Einfluss von Depression auf das Fibromyalgiesyndrom

A secondary analysis of three types of social support in relation to self-efficacy, disease impact, and depression in fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain condition associated with depression. However, self-efficacy (belief in own ability to manage symptoms) and social support may be protective. This study tested three types of social support (emotional, tangible, and instrumental) for moderation of the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between FM impact and depression over time.

METHODS

Six hundred participants with FM were randomly assigned to no intervention, social support group, or combined self-management and social support. The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire, FM-modified Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, and Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression surveys were administered at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months. There were no significant intervention effects on the variables of interest, however, participants' scores were used to assess four longitudinal models.

RESULTS

Self-efficacy showed mediation both between (b = 0.104, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.071, 0.137]) and within (b = 0.89, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.073, 0.106]) individuals. Only tangible support demonstrated moderation of the relationship between FM impact and self-efficacy, and only between individuals (b = 0.154, p = .022, 95% CI = [0.022, 0.287]).

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that self-efficacy attenuated a portion of the effect of FM impact on depression over time. Additionally, higher levels of tangible support (the belief that your social network can provide you with assistance) were related to weaker influence of FM impact on self-efficacy over time. These factors may be important targets for the prevention of depression in people with FM.

The effect of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing on fibromyalgia: A multiple-baseline experimental case study across ten participants

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, and stiffness in muscles and joints. Traumatic life experiences and post-traumatic stress symptoms play a role in its development and persistence. Although previous research suggests that pain and FM symptoms decrease after eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, its effectiveness has not been investigated in a controlled manner. The present study investigated the effectiveness of a six-session, 90-minute EMDR therapy using a multiple baseline single-case experimental design (SCED) across ten adult females with FM. The SCED involved a baseline, intervention, one- and three-month follow-up phase. The primary outcome was pain. Secondary outcomes included post-traumatic stress symptoms, other FM symptoms (fatigue, stiffness in muscles and joints), and the impact of FM on daily activities and sleep. Data were statistically analyzed by primarily testing means across phases on an individual and group level. Post-traumatic stress symptoms improved significantly in seven participants. Pain severity decreased significantly in six participants, with three of them maintaining significant improvement three months later. One participant showed clinically relevant change one month later. Furthermore, improvements were observed in secondary outcome measures. The findings support the efficacy of EMDR in reducing FM symptoms.

Psychometric properties and validation of the polish version of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-Pol)

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic condition characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, intestinal disorders, mood swings, and sleep disturbances. To the best of our knowledge, the questionnaire used for assessing problems and difficulties in the functioning of people with FM has not been translated and adapted in Poland so far. The aim of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-Pol).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The study covered 150 people with FM living in Poland. The measurement reliability, internal structure, repeatability, and validity of the Polish version of the FIQ were examined.

RESULTS

The scale score reliability of the entire tool for the research group was very good. The alpha Cronbach's test result for the whole scale was 0.84. The repeatability of the scale measured by the test-retest method using the interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) was very good and amounted to 0.96. Internal structure suggested by FIQ-Pol authors was confirmed (Confirmatory factor analysis). After introducing modification indices for the entire scale, satisfactory parameter values were obtained, i.e.: RMSEA (0.06), CFI (0.97) and TLI (0.96). Theoretical validity was assessed by correlating the results of the Polish version of the FIQ with the results of the Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI). Both the FIQ-Pol total score and its domains showed strong positive correlations with BDI.

CONCLUSION

The Polish FIQ is a reliable and valid tool to measure the functional disability and health status of Polish people with FM.

Neurophysiological and Psychosocial Mechanisms of Fibromyalgia: A Comprehensive Review and Call for An Integrative Model

Research into the neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms involved in fibromyalgia has progressed remarkably in recent years. Despite this, current accounts of fibromyalgia fail to capture the complex, dynamic, and mutual crosstalk between neurophysiological and psychosocial domains. We conducted a comprehensive review of the existing literature in order to: a) synthesize current knowledge on fibromyalgia; b) explore and highlight multi-level links and pathways between different systems; and c) build bridges connecting disparate perspectives. An extensive panel of international experts in neurophysiological and psychosocial aspects of fibromyalgia discussed the collected evidence and progressively refined and conceptualized its interpretation. This work constitutes an essential step towards the development of a model capable of integrating the main factors implicated in fibromyalgia into a single, unified construct which appears indispensable to foster the understanding, assessment, and intervention for fibromyalgia.

