Self-guided digital acceptance and commitment therapy for fibromyalgia management: results of a randomized, active-controlled, phase II pilot clinical trial.

Although empirically validated for fibromyalgia (FM), cognitive and behavioral therapies, including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), are inaccessible to many patients. A self-guided, smartphone-based ACT program would significantly improve accessibility. The SMART-FM study assessed the feasibility of conducting a predominantly virtual clinical trial in an FM population in addition to evaluating preliminary evidence for the safety and efficacy of a digital ACT program for FM (FM-ACT). Sixty-seven patients with FM were randomized to 12 weeks of FM-ACT (n = 39) or digital symptom tracking (FM-ST; n = 28). The study population was 98.5% female, with an average age of 53 years and an average baseline FM symptom severity score of 8 out of 11. Endpoints included the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQ-R) and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). The between-arm effect size for the change from baseline to Week 12 in FIQ-R total scores was d = 0.44 (least-squares mean difference, - 5.7; SE, 3.16; 95% CI, - 11.9 to 0.6; P = .074). At Week 12, 73.0% of FM-ACT participants reported improvement on the PGIC versus 22.2% of FM-ST participants (P < .001). FM-ACT demonstrated improved outcomes compared to FM-ST, with high engagement and low attrition in both arms. Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05005351) on August 13, 2021.

Randomized clinical trial of bedtime sublingual cyclobenzaprine (TNX-102 SL) in military-related PTSD and the role of sleep quality in treatment response.

Effective posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) pharmacotherapy is needed. This 12-week randomized multicenter trial evaluated efficacy and safety of TNX-102 SL, a bedtime sublingual formulation of cyclobenzaprine, in patients with military-related PTSD randomized to TNX-102 SL 2.8 mg or 5.6 mg, or placebo. Primary analysis comparing change from baseline in Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale-5 score between 2.8 mg (n=90) and placebo (n=92) was not significant. Secondary analysis of 5.6 mg (n=49) vs placebo demonstrated a mean difference of -4.5 units, p=.05, or, accounting for missing data by multiple imputation, -5.0 units, p=.03. Clinician Global Impression - Improvement responder rate was greater in 5.6 mg than placebo (p=0.04), as was mean functional improvement in Sheehan Disability Scale social domain (p=.03) and trended in work domain (p=.05). Post-hoc analyses showed early sleep improvement predicted improvement in PTSD after 12 weeks for TNX-102 SL (p<.01), not for placebo. Most common administration site reaction in TNX-102 SL groups was oral hypoaesthesia (5.6 mg, 36%; 2.8 mg, 39%; placebo, 2%), while most common systemic adverse event was somnolence (5.6 mg, 16%; 2.8 mg, 12%; placebo, 6%). This provides preliminary evidence that TNX-102 SL 5.6 mg reduces PTSD symptoms, improves sleep and psychosocial function, and is well tolerated. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02277704.

A famciclovir + celecoxib combination treatment is safe and efficacious in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: Infections and other stressors have been implicated in the development of fibromyalgia. We hypothesized that these stressors could result in recurrent reactivations of latent herpes virus infections, which could lead to the development of fibromyalgia. This study evaluated a famciclovir + celecoxib drug combination (IMC-1), active against suspected herpes virus reactivation and infection, for the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: A total of 143 fibromyalgia patients were enrolled at 12 sites in a 16-week, double-blinded, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept trial. Randomized patients received either IMC-1 or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Outcome measures included a 24-hour recall pain Numerical Rating Scale, the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-R), the Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaire, the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and the Beck Depression Inventory-II conducted at baseline and weeks 6, 12, and 16 of the study. RESULTS: A significant decrease in fibromyalgia-related pain was observed for patients on IMC-1 treatment versus placebo. PGIC response rates were significantly improved with IMC-1 treatment. Overall, patient self-reported functioning, as measured by the FIQ-R, was significantly improved. Fatigue was also significantly improved as measured by the PROMIS fatigue inventory. The safety profile was encouraging. Despite the celecoxib component of IMC-1, gastrointestinal and nervous system treatment emergent adverse events were reported less frequently in the IMC-1 group, and study completion rates favored IMC-1 treatment. CONCLUSION: IMC-1 was efficacious and safe in treating symptoms of fibromyalgia, supporting the hypothesis that herpes virus infections may contribute to this syndrome. Improved retention rates, decreased adverse event rates, and evidence of efficacy on a broad spectrum of outcome measures are suggestive that IMC-1 may represent an effective, novel treatment for fibromyalgia.

