• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.229-234
• /
• 2010

섬유근통 증후군은 만성 전신 통증을 나타내며 피곤, 두통, 우울증, 수면장애 등을 동반하는 질환이다. 주로 30-50대의 여성에게서 많이 나타나며 미국에서 2-4%, 한국에서 2%의 발병률을 보이고 있다. 정확한 원인과 기전이 밝혀져 있지 않아서 진단과 치료에 많은 논란과 어려움이 있다. 현재는 증상치료에 목표를 두고 삼환계항우울약을 많이 사용하고 있으나 심각한 부작용의 문제가 있다. 이러한 문제 때문에 최근에는 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) 또는 serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI)를 빈번히 사용하고 있다. 본 연구는 SNRI의 하나인 milnacipran의 섬유근통 증후군 치료에 대한 효능 및 안정성을 알아보기 위해, MEDLINE에 등재된 논문을 기한없이 milnacipran과 fibromyalgia로 검색하여 무작위 배정 및 이중맹검 임상연구자료들을 선별하였다. 선별된 6개의 임상연구 결과, milnacipran를 사용했을 때 일관된 효능성과 안정성이 관찰되었고 섬유근통증후군 치료와 그에 수반되는 여러증상에 효과적인 것으로 나타났다.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.8-14
• /
• 2007

Background: Anticonvulsants and antidepressants are adjuvant analgesic drugs that are used widely for treating chronic neuropathic pain syndromes. The combined analgesic effect of gabapentin and milnacipran was investigated with a rat neuropathic pain model. Methods: The rat neuropathic pain model was made by ligating the spinal nerves (L5 and L6). An intrathecal catheter was inserted into the subarachnoid space. Tactile allodynia was tested with the up-down method using von Frey hair. We determined the antiallodynic effect of intraperitoneal (I.P.) and intrathecal (I.T.) gabapentin. The combined effect of I.P. gabapentin (50 mg/kg) and milnacipran (0, 10 and 30 mg/kg) was investigated. Results: Intraperitoneal and intrathecal administration of gabapentin increased the threshold for tactile allodynia (the ED50 was 60.6 mg/kg and $45.5{\mu}g$, respectively). Co-administration of I.P. milnacipran increased the antiallodynic effect of I.P. gabapentin in a dose-dependent fashion. Conclusion: The combined administration of milnacipran and gabapentin may increase the total analgesic effect during treatment of neuropathic pain.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.228-237
• /
• 2012

Background: Milnacipran is a balanced serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with minimal side effects and broad safety margin. It acts primarily on the descending inhibitory pain pathway in brain and spinal cord. In many animal studies, intrathecal administration of milnacipran is effective in neuropathic pain management. However, there is no study for the neurological safety of milnacipran when it is administered neuraxially. This study examined the neurotoxicity of epidural milnacipran by observing behavioral and sensory-motor changes with histopathological examinations of spinal cords in rats. Methods: Sixty rats were divided into 3 groups, with each group receiving epidural administration of either 0.3 ml (3 mg) of milnacipran (group M, n = 20), 0.3 ml of 40% alcohol (group A, n = 20), or 0.3 ml of normal saline (group S, n = 20). Results: There were no abnormal changes in the behavioral, sensory-motor, or histopathological findings in all rats of groups M and S over a 3-week observation period, whereas all rats in group A had abnormal changes. Conclusions: Based on these findings, the direct epidural administration of milnacipran in rats did not present any evidence of neurotoxicity in behavioral, sensory-motor and histopathological evaluations.

• Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.341-351
• /
• 2014

Purpose : In this study, the medication effects of Milnacipran and Pregabalin, as well known as fibromyalgia treatment medicine, in fibromyalgia syndrome patients were compared through the change of BOLD signal in pain related functional MRI. Materials and Methods: Twenty fibromyalgia syndrome patients were enrolled in this study and they were separated into two groups according to the treatment medicine: 10 Milnacipran (MLN) treatment group and 7 Pregabalin (PGB) treatment group. For accurate diagnosis, all patients underwent several clinical tests. Pre-treated and post-treated fMRI image with block-designed pressure-pain stimulation for each group were obtained to conduct the statistical analysis of paired t-test and two sample t-test. All statistical significant level was less than 0.05. Results: In clinical tests, the clinical scores of the two groups were not significantly different at pre-treatment stage. But, PGB treatment group had lower Widespread Pain Index (WPI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) score than those of MLN treatment group at post-treatment stage. In functional image analysis, BOLD signal of PGB treatment group was higher BOLD signal at several regions including anterior cingulate and insula than MLN treatment group at post-treatment stage. Also, paired t-test values of the BOLD signal in MLN group decreased in several regions including insula and thalamus as known as 'pain network'. In contrast, size and number of regions in which the BOLD signal decreased in PGB treatment group were smaller than those of MLN treatment group. Conclusion: This study showed that MLN group and PGB group have different medication effects. It is not surprising that MLN and PGB have not the same therapeutic effects since these two drugs have different medicinal mechanisms such as antidepressants and anti-seizure medication, respectively, and different detailed target of fibromyalgia syndrome treatment. Therefore, it is difficult to say which medicine will work better in this study.