Is Whole-Body Cryostimulation an Effective Add-On Treatment in Individuals with Fibromyalgia and Obesity? A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Pain severity, depression, and sleep disturbances are key targets for FM rehabilitation. Recent evidence suggests that whole-body cryostimulation (WBC) might be an effective add-on treatment in the management of FM. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of an add-on WBC intervention to a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program on pain intensity, depressive symptoms, disease impact, sleep quality, and performance-based physical functioning in a sample of FM patients with obesity. We performed a randomized controlled trial with 43 patients with FM and obesity undergoing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program with and without the addition of ten 2-min WBC sessions at −110 °C over two weeks. According to our results, the implementation of ten sessions of WBC over two weeks produced additional benefits. Indeed, both groups reported positive changes after the rehabilitation; however, the group that underwent WBC intervention had greater improvements in the severity of pain, depressive symptoms, disease impact, and quality of sleep. On the contrary, with respect to performance-based physical functioning, we found no significant between-group differences. Our findings suggest that WBC could be a promising add-on treatment to improve key aspects of FM, such as pain, depressive symptoms, disease impact and poor sleep quality.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Inpatient Multimodal Treatment Approach in Chronic Pain-Related Rheumatic Diseases

Introduction

Musculoskeletal disorders may cause chronic pain, which is associated with deterioration in physical well-being, functions, and quality of life. There are worldwide shortfalls in the care that is provided to the affected patients. Holistic, interdisciplinary care is rare. Monomodal therapeutic approaches dominate when health-care resources are scarce. In this study, we test the patient-relevant outcomes of multimodal treatment for rheumatic diseases that are associated with pain and check for remuneration.

Methods

We performed a retrospective data analysis of an inpatient multimodal treatment. The target parameter was the patient perspective, which we assessed by means of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO). We applied the Visual Analogue Scale (mental and physical condition), the Heidelberg Short Early Risk Assessment Questionnaire, the Pain Disability Index, and the pain grading according to Kohlmann/Raspe (N = 375 patients). We also investigated compensation for inpatient treatments with and without multimodal treatments. Moreover, we compared Diagnosis-Related Group remuneration with and without complex treatment.

Results

After implementing a multimodal treatment, improved mental (mood) status was significantly better (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < . 001), despite high levels of pain (Kohlmann/Raspe) reported on admission. Apart from the underlying rheumatic disease, 111 patients also reported chronic back pain, which was improved following the treatment (t test, P < . 001). Subjective impairments associated with pain were significantly lower at the end of the hospital stay (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < . 001). Compensation for inpatient treatments with multimodal treatments increased noticeably in German hospitals in 2016 to 2019, while remunerations for monomodal treatments show mixed results.

Conclusion

PROs regarding mood, pain, and perceived impairments improved following the multimodal complex treatment. Compensation of hospitals should take into account additional performance requirements of holistic treatments, whereby the promotion and further studies of PROs are recommended.

Personal Construct Therapy vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of Depression in Women with Fibromyalgia: Study Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a debilitating syndrome, more prevalent in women, which is aggravated by the presence of depressive symptoms. In the last decade, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has demonstrated to reduce such depressive symptoms and pain in these patients, but there are still a considerable number of them who do not respond to interventions. The complexity of the disorder requires the consideration of the unique psychological characteristics of each patient to attain good outcomes. One approach that could accomplish this goal might be personal construct therapy (PCT), an idiographic approach that considers identity features and interpersonal meanings as their main target of intervention. Then, the aim of the study is to test the efficacy of PCT as compared to a well-established treatment in the reduction of depressive symptoms in women with fibromyalgia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial. In each condition participants will attend up to eighteen 1-hr weekly therapy sessions and up to three 1-hr booster sessions during the following 3-5 months after the end of treatment. The depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) will be the primary outcome measure and it will be assessed at baseline, at the end of therapy, and at 6-month follow-up. Other secondary measures will be applied following the same schedule. Participants will be 18- to 70-years-old women with a diagnosis of FM, presenting depressive symptoms evinced by scores above seven in depression items of the HADS-D. Intention-to-treat and complete case analyses will be performed for the main statistical tests. Linear mixed models will be used to analyze and to compare the treatment effects of both conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02711020.

Pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia in adults ‐ an overview of Cochrane Reviews

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Overview). The objectives are as follows:

To provide an overview of the therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. The major comparison of interest will be with placebo.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.

IMPLICACIONES DEL DOLOR CRÓNICO EN LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DE MUJERES CON FIBROMIALGIA

El objetivo de esta investigación fue comprender las implicaciones del dolor crónico en la calidad de vida de un grupo de mujeres diagnosticadas con fibromialgia. Para ello, se realizó un estudio cualitativo de diseño fenomenológico interpretativo en el que participaron 15 mujeres, con edades comprendidas entre los 23 y los 60 años. El análisis de los datos se realizó con el apoyo del programa Atlas.Ti. Los resultados indican que la intensidad de los síntomas, la interferencia del dolor crónico en actividades cotidianas, las alteraciones emocionales y las cogniciones negativas influyeron en su vida personal, familiar, social y laboral. Las estrategias de afrontamiento que asumieron las participantes facilitaron u obstaculizaron la aceptación de la enfermedad. Se concluye que el impacto de la fibromialgia en la calidad de vida depende más de las estrategias de afrontamiento que de los síntomas de la enfermedad. Las redes de apoyo facilitan el desarrollo de estrategias activas para afrontar la enfermedad.

Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterized by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. People with fibromyalgia often report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy, for example, with serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), focuses on reducing key symptoms and improving quality of life. This review updates and extends the 2013 version of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles, to 8 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized, controlled trials of any formulation of SNRIs against placebo or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data, examined study quality, and assessed risk of bias. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 50% or greater and of 30% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardized mean differences (SMD) for fatigue, sleep problems, health-related quality of life, mean pain intensity, depression, anxiety, disability, sexual function, cognitive disturbances and tenderness. For tolerability we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawals due to adverse events and for nausea, insomnia and somnolence as specific adverse events. For safety we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We added eight new studies with 1979 participants for a total of 18 included studies with 7903 participants. Seven studies investigated duloxetine and nine studies investigated milnacipran against placebo. One study compared desvenlafaxine with placebo and pregabalin. One study compared duloxetine with L-carnitine. The majority of studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in three to five domains.The quality of evidence of all comparisons of desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and milnacipran versus placebo in studies with a parallel design was low due to concerns about publication bias and indirectness, and very low for serious adverse events due to concerns about publication bias, imprecision and indirectness. The quality of evidence of all comparisons of duloxetine and desvenlafaxine with other active drugs was very low due to concerns about publication bias, imprecision and indirectness.Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater: 1274 of 4104 (31%) on duloxetine and milnacipran reported pain relief of 50% or greater compared to 591 of 2814 (21%) participants on placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.11; NNTB 11, 95% CI 9 to 14). Duloxetine and milnacipran had a clinically relevant benefit over placebo in patient's global impression to be much or very much improved: 888 of 1710 (52%) on duloxetine and milnacipran (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 8) reported to be much or very much improved compared to 354 of 1208 (29%) of participants on placebo. Duloxetine and milnacipran had a clinically relevant benefit compared to placebo for pain relief of 30% or greater. RD was 0.10; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.12; NNTB 10, 95% CI 8 to 12. Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit for fatigue (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.08; NNTB 18, 95% CI 12 to 29), compared to placebo. There were no differences between either duloxetine or milnacipran and placebo in reducing sleep problems (SMD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.15 to 0.01). Duloxetine and milnacipran had no clinically relevant benefit compared to placebo in improving health-related quality of life (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.15; NNTB 11, 95% CI 8 to 14).There were 794 of 4166 (19%) participants on SNRIs who dropped out due to adverse events compared to 292 of 2863 (10%) of participants on placebo (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; NNTH 14, 95% CI 10 to 25). There was no difference in serious adverse events between either duloxetine, milnacipran or desvenlafaxine and placebo (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00).There was no difference between desvenlafaxine and placebo in efficacy, tolerability and safety in one small trial.There was no difference between duloxetine and desvenlafaxine in efficacy, tolerability and safety in two trials with active comparators (L-carnitine, pregabalin).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The update did not change the major findings of the previous review. Based on low- to very low-quality evidence, the SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided no clinically relevant benefit over placebo in the frequency of pain relief of 50% or greater, but for patient's global impression to be much or very much improved and in the frequency of pain relief of 30% or greater there was a clinically relevant benefit. The SNRIs duloxetine and milnacipran provided no clinically relevant benefit over placebo in improving health-related quality of life and in reducing fatigue. Duloxetine and milnacipran did not significantly differ from placebo in reducing sleep problems. The dropout rates due to adverse events were higher for duloxetine and milnacipran than for placebo. On average, the potential benefits of duloxetine and milnacipran in fibromyalgia were outweighed by their potential harms. However, a minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically relevant adverse events with duloxetine or milnacipran.We did not find placebo-controlled studies with other SNRIs than desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and milnacipran.