Milnacipran combined with pregabalin in fibromyalgia: a randomized, open-label study evaluating the safety and efficacy of adding milnacipran in patients with incomplete response to pregabalin.

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.

Relationships among pain, depressed mood, and global status in fibromyalgia patients: post hoc analyses of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of milnacipran.

BACKGROUND: Patients with fibromyalgia often experience depressive symptoms in addition to chronic pain and other characteristic symptoms associated with this disorder. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships among pain, depressive symptoms, and global status in a clinical trial of milnacipran for fibromyalgia. METHODS: Data from a randomized, double-blind study (milnacipran 100 mg/d, n = 516; placebo, n = 509) were analyzed. Treatment outcomes included quantitative changes in pain and Beck depression inventory (BDI) scores, mean Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores, and three responder endpoints: patients with ≥30% pain improvement, PGIC score ≤2, and patients meeting both pain and PGIC responder criteria (2-measure composite responders). Correlations and path analyses were conducted to evaluate relationships among improvements in depressive symptoms, pain, and PGIC. RESULTS: Patients receiving milnacipran had greater decreases in mean pain scores, lower mean PGIC endpoint scores, and higher responder rates regardless of baseline severity of depressive symptoms. The highest responder rates were found in patients with greater than four-point improvement in BDI scores (milnacipran vs. placebo: pain, 57.5% vs. 39.0%; PGIC, 60.1% vs. 38.2%; 2-measure composite, 49.0% vs. 27.9%; all p < 0.01), although significant differences between treatment groups were also found in patients with no improvement or worsening of depressive symptoms. Correlations between changes in BDI and changes in pain or PGIC were low (r ≤ 0.3). Path analyses indicated 87.2% of pain reduction to be a direct effect of milnacipran treatment. CONCLUSION: Symptom improvements with milnacipran were only weakly associated with baseline depressive symptoms and were largely independent of improvements in depressive symptomatology.

Short-term (2-week) effects of discontinuing milnacipran in patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of abruptly withdrawing milnacipran during the 2-week discontinuation phase of a study in which FM patients had received 12 weeks of stable-dose treatment with milnacipran at 100 mg/day. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The effects of withdrawing milnacipran were evaluated prospectively over a 2-week period (Weeks 12 to 14) using a randomized, placebo-controlled withdrawal design. Patients who had originally received milnacipran 100 mg/d for 12 weeks were re-randomized to continue milnacipran (n = 178) or switch directly to placebo (n = 178); patients originally receiving placebo continued placebo (n = 359). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicalstrials.gov (NCT00314249). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Loss of efficacy was evaluated by mean changes in pain and functional measures and by percentage of composite responders, defined as patients with simultaneous improvements in pain, global status, and physical functioning. Newly emergent adverse events and changes in vital signs were also recorded. RESULTS: Within 2 weeks,patients switched from milnacipran to placebo had greater mean worsening in pain, functioning, and global status measures when compared with patients continuing treatment. In addition, significantly fewer composite responders were found in patients who discontinued active treatment than in patients who continued receiving milnacipran (22.0% vs 32.3%, p < 0.05). Incidences of newly emergent adverse events were 16.3% and 18.0% in patients discontinuing and continuing treatment, respectively. Mean vital sign changes decreased or returned to baseline within 2 weeks of discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discontinuing milnacipran experienced worsening in multiple efficacy parameters within 2 weeks. Vital sign changes observed with milnacipran during the 12-week stable-dose period decreased or returned to baseline values within 2 weeks after discontinuation of treatment. No new safety concerns were found during this discontinuation period with milnacipran.

Toward development of a fibromyalgia responder index and disease activity score: OMERACT module update.

