[Fibromyalgia syndrome. General principles and coordination of clinical care and patient education]

Effectiveness of patient education as a stand-alone intervention for patients with chronic widespread pain and fibromyalgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Patient education is recommended as an integral component of the therapeutic plan for the management of chronic widespread pain (CWP) and fibromyalgia (FM). The key purpose of patient education is to increase the patient's competence to manage his or her own health requirements, encouraging self-management and a return to desired everyday activities and lifestyle. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the benefits and potential harms associated with the use of patient education as a stand-alone intervention for individuals with CWP and FM through randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHOD

On 24 November 2021 a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, American College of Rheumatology, European League Against Rheumatism, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform identified 2069 studies. After full-text screening, five RCT studies were found to be eligible for the qualitative evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

Patient education as a stand-alone intervention presented an improvement in patients' global assessment (standardized mean difference 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 1.46). When comparing patient education with usual care, no intervention, or waiting list, no differences were found for functioning, level of pain, emotional distress in regard to anxiety and depression, or pain cognition.

CONCLUSION

This review reveals the need for RCTs investigating patient education as a stand-alone intervention for patients with FM, measuring outcomes such as disease acceptance, health-related quality of life, enhancement of patients' knowledge of pain, pain coping skills, and evaluation of prioritized learning outcomes.

The Italian Society for Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of fibromyalgia Best practices based on current scientific evidence

Fibromyalgia or fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is defined as a central sensitization syndrome characterized by the dysfunction of neurocircuits detecting, transmitting and processing nociceptive stimuli; the prevalent manifestation is musculoskeletal pain. In addition to pain, there are multiple accompanying symptoms, in common with other algo-dysfunctional syndromes, which are reflected in a broad spectrum of somatic, neurocognitive and neuro-vegetative manifestations. An evidence-based approach is essential in FMS management, in order to improve patient health and to reduce its social burden. Since in the last ten years new international guidelines for clinical practice (Clinical Practice Guidelines or CPGs) concerning FMS diagnosis and pharmacological/ non-pharmacological management have been published, the Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) has decided to adapt them to the Italian national setting. The framework of the Guidelines International Network Adaptation Working Group was adopted to identify, appraise (AGREE II), synthesize, and customize the most recent CPGs on FMS to the needs of the Italian healthcare context. A working group of rheumatologists from SIR epidemiology unit and FMS experts identified relevant clinical questions to guide the systematic review of the literature. The target audience of these CPGs included physicians and healthcare professionals who manage FMS. The adapted recommendations were finally assessed by an external multidisciplinary panel. From the systematic search in databases (Pubmed/Medline, Embase) and grey literature, 6 CPGs were selected and appraised by two independent raters. The combination of the scientific evidence underlying the original CPGs with expert opinion lead to the development of 17 recommendations. The quality of evidence for each recommendation was reported and their potential impact on clinical practice was assessed. These SIR recommendations are expected to be a valuable aid in the diagnosis and treatment of FMS, as they will contribute to disseminate the best practice on the basis of the current scientific evidence.

Definition of fibromyalgia severity: findings from a cross-sectional survey of 2339 Italian patients

OBJECTIVE

To establish optimal cut-off values for the scores of the revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR), the modified Fibromialgia Assessment Scale (FAS 2019mod), and the Polysymptomatic Distress Scale (PDS) in order to distinguish five levels of FM disease severity.

