A comparison a amitriptyline and maprotiline in the treatment of painful polyneuropathy in diabetics and nondiabetics. Amitriptyline in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic symptoms. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of moclobemide and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia in females without psychiatric disorder. Comparison of the effectiveness of amitriptyline and gabapentin on chronic neuropathic pain in persons with spinal cord injury. Acupuncture and amitriptyline for pain due to HIV-related peripheral neuropathy: a randomized controlled trial. Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS. Randomized double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine and amitriptyline in painful diabetic neuropathy. Amitriptyline and fluphenazine in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia. Amitriptyline, but not lorazepam, relieves postherpetic neuralgia. A randomized, double-blind crossover trial of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of pain in spinal cord injury: results of a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Sleep electroencephalography and the clinical response to amitriptyline in patients with fibromyalgia. Nortriptyline versus amitriptyline in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized trial. Amitriptyline versus maprotiline in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. Treatment response in antidepressant-naïve postherpetic neuralgia patients: double-blind, randomized trial. A double-blind comparison of topical capsaicin and oral amitriptyline in painful diabetic neuropathy. A randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline and naproxen in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia. Central post-stroke pain--a controlled trial of amitriptyline and carbamazepine. Effects of desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine on pain in diabetic neuropathy. Evaluation of amitriptyline in primary fibrositis. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
To compare amitriptyline and maprotiline in the treatment of painful polyneuropathy in diabetics and nondiabetics.
                A double-blind, crossover trial of treatment with amitriptyline, maprotiline, and placebo. Treatment was given in randomized order for periods of 4 weeks. Each period was separated by a 1-week washout. The final dose was 75 mg/day for both amitriptyline and maprotiline.
                Thirty-seven patients with diabetic and nondiabetic painful polyneuropathy.
                The treatment effects were assessed by daily ratings of pain intensity on a 10-step verbal scale (0 = no pain and 10 = worst thinkable pain) and at the end of each treatment period by a global rating of the analgesic effect on a 5-step verbal scale (pain relief scale). For the assessment of depression, the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS) was used.
                Using the global assessment of pain relief at the end of each treatment period, 22 of 33 patients reported reduced pain on amitriptyline treatment compared with 14 of 33 patients on maprotiline treatment and 8 patients on placebo treatment (p < .0001 and p < .05 for amitriptyline and maprotiline, respectively, against placebo). Amitriptyline was slightly better than maprotiline (p < .05) [tested by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)]. The order in which treatments occurred and the diagnosis of diabetes or nondiabetes did not have any significant effect on the global rating of pain relief. The mean values of the daily ratings of pain intensity showed that pain was more severe in the evenings than in the mornings and that diabetic patients reported worse pain than nondiabetics at baseline. The mean values of pain reduction as assessed with the 10-step verbal scale during the 4th week of treatment showed that amitriptyline and maprotiline were significantly better than placebo in relieving the pain (p < .0001 and p < .01, respectively, post hoc test according to Scheffé). However, there was no significant difference between the pain reduction of amitriptyline compared with maprotiline when assessing pain reduction with the 10-step verbal scale during the 4th treatment week. Nor was there a significant difference between diabetics and nondiabetics with regard to the effect of the drugs. The clinical effect was not significantly correlated to plasma concentration of either amitriptyline and its active metabolite nortriptyline or maprotiline in the global or daily assessments. The effect of treatment was not correlated to any particular pain quality nor to the intensity of pain. Depression was noted in three patients who completed the medication trial, but the effect of treatment of pain and depression did not clearly correlate. The adverse side effects of amitriptyline and maprotiline were common, and in 5 patients the medication had to be discontinued because of severe side effects.
                From the present results and the literature, it is concluded that tricyclic antidepressants with a pharmacologic profile similar to amitriptyline are the most effective drugs in the treatment of polyneuropathy pain in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. 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 study the usefulness of moclobemide and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) in females without psychiatric disorder.
                In the present four centre, 12 week study, 130 female FM patients not suffering from psychiatric disorders were randomized to receive amitriptyline (AMI; 25 37.5 mg), moclobemide (MOCLO; 450-600 mg) or identical placebo.
