Differentiation of somatizing patients in primary care: why the effects of treatment are always moderate

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes.

INTERVENTIONS

Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000.

LIMITATIONS

Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms: What They Are and Why Counseling Psychologists Should Care about Them

Medically unexplained symptoms and syndromes (MUS) affect the health of 20%-30% of patients seen in primary care. Optimally, treatment for these patients requires an interdisciplinary team consisting of both primary care and mental health providers. By developing an expertise in MUS, counseling psychologists can improve the care of patients with MUS who are already in their practice, expand the number of patients they help, and enhance the integration of counseling psychology into the broader medical community. Additionally, counseling psychologists' expertise in culture, attunement to therapeutic processes, and our focus on prioritizing patients' perspectives and quality of life can fill the gap in research on MUS and bringing increased attention to counseling psychologists' unique contributions to health service delivery.

Heart rate variability in adolescents with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea and anorexia nervosa

Aim of this study consisted in assessing the 24-h heart rate variability (HRV), a measure of autonomic nervous system (ANS) imbalance, in 21 adolescents with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA, 11 normogonadotropic, N-FHA, and 10 hypogonadotropic, Hy-FHA) compared to 21 patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) and 21 controls. As expected, subjects with AN showed a significant dysregulation in multiple HRV parameters, while Hy-FHA patients presented with a dysregulation in a few domains (SDNN, HFr), which was not present in girls with N-FHA, who showed values largely similar to controls. FHA might represent part of the AN biological spectrum, and a link between these two conditions might exist, possibly related to the degree of psychological and/or hormonal dysfunction.

Enhanced care by generalists for functional somatic symptoms and disorders in primary care

BACKGROUND

Patients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are common in primary care. Previous reviews have reported benefit from specialised interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy and consultation letters, but there is a need for treatment models which can be applied within the primary care setting. Primary care studies of enhanced care, which includes techniques of reattribution or cognitive behavioural therapy, or both, have shown changes in healthcare professionals' attitudes and behaviour. However, studies of patient outcome have shown variable results and the value of enhanced care on patient outcome remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of enhanced care interventions for adults with functional somatic symptoms in primary care. The intervention should be delivered by professionals providing first contact care and be compared to treatment as usual. The review focused on patient outcomes only.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) (all years to August 2012), together with Ovid searches (to September 2012) on MEDLINE (1950 - ), EMBASE (1980 - ) and PsycINFO (1806 - ). Earlier searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), CINAHL, PSYNDEX, SIGLE, and LILACS were conducted in April 2010, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2009. No language restrictions were applied. Electronic searches were supplemented by handsearches of relevant conference proceedings (2004 to 2012), reference lists (2011) and contact with authors of included studies and experts in the field (2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We limited our literature search to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), primary care, and adults with functional somatic symptoms. Subsequently we selected studies including all of the following: 1) a trial arm with treatment as usual; 2) an intervention using a structured treatment model which draws on explanations for symptoms in broad bio-psycho-social terms or encourages patients to develop additional strategies for dealing with their physical symptoms, or both; 3) delivery of the intervention by primary care professionals providing first contact care; and 4) assessment of patient outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened identified study abstracts. Disagreements about trial selections were resolved by a third review author. Data from selected publications were independently extracted and risk of bias assessed by two of three authors, avoiding investigators reviewing their own studies. We contacted authors from included studies to obtain missing information. We used continuous outcomes converted to standardised mean differences (SMDs) and based analyses on changes from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for clustering.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies from the literature search, but only six provided sufficient data for analyses. Included studies were European, cluster RCTs with adult participants seeing their usual doctor (in total 233 general practitioners and 1787 participants). Methodological quality was only moderate as studies had no blinding of healthcare professionals and several studies had a risk of recruitment and attrition bias. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to selection of patient populations and intensity of interventions. Outcomes relating to physical or general health (physical symptoms, quality of life) showed substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) > 70%) and post hoc analysis suggested that benefit was confined to more intensive interventions; thus we did not calculate a pooled effect. Outcomes relating to mental health showed less heterogeneity and we conducted meta-analyses, which found non-significant overall effect sizes with SMDs for changes at 6 to 24 months follow-up: mental health (3 studies) SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10), illness worry (3 studies) SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22), depression (4 studies) SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20) and anxiety (2 studies) SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.25). Effects on sick leave could not be estimated. Three studies of patient satisfaction with care all showed positive but non-significant effects, and measures were too heterogeneous to allow meta-analysis. Results on healthcare utilisation were inconclusive. We analysed study discontinuation and found that both short term and long term discontinuation occurred more often in patients allocated to the intervention group, RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.46) at 12 to 24 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not answer the question whether enhanced care delivered by front line primary care professionals has an effect or not on the outcome of patients with functional somatic symptoms. Enhanced care may have an effect when delivered per protocol to well-defined groups of patients with functional disorders, but this needs further investigation. Attention should be paid to difficulties including limited consultation time, lack of skills, the need for a degree of diagnostic openness, and patient resistance towards psychosomatic attributions. There is some indication from this and other reviews that more intensive interventions are more successful in changing patient outcomes.

An exploratory study of response shift in health-related quality of life and utility assessment among patients with osteoarthritis undergoing total knee replacement surgery in a tertiary hospital in Singapore

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of response shift (RS) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and utility assessment among patients undergoing total knee replacement.

