1. Home
  2. amitriptyline

amitriptyline

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Author/s: 
Alexander C Ford, Alexandra Wright-Hughes, Sarah L Alderson, Pei-Loo Ow, Matthew J Ridd, Robbie Foy, Gina Bianco, Felicity L Bishop, Matthew Chaddock, Heather Cook, Deborah Cooper, Catherine Fernandez, Elspeth A Guthrie, Suzanne Hartley, Amy Herbert, Daniel Howdon, Delia P Muir, Taposhi Nath, Sonia Newman, Thomas Smith, Christopher A Taylor, Emma J Teasdale, Ruth Thornton, Amanda J Farrin, Hazel A Everitt, ATLANTIS trialists

Background: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting.

Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants.

Findings: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication.

Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial.

Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Keywords 
amitriptyline Irritable Bowel Syndrome primary health care antidepressive agents

Comparison of Amitriptyline and US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Treatments for Fibromyalgia A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Farag, H. M., Yunusa, I., Goswami, H., Sultan, I., Doucette, J. A., Eguale, T.

Importance: Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.

Objective: To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.

Data sources: Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.

Study selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.

Data extraction and synthesis: This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.

Main outcomes and measures: Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.

Results: A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.

Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.

Keywords 
amitriptyline FDA treatment Fibromyalgia systematic review

Nonopioid Pharmacologic Treatments for Chronic Pain. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 228

Author/s: 
McDonagh, MS, Selph, SS, Buckley, DI, Holmes, RS, Mauer, K, Ramirez, S, Hsu, FC, Dana, T, Fu, R, Chou

Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of nonopioid pharmacologic agents in patients with specific types of chronic pain, considering effects on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.

Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, Embase®, PsycINFO®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through September 10, 2019, reference lists, data requests, and previous reviews.

Review methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nonopioid pharmacologic agents in patients with chronic pain were selected using predefined criteria and dual review. This review focused on seven common chronic pain conditions (neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, low back pain, chronic headache, sickle cell disease), with effects analyzed at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months). Magnitude of effects were described as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria, and strength of evidence was assessed. Meta-analyses were conducted where data allowed, stratified by duration within each intervention type, using random effects models. We evaluated effect modification through subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including specific drug, dose, study quality, and pain type.

Results. We included 185 RCTs in 221 publications and 5 systematic reviews. In the short term, anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin, and oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain, pregabalin/gabapentin for fibromyalgia), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressants (duloxetine for neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and low back pain, milnacipran for fibromyalgia), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis) were associated with mostly small improvements (e.g., 5 to 20 points on a 0 to 100 scale) in pain and function. Function was not found to be improved with duloxetine for low back pain or pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain. Moderate improvement in quality of life was seen with duloxetine in patients with neuropathic pain, and small improvements in patients with osteoarthritis, but evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions for other drugs and conditions. While most comparisons of drugs and doses did not identify differences, diclofenac improved pain and function moderately more than celecoxib. In the intermediate term, limited evidence (1 RCT) showed memantine moderately improved pain, function, and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia; improvements in pain, but not function, were maintained in the intermediate term with duloxetine and milnacipran for fibromyalgia. Other drugs studied, including acetaminophen (osteoarthritis), capsaicin (neuropathic pain), cannabis (neuropathic pain), amitriptyline (fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain), and cyclobenzaprine (fibromyalgia) had no clear effects. Withdrawal from study due to adverse events was significantly increased with nonopioid drugs, with the greatest increase over placebo seen with cannabis. Large increases in risk of adverse events were seen with pregabalin (blurred vision, cognitive effects, dizziness, peripheral edema, sedation, and weight gain), gabapentin (blurred vision, cognitive effects, sedation, weight gain), and cannabis (nausea, dizziness). Dose viii reductions reduced the risk of some adverse events with SNRI antidepressants. In the short term small increases in risk of major coronary events and moderate increases in serious gastrointestinal events (both short and long term) were found with NSAIDs.

Conclusions. In the short term, small improvements in pain and/or function were seen with SNRI antidepressants for neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and low back pain; pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia; oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain; and NSAIDs for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis. Improvement in function was not found with duloxetine for low back pain and pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain. Intermediate- and long-term outcomes were mostly not assessed. Increased incidence of drug class–specific adverse events led to withdrawal from treatment in some patients, suggesting that careful consideration of patient characteristics is needed in selecting nonopioid drug treatments.

Keywords 
chronic pain non-opioid treatment anticonvulsants serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs NSAID SNRI cannabis

Amitriptyline for Neuropathic Pain in Adults

Author/s: 
Moore, R. Andrew, Derry, Sheena, Aldington, Dominic, Cole, Peter, Wiffen, Phillip J.

BACKGROUND:

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the effects of amitriptyline for fibromyalgia are now dealt with in a separate review.Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). It is recommended as a first line treatment in many guidelines. Neuropathic pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of chronic neuropathic pain, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own hand searched database for older studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included 15 studies from the earlier review and two new studies (17 studies, 1342 participants) in seven neuropathic pain conditions. Eight cross-over studies with 302 participants had a median of 36 participants, and nine parallel group studies with 1040 participants had a median of 84 participants. Study quality was modest, though most studies were at high risk of bias due to small size.There was no first-tier or second-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating any neuropathic pain condition. Only third-tier evidence was available. For only two of seven studies reporting useful efficacy data was amitriptyline significantly better than placebo (very low quality evidence).More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 55% of participants taking amitriptyline and 36% taking placebo. The risk ratio (RR) was 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 5.2 (3.6 to 9.1) (low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were rare. Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but were rarely reported (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many people with neuropathic pain. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain, but only a minority of people will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.

Keywords 
Fibromyalgia amitriptyline neuropathic pain neuralgia
Subscribe to amitriptyline