METHODS

Consecutive FM patients were evaluated with the three clinimetric indices, and each patient was required to answer the anchor question: 'In general, would you say your health is 1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor, or 5 = very poor?'-which represented the external criterion. Cut-off points were established through the interquartile reconciliation approach.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 2181 women (93.2%) and 158 men (6.8%), with a mean age of 51.9 (11.5) years, and mean disease duration was 7.3 (6.9) years. The overall median FIQR, FAS 2019 mod and PDS scores (25th-75th percentiles) were respectively 61.16 (41.16-77.00), 27.00 (19.00-32.00) and 19.0 (13.00-24.00). Reconciliation of the mean 75th and 25th percentiles of adjacent categories defined the severity states for FIQR: 0-23 for remission, 24-40 for mild disease, 41-63 for moderate disease, 64-82 for severe disease and >83 for very severe disease; FAS 2019 mod: 0-12 for remission, 13-20 for mild disease, 21-28 for moderate disease, 29-33 for severe disease and >33 for very severe disease; PDS: 0-5 for remission, 6-15 for mild disease, 16-20 for moderate disease, 21-25 for severe disease and >25 for very severe disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease severity cut-offs can represent an important improvement in interpreting FM.

A feasibility randomised controlled trial of a fibromyalgia self-management programme in a community setting with a nested qualitative study (FALCON): Study protocol

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a complex long-term condition associated with chronic widespread pain, fatigue, sleep problems, memory and concentration difficulties and irritable bowel syndrome. Current guidelines for the treatment of FM recommend nonpharmacological interventions. The Fibromyalgia Self-Management Programme (FSMP) is a nonpharmacological, multidisciplinary exercise and education group intervention. It aims to provide education and teach core skills, enabling those affected by FM to self-manage. The FSMP is currently codelivered by a multidisciplinary team within a secondary care service. The aim of this feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to determine the practicality and acceptability of delivering the FSMP in a community setting, informing a future RCT of effectiveness.

METHODS

The feasibility RCT aims to recruit 70 people with FM. Participants will be randomised to either a community FSMP or control arm. All participants will be asked to complete six patient-reported outcome measures and one health economics questionnaire on three occasions; baseline, 6 weeks (end of the intervention) and 6 months. Between 12 and 16 participants and four therapists delivering the FSMP will be invited to take part in a semi-structured interview to explore their experiences of the FSMP. Patient participants will be purposively selected based upon key characteristics.

ANALYSIS

Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively to summarise recruitment and attendance, participant reported outcomes and health economic data. Semi-structured interviews will be transcribed, anonymised and inductively coded. The codes will be grouped into categories and theoretically thematically analysed, comparing the results to existing literature.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ISRCTN registry and was assigned on 29th of April 2020. The registration number is ISRCTN10824225.

