacipran vs placebo. Initial CPM was not a predictor of milnacipran efficacy. Global pain, mechanical and thermal thresholds, allodynia, cognition, and tolerance were not significantly different between both groups. CONCLUSION: Milnacipran did not display a significant analgesic effect after 1-month treatment, but the tendency of milnacipran to reactivate CPM in a number of patients must be explored with longer treatment duration in future studies and pleads for possible subtypes of fibromyalgia patients.