Following development of the core domain set for fibromyalgia (FM) in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) meetings 7 to 9, the FM working group has progressed toward the development of an FM responder index and a disease activity score based on these domains, utilizing outcome indices of these domains from archived randomized clinical trials in FM. Possible clinical domains that could be included in a responder index and disease activity score include pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, mood disturbance, tenderness, stiffness, and functional impairment. Outcome measures for these domains demonstrate good to adequate psychometric properties, although measures of cognitive dysfunction need to be further developed. The approach used in the development of responder indices and disease activity scores for rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis represents heuristic models for our work, but FM is challenging in that there is no clear algorithm of treatment that defines disease activity based on treatment decisions, nor are there objective markers that define thresholds of severity or response to treatment. The process of developing candidate dichotomous responder definitions and continuous quantitative disease activity measures is described, along with participant discussions from OMERACT 10. Final results of this work will be published in a separate report pending completion of analyses.

A pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of milnacipran monotherapy in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

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.

Role and rationale for the use of milnacipran in the management of fibromyalgia.

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a complex syndrome characterized by chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain which is often accompanied by multiple other symptoms, including fatigue, sleep disturbances, decreased physical functioning, and dyscognition. Due to these multiple symptoms, as well as high rates of comorbidity with other related disorders, patients with FM often report a reduced quality of life. Although the pathophysiology of FM is not completely understood, patients with FM experience pain differently from the general population, most likely due to dysfunctional pain processing in the central nervous system leading to both hyperalgesia and allodynia. In many patients with FM, this aberrant pain processing, or central sensitization, appears to involve decreased pain inhibition within the spinal tract, which is mediated by descending pathways that utilize serotonin, norepinephrine, and other neurotransmitters. The reduced serotonin and norepinephrine levels observed in patients with FM suggest that medications which increase the levels of these neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), may have clinically beneficial effects in FM and other chronic pain conditions. Milnacipran is an SNRI that has been approved for the management of FM. In clinical trials, treatment with milnacipran for up to 1 year has been found to improve the pain and other symptoms of FM. Because FM is characterized by multiple symptoms that all contribute to the decreased quality of life and ability to function, the milnacipran pivotal trials implemented responder analyses. These utilized a single composite endpoint to identify the proportion of patients who reported simultaneous and clinically significant improvements in pain, global disease status, and physical function. Other domains assessed during the milnacipran trials include fatigue, multidimensional functioning, mood, sleep quality, and patient-reported dyscognition. This review article provides information intended to help clinicians make informed decisions about the use of milnacipran in the clinical management of patients with FM. It draws primarily on results from 2 of the pivotal clinical trials that formed the basis of approval of milnacipran in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration.

Efficacy and safety of milnacipran 100 mg/day in patients with fibromyalgia: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

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.

Durability of therapeutic response to milnacipran treatment for fibromyalgia. Results of a randomized, double-blind, monotherapy 6-month extension study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the durability of improvement and long-term efficacy of milnacipran treatment in fibromyalgia, to assess efficacy in patients re-randomized from placebo to milnacipran, and to collect additional information on the tolerability and efficacy of long-term treatment with milnacipran. DESIGN: A total of 449 patients who successfully completed a 6-month lead-in study enrolled in this 6-month extension study (87.7% of eligible subjects). Patients initially receiving milnacipran 200 mg/day during the lead-in study were maintained at 200 mg/day (n = 209); patients initially assigned to placebo or milnacipran 100 mg/day were re-randomized (1:4) to either 100 mg/day (n = 48) or 200 mg/day (n = 192) of milnacipran for an additional 6 months of treatment. Efficacy assessments included visual analog scale pain ratings, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: Patients continuing on milnacipran demonstrated a sustained reduction in pain over the full 12-month period. Additional beneficial effects were also maintained, as indicated by the PGIC and FIQ. Patients initially assigned to either placebo or milnacipran 100 mg/day in the lead-in study and subsequently re-randomized to milnacipran 200 mg/day in the extension study experienced further improvements in their mean pain scores, FIQ total scores, and PGIC ratings at 1 year. Milnacipran treatment was generally well tolerated. The most commonly reported newly emergent adverse event was nausea. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to confirming that milnacipran safely and effectively improves the multiple symptoms of fibromyalgia, these data indicate that milnacipran provides 1-year durable efficacy in this patient population.

