Search

This study aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effect of duloxetine in adults having arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, as well as its clinical safety.In this randomized trial, 120 adults having arthroscopic rotator repair were randomized to receive perioperative oral duloxetine or placebo. The primary outcome was patient self-reported pain score (Visual Analog Scale: 0 to 10) at rest and opioid consumption within postoperative 2 days. Other outcomes included adverse effects, changes of thromboelastogram, and hemoglobin indicators before and after the operation.A total of 120 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of which 60 received duloxetine and 60 received placebo. Groups were similar on the demographic, baseline, and intraoperative variables. There were significant differences in pain scores at rest at postoperative 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours (3 h: P=0.001; 6 h: P=0.001; 12 h: P=0.001; 24 h: P=0.005; 48 h: P=0.034) and at movement at postoperative 6, 12, and 48 hours (6 h: P=0.004; 12 h: P=0.002; 48 h: P=0.033), while none of the differences met the minimum clinically important difference. There were no significant differences in opioid consumption and in hemoglobin and thromboelastogram before and after operation between the duloxetine group and the placebo group (all P0.05). For adverse effects, the incidence of nausea and vomiting in the duloxetine group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (P=0.018).For patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs, duloxetine resulted in a significant reduction in pain within postoperative 2 days, but the reduction was not clinically meaningful. Duloxetine did not decrease the opioid consumption within postoperative 2 days and did not increase the risk of bleeding within postoperative 2 days. The incidence of nausea and vomiting in the duloxetine group was significantly greater than that in the placebo group.

OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy as well as the postoperative quality of recovery of preoperative oral duloxetine a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor for patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty-two patients, undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery were divided into 2 equal groups, received oral duloxetine 60 mg (2 h preoperative) or placebo. Postoperative 48 hours morphine consumption, visual analog scale pain score, and quality of recovery were measured. RESULTS The cumulative 48 hours morphine consumption was significantly reduced in the duloxetine group compared with the placebo group (mean±SD) (5.2±3.2 vs. 12.9±3.4 mg), mean difference (95% confidence interval) 7.6 mg (5.9-9.3) P

Objective: We conducted the updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the best available quantitative and qualitative evidence to evaluate the effects and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain. Methods: A comprehensive literature search used 3 English and 4 Chinese biomedical databases from inception through July 10, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials of duloxetine with intervention duration of 2 weeks or longer for knee OA. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by Brief Pain Inventory and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcome measurements included 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Patient’s Global Impression of Improvement, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity, and adverse events (AEs). The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria. The review was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD 42020194072). Results: Six studies totaling 2059 patients met the eligibility criteria. Duloxetine had significant reductions in Brief Pain Inventory 24 hours average pain (mean difference [MD]=−0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.92 to −0.57; P

Antidepressants exert their analgesic effects by inhibiting the reuptake of noradrenaline. Several antidepressants have been shown to block the sodium channels, which might contribute to their analgesic potency. The aim of this study was to determine whether serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) could produce antinociceptive effects via sodium channel blockade using the veratrine test in mice. Furthermore, the effects of these agents on the veratrine test were examined to elucidate the effects of several antidepressants and tramadol on sodium channels. The administration of duloxetine (10 mg/kg) and venlafaxine (30 mg/kg) suppressed cuff-induced mechanical allodynia; however, these antinociceptive effects were only partially suppressed by atipamezole. Furthermore, duloxetine and venlafaxine demonstrated antinociceptive effects via sodium channel blockade, as assayed by the veratrine test. In addition, several antidepressants, including amitriptyline, paroxetine and mirtazapine, reduced veratrine-induced nociception. In contrast, milnacipran and tramadol did not alter the veratrine-induced nociception. These results indicated that, in addition to the primary action of SNRIs on monoamine transporters, sodium channel blockade might be involved in the antinociceptive activities of duloxetine and venlafaxine, but not milnacipran.

The objective of this observational study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in a cohort of 100 cancer survivors with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN). CIPN was graded employing the TNSc and the NCI-CTCv4. The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale measured the efficacy of duloxetine (1: no benefit; to 7: excellent response). A clinically meaningful response was considered a PGIC > 4. Median age was 62 (29-81) years and 42% were male. CIPN was graded as grades 1, 2 and 3 in 20, 66, and 14% of patients, respectively. Median time to duloxetine initiation was 6 (1-63) months after chemotherapy. Fifty-seven patients early dropped out from duloxetine, due to lack of efficacy (20%) or side effects (37%). Male patients more frequently discontinued duloxetine due to lack of efficacy (35.7 vs. 8.6% P = 0.001). PGIC scores were higher in female patients (4 vs. 1, P = 0.001), taxane-treated patients (4 vs. 1, P = 0.042) and with short-lasting (

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis. Patients with inoperative PDAC require effective chemotherapy and pain control to increase their quality of life. We investigated whether duloxetine, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, improves quality of life in a KPPC (LSL-Kras;Trp53;Pdx1-cre) mouse model of PDAC. Six-week-old KPPC mice were orally administered 4 mg/kg/d duloxetine (n = 12); 4 mg/kg/d duloxetine with 0.15 mg/kg/d atipamezole, a synthetic α2 adrenergic receptor antagonist (n = 9); or vehicle water (n = 11). Body weight and food intake were measured daily, and cancer pain was evaluated by the hunching score and mouse grimace scale. At the endpoint, the tumor status, angiogenesis, and immunoinflammatory condition were analyzed. The pain level using the hunching and mouse grimace scale scores improved by duloxetine in KPPC mice (P < 0.01), whereas the scores that had been reduced by duloxetine were elevated by administration of atipamezole. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that duloxetine-treated mice had significantly prolonged survival (P < 0.05) with delayed appetite loss, cachexia, and body weight loss. Duloxetine inhibited the proliferation of PDAC cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts in vivo with a shift into an antitumor immunoinflammatory condition and the corresponding plasma cytokine levels. The migrative/invasive potentials of PDAC were inhibited by duloxetine in vitro. Meanwhile, atipamezole did not inhibit the antitumor effects of duloxetine in vitro and in vivo. Therefore, our results indicate that duloxetine mainly improves cancer-associated pain by enhancement of the noradrenergic pathway rather than the serotonergic pathway, whereas duloxetine modulates antitumor effects on PDAC without involvement of the noradrenergic pathway.

Centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome (CAPS) is characterized by severe abdominal pain. Diagnosis of CAPS is still an exclusionary diagnosis, there remain no effective diagnostic biomarkers so far. Duloxetine is the major pharmacotherapy of CAPS, while some CAPS patients do not respond to duloxetine treatment. However, there is a lack of molecular markers to predict the efficacy of duloxetine. In our pilot study, we have found differential expression profiles of serum miRNAs between CAPS patients and healthy controls. Our study aims to explore the clinical characteristics, specific miRNAs in serum as diagnostic biomarkers of CAPS and predictive biomarkers of the efficacy of duloxetine.In this prospective cohort study, we plan to enroll 430 participants including 215 CAPS patients and 215 healthy controls. The CAPS group takes duloxetine 30 mg per day as an initial dose. Patients will have 24-week medication period and follow up at week 0, 4, 12, 24 and 36. Blood samples will be obtained from patients at every visits and health controls at the initial visit and a series of questionnaires will be completed by the participants. The primary end points are: The differential expression of miRNAs between CAPS groups and healthy control groups at baseline. The changes in abdominal pain scores before and after duloxetine treatment in patients with CAPS and their relationship with the changes in miRNAs. The secondary end point is the changes in scores of depression, anxiety, sleep quality and quality of life before and after duloxetine treatment in patients with CAPS and their relationship with changes in miRNAs.Findings of study will provide the reliable basis for diagnosis and the predictor of duloxetine efficacy of CAPS. Importantly, findings grant patients a chance to benefit from treatment.

Introduction Serotonin syndrome is caused by excessive activation of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT]) neurotransmission. Although the discontinuation of antipsychotics with 5-HT2 receptor antagonistic characteristics could theoretically result in serotonin syndrome, there have been very few reports on the syndrome thus far. Case presentation A 75-year-old woman with somatoform disorder was transferred to our emergency room because of pyrexia, unconsciousness, and myoclonus with hyperreflexia. She had been taking milnacipran and perospirone for 10 years and had started taking duloxetine 2 months before the event. Thereafter, she suffered diaphoresis, gait disturbance, and tremor. Her psychiatrist advised her to stop taking perospirone, because of suspicion of extrapyramidal symptoms, a day before admission. The clinical diagnosis of serotonin syndrome was made based on her symptoms while using serotonergic agents. Her symptoms were so severe that she was transferred to the intensive care unit, where supportive care was successful. Conclusions Discontinuation of antipsychotics that are 5-HT2 receptor antagonists may lead to serotonin syndrome in patients who take serotonergic agents. As extrapyramidal symptoms and serotonin toxicity share some clinical features, detailed drug history and physical examination are necessary for successful treatment.

Chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain (CINP) in both sexes compromises many current chemotherapeutics and lacks an FDA-approved therapy. We recently identified the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor subtype 1 (S1PR1) and A3 adenosine receptor subtype (A3AR) as novel targets for therapeutic intervention. Our work in male rodents using paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, and bortezomib showed robust inhibition of CINP with either S1PR1 antagonists or A3AR agonists. The S1PR1 functional antagonist FTY720 (Gilenya) is FDA-approved for treating multiple sclerosis, and selective A3AR agonists are in advanced clinical trials for cancer and inflammatory disorders, underscoring the need for their expedited trials in patients with CINP as chemotherapy adjuncts. Our findings reveal that S1PR1 antagonists and A3AR agonists mitigate paclitaxel and oxaliplatin CINP in female and male rodents, but failed to block or reverse bortezomib-induced neuropathic pain (BINP) in females. Although numerous mechanisms likely underlie these differences, we focused on receptor levels. We found that BINP in male rats, but not in female rats, was associated with increased expression of A3AR in the spinal cord dorsal horn, whereas S1PR1 levels were similar in both sexes. Thus, alternative mechanisms beyond receptor expression may account for sex differences in response to S1PR1 antagonists. Morphine and duloxetine, both clinical analgesics, reversed BINP in female mice, demonstrating that the lack of response is specific to S1PR1 and A3AR agents. Our findings suggest that A3AR- and S1PR1-based therapies are not viable approaches in preventing and treating BINP in females and should inform future clinical trials of these drugs as adjuncts to chemotherapy.

Finding an effective preventive agent for the individual migraineur is often long and frustrating. An individual-specific, efficacy-predicting tool would be invaluable in directing, shortening, and improving this process. As the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine is a pain modulator, we hypothesized that pronociceptivity will directly predict drug efficacy, so that the more pronociceptive the patient is, the more efficacious the drug. Therefore, we used psychophysical pain measures to predict duloxetine efficacy in migraine prevention.Fifty-five migraineurs participated: 27 received duloxetine and 28 nonactive placebo. Responses to painful stimuli, conditioned pain modulation, and temporal summation of pain were measured before treatment. Treatment outcome measures included changes in attack frequency, migraine days, pain levels, and a reported self-estimate of migraine improvement at weeks 4 and 5. To examine treatment effects, the outcome measures were compared with pretreatment levels. Treatment by the psychophysical-predictor effect on treatment outcome was examined in separate regression models.Duloxetine was more efficacious than placebo in migraine prevention, as indicated by the patient's estimation of migraine improvement (duloxetine: 52.3±30.4%; placebo: 26.0±27.3%; P=0.001). Further, this measure, in the duloxetine group, was predicted by higher pretreatment pain ratings for tonic heat pain (P=0.012); greater pain sensitivity at baseline predicted greater percent of migraine improvement in duloxetine (r=0.47; P=0.013), but not in placebo (r=-0.36; P=0.060).Our results suggest how personalized medicine can be applied to designing appropriate migraine prevention treatment. Psychophysical testing can reveal and characterize pronociceptive migraineurs, who seem to be more likely than non-pronociceptive ones to benefit from migraine prevention with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

Objectives Pathologic laughing is characterized by episodes of uncontrollable laughter caused by underlying neurologic disturbances, such as stroke. Several types of medication, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, have demonstrated only limited success at treating the condition. Duloxetine, a dual serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is reportedly effective in treating the symptoms of mood disorders. We herein introduce a prospective consecutive sample of stroke patients with pathologic laughing treated with duloxetine. Methods We enrolled patients without a history of psychological illness who exhibited poststroke pathologic laughter. Duloxetine administration was commenced at an initial dose of 30 mg once daily. The dose was increased to 60 mg once daily within 2 weeks for all patients except 2. The effect of the treatment was assessed by means of the Pathological Laughter and Crying Scale. Results A total of 7 patients were included in the study. Improvements were observed within an average of 10 days after duloxetine administration. Pathological Laughter and Crying Scale score decreased after duloxetine administration in all patients, and 4 patients demonstrated a decrease in score of more than 50%. All patients reported subjective improvement of symptoms, and no adverse effects were observed. Conclusions This case series demonstrates that duloxetine could attenuate pathologic laughing exhibited by stroke patients; however, further randomized controlled studies are necessary to validate our findings.

