Search

Objective: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adding milnacipran to pregabalin in patients with fibromyalgia who have experienced an incomplete response to pregabalin. Methods: In this randomized, multicenter, open-label study, patients received pregabalin 300 or 450 mg/day during a 4- to 12-week run-in period. Patients with weekly recall visual analog scale (VAS) pain score of at least 40 and up to 90, Patient Global Impression of Severity score of at least 4, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score of at least 3 were classified as incomplete responders and randomized to continue pregabalin alone ( n = 180) or receive milnacipran 100 mg/day added to pregabalin ( n = 184). The primary efficacy parameter was responder status based on PGIC score of up to 2. The secondary efficacy parameter was change from randomization in weekly recall VAS pain score. Safety parameters included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and clinical laboratory tests. Results: The percentage of PGIC responders was significantly higher with milnacipran added to pregabalin (46.4%) than with pregabalin alone (20.8%; p < 0.001). Mean improvement from randomization in weekly recall VAS pain scores was greater in patients receiving milnacipran added to pregabalin (−20.77) than in patients receiving pregabalin alone (−6.43; p < 0.001). During the run-in period, the most common treatment-emergent AEs with pregabalin were dizziness (22.8%), somnolence (17.3%), and fatigue (9.1%). During the randomized period, the most common treatment-emergent AEs with milnacipran added to pregabalin were nausea (12.5%), fatigue (10.3%), and constipation (9.8%). Conclusions: In this exploratory, open-label study, adding milnacipran to pregabalin improved global status, pain, and other symptoms in patients with fibromyalgia with an incomplete response to pregabalin treatment.

Lesley M Arnold,1 Robert H Palmer,2 Michael R Hufford,3 Wei Chen21Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, 2Medical Affairs, Forest Research Institute Inc, Jersey City, NJ, 3Clinical Development, Cypress Bioscience Inc, San Diego, CA, USABackground: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of milnacipran on body weight in patients with fibromyalgia.Methods: Analyses were conducted in the following groups: patients from three double-blind, placebo-controlled milnacipran trials (3 months, n = 2096; 6 months, n = 1008); 354 patients receiving milnacipran in placebo-controlled trials and double-blind extension studies (total ≥ 12 months of treatment); and 1227 patients in a long-term (up to 3.25 years) open-label milnacipran study.Results: In placebo-controlled trials, 77% of patients were overweight or obese at baseline (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2). Mean weight loss was found with milnacipran at 3 months (100 mg/day, —1.14 kg; 200 mg/day, —0.97 kg; placebo, —0.06 kg; P > 0.001) and 6 months (100 mg/day, -1.01 kg; 200 mg/day, -0.71 kg; placebo, —0.04 kg; P > 0.05). Approximately twice as many milnacipran-treated patients had ≥5% weight loss from baseline compared with placebo (3 and 6 months, P > 0.01). In extension studies, mean weight loss in patients receiving ≥12 months of milnacipran was —1.06 kg. In patients receiving ≥3 years of treatment in the open-label study, mean changes at 12, 24, 30, and 36–38 months were —1.16, —0.76, —0.19, and +0.11 kg, respectively. Among milnacipran-treated patients, rates of nausea (the most common adverse event) were lower among patients who lost weight than among those who did not (3 months, P = 0.02).Conclusion: The majority of patients with fibromyalgia in the milnacipran studies were overweight or obese. Milnacipran was associated with mean weight loss at 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05 versus placebo) and at 12 and 24 months of treatment, with mean changes drifting back to baseline at 30 months (−0.19 kg) and 36–38 months (+0.11 kg, no placebo comparison).Keywords: fibromyalgia, milnacipran, body weight

