Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated. Combining different agents could provide superior pain relief and possibly also fewer side effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combination pharmacotherapy compared to monotherapy or placebo, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to September 2017. We also searched reference lists of other reviews and trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing combinations of two or more drugs to placebo or other comparators, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: From all studies, we extracted data on: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater; patient global impression of clinical change (PGIC) much or very much improved or very much improved; any other pain-related outcome of improvement; withdrawals (lack of efficacy, adverse events), participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events, and specific adverse events (e.g. somnolence and dizziness). The primary comparison was between combination and one or all single-agent comparators. We also assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 studies with 1474 participants. Three studies combined a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a benzodiazepine (306 participants); two combined amitriptyline with fluoxetine (89 participants); two combined amitriptyline with a different agent (92 participants); two combined melatonin with an antidepressant (164 participants); one combined carisoprodol, paracetamol (acetaminophen), and caffeine (58 participants); one combined tramadol and paracetamol (acetaminophen) (315 participants); one combined malic acid and magnesium (24 participants); one combined a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with 5-hydroxytryptophan (200 participants); and one combined pregabalin with duloxetine (41 participants). Six studies compared the combination of multiple agents with each component alone and with inactive placebo; three studies compared combination pharmacotherapy with each individual component but did not include an inactive placebo group; two studies compared the combination of two agents with only one of the agents alone; and three studies compared the combination of two or more agents only with inactive placebo.Heterogeneity among studies in terms of class of agents evaluated, specific combinations used, outcomes reported, and doses given prevented any meta-analysis. None of the combinations of drugs found provided sufficient data for analysis compared with placebo or other comparators for our preferred outcomes. We therefore provide a narrative description of results. There was no or inadequate evidence in any comparison for primary and secondary outcomes. Two studies only reported any primary outcomes of interest (patient-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater). For each 'Risk of bias' item, only half or fewer of studies had unequivocal low risk of bias. Small size and selective reporting were common as high risk of bias.Our GRADE assessment was therefore very low for primary outcomes of pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater, PGIC much or very much improved or very much improved, any pain-related outcome, participants experiencing any adverse event, any serious adverse event, or withdrawing because of an adverse event.Three studies found some evidence that combination pharmacotherapy reduced pain compared to monotherapy; these trials tested three different combinations: melatonin and amitriptyline, fluoxetine and amitriptyline, and pregabalin and duloxetine. Adverse events experienced by participants were not serious, and where they were reported (in 12 out of 16 studies), all participants experienced them, regardless of treatment. Common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and headache. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are few, large, high-quality trials comparing combination pharmacotherapy with monotherapy for fibromyalgia, consequently limiting evidence to support or refute the use of combination pharmacotherapy for fibromyalgia.

MIT CAACB Risk Assessment Case Study: Assessing Virus Cross-Contamination Risk between Two Simultaneous Processes in an Open Biomanufacturing Facility.

Some members of MIT's Consortium on Adventitious Agent Contamination in Biomanufacturing (CAACB) previously published content on the "Quality Risk Management in the Context of Viral Contamination", which described tools, procedures, and methodologies for assessing and managing the risk of a potential virus contamination in cell culture processes. To address the growing industry interest in moving manufacturing toward open ballrooms with functionally closed systems and to demonstrate how the ideas of risk management can be leveraged to perform a risk assessment, CAACB conducted a case study exercise of these new manufacturing modalities. In the case study exercise, a cross-functional team composed of personnel from many of CAACB's industry membership collaboratively assessed the risks of viral cross-contamination between a human and non-human host cell system in an open manufacturing facility. This open manufacturing facility had no walls to provide architectural separation of two processes occurring simultaneously, specifically a recombinant protein perfusion cell culture process using the human cell line, HEK-293 (Process 1) and a downstream postviral filtration unit operation (Process 2) of a recombinant protein produced in CHO cells. This viral risk assessment focused on cross-contamination of the Process 2 filtration unit operation after the Process 1 perfusion bioreactor was contaminated with a virus that went undetected. The workflow for quality risk management that is recommended by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) was followed, which included identifying and mapping the manufacturing process, defining the risk question, risk evaluation, and risk control. The case study includes a completed Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to provide descriptions of the specific risks and corresponding recommended risk reduction actions.