Unexplained postoperative pain is one of the most feared complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A persistent noxious peripheral stimulus, such as the pain of chronic knee osteoarthritis, can cause central sensitization in which the central nervous system becomes hyperexcitable, resulting in hypersensitivity to both noxious and non-noxious stimuli. Patients with central sensitization may be more susceptible to unexplained pain after TKA. Duloxetine, a selective serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), can ameliorate the pain associated with central sensitization, and we aimed to determine whether it could reduce postoperative pain and improve quality of recovery after TKA in patients with central sensitization.Patients undergoing TKA were screened for central sensitization preoperatively with use of the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI). Among 464 patients with primary osteoarthritis who were scheduled for primary unilateral TKA, 80 were identified as being centrally sensitized and were included in the study. Forty patients were randomly assigned to the duloxetine group (30 mg 1 day before surgery and for 6 weeks after surgery), and 40 were randomized to the control group (no duloxetine). Pain and quality of recovery were assessed with use of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP), and the Hamilton Depression Scale. The prevalence of adverse medication effects was also noted.The patients in the duloxetine group had better performance across pain metrics during the initial 2 to 12-week postoperative period (p0.05). The duloxetine group also had a superior quality of recovery 2 weeks after TKA, as indicated by emotional and physical functioning (all p0.05). There was no difference between groups in the prevalence of adverse events.A substantial number of patients are centrally sensitized before TKA. Surgeons should consider selective incorporation of duloxetine into the multimodal postoperative analgesic protocol, according to the severity of central sensitization, to minimize the possibility of persistent pain following TKA.Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Surgical trauma is known to induce hyperalgesia, and if pain management is insufficient, it contributes to persistent pain in the postoperative period.In this study, our primary aims were to compare the effect of pregabalin and duloxetine on postoperative pain scores and cognitive functions. Our secondary aim was to determine drug-related side effects.This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.The study was carried out in the setting of the operating room and the surgical ward.Ninety-four patients, 18 to 65 years of age, ASA status I-II, scheduled for elective repair of lumbar disc herniation were enrolled in the study.The patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: the first group received pregabalin 75 mg orally 1 hour before the surgery and at the postoperative 12th and 24th hours. The second group received duloxetine 60 mg orally 1 hour before the surgery. At the postoperative 12th hour, they received a placebo capsule, and, at the 24th hour, they received duloxetine 60 mg again. The third group received placebo capsules orally at all timepoints.Postoperative pain evaluation was conducted using a Visual Analogue Scale at the postoperative first minute, 30th minute, first hour, and the 12th, 24th, and 48th hours. The preoperative and postoperative sixth hour cognitive functions were evaluated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test.There was a significant reduction in mean MoCA scores postoperatively in all groups (P0.01). The highest MoCA score reduction was in the pregabalin group (1.83±1.31 point), then in the duloxetine group (1.16±0.82), and the least decrease was in the control group (0.49±0.61). At all timepoints, the mean Visual Analogue Scale scores of the pregabalin and duloxetine groups were similar to each other, and they were lower than that of the control group (P0.05).Preoperative use of duloxetine 60 mg can be an useful alternative to pregabalin 75 mg, as it has a similar analgesic effect on postoperative pain, with fewer incidences of drug-related negative effects on cognitive function.

Antidepressants are one of the most prescribed classes of medications. A number of case reports have linked these drugs to extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs), but no large epidemiologic study to date has examined this association. We sought to quantify the association of EPSs with different antidepressants by undertaking a large pharmacoepidemiologic study.A nested case-control study was conducted using a large health claims database in the United States from June 2006 to December 2015. Subjects with a diagnosis of primary Parkinson disease and those who received prescriptions of levodopa, ropinirole, pramipexole, domperidone, metoclopramide, entacapone, benztropine, selegiline, rasagiline, diphenhydramine, trihexyphenidyl, typical and atypical antipsychotics, and tricyclic antidepressants were excluded. Cases were followed to the first billing code for an extrapyramidal event or last date of enrollment in the cohort. For each case, 10 control subjects were matched by follow-up time, calendar time, and age through density-based sampling. Rate ratios were computed using conditional logistic regression adjusting for other covariates.We identified 3,838 subjects with EPSs compared with 38,380 age-matched control subjects. Rate ratios with respect to EPSs were as follows: duloxetine, 5.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.29-7.53); mirtazapine, 3.78 (95% CI, 1.71-8.32); citalopram, 3.47 (95% CI, 2.68-4.50); escitalopram, 3.23 (95% CI, 2.44-4.26); paroxetine, 3.07 (95% CI, 2.15-4.40); sertraline, 2.57 (95% CI, 2.02-3.28); venlafaxine, 2.37 (95% CI, 1.71-3.29); bupropion, 2.31 (95% CI, 1.67-3.21); and fluoxetine, 2.03 (95% CI, 1.48-2.78).This observational study demonstrates a harmful association between the incidence of Parkinson disease or associated EPSs and use of the antidepressants duloxetine, mirtazapine, citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, bupropion, and fluoxetine.

Integrating information on physical function and pain intensity into a composite measure may provide a useful method for assessing treatment efficacy in clinical trials of chronic pain. Accordingly, we evaluated composite outcomes in trials of duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin. Data on 2287 patients in 9 trials for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and 1513 patients in 6 trials for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) were analyzed. All trials assessed pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale and physical function with the 10-item subscale of the Short Form-36, ranging 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating better function. Correlation between change in pain intensity from baseline to posttreatment and change in physical function was small in DPN (ρ = -0.22; P < 0.001) and nonsignificant in PHN (ρ = -0.05; P = 0.08). Assay sensitivities of 10 composite outcomes were examined in a random subsample of patients enrolled in pregabalin trials for DPN and PHN. Of these, a responder outcome of ≥50% improvement in pain intensity, or a ≥20% improvement in pain intensity and ≥30% improvement in physical function was not only significantly associated with pregabalin vs placebo in the development cohorts for both pain conditions but also in the validation cohorts. Furthermore, this composite outcome was cross-validated in trials of gabapentin for PHN and duloxetine for DPN, and had slightly lower number needed to treat than a standard responder outcome of ≥50% reduction in pain intensity. In summary, this study identified a composite outcome of pain intensity and physical function that may improve the assay sensitivity of future neuropathic pain trials.