METHODS

Consenting patients undergoing total knee replacement were interviewed to determine their HRQOL by using the six-dimensional health state short form, derived from SF-36, and the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire at baseline (pretest 1) and the six-dimensional health state short form, derived from SF-36, at 6 (pretest 2) and 18 months after surgery (post-test). RS was studied by using a "then-test" approach by contacting participants 18 months after surgery and asking them to evaluate their HRQOL at baseline (then-test 1) and at 6 (then-test 2) and 18 months after surgery. RS was calculated as the score difference between pretest and then-test scores for a given time point. Relationships between RS and external variables were explored by using univariate and multiple liner regression analyses.

RESULTS

In 74 subjects (63% response rate, median age 68 years), median (interquantile range) six-dimensional health state short form, derived from SF-36, scores for then-tests at baseline (0.48 [0.42-0.49]) and at 6 months (0.72 [0.66-0.79]) after surgery were significantly different from respective pretest scores (0.61 [0.58-0.68] at baseline, P = 0.000; 0.69 [0.63-0.72] at 6 months, P = 0.000), showing RS at both time points. RS at baseline (0.14 [0.08-0.20]) was significantly larger than that at 6 months (-0.05 [0.14 to 0.00], P = 0.000). EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire pretest and then-test scores at baseline also differed significantly (0.69 [0.17-0.73] vs. -0.18 [-0.23 to 0.00], P = 0.000). RS at baseline was not affected by assessed demographic or medical variables. RS at 6 months was greater in subjects with more years of education (16% of variance in multiple liner regression, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

RS was present and impacted HRQOL and utility assessment among patients undergoing total knee replacement before and 6 months after surgery.

Health care utilization and poor reassurance: potential predictors of somatoform disorders

OBJECTIVE

Somatoform disorders are common conditions, but the current diagnostic criteria are considered to be unreliable, based largely on medically unexplained symptoms. DSM-5 is considering other possible characteristics of somatizers including high utilization, dissatisfaction with care, and poor response to reassurance. This paper reviews the available literature for evidence to support these criteria, and evaluates if distinctive aspects of these characteristics exist in somatizers.

METHODS

The Pubmed database was searched combining terms such as “somatoform disorder” with “reassurance,” “satisfaction,” and “utilization.” Articles were individually inspected.

RESULTS

Many studies report a deficit in long-term response to reassurance in somatizers; there was some evidence that patients respond initially to reassurance, followed by return of anxiety, leading to further reassurance seeking. There was insufficient evidence to support poor satisfaction with care as a characteristic of somatizers. While there is no standard criterion for high utilization, regardless of definition, evidence was found to support over-utilization, particularly in outpatient visits. However, no unique pattern of utilization was found that could identify somatizers within a broader group of high utilizers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed evidence of over-utilization in many areas of healthcare, as well as poor long term response to reassurance in somatizers. Dissatisfaction with care, though, was not a consistent finding. It is difficult to study alternative diagnostic criteria for somatoform patients when the current criteria rest on so many problematic assumptions. Future research should attempt to validate criteria empirically in patient groups, with selection not based on medically unexplained symptoms.

Tailoring a cognitive behavioural model for unexplained physical symptoms to patient's perspective: a bottom-up approach

The prevalence of unexplained physical symptoms (UPS) in primary care is at least 33%. Cognitive behavioural therapy has shown to be effective. Within cognitive behavioural therapy, three models can be distinguished: reattribution model, coping model and consequences model. The consequences model, labelling psychosocial stress in terms of consequences rather than as causes of UPS, has high acceptance among patients and is effective in academic medical care. This acceptance is lost when applied in primary care. To increase acceptance of the consequences model among patients in primary care, we tailor this model to patient's perspective by approaching the model from bottom-up instead of top-down. Subsequently, we use this tailored model in an easily accessible group training. We illustrate our approach using two illustrative cases.

Explanatory and pragmatic perspectives regarding idiopathic physical symptoms and related syndromes

In recent years, research-methods literature mainly addressing controlled clinical trials has arisen regarding explanatory and pragmatic treatment trials. Explanatory trials tend to examine causal mechanisms and questions of efficacy and value internal validity (creating optimal study conditions) over generalizability (using study results to understand treatment effects in real-life patient populations). In contrast, pragmatic trials value "external relevance" (generalizability) of study results over "internal elegance" so that clinicians and health policymakers can better understand how treatments might impact their patients and policies. This review draws inspiration from these contrasting explanatory and pragmatic perspectives and develops them for clinical and research pertaining to idiopathic physical symptoms and related syndromes (eg, somatization disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivities, irritable bowel syndrome). Explanatory and pragmatic perspectives are used to examine these idiopathies with regard to causation, case definition, labels, and treatment. It is concluded that idiopathic symptom syndromes are fundamentally pragmatic clinical and research challenges. For epidemiologic and methodologic reasons, the complex explanations for these syndromes remain largely elusive. Even so, scientific and clinical pragmatism offers the opportunity to reduce disagreement between competing medical disciplines and between clinicians and affected patients with regard to irreconcilable etiologic questions and to remain evidence-based in the care of patients.