The efficacy and safety of milnacipran for treatment of fibromyalgia. a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

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.

Milnacipran for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults: a 15-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and clinical studies have suggested that milnacipran, a dual norepinephrine-serotonin reuptake inhibitor, may be efficacious in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM). OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in treating the multiple domains of FM. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Adult patients (age 18-70 years) who met 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for FM were randomized to receive milnacipran 100 mg/d, milnacipran 200 mg/d, or placebo for 15 weeks. Because this was a pivotal registration trial, the primary end points were chosen to investigate efficacy for 2 potential indications: the treatment of FM and the treatment of FM pain. Thus, the 2 primary efficacy end points were rates of FM composite responders and FM pain composite responders. FM composite responders were defined as patients concurrently experiencing clinically meaningful improvements in the following 3 domain criteria: pain (> or = 30% improvement, as recorded in an electronic diary); patients' global status (a rating of very much improved or much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC] scale); and physical function (a > or = 6-point improvement on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36] Physical Component Summary score). FM pain composite responders were defined as those who met the pain and PGIC criteria. Adverse events reported by patients or observed by investigators were recorded throughout the trial. RESULTS: Of 2270 patients screened, 1196 were randomized to receive milnacipran 100 mg/d (n = 399), milnacipran 200 mg/d (n = 396), or placebo (n = 401). The majority of patients were female (96.2%) and white (93.5%). The population had a mean age of 50.2 years, a mean baseline weight of 180.8 pounds, and a mean baseline body mass index of 30.6 kg/m(2). Compared with placebo, significantly greater proportions of milnacipran-treated patients were FM composite responders (100 mg/d: P = 0.01; 200 mg/d: P = 0.02) and FM pain composite responders (100 mg/d: P = 0.03; 200 mg/d: P = 0.004). Milnacipran was associated with significant improvements in pain after 1 week of treatment (100 mg/d: P = 0.004; 200 mg/d: P = 0.04), as well as significant improvements in multiple secondary efficacy end points, including global status (PGIC: P<0.001 for both doses), physical function (SF-36 physical functioning domain-100 mg/d: P < 0.001; 200 mg/d: P = 0.02), and fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory- 100 mg/d: P = 0.04). The most commonly reported adverse events with milnacipran were nausea (100 mg/d, 34.3%; 200 mg/d, 37.6%), headache (18.0% and 17.7%, respectively), and constipation (14.3% and 17.9%). Adverse events resulted in premature study discontinuation in 19.5% and 23.7% of those who received milnacipran 100 and 200 mg/d, respectively, compared with 9.5% of placebo recipients. CONCLUSION: In these adult patients with FM, both doses of milnacipran (100 and 200 mg/d) were associated with significant improvements in pain and other symptoms. Clinical Trials Identification Number: NCT00098124.

Two randomized placebo-controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.

OBJECTIVE: Mirtazapine is an a2A antagonist and mixed 5-HT2/5-HT3 antagonist that has been proposed as a potential treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). A small, randomized, controlled trial has previously found an approximate halving in the severity of OSA with daily doses of 4.5 and 15 mg. We aimed to confirm and extend these findings in 2 randomized placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trials. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of mirtazapine for OSA (apnea-hypopnea index 10-40/h). Study 1: 3-way crossover, dose-finding study testing the self-administration of mirtazapine (7.5, 15, 30, and/or 45 mg) or placebo 30 minutes prior to bedtime for 2 weeks at each dose. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 different dose-sequence groups, with each patient exposed to a maximum of 3 doses. Study 2: 3-arm, randomized, parallel-group trial of mirtazapine at 15 mg or mirtazapine 15 mg + Compound CD0012 or placebo for 4 weeks in 65 patients with OSA. RESULTS: Two patients withdrew from Study 1 after complaints of unacceptable lethargy. Fifteen patients were withdrawn from study 2, 7 after complaints of unacceptable lethargy or other side-effects. No measurement of sleep apnea improved due to mirtazapine in either study. Weight gain was significantly greater on mirtazapine than on placebo in both trials. CONCLUSIONS: Mirtazapine did not improve sleep apnea in either trial. Mirtazapine caused weight gain, which may further worsen OSA. Therefore, mirtazapine is not recommended for the treatment of OSA.

