Background: About 4 out of 10 fibromyalgia patients suffer from depression. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines recommend using antidepressants to treat fibromyalgia. Objective: To determine predictors of improved outcomes following a multicomponent treatment program. Design: We designed this longitudinal treatment outcome study to evaluate the prevalence of depression symptoms in patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia at a tertiary care facility, and the impact of depression on functional outcomes after completing a multicomponent fibromyalgia treatment program. Setting: Tertiary care center. Patients: This study included 411 adult patients with fibromyalgia who completed a multicomponent treatment program for fibromyalgia. Expert physicians performed comprehensive evaluations following American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria to confirm fibromyalgia before referral to the program. Intervention: An intensive outpatient multicomponent treatment program consisting of 16 hours of cognitive behavioral strategies served as the intervention. Measurements: Functional status was assessed using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised (FIQR). Depression was evaluated with the Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression (CES-D) measure. Measures were administered prior to participation in the program and approximately 5 months following completion of the program. Results: The cohort had a high prevalence of depressive symptoms (73.2% had depression at admission). Higher depression scores at baseline predicted poorer outcomes following multi-component treatment. Effectively treated depression resulted in improved functioning at follow-up. Limitations: Findings limited to tertiary care center cohort of fibromyalgia patients. Patients did not undergo a structured clinical diagnostic interview to diagnose depression. Conclusions: The current data links depression to poorer outcomes in patients with fibromyalgia. Depression is an important modifiable factor in the management of fibromyalgia. Guidelines should reflect the importance of assessing and effectively treating depression at the time of diagnosis of fibromyalgia, to improve functional outcomes. Registration: Specific registry and specific study registration number—Institutional Review Board—(IRB# 19-000495). Funding Source: No funding.
Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain sensitivity syndrome characterized by diffuse musculoskeletal pain and many other systemic manifestations. Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) has been increasingly used as an off-label treatment option in FM. However, current evidence on the safety and efficacy of LDN in patients with FM is not well known. To systematically assess the current evidence on the safety and efficacy of LDN use in the treatment of FM. A comprehensive bibliographic search was conducted on EBM Reviews – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBM Reviews – Cochrane Database of Systematic, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions and Scopus databases in September 2022. Inclusion criteria were articles that were published in English, focusing on clinical trials involving LDN for the treatment of FM. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted the data. A qualitative analysis was used due to the high methodological heterogeneity between studies. The electronic search produced 805 articles. After applying the inclusion criteria, 9 articles (one RCT, two case reports, two case series, and four pilot trials) were selected for evaluation. LDN intervention protocols, study designs, and follow-up periods were different among the included studies. Overall, LDN was found to be effective in the symptomatic management of FM, and of the 78% of included studies that evaluated for safety, no severe adverse events were reported. Proving the efficacy and safety of low-dose naltrexone is a future possibility based on current study data, but the level of scientific evidence is limited. Future well-designed trials with large sample sizes are required.
Introduction: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. Methods: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. Results: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. Conclusion: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.