WITHDRAWN: Anticonvulsants for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Anticonvulsants (antiepileptic drugs) are drugs frequently used for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticonvulsants for treating FM symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), PsycINFO (1966 to August 2013), SCOPUS (1980 to August 2013) and the reference lists of reviewed articles for published studies and www.clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any formulation of anticonvulsants used for the treatment of people with FM of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies: five with pregabalin and one study each with gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam. A total of 2480 people were included into anticonvulsants groups and 1099 people in placebo groups. The median therapy phase of the studies was 13 weeks. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM. The amount and quality of evidence was sufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in FM. Therefore, we focused on our interpretation of the evidence for pregabalin due to our greater certainty about its effects and its greater relevance to clinical practice. All pregabalin studies had a low risk of bias. Reporting a 50% or greater reduction in pain was more frequent with pregabalin use than with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33 to 1.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12; 95% CI 9 to 21). The number of people who reported being 'much' or 'very much' improved was higher with pregabalin than with placebo (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; NNTB 9; 95% CI 7 to 15). Pregabalin did not substantially reduce fatigue (SMD -0.17; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.09; 2.7% absolute improvement on a 1 to 50 scale) compared with placebo. Pregabalin had a small benefit over placebo in reducing sleep problems by 6.2% fewer points on a scale of 0 to 100 (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.27). The dropout rate due to adverse events was higher with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.07; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 13; 95% CI 9 to 23). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between pregabalin and placebo use (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49). Dizziness was reported as an adverse event more frequently with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 3.77; 95% CI 3.06 to 4.63; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The anticonvulsant, pregabalin, demonstrated a small benefit over placebo in reducing pain and sleep problems. Pregabalin use was shown not to substantially reduce fatigue compared with placebo. Study dropout rates due to adverse events were higher with pregabalin use compared with placebo. Dizziness was a particularly frequent adverse event seen with pregabalin use. At the time of writing this review, pregabalin is the only anticonvulsant drug approved for treating FM in the US and in 25 other non-European countries. However, pregabalin has not been approved for treating FM in Europe. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane review on 'Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults' (Moore 2009), and considers only fibromyalgia pain.Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic pain conditions, including fibromyalgia. Pain response with pregabalin is associated with major benefits for other symptoms, and improved quality of life and function in people with chronic painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults, compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to May 2009 for the original review and to 16 March 2016 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, and reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified two new published studies with classic design, and one new published study with an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design.We included eight studies. Five (3283 participants) had a classic design in which participants were randomised at the start of the study to pregabalin (150, 300, 450, or 600 mg daily) or placebo, with assessment after 8 to 13 weeks of stable treatment. No studies included active comparators. Studies had low risk of bias, except that the last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment (450 mg: RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1, 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence)). Substantial benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 14% of participants with placebo, but about 9% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (22% to 24%) (high quality evidence). Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment) (450 mg: RR 1.5, 95% CI (1.3 to 1.7), 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence). Moderate benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 28% of participants with placebo, but about 11% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (39% to 43%) (high quality evidence). A similar magnitude of effect was found using PGIC of 'very much improved' and 'much or very much improved'. NNTs for these outcomes ranged between 7 and 14 (high quality evidence).A small study (177 participants) compared nightly with twice-daily pregabalin, and concluded there was no difference in effect.Two studies (1492 participants began initial dose titration, 687 participants randomised) had an EERW design in which those with good pain relief after titration were randomised, double blind, to continuing the effective dose (300 to 600 mg pregabalin daily) or a short down-titration to placebo for 13 or 26 weeks. We calculated the outcome of maintained therapeutic response (MTR) without withdrawal, equivalent to a moderate benefit. Of those randomised, 40% had MTR with pregabalin and 20% with placebo (high quality evidence). The NNT was 5, but normalised to the starting population tested it was 12. About 10% of the initial population would have achieved the MTR outcome, similar to the result from studies of classic design. MTR had no imputation concerns.The majority (70% to 90%) of participants in all treatment groups experienced adverse events. Specific adverse events were more common with pregabalin than placebo, in particular dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral oedema, with number needed to harm of 3.7, 7.4, 18, and 19 respectively for all doses combined (high quality evidence). Serious adverse events did not differ between active treatment groups and placebo (very low quality evidence). Withdrawals for any reason were more common with pregabalin than placebo only with the 600 mg dose in studies of classic design. Withdrawals due to adverse events were about 10% higher with pregabalin than placebo, but withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were about 6% lower (high quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin 300 to 600 mg produces a major reduction in pain intensity over 12 to 26 weeks with tolerable adverse events for a small proportion of people (about 10% more than placebo) with moderate or severe pain due to fibromyalgia. The degree of pain relief is known to be accompanied by improvements in other symptoms, quality of life, and function. These results are similar to other effective medicines in fibromyalgia (milnacipran, duloxetine).

Oxycodone for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Opioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Cannabinoids for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.