Fibromyalgia syndrome.

The objectives of the first OMERACT Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FM) Workshop were to identify and prioritize symptom domains that should be consistently evaluated in FM clinical trials, and to identify aspects of domains and outcome measures that should be part of a concerted research agenda of FM researchers. Such an effort will help standardize and improve the quality of outcomes research in FM. A principal assumption in this workshop has been that there exists a clinical syndrome, generally known as FM, characterized by chronic widespread pain typically associated with fatigue, sleep disturbance, mood disturbance, and other symptoms and signs, and considered to be related to central neuromodulatory dysregulation. FM can be diagnosed using 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria. In preparation for the workshop a Delphi exercise involving 23 FM researchers was conducted to establish a preliminary prioritization of domains of inquiry. At the OMERACT meeting, the workshop included presentation of the Delphi results; a review of placebo-controlled trials of FM treatment, with a focus on the outcome measures used and their performance; a panel discussion of the key issues in FM trials, from both an investigator and regulatory agency perspective; and a voting process by the workshop attendees. The results of the workshop were presented in the plenary session on the final day of the meeting. A prioritized list of domains of FM to be investigated was thus developed, key issues and controversies in the field were debated, and consensus on a research agenda on outcome measure development was reached.

Characterization and consequences of pain variability in individuals with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: A growing body of evidence suggests that real-time electronic assessments of pain are preferable to traditional paper-and-pencil measures. We used electronic assessment data derived from a study of patients with fibromyalgia (FM) to examine variability of pain over time and to investigate the implications of pain fluctuation in the context of a clinical trial. METHODS: The study group comprised 125 patients with FM who were enrolled in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of milnacipran. Pain intensity levels were captured in real time by participants using electronic diaries. Variability in pain was assessed as the standard deviation of pain entries over time (pain variability index [PVI]). RESULTS: Substantial between-subject differences in pain variability were observed (mean +/- SD PVI 1.61 +/- 0.656 [range 0.27-4.05]). The fluctuation in pain report was constant over time within individuals (r = 0.664, P < 0.001). Individuals with greater variability were more likely to be classified as responders in a drug trial (odds ratio 6.14, P = 0.006); however, this association was primarily attributable to a greater change in pain scores in individuals receiving placebo (r = 0.460, P = 0.02) rather than active drug (r = 0.09, P > 0.10). CONCLUSION: Among individuals with FM, there were large between-subject differences in real-time pain reports. Pain variability was relatively constant over time within individuals. Perhaps the most important finding is that individuals with larger pain fluctuations were more likely to respond to placebo. It is not clear whether these findings are applicable only to patients with FM or whether they may also be seen in patients with other chronic pain conditions.

Efficacy of milnacipran in patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common musculoskeletal condition characterized by widespread pain, tenderness, and a variety of other somatic symptoms. Current treatments are modestly effective. Arguably, the best studied and most effective compounds are tricyclic antidepressants (TCA). Milnacipran, a nontricyclic compound that inhibits the reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine, may provide many of the beneficial effects of TCA with a superior side effect profile. METHODS: One hundred twenty-five patients with FM were randomly assigned in a 3:3:2 ratio to receive milnacipran twice daily, milnacipran once daily, or placebo for 3 months in a double-blind dose-escalation trial; 92% of twice-daily and 81% of once-daily participants achieved dose escalation to the target milnacipran dose of 200 mg. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was reduction of pain. Both the once- and twice-daily groups showed statistically significant improvements in pain, as well as improvements in global well being, fatigue, and other domains. Response rates for patients receiving milnacipran were equal in patients with and without comorbid depression, but placebo response rates were considerably higher in depressed patients, leading to significantly greater overall efficacy in the nondepressed group. CONCLUSION: In this Phase II study, milnacipran led to statistically significant improvements in pain and other symptoms of FM. The effect sizes were equal to those previously found with TCA, and the drug was generally well tolerated.