                Seventy-four, 54 and 49 per cent of patients on AMI, MOCLO and placebo, respectively, were judged as responders. The patients on AMI also managed best regarding the respective improvements during the trial in general health, pain, sleep quality and quantity, and fatigue on visual analogue scales (VAS), the areas of the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), as well as in the three Sheehan's functional disability scales. In the within-group comparisons, MOCLO also improved pain assessed both on VAS and on the NHP pain dimension, but the improvement was invalidated by the poor success of the drug with regard to sleep. The tolerabilities of all three drugs were comparable.
                The study indicates that MOCLO may not be helpful in FM patients free from clinically meaningful psychiatric problems. To test the hypotheses that both amitriptyline and gabapentin are more effective in relieving neuropathic pain than an active placebo, diphenhydramine.
                Randomized, controlled, double blind, triple crossover 8-week trial.
                Veterans Affairs medical center.
                Community dwelling adults with spinal cord injury (N=38) were recruited by telephone, letters, and flyers.
                Eight-week trial each of amitriptyline, gabapentin, and diphenhydramine.
                Pain intensity measured with a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) and an 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale (NRS) and depressive symptomatology measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Short Form (CESD-SF).
                Baseline VAS scores for participants with low (< 10) CESD-SF scores was 4.61 and for those with high scores (> or = 10) it was 7.41. At week 8, in participants with high baseline CESD-SF scores, amitriptyline (mean, 4.21) was more effective than diphenhydramine (mean, 6.67; P=.035), and there was a nonsignificant trend suggesting that amitriptyline may be more effective than gabapentin (mean, 6.68; P=.061). Gabapentin was no more effective than diphenhydramine (P=.97). There was no significant difference among the medications for those with lower CESD-SF scores. Results could not be attributed to dropout rates, order or dose of medications, amount of medication taken for breakthrough pain, or side effects.
                Amitriptyline is more efficacious in relieving neuropathic pain than diphenhydramine at or below the level of spinal cord injury in people who have considerable depressive symptomatology. Peripheral neuropathy is common in persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but few data on symptomatic treatment are available.
                To evaluate the efficacy of a standardized acupuncture regimen (SAR) and amitriptyline hydrochloride for the relief of pain due to HIV-related peripheral neuropathy in HIV-infected patients.
                Randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. Each site enrolled patients into 1 of the following 3 options: (1) a modified double-blind 2 x 2 factorial design of SAR, amitriptyline, or the combination compared with placebo, (2) a modified double-blind design of an SAR vs control points, or (3) a double-blind design of amitriptyline vs placebo.
                Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS (HIV primary care providers) in 10 US cities.
                Patients with HIV-associated, symptomatic, lower-extremity peripheral neuropathy. Of 250 patients enrolled, 239 were in the acupuncture comparison (125 in the factorial option and 114 in the SAR option vs control points option), and 136 patients were in the amitriptyline comparison (125 in the factorial option and 11 in amitriptyline option vs placebo option).
                Standardized acupuncture regimen vs control points, amitriptyline (75 mg/d) vs placebo, or both for 14 weeks.
                Changes in mean pain scores at 6 and 14 weeks, using a pain scale ranging from 0.0 (no pain) to 1.75 (extremely intense), recorded daily.
                Patients in all 4 groups showed reduction in mean pain scores at 6 and 14 weeks compared with baseline values. For both the acupuncture and amitriptyline comparisons, changes in pain score were not significantly different between the 2 groups. At 6 weeks, the estimated difference in pain reduction for patients in the SAR group compared with those in the control points group (a negative value indicates a greater reduction for the "active" treatment) was 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.11 to 0.12; P=.88) and for patients in the amitriptyline group vs those in the placebo group was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.22 to 0.08; P=.38). At 14 weeks, the difference for those in the SAR group compared with those in the control points group was -0.08 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.06; P=.26) and for amitriptyline compared with placebo was 0.00 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.19; P=.99).
                In this study, neither acupuncture nor amitriptyline was more effective than placebo in relieving pain caused by HIV-related peripheral neuropathy. To compare the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine and amitriptyline in controlling chronic painful peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients.
                A randomized, double-blind, crossover, active-control, clinical trial with variable dose titration was carried out (n = 53). Amitriptyline orally, at doses of 10, 25 and 50 mg at night-time, each dose for 2 weeks, and lamotrigine orally, at doses of 25, 50 and 100 mg twice daily, each dose for 2 weeks, by optional titration were used. There was a placebo washout period for 2 weeks between the two drugs. Assessment for pain relief, overall improvement and adverse events were carried out.
