Amitriptyline effectively relieves neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. The analgesic effect of amitriptyline on chronic facial pain. A randomized, double-blind crossover trial of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Amitriptyline in neuropathic cancer pain in patients on morphine therapy: a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study. Amitriptyline in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic symptoms. Comparison of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Does addition of low-dose flupentixol enhance the analgetic effects of low-dose amitriptyline in somatoform pain disorder? Nortriptyline versus amitriptyline in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized trial. A pilot study examining topical amitriptyline, ketamine, and a combination of both in the treatment of neuropathic pain.
The effectiveness of amitriptyline in relieving neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer was studied in 15 patients in a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study. The dose was escalated from 25 mg to 100 mg per day in 4 weeks. The placebo and amitriptyline phases were separated by a 2-week wash-out period. Visual analogue and verbal rating scales were used for the assessment of pain intensity and pain relief. Other measures included the number of daily activities disturbed by the pain, the Finnish McGill Pain Questionnaire, adverse effects, anxiety, depression, pressure threshold and grip strength. Amitriptyline significantly relieved neuropathic pain both in the arm and around the breast scar. Eight out of 15 patients had a more than 50% decrease in the pain intensity ('good responders') with a median dose of 50 mg of amitriptyline. The 7 patients who had a less than 50% effect had drug concentrations equaling those of the good responders. The 'poor responders' reported significantly more adverse effects with amitriptyline and placebo than the good responders. It is concluded that amitriptyline effectively reduced neuropathic pain following treatment of breast cancer. However, the adverse effects of amitriptyline put most of the patients off from using the drug regularly. The efficacy of amitriptyline was evaluated in 28 patients with chronic oral-facial pain. Most of the patients had evidence of musculoskeletal pain while some had a history suggesting pain of neurogenic origin. Two patients had mixed elements of neurogenic and musculoskeletal pain. Amitriptyline was more effective than placebo in reducing pain after 4 weeks of treatment. No effect was found after only 1 week of drug administration in either dose range. When the patients were divided into depressed and non-depressed groups based on their Hamilton depression scores, amitriptyline reduced pain in the depressed and in the non-depressed groups as compared to placebo. Amitriptyline reduced the depression scores in the depressed group but had no effect on the depression scores in the non-depressed group. Thus, pain reduction was not associated with a change in mood in the non-depressed group. Amitriptyline had no effect on patients' ratings of the intensity of experimental heat stimuli. We conclude that amitriptyline is effective in the treatment of chronic oral-facial pain and that its efficacy is independent of its effects on depression. It appears that tricyclic antidepressants act in a fashion different from opiate drugs that alter the sensory discriminative component of pain. To study the effect of fluoxetine (FL) and amitriptyline (AM), alone and in combination, in patients with fibromyalgia (FM).
                Nineteen patients with FM completed a randomized, double-blind crossover study, which consisted of 4 6-week trials of FL (20 mg), AM (25 mg), a combination of FL and AM, or placebo. Patients were evaluated on the first and last day of each trial period. Outcome measures included a tender point score, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scale, and visual analog scales (VAS) for global well-being (1 completed by the physician and 1 by the patient), pain, sleep trouble, fatigue, and feeling refreshed upon awakening.
                Both FL and AM were associated with significantly improved scores on the FIQ and on the VAS for pain, global well-being, and sleep disturbances. When combined, the 2 treatments worked better than either medication alone. Similar, but nonsignificant, improvement occurred in the BDI scale, the physician global VAS, and the VAS for fatigue and feeling refreshed upon awakening. Trends were less clear for the tender point score.
                Both FL and AM are effective treatments for FM, and they work better in combination than either medication alone. Amitriptyline is the most common analgesic adjuvant used in cancer patients with neuropathic pain, even though no specific studies have demonstrated a benefit. A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study was designed to evidence the effects of amitriptyline in patients with neuropathic cancer pain.
                Sixteen advanced cancer patients with neuropathic pain on systemic morphine therapy, no longer receiving oncologic treatment, presenting moderate pain (about 4 or more, but less than 7, on a numerical scale of 0-10) in the last week, and given a stable morphine dose in the last 2 days were admitted to the study. During the first week of study, patients were administered 25 mg of amitriptyline or equivalent drops of placebo at night for 3 days and 50 mg for the following 4 days. Doses for patients aged more than 65 years were 15 mg (first 3 days) and 30 mg (3 days after). After a week, a crossover took place for the second week, with the other treatment at an inverse sequence. Opioid consumption, pain intensity, symptoms and adverse effects, mood, sleep, patient's preference, quality of life before starting the study, the first week after and the second week after were recorded.
                No significant benefits in analgesia were found in the global pain intensity of the previous week of treatment, the least pain intensity or the pain evaluated just after a week of treatment, at the moment of the visit, when amitriptyline was compared with placebo. A significant difference was evidenced for the worst pain (P < 0.035). No differences in opioid doses during the period of study were found. Drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth were significantly more intense with amitriptyline than with placebo (P < 0.036, 0.003, and 0.034, respectively). There were no substantial differences between the two treatments in Spitzer's quality of life score and for each item. No differences in patients' preference for the two treatment periods were found. The analgesic effects of amitriptyline were slight and associated with adverse effects.
