Patterns of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment, treatment satisfaction and perceived tolerability in patients with fibromyalgia: a patients' survey.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patterns of treatment among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) in Spain and to assess patient satisfaction and perceived tolerability of the treatment received. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted in Spain via internet from September 2015 to March 2017. We recorded sociodemographic and clinical information, including treatment satisfaction evaluated using a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS) and adverse events. RESULTS: Evaluable subjects (n=915) were predominantly middle-aged, married women who presented with moderate to severe pain, sleep disturbance and affected quality-of-life. The most frequent non-pharmacologic treatments were physical exercise (85%), diet (47%), supplements such as magnesium and vitamins (47%), and psychotherapy (31%). The most frequently prescribed drugs were tramadol (40%), benzodiazepines (30%), duloxetine (22%), pregabalin (19%), amitriptyline (17%) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 16%); 7.5% of patients received stronger opioids. After excluding benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, and paracetamol, 46% of patients received ≥2 drugs. Satisfaction with treatment (NRS mean score) was generally poor for pharmacologic treatment (4.1), exercise (4.7), psychotherapy (5.2), diet (5.0), physiotherapy (6.2) and acupuncture (6.3). The increase in the number of drugs prescribed was not associated with an increase in satisfaction, but rather with an increase in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FM in Spain are overtreated with a combination of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies. Several of these therapies lack adequate support from randomised clinical trials and/or clinical practice guidelines. This overtreatment is not associated with relevant clinical benefits or patient satisfaction and, in the case of pharmacologic treatments, poses tolerability and safety issues.

Quetiapine extended-release (Seroquel-XR) versus amitriptyline monotherapy for treating patients with fibromyalgia: a 16-week, randomized, flexible-dose, open-label trial.

RATIONALE: Previous open-label studies have suggested that quetiapine could be a valuable alternative for treating fibromyalgia. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the efficacy and tolerability of extended-release quetiapine with amitriptyline for treating fibromyalgia. METHODS: This study was a randomized, open-label, flexible-dose, non-inferiority trial. Patients with fibromyalgia were randomized to receive quetiapine extended-release (XR) (N = 45) (50 to 300 mg daily) or amitriptyline (N = 45) (10 to 75 mg daily) for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to endpoint in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score; the non-inferiority threshold was established at 8 points. The secondary outcomes included sleep quality, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. RESULTS: Twenty-two (49%) patients in the quetiapine group and 34 (76%) patients in the amitriptyline group completed the study. We found a reduction of 9.8 points in the total FIQ score at the endpoint for the quetiapine-treated patients compared to 13.9 points for the amitriptyline-treated patients, for a difference of 4.14 points (80% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 8.98). No significant differences were found between the quetiapine XR and amitriptyline groups for any of the secondary outcomes. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment due to adverse events was higher in the quetiapine group (n = 14, 31.1%) than the amitriptyline group (n = 3, 6.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results appear to indicate that quetiapine XR does not provide similar efficacy to amitriptyline for treating patients with fibromyalgia. Quetiapine XR had a worse tolerability than amitriptyline in this population, possibly due to a relatively high starting dose.

Myofascial trigger points in cluster headache patients: a case series.

Active myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) have been found to contribute to chronic tension-type headache and migraine. The purpose of this case series was to examine if active trigger points (TrPs) provoking cluster-type referred pain could be found in cluster headache patients and, if so, to evaluate the effectiveness of active TrPs anaesthetic injections both in the acute and preventive headache's treatment. Twelve patients, 4 experiencing episodic and 8 chronic cluster headache, were studied. TrPs were found in all of them. Abortive infiltrations could be done in 2 episodic and 4 chronic patients, and preemptive infiltrations could be done in 2 episodic and 5 chronic patients, both kind of interventions being successful in 5 (83.3%) and in 6 (85.7%) of the cases respectively. When combined with prophylactic drug therapy, injections were associated with significant improvement in 7 of the 8 chronic cluster patients. Our data suggest that peripheral sensitization may play a role in cluster headache pathophysiology and that first neuron afferent blockade can be useful in cluster headache management.

Effectiveness of ropivacaine trigger points inactivation in the prophylactic management of patients with severe migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Tenderness and referred pain have been described in migraine and involved in its pathogenesis. The present study was performed to evaluate the prophylactic effectiveness of ropivacaine injections during a 12-week period. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 52 patients agreed to participate in the study. Trigger points were explored by manual palpation and injected weekly with 10 mg ropivacaine. The frequencies of migraine attacks were recorded from 4 weeks before the beginning of injections until 4 weeks after the last one, and a Clinical Global Impression improvement scale was completed in the final visit. RESULTS: All of the subjects had one or more trigger points, located in temporal and/or suboccipital areas in most of the cases. In nine (17.3%) patients the frequency of attacks was reduced >or=50%, and in 19 (36.5%) cases the reduction was comprised between 11% and 49%. A total of 31 (59.6%) patients reported to be much or very much improved after finishing the injection period. In 11 cases rescue medication intake was reduced >or=50% in comparison with baseline period, and the attacks of severe intensity decreased significantly. Eight (26.6%) out of 30 patients suffering chronic migraine reverted to episodic migraine. Local pain in injection sites was reported by 14 patients, and 13 subjects (25.5%) experienced postinjection soreness. CONCLUSIONS: Trigger points inactivation can be an effective palliative measure in the prophylactic management of severe refractory migraine.