                Good, moderate and mild pain relief were noted in 19 (41%), six (13%) and seven (15%) patients on lamotrigine and 13 (28%), five (11%) and 15 (33%) patients on amitriptyline, respectively, by patient's global assessment of efficacy and safety. Patient and physicians global assessment, McGill pain questionnaire and Likert pain scale showed no significant difference between the treatments, although improvement with both treatments was seen from 2 weeks. Of the 44 adverse events reported, 33 (75%) were with amitriptyline, sedation being the commonest [in 19 (43%) patients]. Lamotrigine caused adverse events in 11 (25%), of which rash in three (7%) and elevations of creatinine in four (9%) were the most common. The preferred lamotrigine dose was 25 mg twice daily.
                As there are few differences between the two treatments in efficacy, lamotrigine 25 mg twice daily might be the first choice as it is associated with fewer adverse effects in our population. Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a vexing problem occurring in 10 to 20 percent of people with from herpes zoster (shingles). Anecdotal reports show that fluphenazine enhances the effects of amitriptyline for the treatment of PHN. The aim of this study was to determine, in a controlled manner, whether this was the case.
                In a double-blind placebo-controlled study, 49 patients with PHN were randomly assigned to four treatment groups: Group 1, amitriptyline; Group 2, amitriptyline and fluphenazine; Group 3, fluphenazine; Group 4, a placebo. An active placebo was used to mimic the anticholinergic side effects of dry mouth. The study lasted 8 weeks, with weekly progress evaluations with use of visual analog scales (VAS), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and a side-effects scale.
                A statistically significant decrease was seen in pain in Groups 1 and 2, and no significant changes were seen in Groups 3 and 4. There was no significant difference when fluphenazine was added to amitriptyline.
                These data support the effectiveness of amitriptyline in treatment of PHN, but do not support the addition of fluphenazine. In a double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 58 patients with postherpetic neuralgia received 6-week courses of amitriptyline, 12.5 to 150 mg/d; lorazepam, 0.5 to 6 mg/d; or lactose placebo. Doses were titrated to the maximum level tolerated. Patients rated pain in a diary, using lists of verbal descriptors. Forty-seven percent of patients reported moderate or greater relief with amitriptyline, 16% with placebo, and 15% with lorazepam. Mean amitriptyline dose was 65 mg/d. Greater relief was associated with higher amitriptyline doses, up to the maximum dose of 150 mg/d, and with higher serum tricyclic levels. Lorazepam did not relieve pain and was associated with severe depressive reactions in four patients. 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. Chronic pain in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) is a difficult problem for which there is no simple method of treatment. Few randomized controlled trials of medications for pain in persons with SCI have been conducted. This study was designed to determine whether amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, is efficacious in relieving chronic pain and improving pain-related physical and psychosocial dysfunction in persons with SCI. Eighty-four participants with SCI and chronic pain were randomized to a 6-week trial of amitriptyline or an active placebo, benztropine mesylate. All pre- and post-treatment assessments were conducted by evaluators blind to the allocation. Regression analyses were conducted to examine whether there was a medication group effect on the primary (average pain intensity) and secondary outcome measures. No significant differences were found between the groups in pain intensity or pain-related disability post-treatment, in either intent-to-treat analyses or analyses of study completers. These findings do not support the use of amitriptyline in the treatment of chronic pain in this population, but we cannot rule out the possibility that certain subgroups may benefit. 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. To determine the prevalence and clinical correlations of an anomaly consisting of electroencephalographic (EEG) waves within the alpha frequency band during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep in patients with fibromyalgia, and to evaluate the alpha NREM sleep anomaly as a predictor of response to amitriptyline.
                Twenty-two patients with fibromyalgia were studied in a 2-month, double-blind, crossover trial of amitriptyline (25 mg/day) versus placebo. Nocturnal EEGs were conducted on 2 consecutive nights at baseline and at the end of each 2-month treatment period.