Antidepressants are used to treat neuropathic pain and although the detailed mechanisms of their effects are unclear, the descending noradrenergic inhibitory system might play an important role. We tested our hypothesis that repeated administration of duloxetine suppresses neuropathic pain by restoring the descending noradrenergic inhibitory system in rats 6 weeks after spinal nerve ligation (SNL).We subcutaneously injected SNL rats with duloxetine (10 mg kg day) daily for 3 consecutive days and assessed behavioral hypersensitivity and noxious stimulus-induced analgesia (NSIA) activated by subcutaneous injection of capsaicin. We also performed microdialysis studies of the spinal cord, noradrenaline measurements of homogenized lumbar spinal tissue, and immunohistochemistry of the locus coeruleus.Three daily injections of duloxetine attenuated the mechanical hyperalgesia induced by SNL (SNL treated with vehicle: 88 ± 9.4 g versus SNL treated with duloxetine: 148 ± 13 g, P.001; estimated treatment effect of duloxetine [95% confidence interval {CI}], 65 [50.6-79.4]; n = 6/group, on day 4) and recovered the decreased NSIA (vehicle: 154 ± 10 g versus duloxetine: 213 ± 33 g, P.001; 71.3 [57.4-85.2]; n = 6/group, 30 minutes after injection). The noradrenaline content in the dorsal spinal cord increased bilaterally (SNL treated with vehicle: 946.7 ± 203.6 pg/g versus SNL treated with duloxetine: 1593.5 ± 181.4 pg/g, P.001; 646.79 pg/g [481.61-811.97] on the ipsilateral side; SNL treated with vehicle: 845.0 ± 164.7 pg/g versus SNL treated with vehicle: 1557.2 ± 237.4 pg/g, P.001; 712.17 pg/g [449.31-975.02] on the contralateral side). Intrathecal injection (IT) of the α2-adrenoceptor antagonist idazoxan reversed both the antihyperalgesic effect (before IT: 133 ± 5.7 g versus 30 minutes after IT: 85.8 ± 6.5 g, P.001, -47 [-39.1 to -54.8], n = 6/group, and NSIA; vehicle-IT: 219 ± 7.4 g versus idazoxan-IT: 153 ± 10 g, P.001; -65.8 g [-25.2 to -77.4] n = 6/group, 30 minutes after forepaw injection of capsaicin). Duloxetine treatment did not alter the noradrenaline release in the spinal cord after capsaicin injection (P = .415), or the fraction of nuclei positive for phosphorylated cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element binding protein in the locus coeruleus (P = 1.00 duloxetine versus vehicle 120 minutes after forepaw injection of vehicle and P = 1.00 duloxetine versus vehicle 120 minutes after forepaw injection of capsaicin).These findings suggest that 3 daily injections of duloxetine suppressed hyperalgesia and recovered impaired NSIA in rats 6 weeks after nerve injury. Both effects of duloxetine were reversed by IT of an α2-adrenoceptor antagonist. These findings suggest the inhibitory effects of duloxetine against neuropathic pain depend on recovery of the noradrenergic descending inhibitory system, especially in the spinal cord.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common, frequently chronic condition characterized by pain and decreased function. Given the growing number of cancer survivors and an increasing recognition of opioid therapy limitations, there is a need for critical analysis of the literature in directing an informed and thoughtful approach for the management of painful CIPN.A PubMed search for 'chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy AND pain' identifies 259 publications between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2017. Based on review of this literature, we aim to present a clinically relevant update of painful CIPN. Notably, the use of duloxetine as a first-line agent in treatment of CIPN is confirmed. Moreover, clinical trials focus on nonpharmacologic strategies for managing painful CIPN.Despite the volume of recent publications, there are limited preventive or therapeutic strategies for CIPN supported by high-level evidence. Duloxetine remains the only pharmacologic agent with demonstrated benefit; its clinical use should be routinely considered. Moving forward, nonopioid analgesic therapies will likely play an increasing role in CIPN treatment, but further research is necessary to confirm their utility. Promising therapies include vitamin B12 supplementation, physical therapy, and various forms of neuromodulation.

Multimodal analgesia is widely advocated for the control of perioperative pain in an effort to reduce the use of opioid. Duloxetine is a selective inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake with efficacy for chronic pain conditions. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of two 60 mg oral doses of duloxetine in terms of fentanyl consumption during the postoperative period in patients undergoing elective spine surgery.This study was prospective, double-blind, randomized, and placebo controlled. Patients received either 60 mg duloxetine or an identical placebo 1 hour before surgery and again the following morning. The study participants were allocated into 2 groups: Group C (control) participants received the placebo and Group D (duloxetine) participants received 60 mg duloxetine. The total consumption of fentanyl 48 hours after surgery was measured. Secondary end points were pain scores and the presence or absence of adverse effects, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, itching, dizziness, and drowsiness.Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. There was a significant difference in fentanyl consumption in the first 24 hours between Groups C and D (mean difference, 223.11±39.32 µg; P0.001). Fentanyl consumption also differed between Groups C and D after 48 hours (mean difference, 179.35±32.55 µg; P0.000). The pain scores over 48 hours did not significantly differ between groups. The incidence of side-effects was similar in both groups.Duloxetine was effective as an adjunct for postoperative analgesia and reduced opioid consumption.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) frequently co-occur, yet treating their comorbid presentation is challenging. Low-dose tricyclic antidepressants are efficacious for IBS, but higher doses to treat depressive symptoms present tolerability problems, whereas selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are more tolerable but show inconsistent efficacy for IBS. If efficacious, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors like duloxetine would provide a useful alternative. We explored efficacy, tolerability, and time to onset of action of duloxetine in comorbid IBS-MDD in an open-label, 12-week trial. Repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis with the intent-to-treat sample assessed rate of change of the clinician-administered Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and other clinician-administered and self-report scales. Seventeen Hispanic adults with current MDD and comorbid IBS meeting Rome III criteria entered the study. Medical and laboratory assessment ruled out alarm symptoms and signs inconsistent with IBS. Duloxetine led to significant improvement in Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores and 71.4% and 64.3% intent-to-treat response rates for IBS and MDD, respectively. Abdominal pain severity decreased by 56%. Contrary to expectation of rapid analgesic effects, based on duloxetine studies for neuropathic pain, both IBS and MDD symptoms improved gradually; differences in slopes of improvement were nonsignificant. Duloxetine was moderately well tolerated at a mean endpoint dose of 60 mg/d. Study limitations include the lack of placebo control, modest sample size, single ethnic group, and high attrition rate. Duloxetine efficacy for comorbid IBS-MDD should be studied under placebo-controlled conditions with larger and more diverse samples.

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of duloxetine augmentation in treatment of resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). METHODS This augmentation trial was designed as an 8-week randomized controlled, double-blind study. Forty-six patients experiencing OCD who had failed to respond to at least 12 weeks of treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine, citalopram, or fluvoxamine) were randomly allocated to receive duloxetine or sertraline plus their current anti-OCD treatment. The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) was the primary outcome measure. Treatment response was defined as 25% or more decrease in scores of Y-BOCS. The mean dosage of duloxetine was 44.4 mg/d (range, 20-60 mg/d), and the mean dosage of sertraline was 123.8 mg/d (range, 50-200 mg/d). RESULTS Forty-six patients (24 of 30 in duloxetine group and 22 of 27 in sertraline group) completed the trial. Both groups showed improvement during the 8-week study period (mean Y-BOCS total score at week 8 as compared with baseline: P < 0.001 & P < 0.001) without significant difference (P = 0.861). Those receiving duloxetine plus their initial medications experienced a mean decrease of 33.0% in Y-BOCS score, and the patients with sertraline added to their initial medication experienced a mean decrease of 34.5% in Y-BOCS. DISCUSSION Our double-blind controlled clinical trial showed duloxetine to be as effective as sertraline in reducing obsessive and compulsive symptoms in patients with resistant OCD. However, it needs to be noted that our study is preliminary, and larger double-blind placebo-controlled studies are necessary to confirm the results.