Acute Tissue Mineral Deposition in Response to a Phosphate Pulse in Experimental CKD.

Pathogenic accumulation of calcium (Ca) and phosphate (PO4 ) in vasculature is a sentinel of advancing cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study sought to characterize acute distribution patterns of radiolabeled 33 PO4 and 45 Ca in cardiovascular tissues of rats with CKD (0.25% dietary adenine). The disposition of 33 PO4 and 45 Ca was assessed in blood and 36 tissues after a 10-minute intravenous infusion of one of the following: (i) PO4 pulse + tracer 33 PO4 ; (ii) PO4 pulse + tracer 45 Ca; or (iii) saline + tracer 45 Ca in CKD and non-CKD animals. After the infusion, 33 PO4 in blood was elevated (2.3× at 10 minutes, 3.5× at 30 minutes, p < 0.05) in CKD compared with non-CKD. In contrast, there was no difference in clearance of 45 Ca from the blood. Compared with controls, CKD rats had a markedly increased 33 PO4 incorporation in several tissues (skeletal muscle, 7.8×; heart, 5.5×), but accrual was most pronounced in the vasculature (24.8×). There was a significant, but smaller, increase in 45 Ca accrual in the vasculature of CKD rats (1.25×), particularly in the calcified rat, in response to the acute phosphate load. Based on the pattern of tissue uptake of 33 PO4 and 45 Ca, this study revealed that an increase in circulating PO4 is an important stimulus for the accumulation of these minerals in vascular tissue in CKD. This response is further enhanced when vascular calcification is also present. The finding of enhanced vascular mineral deposition in response to an acute PO4 pulse provides evidence of significant tissue-specific susceptibility to calcification. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Biopharmaceutical Industry Approaches to Facility Segregation for Viral Safety: An Effort from the Consortium on Adventitious Agent Contamination in Biomanufacturing.

Appropriate segregation within manufacturing facilities is required by regulators and utilized by manufacturers to ensure that the final product has not been contaminated with (a) adventitious viruses, (b) another pre-/postviral clearance fraction of the same product, or (c) another product processed in the same facility. However, there is no consensus on what constitutes appropriate facility segregation to minimize these risks. In part, this is due to the fact that a wide variety of manufacturing facilities and operational practices exist, including single-product and multiproduct manufacturing, using traditional segregation strategies with separate rooms for specific operations that may use stainless steel or disposable equipment to more modern ballroom-style operations that use mostly disposable equipment (i.e., pre- and postviral clearance manufacturing operations are not physically segregated by walls). Further, consensus is lacking around basic definitions and approaches related to facility segregation. For example, given that several unit operations provide assurance of virus clearance during downstream processing, how does one define pre- and postviral clearance and at which point(s) should a viral segregation barrier be introduced? What is a "functionally closed" system? How can interventions be conducted so that the system remains functionally closed? How can functionally closed systems be used to adequately isolate a product stream and ensure its safety? To address these issues, the member companies of the Consortium on Adventitious Agent Contamination in Biomanufacturing (CAACB) have conducted a facility segregation project with the following goals: define "pre- and postviral clearance zones" and "pre- and postviral clearance materials"; define "functionally closed" manufacturing systems; and identify an array of facility segregation approaches that are used for the safe and effective production of recombinant biologics as well as plasma products. This article reflects the current thinking from this collaborative endeavor.LAY ABSTRACT: Operations in biopharmaceutical manufacturing are segregated to ensure that the final product has not been contaminated with adventitious viruses, another fraction of the same product, or with another product from within the same facility. Yet there is no consensus understanding of what appropriate facility segregation looks like. There are a wide variety of manufacturing facilities and operational practices. There are existing facilities with separate rooms and more modern approaches that use disposable equipment in an open ballroom without walls. There is also no agreement on basic definitions and approaches related to facility segregation approaches. For example, many would like to claim that their manufacturing process is functionally closed, yet exactly how a functionally closed system may be defined is not clear. To address this, the member companies of the Consortium on Adventitious Agent Contamination in Biomanufacturing (CAACB) have conducted a project with the goal of defining important manufacturing terms relevant to designing an appropriately segregated facility and identifying different facility segregation approaches that are used for the safe and effective production of recombinant biologics as well as plasma products.