Background: Antidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain. Methods: Systematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis. results: Out of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects. conclusion: Our synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients’ comorbidities and co-medication.

Background: Antidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain. Methods: Systematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis. results: Out of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects. conclusion: Our synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients’ comorbidities and co-medication.

Background: Improved clinical effectiveness and therefore positive modification of multiple sclerosis (MS) with basic therapy can be achieved by long-term regular intake of drugs as prescribed but investigations have shown that a high percentage of patients do not take their medications as prescribed. Objectives: We assessed the satisfaction and adherence of patients with MS with their current disease-modifying treatment under clinical practice conditions. We compared different facets of satisfaction as well as their internal relationship and identified predictors in an exploratory manner. Methods: Therapy satisfaction in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (THEPAMS) was a noninterventional, prospective cross-sectional study performed throughout Germany in 2013 and 2014, and included patients with clinically isolated syndrome or relapsing–remitting MS. We applied a standardized approach to document satisfaction and adherence by patient-reported outcomes (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication) as well as by physician ratings. Results: Of 3312 patients with a mean age of 43.7 years, 73.3% were women and the mean level of disability according to the Expanded Disability Status Scale was 2.29; 13.3% did not receive any medication at the time of documentation, 21.3% received interferon β1a intramuscularly, 20.7% had interferon β1a subcutaneously, 17.0% had interferon β1b subcutaneously and 23.7% had glatiramer acetate. Adherence rates varied between 60% (lifetime) and 96.5% (current medication). Differences between current medications were found for side effects and convenience scores but not for effectiveness, satisfaction and adherence. Higher global satisfaction and effectiveness were associated with fewer relapses, longer duration of medication, lower disability score and the absence of several side effects. Conclusion: In a connected model of patient satisfaction, effectiveness, side effects, convenience and adherence, patients’ individual needs and concerns have to be addressed. Most differences were found with respect to side effects and convenience of treatment. Therefore, an improvement in these two domains seems to be the most promising proximate approach to elevate adherence levels.