                In light of the results obtained in the study, the extensive use of the drug for cancer pain should be questioned. Neuropathy is common in patients receiving vinca alkaloids, platinum derivatives, or taxanes. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy of low-dose amitriptyline to relieve chemotherapy-induced symptoms in 44 patients (age 20-65 years) who had neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, pain) with a severity of > or =3/10. They were treated with amitriptyline for eight weeks (10mg/day to start, then dose elevation of 10mg/week up to 50mg/day if tolerated, followed by a stable dose > or =4 weeks). The patients completed a diary twice weekly, noting the intensity of pain, numbness and tingling, global improvement, and adverse effects. Neurological examination was performed at each visit (baseline, four, and eight weeks). The patients assessed both intensity and relief of pain, and overall discomfort. They also completed the Neuropathic Pain Scale and validated measures of anxiety and depression, and quality of life (QoL). The results demonstrated that amitriptyline did not improve sensory neuropathic symptoms, although there was a trend toward global improvement and improved QoL in favor of the amitriptyline group. No statistical significance was reached, probably due to the small number of patients and too low dose of amitriptyline. Amitriptyline was well tolerated. To compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia, and to identify predictors of response to amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine.
                Two hundred eight patients who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia were entered into a 6-month prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial and were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, or placebo.
                After 1 month, 21%, 12%, and 0% of the amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo patients, respectively, had significant clinical improvement (amitriptyline versus placebo P = 0.002, cyclobenzaprine versus placebo P = 0.02, amitriptyline versus cyclobenzaprine P not significant). These percentages increased to 36%, 33%, and 19%, respectively, at the 6-month assessment (P not significant). The nature and frequency of side effects reported by patients treated with amitriptyline and those reported by patients treated with cyclobenzaprine were similar. A normal Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profile at baseline was predictive of clinical improvement at the 1-month evaluation (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.2-9.0). However, neither the MMPI profile nor any of the demographic, clinical, or functional parameters evaluated at baseline predicted long-term response.
                Our data confirm the short-term efficacy of amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine in a small percentage of patients with fibromyalgia. Long-term efficacy could not be demonstrated because of a higher-than-expected placebo response. Predictors of response to these drugs could not be determined. In a double-blind, crossover study, the effects of 75 mg amitriptyline alone during 5 weeks on pain intensity were compared with the effects of a combination of 75 mg amitriptyline and 3 mg flupentixol during 5 weeks in 34 patients with somatoform pain disorder. Both treatments resulted in a statistically significant reduction in pain. However, pain reduction in the combined treatment did not differ from that in the treatment with amitriptyline as a single drug. Neither tardive dyskinesias nor other serious side effects were observed. The results do not support the clinical practice of adding low-dose neuroleptics to low-dose antidepressants in the treatment of somatoform pain disorder. OBJECTIVE (BACKGROUND): Amitriptyline (AT) is a standard therapy for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Our hypothesis was that nortriptyline (NT), a noradrenergic metabolite of AT, may be more effective.
                A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial of AT versus NT was conducted in 33 patients.
                Thirty-one patients completed the trial. Twenty-one of 31 (67.7%) had at least a good response to AT or NT, or both. We found no difference with regard to relief of steady, brief, or skin pain by visual analog scales for pain and pain relief; mood; disability; satisfaction; or preference between the two drugs. Intolerable side effects were more common with AT. Most patients (26/33) were not depressed, and most responding showed no change in rating scales for depression despite the occurrence of pain relief.
                We concluded that this study provides a scientific basis for an analgesic action of NT in PHN because pain relief occurred without an antidepressant effect, and that although there were fewer side effects with NT, AT and NT appear to have a similar analgesic action for most individuals. The involvement of ongoing peripheral activity in the generation of nociceptive input in neuropathic pain suggests that topical drug delivery may be useful as a treatment strategy. This is a pilot study providing initial information regarding the use of novel topical preparations containing amitriptyline (AMI), ketamine (KET), and a combination of both in the treatment of neuropathic pain.
                The study design included a 2 day randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, 4 way cross-over trial of all treatments, followed by an open label treatment phase using the combination cream for 7 days. Twenty volunteers with chronic neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to treatment order and applied 5 mls of each topical treatment (1% AMI, 0.5% KET, combination AMI 1%/KET 0.5%, and placebo) for 2 days. Measures of pain at the end of each block included the short form McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and visual analog scales (VAS) for present pain intensity and pain relief. Eleven subjects who judged subjective improvement from any treatment in the initial trial entered the open-label trial and used the combination cream for 7 days. Pain levels were recorded daily using the same measures. Blood levels for amitriptyline and ketamine were performed at 7 days to determine whether systemic absorption had occurred.
                There was no statistically significant difference from placebo after 2 days for any treatment during the double blind component of the trial. In the 11 subjects who used the combination cream, there was a statistically significant effect, with subjects reporting significantly greater analgesia by days 3 to 7 according to measures of pain and pain relief. Blood levels revealed that there was no significant systemic absorption of amitriptyline or ketamine. Only 2 subjects experienced side effects; these were minor and did not lead to discontinuation of the cream.
                This pilot study demonstrated a lack of effect for all treatments in the 2 day double blind placebo controlled trial, followed by analgesia in an open label trial in a subgroup of subjects who chose to use the combination cream for 7 days. Blood analysis revealed no significant systemic absorption of either agent after 7 days of treatment, and creams were well tolerated. A larger scale randomized trial over a longer interval is warranted to examine further effects observed in the open label trial.
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 patients with neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. 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 or fibromyalgia, but only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.
It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in specific neuropathic pain conditions or in fibromyalgia to prove efficacy.