Milnacipran has been shown to significantly improve the pain, global well-being, and physical function of fibromyalgia (FM), and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the management of this disorder. Post hoc analyses of data from two pivotal trials were conducted to further assess the clinical benefits of milnacipran, to determine the impact of baseline pain severity on treatment outcomes, and to confirm the safety and tolerability of this medication in patients with FM. Patients in these trials were randomized to placebo (n=624), milnacipran 100 mg/day (n=623), or milnacipran 200 mg/day (n=837). Two different composite responder analyses were used to evaluate efficacy: a 2-measure analysis, requiring ≥30% improvement from baseline visual analog scale 24-hour recall pain scores and a Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score of "very much improved" or "much improved"; and a 3-measure analysis, requiring a ≥6-point improvement from baseline in SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores in addition to the pain and PGIC criteria. Additionally, a pooled analysis of mean changes from baseline pain scores was conducted in order to evaluate the efficacy of milnacipran over the entire course of treatment. At 3 months, composite responder rates were significantly higher in the milnacipran treatment groups than in the placebo group (2- and 3-measure composite responder analyses: P ≤ 0.001, both doses vs. placebo). These improvements were not dependent on baseline pain severity. Similar composite responder results were observed in patients who continued treatment for up to 6 months. Significant improvements in mean pain scores were seen with both doses of milnacipran vs. placebo as early as 1 week after treatment initiation and were sustained for up to 6 months of milnacipran treatment. The most common adverse events associated with milnacipran were nausea, headache, and constipation.

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of milnacipran at a dosage of 100 mg/day (50 mg twice daily) for monotherapy treatment of fibromyalgia. Methods A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed to assess 1,025 patients with fibromyalgia who were randomized to receive milnacipran 100 mg/day (n = 516) or placebo (n = 509). Patients underwent 4–6 weeks of flexible dose escalation followed by 12 weeks of stable-dose treatment. Two composite responder definitions were used as primary end points to classify the response to treatment. The 2-measure composite response required achievement of ≥30% improvement from baseline in the pain score and a rating of “very much improved” or “much improved” on the Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. The 3-measure composite response required satisfaction of these same 2 improvement criteria for pain and global status as well as improvement in physical function on the Short Form 36 (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) score. Results After 12 weeks of stable-dose treatment, a significantly greater proportion of milnacipran-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients showed clinically meaningful improvements, as evidenced by the proportion of patients meeting the 2-measure composite responder criteria (P < 0.001 in the baseline observation carried forward [BOCF] analysis) and 3-measure composite responder criteria (P < 0.001 in the BOCF). Milnacipran-treated patients also demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline on multiple secondary outcomes, including 24-hour and weekly recall pain score, PGIC score, SF-36 PCS and mental component summary scores, average pain severity score on the Brief Pain Inventory, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score (all P < 0.001 versus placebo), and Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory total score (P = 0.036 versus placebo). Milnacipran was well tolerated by most patients, with nausea being the most commonly reported adverse event (placebo-adjusted rate of 15.8%). Conclusion Milnacipran administered at a dosage of 100 mg/day improved pain, global status, fatigue, and physical and mental function in patients with fibromyalgia.

Clinical trials on the treatment of pain syndromes have adopted Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as a primary outcome. However, little is known about how change in clinical status influences these ratings. The present study examined relationships between changes in pain, depressed mood, physical functioning, vitality, sleep disturbance, cognitive complaints, and PGIC ratings among 1260 participants with fibromyalgia (FM) who completed one of two trials examining the safety and efficacy of milnacipran. Many of the relationships between change in clinical status and PGIC ratings were stronger among persons who rated themselves as improved (responders) versus those reporting no change or a worsening of their condition (non-responders). Among non-responders, simultaneous regression analysis revealed that greater degrees of depressed mood and pain, and poorer physical function were significantly associated with worse PGIC ratings. Among responders, improvements in pain were significantly associated with better PGIC ratings, along with improvements in vitality, sleep, physical function, and cognitive complaints. These findings underscore the complexity of global ratings in FM patients, and suggest the association between clinical status and PGIC ratings varies as a function of perceived treatment response. Several domains were associated with PGIC ratings, highlighting the need to assess multiple outcomes in clinical trials of treatments for FM.