Antipsychotics for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. It affects approximately 2% of the general population. Up to 70% of patients with fibromyalgia meet the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving health-related quality of life. Antipsychotics might reduce fibromyalgia and associated mental health symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of antipsychotics in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE to 20 May 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews and two clinical trial registries. We also contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected controlled trials of at least four weeks duration of any formulation of antipsychotics used for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted the data from all included studies and two review authors independently assessed study risks of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. We derived first tier evidence from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs, at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of four studies with 296 participants.Three studies with 206 participants compared quetiapine, an atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic, with placebo. One study used a cross-over design and two studies a parallel-group design. Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. Quetiapine was used in all studies with a bedtime dosage between 50 and 300 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias and we judged them to be at moderate risk of bias overall. The primary outcomes in this review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety).Second tier evidence indicated that quetiapine was not statistically superior to placebo in the number of participants with a 50% or more pain reduction (very low quality evidence). No study reported data on PGIC. A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a 30% or more pain reduction (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 100) (very low quality evidence). A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a clinically relevant improvement of health-related quality of life compared to placebo ( RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 20) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.23), depression (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.04) and anxiety (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing the risk of withdrawing from the study due to a lack of efficacy (RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05) (very low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and placebo in the proportion of participants withdrawing due to adverse events (tolerability) (very low quality evidence), in the frequency of serious adverse events (safety) (very low quality evidence) and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness and somnolence as an adverse event (very low quality evidence). In more participants in the quetiapine group a substantial weight gain was noted (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; number needed to treat for an additional harm (NNTH) 12, 95% CI 6 to 50) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels to a very low quality rating because of limitations of study design, indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed).One parallel design study with 90 participants compared quetiapine (50 to 300 mg/day flexible at bedtime) to amitriptyline (10 to 75 mg/day flexible at bedtime). The study had three major risks of bias and we judged it to be at moderate risk of bias overall. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels to a low quality rating because of indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed). Third tier evidence indicated no statistically significant differences between the two drugs. Both drugs did not statistically significantly differ in the reduction of average scores for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, depression, anxiety and for limitations of health-related quality of life and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness, somnolence and weight gain as a side effect (low quality evidence). Compared to amitriptyline, more participants left the study due to adverse events (low quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).We found no relevant study with other antipsychotics than quetiapine in fibromyalgia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine may be considered for a time-limited trial (4 to 12 weeks) to reduce pain, sleep problems, depression and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients with major depression. Potential side effects such as weight gain should be balanced against the potential benefits in shared decision making with the patient.

Does addition of 'mud-pack and hot pool treatment' to patient education make a difference in fibromyalgia patients? A randomized controlled single blind study

The aim of this randomized controlled single-blind study is to explore whether addition of mud-pack and hot pool treatments to patient education make a significant difference in short and mild term outcomes of the patients with fibromyalgia. Seventy women with fibromyalgia syndrome were randomly assigned to either balneotherapy with mud-pack and hot pool treatments (35) or control (35) groups. After randomization, five patients from balneotherapy group and five patients from control group were dropped out from the study with different excuses. All patients had 6-h patient education programme about fibromyalgia syndrome and were given a home exercise programme. The patients in balneotherapy group had heated pool treatment at 38 °C for 20 min a day, and mud-pack treatment afterwards on back region at 45 °C. Balneotherapy was applied on weekdays for 2 weeks. All patients continued to take their medical treatment. An investigator who was blinded to the intervention assessed all the patients before and after the treatment, at the first and the third months of follow-up. Outcome measures were FIQ, BDI and both patient's and physician's global assessments. Balneotherapy group was significantly better than control group at after the treatment and at the end of the first month follow-up assessments in terms of patient's and physician's global assessment, total FIQ score, and pain intensity, fatigue, non-refreshed awaking, stiffness, anxiety and depression subscales of FIQ. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of BDI scores. It is concluded that patient education combined with 2 weeks balneotherapy application has more beneficial effects in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome as compared to patient education alone.