                Six patients (27%) had a clinical response to amitriptyline, while none responded to placebo (P = 0.02). Treatment with amitriptyline or placebo did not result in any changes in the alpha ratings during NREM sleep. Only 8 patients (36%) exhibited the alpha NREM sleep anomaly at baseline. Those patients reported more sleep difficulty, but otherwise were clinically indistinguishable from those without this EEG sleep anomaly. Lower baseline alpha NREM sleep ratings were seen in responders to amitriptyline than in nonresponders, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
                The alpha NREM sleep anomaly is present in only a small proportion of patients with fibromyalgia. It does not correlate with disease severity nor is it affected by treatment with amitriptyline. A larger sample size will be needed to adequately assess the value of this sleep anomaly in predicting the response to amitriptyline. 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. Amitriptyline (AT) relieves some patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Many patients suffer side effects and better therapies are necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of maprotiline (MT) (noradrenergic) compared to AT (mixed noradrenergic and serotonergic) in this disorder. Thirty-five patients entered a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial of these two agents. We found that MT relieved PHN in many patients but was not as effective as AT. Side effects were troublesome with both agents. Relief of steady pain, brief pain and pain on tactile stimulation occurred. Four groups of responses were identified. Some patients reported relief with both agents, some with neither agent and others with only one of the drugs. Most patients were not depressed and analgesia was observed to occur without change in depression ratings in most patients who responded. This result provides evidence that in some patients AT may act via a selective noradrenergic mechanism in relieving PHN and that individuals may differ in the balance and type of neurotransmitters inhibiting pain. Selective noradrenergic agents may be effective if AT fails. In 47 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) who had never had an adequate trial of any antidepressant, we performed a randomized, double-blind, parallel design trial comparing desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine. Patients were titrated to a maximum of 150 mg/day for desipramine and amitriptyline and 60 mg/day for fluoxetine over a 3-week period and then treated for an additional 3 weeks before tapering off study medication. A total of 38 subjects (81%) completed the entire trial. The modified intent-to-treat analysis of percent change in daily diary pain intensity scores showed no significant differences among the 3 drugs (ANOVA P = .120). Desipramine produced the greatest reduction in pain intensity (47%), followed by amitriptyline (38%) and fluoxetine (35%). Clinically meaningful pain relief (moderate or better) was significantly more likely with desipramine (12/15 patients) than with amitriptyline (9/17) or fluoxetine (5/15); chi(2)P = 0.036). The 11 subjects using opioids at study entry had smaller reductions in pain than those not using concomitant opioids. The fluoxetine group had the highest noncompletion rate (33%), with 1 subject hospitalized for hyponatremia. Although the magnitude of pain reduction and the category pain relief rating was not significantly different among the 3 drugs, the tricyclics desipramine and amitriptyline were well tolerated and provided clinically meaningful pain relief in 53% to 80% of subjects.
                Few clinical trials focus on patients who are naïve to an entire class of medication. In this randomized blinded trial, the tricyclic antidepressants desipramine and amitriptyline were compared to the serotonin-selective antidepressant fluoxetine. All 3 drugs reduced PHN pain, with desipramine providing satisfactory relief in 80% of those treated. An 8-week double-blind, multicenter, parallel study compared the safety and efficacy of topical capsaicin and oral amitriptyline in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy involving the feet. Two hundred thirty-five patients were randomized to treatment with either capsaicin cream or amitriptyline capsules. Capsaicin-treated patients received inactive capsules, and amitriptyline-treated patients applied vehicle cream. A visual analogue scale of pain intensity and measurements of interference by pain with functional activities were recorded at onset and at 2-week intervals. A visual analogue scale of pain relief and physicians' global evaluation assessed changes in pain status from baseline. Topical capsaicin and oral amitriptyline produced equal and statistically significant improvements in pain over the course of the study. By the end of week 8, 76% of patients in each group experienced less pain, with a mean reduction in intensity of more than 40%. By the end of the study, the interference with daily activities by pain had diminished significantly (P = .001) in both groups, including improvements in sleeping and walking. No systemic side effects were observed in patients treated with topical capsaicin. Most patients receiving amitriptyline experienced at least one systemic side effect, ranging from somnolence (46%) to neuromuscular (23%) and cardiovascular (9%) adverse effects. Topically applied capsaicin is an equally effective but considerably safer alternative to amitriptyline for relief of the pain of diabetic neuropathy. Sixty-two patients with fibromyalgia were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of