Search

Background: This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis. Methods: A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ⩾12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions. WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors. Results: Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%. Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics. Conclusions: This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) are associated with substantial headache-related disability, poor quality of life and global societal burden. In this subgroup analysis from the CONQUER study, we report efficacy outcomes from a pre-specified analysis of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with CM or EM and 3-4 prior preventive medication category failures due to inadequate efficacy (after at least 2 months at maximum tolerated dose), or safety or tolerability reasons. The patient population is of particular interest due to evidence of decreased quality of life and increased economic burden among patients with migraine that is inadequately managed and is of interest to decision-makers globally., Methods: Key outcomes included overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days and proportions of patients achieving ≥30% (CM), ≥50%, and ≥ 75% reduction (response rates) in monthly migraine headache days across Months 1-3. Patient functioning and disability were evaluated at Month 3., Results: Of the 462 randomized patients, 186 (40.3%) had a history of 3-4 preventive category failures. Galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significantly (P ≤ .001) larger overall mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days (total: - 5.49 versus - 1.03; CM: - 6.70 versus - 1.56; EM: - 3.64 versus - 0.65). Similarly, the ≥50% response rate was significantly (P ≤ .001) higher with galcanezumab versus placebo (total: 41.0 versus 12.7; CM: 41.5 versus 8.4; EM: 41.1 versus 16.5). In the CM group, the ≥30% response rate was significantly higher in the galcanezumab group than the placebo group (CM, 57.5 versus 19.8, P ≤ .0001) as was the ≥75% response rate (13.3 versus 2.6, P ≤ .05). Galcanezumab also resulted in significant (P < .0001) improvements in patient functioning and reductions in disability., Conclusions: Galcanezumab was effective in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with CM or EM who had failed 3-4 prior preventive medication categories., Trial Registration: CONQUER. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03559257 ., (© 2021. The Author(s).)