Effects of vitamin D on patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

The role of calcifediol in the perception of chronic pain is a widely discussed subject. Low serum levels of calcifediol are especially common in patients with severe pain and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). We lack evidence of the role of vitamin D supplementation in these patients. To our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial has been published on the subject. Thirty women with FMS according to the 1990 and 2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria, with serum calcifediol levels <32ng/mL (80nmol/L), were randomized to treatment group (TG) or control group (CG). The goal was to achieve serum calcifediol levels between 32 and 48ng/mL for 20weeks via oral supplementation with cholecalciferol. The CG received placebo medication. Re-evaluation was performed in both groups after a further 24weeks without cholecalciferol supplementation. The main hypothesis was that high levels of serum calcifediol should result in a reduction of pain (visual analog scale score). Additional variables were evaluated using the Short Form Health Survey 36, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and the Somatization subscale of Symptom Checklist-90-Revised. A marked reduction in pain was noted over the treatment period in TG: a 2 (groups)×4 (time points) variance analysis showed a significant group effect in visual analog scale scores. This also was correlated with scores on the physical role functioning scale of the Short Form Health Survey 36. Optimization of calcifediol levels in FMS had a positive effect on the perception of pain. This economical therapy with a low side effect profile may well be considered in patients with FMS. However, further studies with larger patient numbers are needed to prove the hypothesis.

Patient Health Questionnaire 15 as a generic measure of severity in fibromyalgia syndrome: surveys with patients of three different settings

OBJECTIVE

Graduated treatment of patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS) and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) depending on their severity has been recommended by recent guidelines. The Patient Health Questionnaire 15 (PHQ 15) is a validated measure of somatic symptom severity in FSS. We tested the discriminant and transcultural validity of the PHQ 15 as a generic measure of severity in persons with FMS.

METHODS

Persons meeting recognized FMS-criteria of the general German population (N=98), of the US National Data Bank of Rheumatic Diseases (N=440), and of a single German pain medicine center (N=167) completed validated self-report questionnaires on somatic and psychological distress (Polysymptomatic Distress Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire 4), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Short Form Health Survey 12 or 36) and disability (Pain Disability Index). In addition, self-reports of working status were assessed in the clinical setting. Overall severity of FMS was defined by PHQ 15 scores: mild (0-9), moderate (10-14) and severe (15-30).

RESULTS

Persons with mild, moderate and severe FMS did not differ in age and gender. Irrespective of the setting, persons with severe FMS reported more pain sites, fatigue, depressed mood, impaired HRQOL and disability than persons with moderate or mild FMS. Patients with severe FMS in the NDB and in the German clinical center reported more work-related disability than patients with mild FMS.

CONCLUSION

The PHQ 15 is a valid generic measure of overall severity in FMS.

[Prevalence of chronic pain in Germany. A representative survey of the general population]

BACKGROUND

There are no up to date data from representative samples of the general German population on the prevalence of debilitating pain and of pain diseases available.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of the German general population including persons ≥ 14 years of age was conducted in 2012 based on face-to-face interviews using standardized questionnaires. Chronic pain was assessed by the widespread pain index (WPI), disability by the subscales physical functioning and role function of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30) and psychological distress by the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-4). Chronic pain with associated physical and social impairments was defined by at least one pain site over 3 months in the WPI and at least one response of a moderate or severe impairment in both subscales of the EORTC 30 QLQ-C30. Chronic pain with associated physical, mental and social impairment (pain disease) required in addition a probable depressive and/or anxiety disorder in the PHQ-4.

RESULTS

A total of 2,515 out of 4,480 (56.1 %) of contacted persons finished the study of which 32.9 % reported chronic pain, 5.4 % reported chronic pain with associated physical and social impairments and 2.3 % associated physical, mental and social impairments. No participants with local pain (only one pain site) but 24.0 % of participants with widespread pain (6-19 pain sites) met the criteria of a pain disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The reports of chronic pain in epidemiological studies do not necessarily imply a suffering (physical, psychological and social impairment) from pain.

Fibromyalgia syndrome: a somatoform disorder?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Whether fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) can be classified as a somatoform disorder is under debate.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Literature searches on the classification of FMS as a somatoform disorder were performed in Medline and in evidence-based guideline databases.