Study design A 14-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study of Japanese patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who were randomized to either duloxetine 60 mg once daily or placebo. Objective This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine monotherapy in Japanese patients with CLBP. Summary of background data In Japan, duloxetine is approved for the treatment of depression, diabetic neuropathic pain, and pain associated with fibromyalgia; however, no clinical study of duloxetine has been conducted for CLBP. Methods The primary efficacy measure was the change in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score from baseline to Week 14. Secondary efficacy measures included BPI pain (worst pain, least pain, pain right now), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, among other measures, and safety and tolerability. Results In total, 458 patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine (n = 232) or placebo (n = 226). The BPI average pain score improved significantly in the duloxetine group compared with that in the placebo group at Week 14 [-2.43 ± 0.11 vs. -1.96 ± 0.11, respectively; between-group difference (95% confidence interval), - 0.46 [-0.77 to-0.16]; P = 0.0026]. The duloxetine group showed significant improvement in many secondary measures compared with the placebo group, including BPI pain (least pain, pain right now) (between-group difference: -1.69 ± 0.10, P = 0.0009; -2.42 ± 0.12, P P = 0.0230, respectively), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (2.46 ± 0.07, P = 0.0026), Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (-1.46 ± 0.06, P = 0.0019), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (-3.86 ± 0.22, P = 0.0439). Adverse events occurring at a significantly higher incidence in the duloxetine group were somnolence, constipation, nausea, dizziness, and dry mouth, most of which were mild or moderate in severity and were resolved or improved. Conclusion Duloxetine 60 mg was effective and well tolerated in Japanese CLBP patients. Level of evidence 2.

To systematically review the evidence for duloxetine in the management of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).Electronic searches of Medline and PubMed were performed from 2005 till October 2015 using medical subject headings and free-text words. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies.Twenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria and 8 were considered of high quality and were included to this review. Because of heterogeneity of the studies included in this review, statistical pooling of the data was not possible. We found good evidence for use of duloxetine in PDN over placebo and pregabalin but there was no benefit of duloxetine over amitriptyline.Duloxetine has a beneficial effect over placebo. Nevertheless, the evidence of superiority of duloxetine over pregabalin and amitriptyline should be explored further as there was only 1 trial for each category. Provided majority of the PDN patients share cardiovascular complications, use of duloxetine will be a good option for treating pain associated with PDN over amitriptyline. Future randomized controlled trials should be designed keeping this in mind.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, approximately 8 in 10 prescriptions filled in the United States are for generic medications, with an expectation that this number will increase over the next few years. The impetus for this emphasis on generics is the cost disparity between them and brand-name products. The use of FDA-approved generic drugs saved 158 billion dollars in 2010 alone. In the current health care climate, there is continually increasing pressure for prescribers to write for generic alternative medications, occasionally at the expense of best clinical practices. This creates a conflict wherein both physicians and patients may find brand-name medications clinically superior but nevertheless choose generic ones. The issue of generic versus brand medications is a key component of the discussion of health payers, physicians and their patients. This review evaluates some of the important medications in the armamentarium of pain physicians that are frequently used in the management of chronic pain, and that are currently at the forefront of this issue, including Opana (oxymorphone; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malvern, PA), Gralise (gabapentin; Depomed, Newark, CA), and Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil; XenoPort, Santa Clara, CA) that are each available in generic forms as well. We also discuss the use of Lyrica (pregabalin; Pfizer, New York, NY), which is currently unavailable as generic medication, and Cymbalta (duloxetine; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), which has been recently FDA approved to be available in a generic form. It is clear that the use of generic medications results in large financial savings for the cost of prescriptions on a national scale. However, cost-analysis is only part of the equation when treating chronic pain patients and undervalues the relationships of enhanced compliance due to single-daily dosing and stable and reliable pharmacokinetics associated with extended-duration preparations using either retentive technologies or delayed absorption strategies. Medications given to chronic pain patients should be individualized to best serve analgesic needs and assure patient safety primarily, based on high levels of scientific and economic evidence. Decisions regarding utilization should not be made based solely on limited or faulty assessments of cost-benefit analyses.

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

Background Among patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), approximately 37% show signs of a neuropathic pain component (radicular pain). Treatment of this condition remains challenging. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate the efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of CLBP patients with neuropathic leg pain. Methods The study was conducted as a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover trial. CLBP with a visual analog scale (VAS) score greater than 5 and a neuropathic component that was assessed clinically and by the painDETECT questionnaire (score > 12) were required for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned to either duloxetine or placebo for 4 weeks followed by a 2-week washout period before they crossed over to the alternate phase that lasted another 4 weeks. Duloxetine was titrated up to 120 mg/day. The primary outcome parameter was mean VAS score during the last week of treatment in each phase (VASweek4). Results Of 41 patients, 21 patients completed both treatment phases. In the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 25), VASweek4 was significantly lower in the duloxetine phase compared with placebo (4.1 ± 2.9 vs. 6.0 ± 2.7; P = 0.001), corresponding to an average pain reduction of 32%. The painDETECT score at the end of each treatment phase was significantly lower in the duloxetine phase compared with placebo (17.7 ± 5.7 vs. 21.3 ± 3.6 points; P = 0.0023). Adverse events were distributed equally between the duloxetine (65%) and placebo phases (62%) (P = 0.5). Conclusion In this crossover study, duloxetine proved to be superior to placebo for the treatment of CLBP with a neuropathic leg pain.

We have recently found that isolation-reared mice show hyperactivity during an encounter with an intruder. However, it is not known whether encounter-induced hyperactivity may model some aspects of psychiatric disorders. The present study examined the pharmacological profile of encounter-induced hyperactivity in isolation-reared mice. Encounter-induced hyperactivity was reduced by acute administration of various antidepressants including the tricyclic antidepressant desipramine (10 mg/kg), the selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors fluvoxamine (10 mg/kg) and paroxetine (10 mg/kg), the 5-HT/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors venlafaxine (10 mg/kg) and duloxetine (10 mg/kg), the antipsychotic drug risperidone (0.01 mg/kg), the 5-HT2 antagonist ritanserin (1 mg/kg), and the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist RU-43044 (30 mg/kg). The α2 adrenoceptor agonist clonidine (0.03 mg/kg) and the 5-HT4 receptor agonist BIMU8 (30 mg/kg) also reduced encounter-induced hyperactivity. The effect of desipramine was blocked by the α2 adrenoceptor antagonist idazoxan (0.3 mg/kg). The effect of fluvoxamine was blocked by the 5-HT4 receptor antagonist GR125487 (3 mg/kg), but not the 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY100635 (1 mg/kg), the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist azasetron (3 mg/kg), or the 5-HT6 receptor antagonist SB399885 (3 mg/kg). The effect of venlafaxine was blocked by the simultaneous administration of idazoxan (0.3 mg/kg) and GR125487 (3 mg/kg), but not by either compound alone. These findings suggest that encounter-induced hyperactivity in isolation-reared mice is a robust model for testing the pharmacological profile of antidepressants, although the range of antidepressants tested is limited and some non-antidepressants are also effective. The present study also shows a key role of α2 and 5-HT4 receptors in the antidepressant effect in this model.

Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNICs) utilize descending inhibitory controls through poorly understood brain stem pathways. The human counterpart, conditioned pain modulation, is reduced in patients with neuropathy aligned with animal data showing a loss of descending inhibitory noradrenaline controls together with a gain of 5-HT3 receptor-mediated facilitations after neuropathy. We investigated the pharmacological basis of DNIC and whether it can be restored after neuropathy. Deep dorsal horn neurons were activated by von Frey filaments applied to the hind paw, and DNIC was induced by a pinch applied to the ear in isoflurane-anaesthetized animals. Spinal nerve ligation was the model of neuropathy. Diffuse noxious inhibitory control was present in control rats but abolished after neuropathy. α2 adrenoceptor mechanisms underlie DNIC because the antagonists, yohimbine and atipamezole, markedly attenuated this descending inhibition. We restored DNIC in spinal nerve ligated animals by blocking 5-HT3 descending facilitations with the antagonist ondansetron or by enhancing norepinephrine modulation through the use of reboxetine (a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, NRI) or tapentadol (μ-opioid receptor agonist and NRI). Additionally, ondansetron enhanced DNIC in normal animals. Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls are reduced after peripheral nerve injury illustrating the central impact of neuropathy, leading to an imbalance in descending excitations and inhibitions. Underlying noradrenergic mechanisms explain the relationship between conditioned pain modulation and the use of tapentadol and duloxetine (a serotonin, NRI) in patients. We suggest that pharmacological strategies through manipulation of the monoamine system could be used to enhance DNIC in patients by blocking descending facilitations with ondansetron or enhancing norepinephrine inhibitions, so possibly reducing chronic pain.

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of duloxetine (DLX) and the anticonvulsants pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in routine clinical care.Data from a 6-month, noninterventional study involving 2575 patients in whom treatment of DPNP was initiated with or changed to DLX, PGB, or GBP (n=1523) were analyzed post hoc; patients treated with other medications or combinations were excluded from this analysis. Propensity scoring was used to compare patient groups, assessing Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Clinical and Patient Global Impression (CGI/PGI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Short Form Health Survey (SF 12).Mean median daily dosage over 6 months was 53.9 mg for DLX (N=931), 173.5 mg for PGB (N=248), and 727.8 mg for GBP (N=351). BPI average pain severity (last observation carried forward, mean [SD]) decreased by 2.3 [2.30] points for DLX patients, and by 1.9 [2.22] in PGB, and 1.1 [2.15] in GBP patients. This difference remained statistically significant (DLX vs. PGB: P=0.029; DLX vs. GBP: P0.001) after adjustment by propensity scores. Similar findings were also seen for the BPI interference score, CGI and PGI, the HADS anxiety score, the HADS depression score.When compared with DLX, the low doses of PGB and GBP used in this noninterventional study might have contributed to the lower effectiveness found for both anticonvulsants in the treatment of patients with DPNP.

OBJECTIVE This study aims to investigate the effects of low-dose olanzapine on preventing occurrence and controlling the severity of nausea and vomiting related to duloxetine in treating major depressive disorder. METHODS Two hundred sixty-eight subjects with major depressive disorder were divided into control and trial groups. The control group had 165 subjects and was treated with duloxetine only, whereas the trial group had 103 subjects and received duloxetine combined with low-dose olanzapine. After the treatment for 2 weeks, both groups were evaluated for occurrence and severity of adverse effects on digestive tract using the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale. RESULTS The trial group, scored at 13, showed significantly less occurrence and severity of nausea and vomiting than the control group, scored at 38 (P < 0.05). The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in the trial group is significantly lower compared with that in the control group, and the occurrence decreases as the dose of olanzapine increases (P < 0.05). The antiemetic effect of olanzapine is valid to all subjects who received it. CONCLUSIONS Duloxetine combined with low-dose olanzapine can effectively reduce the occurrence and severity of duloxetine-related nausea and vomiting. With the increase of olanzapine dose, the antiemetic effect becomes stronger. Olanzapine is a safe and efficient drug for the prevention of duloxetine-related nausea and vomiting.

Thermal sensitivity is an essential characteristic of some painful states, including oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy. The thermal place preference test (TPPT) was designed to finely assess thermal sensitivity in rodents. The TPPT monitors the time spent by unrestrained rodents on a test plate at fixed temperatures (5-50°C) compared with an adjacent reference plate at a neutral temperature (25°C). Here, we report the results of a study designed (i) to validate the optimal methodological parameters for measuring thermal sensitivity in rats, (ii) to assess the thermal sensitivity of healthy rats and animal models of pain and (iii) to explore the pharmacological effects of analgesic drugs. The most reproducible conditions occurred when the TPPT was performed in the morning and in the dark for 3 min with the reference plate set to 25°C. The temperature preferences of healthy rats were more than 17°C and less than 40°C. When compared with control animals, oxaliplatin-treated rats showed thermal hypersensitivity at 12, 20 and 35°C, and carrageenan-treated rats showed thermal hypersensitivity at 15 and 45°C. Duloxetine (2.5 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) reversed oxaliplatin-induced cold hypersensitivity (20°C) and morphine (1 mg/kg, intravenous) reversed carrageenan-induced heat hypersensitivity (45°C). We conclude that the TPPT enables a fine-grained assessment of thermal sensitivity that is relevant to the pathophysiological exploration of animal pain models and to the pharmacological assessment of analgesic drugs.

Objective This article reviews the current understanding of transient receptor potential ion channels (TRP channels) in health and disease. Background Transient receptor potential ion channels are a group of 27 channels that are expressed in all tissues. These channels play important roles in surgically important problems, such as chronic pain, susceptibility to infection, hypothermia, and some cancers. Methods A literature search was performed. This review focuses on the role of TRP channels in a few surgically important disease processes, such as pain, inflammation, airway diseases, and malignant melanomas. In addition, we discuss some of the structural properties that are important for the activation of TRP channels. Results TRPA1 and TRPV1 are expressed on pain fibers and play an important role in the development of chronic pain, such as chemotherapy-related neuropathic pain. Deletion of TRPA1 and TRPV1 suppresses the development of chronic pain, and blockers of TRPA1 and TRPV1 show promise as a new class of painkillers. Furthermore, several TRP channels are expressed on immune cells. Macrophages express at least 3 different TRP channels, and the properly balanced activation of all these channels together allows normal macrophage function. Deletion of any of these channels results in impaired macrophage function and increased susceptibility to infection. Because several of these TRP channels on macrophages are temperature sensitive, they may comprise the link for hypothermia-related infectious complications in trauma, and to a lesser degree, in elective surgical patients. Conclusions Transient receptor potential ion channels are involved in several surgically important disease processes. Activation or blockade of these channels offers new therapeutic opportunities. Pharmacologic activation or blockade of TRP channels may offer new treatment options in surgical patients for the management of pain and infections.

