Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in fibromyalgia syndrome: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES To synthesise the available evidence on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions recommended for fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). METHODS Electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing any therapeutic approach as recommended in FMS guidelines (except complementary and alternative medicine) with control interventions in patients with FMS. Primary outcomes were pain and quality of life. Data extraction was done using standardised forms. RESULTS 102 trials in 14 982 patients and eight active interventions (tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), the gamma-amino butyric acid analogue pregabalin, aerobic exercise, balneotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), multicomponent therapy) were included. Most of the trials were small and hampered by methodological quality, introducing heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network. When restricted to large trials with ≥100 patients per group, heterogeneity was low and benefits for SNRIs and pregabalin compared with placebo were statistically significant, but small and not clinically relevant. For non-pharmacological interventions, only one large trial of CBT was available. In medium-sized trials with ≥50 patients per group, multicomponent therapy showed small to moderate benefits over placebo, followed by aerobic exercise and CBT. CONCLUSIONS Benefits of pharmacological treatments in FMS are of questionable clinical relevance and evidence for benefits of non-pharmacological interventions is limited. A combination of pregabalin or SNRIs as pharmacological interventions and multicomponent therapy, aerobic exercise and CBT as non-pharmacological interventions seems most promising for the management of FMS.

Composition Space Analysis in the Development of Copper Molybdate Hybrids Decorated by a Bifunctional Pyrazolyl/1,2,4-Triazole Ligand

A bitopic ligand, 4-(3,5-dimethylpyrazol-4-yl)-1,2,4-triazole (Hpz-tr) (1), containing two different heterocyclic moieties was employed for the design of copper(II)–molybdate solids under hydrothermal conditions. In the multicomponent CuII/Hpz-tr/MoVI system, a diverse set of coordination hybrids, [Cu(Hpz-tr)2SO4]·3H2O (2), [Cu(Hpz-tr)Mo3O10] (3), [Cu4(OH)4(Hpz-tr)4Mo8O26]·6H2O (4), [Cu(Hpz-tr)2Mo4O13] (5), and [Mo2O6(Hpz-tr)]·H2O (6), was prepared and characterized. A systematic investigation of these systems in the form of a ternary crystallization diagram approach was utilized to show the influence of the molar ratios of starting reagents, the metal (CuII and MoVI) sources, the temperature, etc., on the reaction products outcome. Complexes 2–4 dominate throughout a wide crystallization range of the composition triangle, while the other two compounds 5 and 6 crystallize as minor phases in a narrow concentration range. In the crystal structures of 2–6, the organic ligand behaves as a short [N–N]-triazole linker between metal centers Cu···Cu in 2–4, Cu···Mo in 5, and Mo···Mo in 6, while the pyrazolyl function remains uncoordinated. This is the reason for the exceptional formation of low-dimensional coordination motifs: 1D for 2, 4, and 6 and 2D for 3 and 5. In all cases, the pyrazolyl group is involved in H bonding (H-donor/H-acceptor) and is responsible for π–π stacking, thus connecting the chain and layer structures in more complicated H-bonding architectures. These compounds possess moderate thermal stability up to 250–300 °C. The magnetic measurements were performed for 2–4, revealing in all three cases antiferromagnetic exchange interactions between neighboring CuII centers and long-range order with a net moment below Tc of 13 K for compound 4.