RESULTS

A somatoform disorder is defined by medically unexplained somatic symptoms that persist for at least 6 months and lead to a significant impairment of the ability to function in everyday life. The nature and extent of the symptoms or the distress and pre-occupation of the patient cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition or by the direct effect of a substance, and are not attributable to another mental disorder. Emotional and psychosocial conflicts play a major role in the onset, severity, exacerbation or maintenance of the physical symptoms. There is disagreement in the FMS research community on the existence of somatic factors sufficiently explaining FMS symptoms. Psychosocial factors play a major role in the onset, exacerbation or maintenance of FMS symptoms in the majority of patients. A biopsychosocial model of interacting biological and psychosocial factors in the predisposition, onset and maintenance of FMS symptoms is more appropriate than the dichotomy between a somatic disease and a mental (somatoform) disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical features of FMS and persistent somatoform pain disorder or somatization disorder according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 overlap in individuals with chronic widespread pain without specific somatic disease factors. FMS is not synonymous with somatoform disorder.

Review of pharmacological therapies in fibromyalgia syndrome

This review addresses the current status of drug therapy for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and is based on interdisciplinary FMS management guidelines, meta-analyses of drug trial data, and observational studies. In the absence of a single gold-standard medication, patients are treated with a variety of drugs from different categories, often with limited evidence. Drug therapy is not mandatory for the management of FMS. Pregabalin, duloxetine, milnacipran, and amitriptyline are the current first-line prescribed agents but have had a mostly modest effect. With only a minority of patients expected to experience substantial benefit, most will discontinue therapy because of either a lack of efficacy or tolerability problems. Many drug treatments have undergone limited study and have had negative results. It is unlikely that these failed pilot trials will undergo future study. However, medications, though imperfect, will continue to be a component of treatment strategy for these patients. Both the potential for medication therapy to relieve symptoms and the potential to cause harm should be carefully considered in their administration.

Classification and clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome: recommendations of recent evidence-based interdisciplinary guidelines

Objectives. Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), characterized by subjective complaints without physical or biomarker abnormality, courts controversy. Recommendations in recent guidelines addressing classification and diagnosis were examined for consistencies or differences. Methods. Systematic searches from January 2008 to February 2013 of the US-American National Guideline Clearing House, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Guidelines International Network, and Medline for evidence-based guidelines for the management of FMS were conducted. Results. Three evidence-based interdisciplinary guidelines, independently developed in Canada, Germany, and Israel, recommended that FMS can be clinically diagnosed by a typical cluster of symptoms following a defined evaluation including history, physical examination, and selected laboratory tests, to exclude another somatic disease. Specialist referral is only recommended when some other physical or mental illness is reasonably suspected. The diagnosis can be based on the (modified) preliminary American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2010 diagnostic criteria. Discussion. Guidelines from three continents showed remarkable consistency regarding the clinical concept of FMS, acknowledging that FMS is neither a distinct rheumatic nor mental disorder, but rather a cluster of symptoms, not explained by another somatic disease. While FMS remains an integral part of rheumatology, it is not an exclusive rheumatic condition and spans a broad range of medical disciplines.

Treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome: recommendations of recent evidence-based interdisciplinary guidelines with special emphasis on complementary and alternative therapies

Objective. Current evidence indicates that there is no single ideal treatment for fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). First choice treatment options remain debatable, especially concerning the importance of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. Methods. Three evidence-based interdisciplinary guidelines on FMS in Canada, Germany, and Israel were compared for their first choice and CAM-recommendations. Results. All three guidelines emphasized a patient-tailored approach according to the key symptoms. Aerobic exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, and multicomponent therapy were first choice treatments. The guidelines differed in the grade of recommendation for drug treatment. Anticonvulsants (gabapentin, pregabalin) and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (duloxetine, milnacipran) were strongly recommended by the Canadian and the Israeli guidelines. These drugs received only a weak recommendation by the German guideline. In consideration of CAM-treatments, acupuncture, hypnosis/guided imagery, and Tai Chi were recommended by the German and Israeli guidelines. The Canadian guidelines did not recommend any CAM therapy. Discussion. Recent evidence-based interdisciplinary guidelines concur on the importance of treatment tailored to the individual patient and further emphasize the need of self-management strategies (exercise, and psychological techniques).