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the renal effects of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Subjects and treatment: Six volume-depleted, conscious, chronically instrumented dogs received four treatments using a cross-over design, with at least 13 days between treatments. An i.v. bolus dose (3, 10, and 30 μmol/kg) of vehicle, indomethacin, celecoxib, or 6-MNA, the active metabolite of nabumetone, were administered with an hour between doses. Methods: Renal function was assessed at baseline and 30 min after each dose. Results: Treatment with indomethacin or celecoxib resulted in a dose-dependent reduction in renal plasma flow (RPF), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), urine flow, sodium excretion, and fractional sodium excretion. GFR was reduced by 27% with 30 μmol/kg indomethacin (p < 0.05) and by 58% with 30 μmol/kg celecoxib (p < 0.5). Similarly, RPF was significantly (p < 0.05) reduced by 33% and 65% with 30 μmol/kg indomethacin and celecoxib, respectively. Reductions in renal function with celecoxib occurred at a therapeutic index (determined by comparison anti-edemic activities of the drugs in rat paw carrageenan assays) equal to or lower than indomethacin. In contrast, treatment with vehicle or 6-MNA resulted in no reductions in renal function. Conclusion: Administration of either celecoxib (specific COX-2 inhibitor) or indomethacin (selective COX-1 inhibitor) resulted in significant reductions in renal function. COX-2 specific inhibitors do not appear to lack the renal effects of NSAIDs.

The effect of H2-receptor antagonists on alcohol absorption appears to vary, depending on testing conditions and subject population. In this crossover study of cimetidine (400 mg b.i.d.) and ranitidine (150 mg b.i.d.), we evaluate alcohol pharmacokinetics in 10 subjects after ingestion of moderate doses (0.5 g/kg) of ethanol under four challenge conditions: (a) a single dose of placebo prior to alcohol ingestion in the morning, (b) a single dose of H2-antagonist prior to alcohol ingestion in the morning, (c) 14-day chronic dosing with H2-antagonist prior to alcohol ingestion in the evening, and (d) 28-day chronic dosing with H2-antagonist prior to alcohol ingestion in the morning. No significant increases were observed for alcohol in the area under the curve (AUC) or Cmax. Significant decreases in AUC (16 and 13%) were observed following administration of single- and multiple-dose cimetidine, and a significant decrease in Cmax (14%) was observed following a single dose of ranitidine--all given prior to alcohol ingestion in the morning. These results do not support any clinically meaningful effect of H2-antagonists on alcohol absorption following ingestion of a moderate dose of ethanol.

Objective.To evaluate the safety and efficacy of milnacipran, a dual norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM).Methods.A 27-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared milnacipran 100 and 200 mg/day with placebo in the treatment of 888 patients with FM. Two composite responder definitions were used to classify each patient’s individual response to therapy. “FM responders” concurrently satisfied response criteria for improvements in pain (visual analog scale 24-h morning recall), patient global impression of change (PGIC), and physical functioning (SF-36 Physical Component Summary); while “FM pain responders” concurrently satisfied response criteria for improvements in pain and PGIC.Results.At the primary endpoint, after 3-month stable dose treatment, a significantly higher percentage of milnacipran-treated patients met criteria as FM responders versus placebo (milnacipran 200 mg/day, p = 0.017; milnacipran 100 mg/day, p = 0.028). A significantly higher percentage of patients treated with milnacipran 200 mg/day also met criteria as FM pain responders versus placebo (p = 0.032). Significant pain reductions were observed after Week 1 with both milnacipran doses. At 15 weeks, milnacipran 200 mg/day led to significant improvements over placebo in pain (realtime, daily and weekly recall; all measures, p < 0.05), PGIC (p < 0.001), fatigue (p = 0.016), cognition (p = 0.025), and multiple SF-36 domains. Milnacipran was safe and well tolerated by the majority of patients during 27 weeks of treatment; nausea and headache were the most common adverse events.Conclusion.Milnacipran is safe and effective for the treatment of multiple symptoms of FM.