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.

Unravelling Fibromyalgia-Steps Toward Individualized Management

The heterogeneity of the clinical presentation and the pathophysiologic mechanisms associated with fibromyalgia (FM), and the modest results on average for any therapy, call for a more individualized management strategy. Individualized treatment can be on the basis of subgrouping of patients according to associated conditions (mental health problems, chronic overlapping pain conditions, other somatic diseases) or on disease severity. Categorizing FM as mild, moderate, or severe can be on the basis of clinical assessment (eg, degree of daily functioning) or on questionnaires. Shared decision-making regarding treatment options can be directed according to patient preferences, comorbidities, and availability in various health care settings. The European League Against Rheumatism guidelines recommend a tailored approach directed by FM key symptoms (pain, sleep disorders, fatigue, depression, disability), whereas the German guidelines recommend management tailored to disease severity, with mild disease not requiring any specific treatment, and more severe disease requiring multicomponent therapy (combination of drug treatment with aerobic exercise and psychological treatments). When indicated, treatments should follow a stepwise approach beginning with easily available therapies such as aerobic exercise and amitriptyline. Successful application of a tailored treatment approach that is informed by individual patient characteristics should improve outcome of FM.

PERSPECTIVE

This article presents suggestions for an individualized treatment strategy for FM patients on the basis of subgroups and disease severity. Categorizing FM as mild, moderate, or severe can be on the basis of clinical assessment (eg, degree of daily functioning) or questionnaires. Subgroups can be defined according to mental health and somatic comorbidities.

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.

Functional status in patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms: Coping styles and their relationship with depression and anxiety

This study examined how coping styles are related to functional status in patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms and to what extent depression and anxiety account for this relationship. In 90 Dutch adult patients presenting medically unexplained physical symptoms, coping styles, health-related functional status, anxiety, and depression were measured. Multiple regression analyses and mediation analysis showed that coping styles were directly and indirectly related to functional status. In this relationship, depression and anxiety played an important role. The findings highlight the relevance of addressing coping styles, depression, and anxiety when targeting the functional status of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms in clinical practice.

Psychiatric Disorders in Young Adults Diagnosed with Juvenile Fibromyalgia in Adolescence

OBJECTIVE

Adolescents with juvenile-onset fibromyalgia (JFM) have increased rates of psychiatric disorders, but to our knowledge no studies have examined psychiatric disorders in adolescents with JFM when they enter young adulthood. This study examined the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in young adults diagnosed with JFM during adolescence and the relationship between mental health diagnoses and physical functioning.

METHODS

Ninety-one young adults (mean age 21.60, SD 1.96) with a history of JFM being followed as part of a prospective longitudinal study and 30 matched healthy controls (mean age 21.57, SD 1.55) completed a structured interview of psychiatric diagnoses and a self-report measure of physical impairment.

RESULTS

Young adults with a history of JFM were more likely to have current and lifetime histories of anxiety disorders (70.3% and 76.9%, respectively) compared with controls (33.3% for both, both p < 0.001). Individuals with JFM were also more likely to have current and lifetime histories of major mood disorders (29.7% and 76.9%, respectively) compared with controls (10% and 40%, p < 0.05). The presence of a current major mood disorder was significantly related to impairment in physical functioning [F (1, 89) = 8.30, p < 0.01] and role limitations attributable to a physical condition [F (1, 89) = 7.09, p < 0.01].