Anticonvulsants for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Anticonvulsants (antiepileptic drugs) are drugs frequently used for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticonvulsants for treating FM symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), PsycINFO (1966 to August 2013), SCOPUS (1980 to August 2013) and the reference lists of reviewed articles for published studies and www.clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any formulation of anticonvulsants used for the treatment of people with FM of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed the risks of bias of the studies. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies: five with pregabalin and one study each with gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam. A total of 2480 people were included into anticonvulsants groups and 1099 people in placebo groups. The median therapy phase of the studies was 13 weeks. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM. The amount and quality of evidence was sufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in FM. Therefore, we focused on our interpretation of the evidence for pregabalin due to our greater certainty about its effects and its greater relevance to clinical practice. All pregabalin studies had a low risk of bias. Reporting a 50% or greater reduction in pain was more frequent with pregabalin use than with a placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33 to 1.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12; 95% CI 9 to 21). The number of people who reported being 'much' or 'very much' improved was higher with pregabalin than with placebo (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; NNTB 9; 95% CI 7 to 15). Pregabalin did not substantially reduce fatigue (SMD -0.17; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.09; 2.7% absolute improvement on a 1 to 50 scale) compared with placebo. Pregabalin had a small benefit over placebo in reducing sleep problems by 6.2% fewer points on a scale of 0 to 100 (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.27). The dropout rate due to adverse events was higher with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.07; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 13; 95% CI 9 to 23). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between pregabalin and placebo use (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49). Dizziness was reported as an adverse event more frequently with pregabalin use than with placebo use (RR 3.77; 95% CI 3.06 to 4.63; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The anticonvulsant, pregabalin, demonstrated a small benefit over placebo in reducing pain and sleep problems. Pregabalin use was shown not to substantially reduce fatigue compared with placebo. Study dropout rates due to adverse events were higher with pregabalin use compared with placebo. Dizziness was a particularly frequent adverse event seen with pregabalin use. At the time of writing this review, pregabalin is the only anticonvulsant drug approved for treating FM in the US and in 25 other non-European countries. However, pregabalin has not been approved for treating FM in Europe. The amount and quality of evidence were insufficient to draw definite conclusions on the efficacy and safety of gabapentin, lacosamide and levetiracetam in FM.

Cognitive behavioural therapies for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. Patients often report high disability levels and negative mood. Psychotherapies focus on reducing key symptoms, improving daily functioning, mood and sense of personal control over pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of cognitive behavioural therapies (CBTs) for treating FM at end of treatment and at long-term (at least six months) follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 August 2013), PsycINFO (1966 to 28 August 2013) and SCOPUS (1980 to 28 August 2013). We searched http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (web site of the US National Institutes of Health) and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) for ongoing trials (last search 28 August,2013), and the reference lists of reviewed articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of CBTs with children, adolescents and adults diagnosed with FM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The data of all included studies were extracted and the risks of bias of the studies were assessed independently by two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 24 study arms with CBTs were included. A total of 2031 patients were included; 1073 patients in CBT groups and 958 patients in control groups. Only two studies were without any risk of bias. The GRADE quality of evidence of the studies was low. CBTs were superior to controls in reducing pain at end of treatment by 0.5 points on a scale of 0 to 10 (standardised mean difference (SMD) - 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.49 to -0.17) and by 0.6 points at long-term follow-up (median 6 months) (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.17); in reducing negative mood at end of treatment by 0.7 points on a scale of 0 to 10 (SMD - 0.33; 95% CI -0.49 to -0.17) and by 1.3 points at long-term follow-up (median 6 months) (SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.75 to -0.11); and in reducing disability at end of treatment by 0.7 points on a scale of 0 to 10 (SMD - 0.30; 95% CI -0.51 to -0.08) and at long-term follow-up (median 6 months) by 1.2 points (SMD -0.52; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in dropout rates for any reasons between CBTs and controls (risk ratio (RR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CBTs provided a small incremental benefit over control interventions in reducing pain, negative mood and disability at the end of treatment and at long-term follow-up. The dropout rates due to any reason did not differ between CBTs and controls.