Duloxetine selectively inhibits the serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) transporters (5-HTT and NET, respectively), as demonstrated in vitro and in preclinical studies; however, transporter inhibition has not been fully assessed in vivo at the approved dose of 60 mg/d. Here, the in vivo effects of dosing with duloxetine 60 mg once daily for 11 days in healthy subjects were assessed in 2 studies: (1) centrally (n = 11), by measuring concentrations of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG), and NE in cerebrospinal fluid, and (2) versus escitalopram 20 mg/d (n = 32) in a 2-period crossover study by assessing the ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma during orthostatic testing and by pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of reuptake inhibition using subjects' serum in cell lines expressing cloned human 5-HTT or NET. At steady state, duloxetine significantly reduced concentrations of DHPG and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (P < 0.05), but not NE, in cerebrospinal fluid; DHPG was also decreased in plasma and urine. The ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma decreased significantly more with duloxetine than escitalopram (65% and 21%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ex vivo reuptake inhibition of 5-HTT was comparable (EC50 = 44.5 nM) for duloxetine and escitalopram, but duloxetine inhibited NET more potently (EC50 = 116 nM and 1044 nM, respectively). Maximal predicted reuptake inhibition for 5-HTT was 84% for duloxetine and 80% for escitalopram, and that for NET was 67% and 14%, respectively. In summary, duloxetine significantly affected 5-HT and NE turnover in the central nervous system and periphery; these effects presumably occurred via inhibition of reuptake by the 5-HTT and NET, as indicated by effects on functional reuptake inhibition ex vivo.

Patients with major depressive disorder often experience relapse after responding to treatment; therefore, maintenance therapy with antidepressants is recommended for maintaining response or remission. This multicenter, open-label, flexible-dose, 52-week extension study evaluated the long-term safety, tolerability, and maintenance of efficacy in study participants who had completed one of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week dose-ranging vortioxetine trials in study participants with major depressive disorder. At the open-label baseline, all study participants were switched to vortioxetine 5 mg/day for the first week, with subsequent dose adjustments from 2.5 to 10 mg/day on the basis of response and tolerability. Treatment with vortioxetine for 52 weeks was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified. Among the 834 evaluable study participants, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 70.6%, with the most common in the combined (all doses) population of nausea (15.2%), headache (12.4%), nasopharyngitis (9.8%), diarrhea (7.2%), and dizziness (6.8%). The rate of adverse events related to sexual dysfunction was low and weight gain was minimal. Laboratory values, vital signs, ECGs, physical examinations, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale results showed no trends of clinical concern. The change in the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms was maintained throughout the study as reflected by a 24-item Hamilton Depression Scale total score of 8.2 at week 52 (from 17.6 at open-label baseline) in the observed case data set.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between painful physical symptoms (PPS) and outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD). Post-hoc analysis of two identically designed 8-week trials compared the efficacy of 60 mg/day duloxetine (N=523) with that of placebo (N=532) in treating PPS associated with MDD. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score, and the Sheehan Disability Scale global functional impairment score assessed depression symptoms, pain, and functioning, respectively. Remission was defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less, and the BPI response subgroup was defined as a 50% or greater reduction from baseline. Path analyses assessed relationships among variables. Duloxetine-treated patients who had a 50% or greater reduction in BPI score at endpoint had higher rates of remission. Path analysis indicated that 16% of likelihood of remission in depression symptoms was because of the direct effect of treatment, 41% because of pain reduction, and 43% because of functional improvement. Path analysis also indicated that 51% of improvement in functioning was attributed to pain improvement and 43% to mood improvement. Results demonstrate that improvement in pain and mood contributes to functional improvement, and pain reduction and functional improvement increase the likelihood of remission of depressive symptoms with duloxetine treatment in patients with both MDD and PPS at baseline.

To review new data on pharmacologic treatment of osteoarthritis for the years 2011-2012.Duloxetine was approved for the treatment of chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis and has been conditionally recommended by the American College of Rheumatology. Strontium ranelate was found to significantly decrease the rate of decline in joint space width as well as improve pain scores compared with placebo in a large multicenter study in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Nerve growth factor (NGF) monoclonal antibody therapy has shown much promise with regard to improvement in pain; however, clinical development studies were stopped out of concern for adverse events in 2010. After a review by the Food and Drug Administration, this hold may be lifted and further studies may resume in 2013. The biologic agents interleukin-1 receptor antagonist and antitumor necrosis factor antibodies have not been shown to be efficacious nor to alter the course of osteoarthritis. Much research surrounding intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has not produced clear evidence that this therapy is efficacious in osteoarthritis. There are presently studies using mesenchymal stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis.Duloxetine, strontium ranelate, and NGF antibodies are promising therapies for symptomatic osteoarthritis. At this time, MSCs and PRP require more investigation.

A decrease in heart rate variability (HRV) can indicate increased sympathetic nervous system activity and possibly increased norepinephrine levels. In this randomized, placebo- and escitalopram (ESC)-controlled, subject-blind, 2-period, crossover study, 26 healthy subjects 50 to 65 years old received duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg once daily or ESC 20 mg once daily for 11 days, each in sequential study periods separated by a 10-day or more washout period. Continuous electrocardiogram recordings were obtained by Holter monitoring (baseline, day 9, and day 10 of treatment). Duloxetine and ESC did not produce any clinically significant effects on standard measures of HRV, which included SD of normal R-R intervals and the root mean square difference among successive R-R normal intervals index values, mean change in SD of normal R-R intervals, and frequency domain analysis. However, treatment with DLX was associated with significantly less change from baseline in total beats per 24 hours than ESC, which was an unexpected finding compared with previous observations in which vital signs were measured at a specific time point while awake. In conclusion, in healthy adults exposed to DLX or ESC, no clinically significant effects on HRV were observed.

The objective of this study was to examine the safety and tolerability of duloxetine hydrochloride, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, in a large cohort of elderly patients with major depressive disorder. Data were pooled from 8-week and 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine 60 mg/day (duloxetine=456; placebo=225). Discontinuation rates because of adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, abnormal changes in vital signs and weight, and changes in laboratory analytes were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Changes in laboratory analytes were analyzed using an analysis of variance model. Adverse event-related discontinuation rates were not significantly different between duloxetine and placebo (10.7 vs. 7.1%; P=0.13). Treatment-emergent adverse events for duloxetine of at least 5% and twice the rate of placebo were dry mouth, constipation, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue. Abnormal changes in vital signs and weight were not significantly different at any time between duloxetine and placebo. The mean changes in platelet count, alkaline phosphatase, potassium, random glucose, uric acid, and cholesterol were significantly different between duloxetine and placebo (P

The efficacy and tolerability of Lu AA21004 at 5 mg/day, a novel multimodal antidepressant, were assessed in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to Lu AA21004 5 mg/day, duloxetine 60 mg/day (reference) or to placebo in an 8-week double-blind study. The primary efficacy measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D(24)) total score (analysis of covariance, last observation carried forward). Patients (mean age 70.6 years) had a mean baseline HAM-D(24) score of 29.0. Lu AA21004 showed significantly (P = 0.0011) greater improvement on the primary efficacy endpoint compared with placebo at week 8 (3.3 points). Duloxetine also showed superiority to placebo at week 8, thereby validating the study. HAM-D(24) response (53.2 vs. 35.2%) and HAM-D(17) remission (29.2 vs. 19.3%) rates at endpoint were higher for Lu AA21004 than for placebo. Lu AA21004 showed superiority to placebo in cognition tests of speed of processing, verbal learning and memory. The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was 5.8% (Lu AA21004), 9.9% (duloxetine) and 2.8% (placebo). Whereas nausea was the only adverse event with a significantly higher incidence on treatment with Lu AA21004 (21.8%) compared with placebo (8.3%), the incidence of nausea, constipation, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis and somnolence was higher for duloxetine. In conclusion, Lu AA21004 was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder.

