Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain:a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain. We will achieve this by: assessing the efficacy of antidepressants by type, class and dose in improving pain, mood, patient global impression of change, physical functioning, sleep quality and quality of life; assessing the number of adverse events of antidepressants by type, class and dose; ranking antidepressants in the efficacy of treating pain, mood and adverse events

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain:a network meta-analysis

Background: Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients’ global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions. Objectives: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache). Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022. Selection criteria: We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal. Main results: This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel−armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes. Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.31, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD −0.22, 95% CI −0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD −0.5, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD −0.16, 95% CI −0.22 to −0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes. Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety. There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes. Authors' conclusions: Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.</p

Safety and immunogenicity of AS03B adjuvanted split virion versus non-adjuvanted whole virion H1N1 influenza vaccine in UK children aged 6 months-12 years: open label, randomised, parallel group, multicentre study

Objectives To compare the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an adjuvanted split virion H1N1 vaccine and a non-adjuvanted whole virion vaccine used in the pandemic immunisation programme in the United Kingdom

Pilot study evaluating a brief mindfulness intervention for those with chronic pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The burden of chronic pain is a major challenge, impacting the quality of life of patients. Intensive programmes of mindfulness-based therapy can help patients to cope with chronic pain but can be time consuming and require a trained specialist to implement. The self-management model of care is now integral to the care of patients with chronic pain; home-based interventions can be very acceptable, making a compelling argument for investigating brief, self-management interventions. The aim of this study is two-fold: to assess the immediate effects of a brief self-help mindfulness intervention for coping with chronic pain and to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of such an intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled pilot study will be conducted to evaluate a brief mindfulness intervention for those with chronic pain. Ninety chronic pain patients who attend hospital outpatient clinics will be recruited and allocated randomly to either the control or treatment group on a 1:1 basis using the computer-generated list of random numbers. The treatment group receives mindfulness audios and the control group receives audios of readings from a non-fiction book, all of which are 15 minutes in length. Immediate effects of the intervention are assessed with brief psychological measures immediately before and after audio use. Mindfulness, mood, health-related quality of life, pain catastrophizing and experience of the intervention are assessed with standardized measures, brief ratings and brief telephone follow-ups, at baseline and after one week and one month. Feasibility is assessed by estimation of effect sizes for outcomes, patient adherence and experience, and appraisal of resource allocation in provision of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess whether a brief mindfulness-based intervention is effective for immediately reducing perceived distress and pain with the side effect of increasing relaxation in chronic pain patients and will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomized controlled trial. Patient recruitment began in January 2015 and is due to be completed in June 2016. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN61538090 Registered 20 April 2015

Additional file 2 of Developing a shortened version of the dementia knowledge assessment scale (DKAS-TC) with a sample in Taiwan: an item response theory approach

Additional file 2: Appendix 2: Table 1. The short-form of the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale-Traditional Chinese version (DKAS-s). Table 2. Chinese/English statements about dementia in the short-form of Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale-Traditional Chinese version (DKAS-s

General practitioners attitude and confidence scale for dementia (GPACS-D): confirmatory factor analysis and comparative subscale scores among GPs and supervisors

Abstract Background The attitude of General Practitioner’s (GP’s) towards dementia and confidence in their clinical abilities impacts on diagnosis rates and management of the condition. The purpose of the present research is to refine and confirm the reliability and validity of the General Practitioner Attitudes and Confidence Scale for Dementia (GPACS-D) as a tool to measure confidence and attitude. Methods A sample of 194 GP volunteers attending dementia education workshops were recruited to complete the GPACS-D before and after the workshop. Volunteer respondents comprised both GP Registrars and GP Supervisors. Analyses included Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), measures of internal consistency, Pearson correlations, and a comparison of subscale scores between cohorts (T-Test for independent samples). Results Findings of the CFA support a 15-item, 3-factor model with four items removed due to poor performance and one item moved between factors. The resultant model exhibited good fit (x2 = 103.88; p = .105; RMSEA = .032; PCLOSE = .915; CFI = .967; TLI = 960), with acceptable internal consistency. Subscales exhibited clear discriminant validity with no underlying relationships between subscales. Finally, total and subscale scores exhibited good discrimination between groups who would be expected to score differently based on experience and level of exposure to dementia. Conclusion The 15-item, 3-subscale GPACS-D is a reliable and valid measure of GP confidence and attitudes toward dementia. The subscales clearly distinguish between groups who might be expected to score differently from each other based on their training or professional experiences. The psychometric properties of the GPACS-D support its use as a research tool

Additional file 1 of Developing a shortened version of the dementia knowledge assessment scale (DKAS-TC) with a sample in Taiwan: an item response theory approach

Additional file 1: Appendix 1. Characteristics of participants

Measures of identity in young people with long-term physical health conditions: A systematic review protocol.

The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing measures of identity in young people with long-term physical health conditions (LTC-P), and to what degree they have been psychometrically evaluated