[Fibromyalgia syndrome as a psychosomatic disorder - diagnosis and therapy according to current evidence-based guidelines]

OBJECTIVES

The classification and therapy of patients with chronic widespread pain without evidence of somatic factors as an explanation is currently a matter of debate. The diagnostic label "fibromyalgia syndrome"(FMS) has been rejected by some representatives of general and psychosomatic medicine.

METHODS

A summary is given of the main recommendations from current evidence-based guidelines on FMS and nonspecific/functional/somatoform bodily complaints.

RESULTS

The criteria of FMS and of persistent somatoform pain disorder or chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors partly overlap. They include differential clinical characteristics of persons with chronic widespread pain but without sufficiently explaining somatic factors. Not all patients diagnosed with FMS meet the criteria of a persistent somatoform pain disorder. FMS is a functional disorder, in which in most patients psychosocial factors play an important role in both the etiology and course of illness. FMS can be diagnosed by looking at the history of a typical symptom cluster and excluding somatic differential diagnoses (without a tender point examination) using the modified 2010 diagnostic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. Various levels of severity of FMS can be distinguished from a psychosomatic point of view, ranging from slight (single functional syndrome) to severe (meeting the criteria of multiple functional syndromes) forms of chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors, of persistent somatoform pain disorder or of a somatization disorder. The diagnosis of FMS as a functional syndrome/stress-associated disorder should be explicitly communicated to the patient. A therapy within collaborative care adapted to the severity should be provided. For long-term management, nonpharmacological therapies such as aerobic exercise are recommended. In more severe cases, psychotherapy of comorbid mental disorders should be conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

The coordinated recommendations of both guidelines can synthesize general medical, somatic, and psychosocial perspectives, and can promote graduated care of patients diagnosed with FMS.

Non-specific, functional, and somatoform bodily complaints

BACKGROUND

4-10% of the general population and 20% of primary care patients have what are called "non-specific, functional, and somatoform bodily complaints." These often take a chronic course, markedly impair the sufferers' quality of life, and give rise to high costs. They can be made worse by inappropriate behavior on the physician's part.

METHODS

The new S3 guideline was formulated by representatives of 29 medical and psychological specialty societies and one patient representative. They analyzed more than 4000 publications retrieved by a systematic literature search and held two online Delphi rounds and three consensus conferences.

RESULTS

Because of the breadth of the topic, the available evidence varied in quality depending on the particular subject addressed and was often only of moderate quality. A strong consensus was reached on most subjects. In the new guideline, it is recommended that physicians should establish a therapeutic alliance with the patient, adopt a symptom/coping-oriented attitude, and avoid stigmatizing comments. A biopsychosocial diagnostic evaluation, combined with sensitive discussion of signs of psychosocial stress, enables the early recognition of problems of this type, as well as of comorbid conditions, while lowering the risk of iatrogenic somatization. For mild, uncomplicated courses, the establishment of a biopsychosocial explanatory model and physical/social activation are recommended. More severe, complicated courses call for collaborative, coordinated management, including regular appointments (as opposed to ad-hoc appointments whenever the patient feels worse), graded activation, and psychotherapy; the latter may involve cognitive behavioral therapy or a psychodynamic-interpersonal or hypnotherapeutic/imaginative approach. The comprehensive treatment plan may be multimodal, potentially including body-oriented/non-verbal therapies, relaxation training, and time-limited pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSION

A thorough, simultaneous biopsychosocial diagnostic assessment enables the early recognition of non-specific, functional, and somatoform bodily complaints. The appropriate treatment depends on the severity of the condition. Effective treatment requires the patient's active cooperation and the collaboration of all treating health professionals under the overall management of the patient's primary-care physician.