CONCLUSION

Psychiatric disorders are prevalent in young adulthood for individuals with a history of JFM, and a current major mood disorder is associated with greater physical impairment. Greater attention to early identification and treatment of mood disorders in patients with JFM is warranted.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for fibromyalgia syndrome

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition with a biopsychosocial aetiology. Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain, sleep problems, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Patients often report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Since there is no specific treatment that alters the pathogenesis of fibromyalgia, drug therapy focuses on pain reduction and improvement of other aversive symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the benefits and harms of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1946 to June 2014), and the reference lists of reviewed articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomized, double-blind trials of SSRIs used for the treatment of fibromyalgia symptoms in adult participants. We considered the following SSRIs in this review: citalopram, fluoxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

The quality of evidence was very low for each outcome. We downgraded the quality of evidence to very low due to concerns about risk of bias and studies with few participants. We included seven placebo-controlled studies, two with citalopram, three with fluoxetine and two with paroxetine, with a median study duration of eight weeks (4 to 16 weeks) and 383 participants, who were pooled together.All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias. There was a small (10%) difference in patients who reported a 30% pain reduction between SSRIs (56/172 (32.6%)) and placebo (39/171 (22.8%)) risk difference (RD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.20; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10, 95% CI 5 to 100; and in global improvement (proportion of patients who reported to be much or very much improved: 50/168 (29.8%) of patients with SSRIs and 26/162 (16.0%) of patients with placebo) RD 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23; NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 17.SSRIs did not statistically, or clinically, significantly reduce fatigue: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.03; 7.0% absolute improvement on a 0 to 10 scale, 95% CI 14.6% relative improvement to 0.8% relative deterioration; nor sleep problems: SMD 0.03, 95 % CI -0.26 to 0.31; 0.8 % absolute deterioration on a 0 to 100 scale, 95% CI 8.3% relative deterioration to 6.9% relative improvement.SSRIs were superior to placebo in the reduction of depression: SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; 7.6% absolute improvement on a 0 to 10 scale, 95% CI 2.7% to 13.8% relative improvement; NNTB 13, 95% CI 7 to 37. The dropout rate due to adverse events was not higher with SSRI use than with placebo use (23/146 (15.8%) of patients with SSRIs and 14/138 (10.1%) of patients with placebo) RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.14. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in serious adverse events with SSRI use and placebo use (3/84 (3.6%) in patients with SSRIs and 4/84 (4.8%) and patients with placebo) RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.05.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no unbiased evidence that SSRIs are superior to placebo in treating the key symptoms of fibromyalgia, namely pain, fatigue and sleep problems. SSRIs might be considered for treating depression in people with fibromyalgia. The black box warning for increased suicidal tendency in young adults aged 18 to 24, with major depressive disorder, who have taken SSRIs, should be considered when appropriate.

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.

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.

Additive Complex Ayurvedic Treatment in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome Compared to Conventional Standard Care Alone: A Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Pilot Study (KAFA Trial)

Background. Fibromyalgia (FMS) is a challenging condition for health care systems worldwide. Only limited trial data is available for FMS for outcomes of complex treatment interventions of complementary and integrative (CIM) approaches. Methods. We conducted a controlled, nonrandomized feasibility study that compared outcomes in 21 patients treated with Ayurveda with those of 11 patients treated with a conventional approach at the end of a two-week inpatient hospital stay. Primary outcome was the impact of fibromyalgia on patients as assessed by the FIQ. Secondary outcomes included scores of pain intensity, pain perception, depression, anxiety, and quality of sleep. Follow-up assessments were done after 6 months. Results. At 2 weeks, there were comparable and significant improvements in the FIQ and for most of secondary outcomes in both groups with no significant in-between-group differences. The beneficial effects for both treatment groups were partly maintained for the main outcome and a number of secondary outcomes at the 6-month followup, again with no significant in-between-group differences. Discussion. The findings of this feasibility study suggest that Ayurvedic therapy is noninferior to conventional treatment in patients with severe FMS. Since Ayurveda was only used as add-on treatment, RCTs on Ayurveda alone are warranted to increase model validity. This trial is registered with NCT01389336.

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.