amitriptyline at night, 500 mg of naproxen twice daily, both amitriptyline and naproxen, or placebo in a 6-week, double-blind trial. Amitriptyline was associated with significant improvement in all outcome parameters, including patient and physician global assessments, patient pain, sleep difficulties, fatigue on awakening, and tender point score. Patients taking the combined naproxen-amitriptyline regimen experienced minor, but not significant, improvement in pain when compared with patients who took amitriptyline alone. Amitriptyline, or amitriptyline and naproxen, is an effective therapeutic regimen for patients with fibromyalgia. A double-blind, 3-phase, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial of the pain-relieving effect of amitriptyline and carbamazepine was carried out in 15 patients with central post-stroke pain (CPSP) but without signs of depression. Treatment was given, in randomized order, for periods of 4 weeks, separated by 1 week wash-out. The final doses were 75 and 800 mg/day, respectively, for amitriptyline and carbamazepine. The treatment effects were assessed by daily ratings of pain intensity on a 10-step verbal scale and at the end of each treatment period by a global rating of the analgesic effect on a 5-step verbal scale. For the assessment of depression the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS) was used. Amitriptyline produced a statistically significant reduction of pain when compared to placebo. According to the global rating, 10 of the 15 patients were responders to this drug. The effect could already be noticed during the second treatment week and it appeared to be correlated to the plasma concentration, since the median total ami- and nortriptyline concentrations were 497 and 247 nmol/l, respectively, for responders and non-responders. The early onset, together with the fact that the patients were not depressed, nor did they obtain reduced scores on ratings of depressive symptoms and signs, provides strong support for the conclusion that the pain relief was not caused by an antidepressive effect. Five of the 14 patients treated with carbamazepine reported some pain relief, but the effect did not reach statistical significance when compared to placebo. No correlation was found between effect and plasma concentration. In general, the patients tolerated the planned final dose of amitriptyline well. No final dose reduction was necessary. Carbamazepine caused more side effects and the final dose had to be reduced in 4 patients. However, only 1 patient had to be taken off medication, on day 25, due to drug interaction. Amitriptyline reduces the pain caused by peripheral-nerve disease, but treatment is often limited by side effects related to the drug's many pharmacologic actions. Selective agents might be safer and more effective.
                We carried out two randomized, double-blind, crossover studies in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy, comparing amitriptyline with the relatively selective blocker of norepinephrine reuptake desipramine in 38 patients, and comparing the selective blocker of serotonin reuptake fluoxetine with placebo in 46 patients. Fifty-seven patients were randomly assigned to a study as well as to the order of treatment, permitting comparison among all three drugs and placebo as the first treatment. The patients rated the degree of pain present each day using verbal descriptors, and they also assessed the extent of pain relief globally at the end of each treatment period.
                After individual dose titration, the mean daily doses of the drugs were as follows: amitriptyline, 105 mg; desipramine, 111 mg; and fluoxetine, 40 mg. There was moderate or greater relief of pain in 28 of the 38 patients (74 percent) who received amitriptyline, 23 of the 38 patients (61 percent) who received desipramine, 22 of the 46 patients (48 percent) who received fluoxetine, and 19 of the 46 patients (41 percent) who received placebo. The differences in responses between amitriptyline and desipramine and between fluoxetine and placebo were not statistically significant, but both amitriptyline and desipramine were superior to placebo. Amitriptyline and desipramine were as effective in patients who were not depressed as in depressed patients, but fluoxetine was effective only in depressed patients.
                Desipramine relieves pain caused by diabetic neuropathy with efficacy similar to that of amitriptyline, offering an alternative for patients unable to tolerate the latter. Blockade of norepinephrine reuptake is likely to mediate the analgesic effect of these antidepressant drugs in diabetic neuropathy. Fluoxetine, which blocks serotonin uptake, is no more effective than placebo for the relief of pain. Seventy patients with primary fibrositis satisfying Smythe's criteria were studied in a 9-week double-blind trial comparing 50 mg amitriptyline with placebo. Fifty-nine patients completed the trial: 27 were treated with amitriptyline, and 32 took a placebo. The patients who received amitriptyline improved significantly in their morning stiffness and pain analog scores at 5 and 9 weeks, compared with baseline scores, whereas no changes were noted in these parameters in the placebo group. Fibrocytic point tenderness did not improve significantly in either of the treatment groups. When compared with the placebo group, the amitriptyline group improved significantly with respect to sleep pattern and patient and physician global assessments. Our data indicate that amitriptyline has some therapeutic benefit in patients with primary fibrositis.
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.