Abstract | BACKGROUND: OBJECTIVES: SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 23 February 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included a single study of 40 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. It found no difference in pain scores between milnacipran 100 mg to 200 mg daily or placebo after six weeks (very low quality evidence). Adverse event rates were similar between treatments, with too few data to draw conclusions (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
|
Authors | Sheena Derry, Tudor Phillips, R Andrew Moore, Philip J Wiffen |
Journal | The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
(Cochrane Database Syst Rev)
Issue 7
Pg. CD011789
(Jul 06 2015)
ISSN: 1469-493X [Electronic] England |
PMID | 26148202
(Publication Type: Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review, Systematic Review)
|
Chemical References |
- Analgesics
- Cyclopropanes
- Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors
- Milnacipran
|
Topics |
- Adult
- Analgesics
(administration & dosage, adverse effects)
- Back Pain
(drug therapy)
- Chronic Pain
(drug therapy)
- Cyclopropanes
(administration & dosage, adverse effects)
- Fibromyalgia
(drug therapy)
- Humans
- Milnacipran
- Neuralgia
(drug therapy)
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
- Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
(administration & dosage, adverse effects)
|