Introduction Previous studies of long-term treatment response in fibromyalgia and other chronic pain states have generally been limited to approximately one year, leaving questions about the longer-term durability of response. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate continuing efficacy of milnacipran by characterizing changes in pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms after discontinuing long-term treatment. The mean length of milnacipran treatment at the time of randomized withdrawal was 36.1 months from initial exposure to milnacipran (range, 17.9 to 54.4 months). Methods After completing a long-term, open-label, lead-in study of milnacipran (which followed varying periods of exposure in previous studies), adult patients with fibromyalgia entered the four-week open-label period of the current study for evaluation of ongoing treatment response. After the four-week period to confirm new baseline status, 151 patients taking milnacipran ≥100 mg/day and reporting ≥50% improvement from pre-milnacipran exposure in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores were classified as responders. These responders entered the 12-week, double-blind withdrawal period in which they were randomized 2:1 to continue milnacipran or switched to placebo. The prespecified primary parameter was loss of therapeutic response (LTR), defined as increase in VAS pain score to

There is frequently a cyclical pattern to the reception given to new drugs: At first, exciting preliminary observations lead to exaggerated claims of efficacy and safety. Secondly, controlled trials find the therapy either to be less effective than initially claimed or to have unexpected side effects. Thirdly, widespread disillusionment leads to a considerable decrease in use of the drug. In time, a better perspective emerges, with appropriate balancing of the risks and benefits as they apply to the individual patient, and leads to renewed use of the therapy. Furthermore, information acquired on the interrelation between structure, function, and toxicity accelerates . . .

The relative effectiveness of intermittent infusions and primed continuous infusions of cimetidine in the maintenance of intragastric pH ≥ 4.0 was evaluated in a double-blind crossover trial in 26 patients who had active or healed gastroduodenal ulcers. During the intermittent phase, each patient received 300 mg cimetidine intravenously every 6 hours. During the continuous infusion phase, each patient was given a continuous infusion of 37.5 mg cimetidine per hour, preceded by a priming dose of 300 mg cimetidine that was given for 15 minutes. Intragastric pH was monitored continuously. During the last 12 hours of the study, the continuous infusion regimen provided 20% more time in which the pH was less than 4.0 with 25% less medication than did the intermittent infusion regimen. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1989) 46, 234–239; doi:10.1038/clpt.1989.131

This study assessed the relative validity of the following non-laboratory measures of compliance with a fat-controlled diet by hypercholesterolemic males: quantitative and qualitative measures of compliance derived from three-day food records and structured interviews, and summary ratings by nutritionists and interviewers. The quantitative measures of consumption referred to: saturated fat, linoleic acid, polyunsaturated fat, P/S ratio and cholesterol. The non-laboratory measures were assessed using the following two laboratory measures as criteria of validity: serum cholesterol concentration and the proportion of linoleic acid among the fatty acids of the serum cholesteryl esters. The results showed that, with respect to quantitative measures, the food record and interview manifested approximately equal validity, with the former marginally more valid. However, under certain conditions qualitative measures, such as patients' self-ratings, were about as valid as the more rigorous and expensive quantitative measures. Characteristics of the patient influenced the validity of the various measures. Validity was enhanced by the simultaneous use of certain combinations of measures.

SummaryThree steroid pyrogens known to produce fever and inflammation in man were examined for inflammatory activity in rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, rats and dogs. Etiocholanolone, 11-ketopregnanolone and lithocholic acid are all capable of eliciting intense inflammatory reactions in experimental animals, although considerable variation in individual and species sensitivity was observed. Lithocholic acid, like the neutral steroids, failed to produce fever in rabbits, rats, dogs, cats and monkeys, thus confirming the highly specific nature of this activity in humans.