{"title":"Fibromyalgia Syndrome Review","authors":"M. Spaeth","doi":"10.3109/10582452.2013.805178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ang DC, Jensen MP, Steiner JL, Hilligoss J, Gracely RH, Saha C: Combining cognitive-behavioral therapy and milnacipran for fibromyalgia: A feasibility randomized-controlled trial. Clin J Pain 2013; epub ahead of print. This study intended to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized-controlled trial and to obtain estimates of the effects of combined cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT] and milnacipran for the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome [FMS]. Fifty-eight patients with FMS were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (1) combination therapy [n1⁄4 20], (2) milnacipranþ education [n1⁄4 19] and (3) placeboþCBT [n1⁄4 19]. Patients received either milnacipran [100 mg/d] or placebo. Patients also received eight sessions of phonedelivered CBT or educational instructions, but only from baseline to week 9. Assessments were conducted at baseline, week 9 and week 21. The primary endpoints were baseline to week 21 changes in weekly average pain intensity and physical function [Short Form-36 physical function scale]. Compared with milnacipran, combination therapy demonstrated a moderate effect on improving SF-36 physical function [SE1⁄4 9.42 (5.48), p1⁄4 0.09, effect size1⁄4 0.60] and in reducing weekly average pain intensity [mean difference (SE)1⁄4 1.18 (0.62), p1⁄4 0.07, effect size1⁄4 0.67]. Compared with milnacipran, CBT had a moderate to large effect in improving Short Form-36 physical function [mean difference (SE)1⁄4 11.0 (5.66), p1⁄4 0.06, effect size 1⁄4 0.70]. Despite the presence of concomitant centrally acting therapies, dropout rate was lower than anticipated [15% at week 21]. Importantly, at least six of the eight phone-based therapy sessions were successfully completed by 89% of the patients and adherence to the treatment protocols was greater than 95%. From these results, the authors conclude that a therapeutic approach that combines phone-based CBT and milnacipran was feasible and acceptable. Moreover, the preliminary data supports conducting a fully powered randomized-controlled trial.","PeriodicalId":50121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain","volume":"21 1","pages":"178 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/10582452.2013.805178","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/10582452.2013.805178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Ang DC, Jensen MP, Steiner JL, Hilligoss J, Gracely RH, Saha C: Combining cognitive-behavioral therapy and milnacipran for fibromyalgia: A feasibility randomized-controlled trial. Clin J Pain 2013; epub ahead of print. This study intended to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized-controlled trial and to obtain estimates of the effects of combined cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT] and milnacipran for the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome [FMS]. Fifty-eight patients with FMS were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (1) combination therapy [n1⁄4 20], (2) milnacipranþ education [n1⁄4 19] and (3) placeboþCBT [n1⁄4 19]. Patients received either milnacipran [100 mg/d] or placebo. Patients also received eight sessions of phonedelivered CBT or educational instructions, but only from baseline to week 9. Assessments were conducted at baseline, week 9 and week 21. The primary endpoints were baseline to week 21 changes in weekly average pain intensity and physical function [Short Form-36 physical function scale]. Compared with milnacipran, combination therapy demonstrated a moderate effect on improving SF-36 physical function [SE1⁄4 9.42 (5.48), p1⁄4 0.09, effect size1⁄4 0.60] and in reducing weekly average pain intensity [mean difference (SE)1⁄4 1.18 (0.62), p1⁄4 0.07, effect size1⁄4 0.67]. Compared with milnacipran, CBT had a moderate to large effect in improving Short Form-36 physical function [mean difference (SE)1⁄4 11.0 (5.66), p1⁄4 0.06, effect size 1⁄4 0.70]. Despite the presence of concomitant centrally acting therapies, dropout rate was lower than anticipated [15% at week 21]. Importantly, at least six of the eight phone-based therapy sessions were successfully completed by 89% of the patients and adherence to the treatment protocols was greater than 95%. From these results, the authors conclude that a therapeutic approach that combines phone-based CBT and milnacipran was feasible and acceptable. Moreover, the preliminary data supports conducting a fully powered randomized-controlled trial.