In-Patient Treatment of Fibromyalgia: A Controlled Nonrandomized Comparison of Conventional Medicine versus Integrative Medicine including Fasting Therapy

Fibromyalgia poses a challenge for therapy. Recent guidelines suggest that fibromyalgia should be treated within a multidisciplinary therapy approach. No data are available that evaluated multimodal treatment strategies of Integrative Medicine (IM). We conducted a controlled, nonrandomized pilot study that compared two inpatient treatment strategies, an IM approach that included fasting therapy and a conventional rheumatology (CM) approach. IM used fasting cure and Mind-Body-Medicine as specific methods. Of 48 included consecutive patients, 28 were treated with IM, 20 with CM. Primary outcome was change in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score after the 2-week hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included scores of pain, depression, anxiety, and well being. Assessments were repeated after 12 weeks. At 2 weeks, there were significant improvements in the FIQ (P < 0.014) and for most of secondary outcomes for the IM group compared to the CM group. The beneficial effects for the IM approach were reduced after 12 weeks and no longer statistically significant with the exception of anxiety. Findings indicate that a multimodal IM treatment with fasting therapy might be superior to CM in the short term and not inferior in the mid term. Longer-term studies are warranted to assess the clinical impact of integrative multimodal treatment in fibromyalgia.

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

BACKGROUND

The scheduled update to the German S3 guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies ("Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften", AWMF; registration number 041/004) was planned starting in March 2011.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The development of the guidelines was coordinated by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Pain Therapy ("Deutsche Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Schmerztherapie", DIVS), 9 scientific medical societies and 2 patient self-help organizations. Eight working groups with a total of 50 members were evenly balanced in terms of gender, medical field, potential conflicts of interest and hierarchical position in the medical and scientific fields. Literature searches were performed using the Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases (until December 2010). The grading of the strength of the evidence followed the scheme of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The formulation and grading of recommendations was accomplished using a multi-step, formal consensus process. The guidelines were reviewed by the boards of the participating scientific medical societies.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

A diagnosis of FMS should be explicitly communicated with the afflicted individual. A step-wise treatment, depending on the severity of FMS and the responses to therapeutic measures, is recommended. Therapy should only be continued if the positive effects outweigh the side effects. The English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").

[Restrictions in participation in women with fibromyalgia syndrome. An explorative pilot study]

BACKGROUND

Patients with fibromyalgia syndrome are often severely restricted in their ability to participate in everyday activities and in social interaction. The aim of this study was to document female patients' subjectively-perceived limitations in participation and to develop material to generate items for a specific participation questionnaire.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We collected data from 8 groups of women with fibromyalgia syndrome (n=38), and developed a hierarchical system of categories using the patients' statements (ATLAS.ti; Qualitative Data Analysis).

RESULTS

Our final group of categories contains 10 superordinate categories. Women with fibromyalgia syndrome often describe restrictions in their relationships with other people, and the impaired ability to engage in social and leisure activities. They speak of difficulties at the workplace, while doing housework, and complain about a lack of understanding and awareness on the part of the general public.

CONCLUSION

Fibromyalgia syndrome patients admit to be extremely impaired in a variety of social roles. Their statements have enabled us to develop a questionnaire that reflects the range of factors restricting participation from the patient's perspective.

[Effects of a cognitive-behavioral patient education on fibromyalgia: a controlled efficacy study]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral patient education program was compared with the efficacy of treatment based solely on patient education. Both forms of treatment were integrated into the inpatient rehabilitation program. For therapy of fibromyalgia a multimodal therapy has been shown to be effective. Stress management, pain management and relaxation techniques enhance the ability to cope with the disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Various questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D), the questionnaire for assessment of level of coping with pain (FESV) and the patient questionnaire IRES-24 were distributed to 3,541 fibromyalgia patients within the framework of a pre, post and 6-month follow-up study design. Multivariate variance models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Both interventions showed positive effects on psychological impairment, coping with pain and state of health. Only the paired comparison showed different results. However, cognitive-behavioral patient education showed better effects on independent coping with the disease. These patients showed an improved ability to cope with pain and a better state of health at the end of the rehabilitation program.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal inpatient rehabilitation programs can have a strong positive impact on the course of the disease for patients with fibromyalgia. A cognitive-behavioral treatment appears to strongly influence coping with the disease.