Objectives To determine the effect of duloxetine treatment on cognition in patients with fibromyalgia. Methods Cognitive testing was conducted in a subset of adult patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine. Patients met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia and had a score of 4 or higher on the Brief Pain Inventory 24-hour average pain severity item. Patients who consented to cognitive testing were randomized to duloxetine (n = 80) or placebo (n = 76). The primary end point was at Week 12. Speed of processing on tasks requiring visual attention, working memory, and executive function was assessed with a Symbol Digit Substitution Test and Trail-Making Test A and B. Episodic memory was tested using the Verbal Learning and Recall Test. The change from baseline to end point (last-observation-carried-forward analysis) was analyzed by an analysis of covariance model, which included baseline, treatment, investigator, and treatment-by-investigator interaction. Results Most of the patients were white (89%) women (92%), ranging in age from 21 to 88 years. Mean scores on the cognitive tests were within 2 SD of published scores for similar-aged participants in the general population, indicating no substantial impairment. Baseline-to-end point changes in cognitive scores did not differ significantly between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups. Conclusions Although scores differed somewhat from norms for age, substantial cognitive impairment was not evident in patients with fibromyalgia as assessed by the Symbol Digit Substitution Test, Trail-Making Test, and Verbal Learning and Recall Test. Overall, duloxetine treatment had neither positive nor negative effects on cognition. Trial registration Clintrials.gov NCT00673452.

This study aims to individualize the selection of drugs for neuropathic pain by examining the potential coupling of a given drug's mechanism of action with the patient's pain modulation pattern. The latter is assessed by the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation (TS) protocols. We hypothesized that patients with a malfunctioning pain modulation pattern, such as less efficient CPM, would benefit more from drugs augmenting descending inhibitory pain control than would patients with a normal modulation pattern of efficient CPM. Thirty patients with painful diabetic neuropathy received 1 week of placebo, 1 week of 30 mg/d duloxetine, and 4 weeks of 60 mg/d duloxetine. Pain modulation was assessed psychophysically, both before and at the end of treatment. Patient assessment of drug efficacy, assessed weekly, was the study's primary outcome. Baseline CPM was found to be correlated with duloxetine efficacy (r=0.628, P

Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that neuronal nicotinic receptor (NNR) agonists may be a novel and effective therapy for numerous painful conditions. Analgesic efficacy and safety of the highly selective α(4)β(2) NNR agonist ABT-894 was evaluated in 2 separate randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Study 1 (280 patients randomized) tested 1, 2, and 4 mg ABT-894 twice daily compared with placebo and 60 mg duloxetine once per day over 8 weeks of treatment. Study 2 (124 patients randomized) tested 6 mg ABT-894 twice daily vs placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome measure in both studies was the weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score recorded in each patient's diary. In both trials, none of the ABT-894 dose groups showed efficacy compared with placebo, whereas duloxetine achieved a statistically significant improvement over placebo in Study 1. All dose levels of ABT-894 were well tolerated, and no significant safety issues were identified. These results are in contrast to the outcome of a previously reported study of DPNP using the less selective α(4)β(2) NNR agonist ABT-594, which demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo, albeit with significant tolerability limitations. The failure of the highly selective α(4)β(2) NNR agonist ABT-894 indicates that it may not be possible to define a therapeutic index for this mechanism or that selectively targeting α(4)β(2) NNRs may not be a viable approach to treating neuropathic pain.

Some evidence suggests that medications that modulate both serotonin and norepinephrine may be more effective than selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in severe major depressive disorder (MDD). This prospective pragmatic trial tests this hypothesis. Patients with severe MDD were randomly assigned to either duloxetine (a serotonin and norepinephrine-reuptake inhibitor) or physicians' choice of four generic SSRIs. Nonblinded, flexibly dosed treatment was used to mimic clinical practice. To address potential investigator bias, the patient-reported Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR) was used as the primary efficacy outcome measure. A total of 750 outpatients (19.2%, African descent; 14.8%, Hispanic) were randomized. The primary outcome, remission at week 12 by QIDS-SR, was numerically greater for duloxetine compared with SSRIs (36 vs. 32%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Mean changes in secondary outcomes were significantly superior in favor of duloxetine for the Hamilton Depression Scale-17 item, the Brief Pain Inventory, and the Sheehan Disability Scale. Remission superiority on the QIDS-SR was not achieved. Significantly greater benefit for duloxetine compared with SSRIs was demonstrated on measures of pain and functioning. Study demographics suggest a more generalizable racial and ethnic population than is typical in randomized clinical trials.

Antidepressant drugs have often been used as an augmentation strategy for those patients who have demonstrated a suboptimal response to clozapine. The present 16-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial study aimed to explore the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine add-on pharmacotherapy on clinical symptomatology and executive cognitive functioning in a sample of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia receiving clozapine. After clinical and neurocognitive assessments, the patients were randomly allocated to receive, in a double-blind design, at a dose of 60 mg per day of duloxetine or a placebo. A final sample of 33 patients completed the study. The results obtained indicate that duloxetine added to stable clozapine treatment showed a beneficial effect on the negative and general psychopathological symptomatology in a sample of treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients. With regard to executive cognitive functions, duloxetine augmentation of clozapine had no significant effects. The findings provide evidence that duloxetine augmentation of clozapine treatment is safe and well tolerated and may be of benefit for patients who are partially responsive to clozapine monotherapy.

Relatively little research has focused on the relationship between functional remission and symptomatic remission in mood and anxiety disorders. This study investigates the relationship and synchrony between symptomatic and functional remission in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Using data from three MDD (N=1419) and four GAD (N=1847) randomized, placebo-controlled duloxetine studies, we calculated the percentages of patients meeting symptomatic, functional, and combined functional-symptomatic remission criteria for each disorder. We also calculated mean depression [17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD₁₇), Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale] scores and mean anxiety (Hamilton anxiety rating scale) scores for patients meeting Sheehan disability scale (SDS) functional remission and the mean SDS scores for patients with symptomatic remission. Among the patients with MDD, 38% achieved symptomatic remission (HAMD₁₇ ≤ 7), 32% achieved functional remission (SDS ≤ 6), and 23% achieved combined functional-symptomatic remission. Mean HAMD₁₇ and Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale scores for patients with functional remission were approximately 6. Mean SDS total scores for patients with symptomatic remission were 7.1 (patients with HAMD₁₇ ≤ 7) and 8.6 (patients with Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale ≤ 10). Among the patients with GAD, 30% achieved symptomatic remission (Hamilton anxiety rating scale ≤ 7), 45% achieved functional remission (SDS ≤ 6), and 25% achieved combined symptomatic-functional remission. The mean Hamilton anxiety rating scale score in GAD was approximately 8 for patients with functional remission and the mean SDS total score was approximately 4 in patients with symptomatic remission. The study shows that functional remission does not always move in tandem with symptom remission and provides useful anchor points or rules of thumb for evaluating symptomatic and functional remission in MDD and GAD.