BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation {\&} Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2{\%}; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95{\%} CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63{\%}). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95{\%} CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42{\%}; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23{\%}).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95{\%} CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95{\%} CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95{\%} CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0{\%} to 32{\%}), but low for NPs (0{\%} to 1.7{\%}).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4{\%}) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7{\%}) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2{\%}) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.

Importance Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Objective To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Process The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. Evidence Synthesis Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. Recommendations There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Conclusions and Relevance The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-j4r6nt5nmj.pdf

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-48d7kdjqlr.pdf

CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain

Summary estimates of treatment effect from random effects meta-analysis give only the average effect across all studies. Inclusion of prediction intervals, which estimate the likely effect in an individual setting, could make it easier to apply the results to clinical practice

/pdf/interpretation-of-random-effects-meta-analyses-3wqyseoko4.pdf

Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses.

Importance Many people meditate to reduce psychological stress and stress-related health problems. To counsel people appropriately, clinicians need to know what the evidence says about the health benefits of meditation. Objective To determine the efficacy of meditation programs in improving stress-related outcomes (anxiety, depression, stress/distress, positive mood, mental health–related quality of life, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, pain, and weight) in diverse adult clinical populations. Evidence Review We identified randomized clinical trials with active controls for placebo effects through November 2012 from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, PsycArticles, Scopus, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and hand searches. Two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data. We graded the strength of evidence using 4 domains (risk of bias, precision, directness, and consistency) and determined the magnitude and direction of effect by calculating the relative difference between groups in change from baseline. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using standardized mean differences to obtain aggregate estimates of effect size with 95% confidence intervals. Findings After reviewing 18 753 citations, we included 47 trials with 3515 participants. Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety (effect size, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.12-0.64] at 8 weeks and 0.22 [0.02-0.43] at 3-6 months), depression (0.30 [0.00-0.59] at 8 weeks and 0.23 [0.05-0.42] at 3-6 months), and pain (0.33 [0.03- 0.62]) and low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health–related quality of life. We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight. We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies). Conclusions and Relevance Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress. Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/1809754/ioi130131.pdf

Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sagen Sie nie: „Sie haben nichts“!: Nicht spezifische, funktionelle und somatoforme Körperbeschwerden

Die Aktualisierung der S1-Leitlinie „Long/Post-COVID“ der AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften), Registernummer 020–027 wurde im August 2022 vorgenommen. Die Leitlinie wurde unter Koordination der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie von 21 wissenschaftlichen Fachgesellschaften, je zwei Berufsverbänden und klinischen Zentren, einem Institut und einer gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung entwickelt. Die Fachgesellschaften waren für ihre jeweiligen Kapitel verantwortlich. Die Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft bearbeitete daher das Kapitel „Schmerzen“. Die Kapitelverantwortlichen führten eine selektive Literatursuche durch und konsentierten das Kapitel in ihren Fachgesellschaften. Während einer internen Kommentierungsphase konnten alle Fachgesellschaftsvertreter Kommentare zu allen Kapiteln abgeben. Der fertiggestellte Leitlinienentwurf wurde von der AWMF Task Force kommentiert und danach von allen beteiligten Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen verabschiedet. COVID erhöht das Risiko, anhaltende Kopf- und muskuloskeletale Schmerzen zu entwickeln. Long/Post-COVID-Schmerzen sind häufig mit Fatigue und kognitiven Störungen assoziiert. Eine weiterführende spezialärztliche Abklärung kann angezeigt sein, wenn nach durchgemachter SARS-CoV-2-Infektion einschränkende Symptome länger als drei Monate persistieren. Die Diagnostik von Long/Post-COVID-assoziierten Schmerzen sollte gemäß schmerzmedizinischen Standards durchgeführt und entsprechend den Schmerzleitlinien der AWMF behandelt werden. Die aktualisierte S1-Leitlinie „Long/Post-COVID“ ist ein klinischer Leitfaden, der trotz einer noch begrenzten Datenlage eine diagnostische und therapeutische Orientierung liefert. 

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00482-023-00704-x.pdf

Aktualisierte S1-Leitlinie Long/Post-COVID: Relevante Aspekte für die Schmerzmedizin

W. Hauser Funktionelle somatische Syndrome sind in der Hausarztpraxis haufig. Zu ihnen zahlt neben dem Reizdarmsyndrom, der funktionellen Dyspepsie oder der Reizblase auch die Fibromyalgie. Lesen Sie im folgenden Beitrag, wie die Diagnose gesichert wird und wie Sie Patienten helfen konnen, die uber die typischen fibromyalgieformen Beschwerden klagen.

[Diagnosis fibromyalgia: How to diagnose and treat].

Approximately 50 % of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care can be attributed to functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID). The most frequent gastrointestinal disorders are functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. FGID are heterogenous with regards to the amount of symptoms and associated patient's impairment as well as to the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The biopsychosocial model of FGID assumes that biological, psychological and social factors interact in the predisposition to and in the initiation and course of FGID. The Rome Foundation defines FGID as disorders of the brain-gut interaction.Some physicians are hesitant to diagnose FGID due to the lack of specific biomarkers and/or structural changes in the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, some FGID to not respond well to conventional medications. Some patients are reluctant to accept the diagnosis of a FGID because they are afraid that a serious somatic disease has been missed and/or to be diagnosed as mentally ill.The use of interdisciplinary evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management of FGID can increase the certainty of diagnosis and the therapeutic options for physicians. In addition, these guidelines include recommendations how to explain the disorder and the management to the patient to establish a trustful doctor-patient relationship.FGID are diagnosed by the history of a typical cluster of symptoms and by guideline - recommended exclusion of somatic gastrointestinal disorders. FGID should be managed according to the main symptoms, the associated impairment and patients' preferences in a graduated approach by education and by dietary, pharmacological and psychological treatments.

[Functional gastrointestinal disorders].

[Benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines from the viewpoint of patients with chronic pain and their physicians : A cohort study in three pain centers of the German federal state Saarland].

Winfried Häuser

Papers

Sagen Sie nie: „Sie haben nichts“!: Nicht spezifische, funktionelle und somatoforme Körperbeschwerden

Aktualisierte S1-Leitlinie Long/Post-COVID: Relevante Aspekte für die Schmerzmedizin

[Diagnosis fibromyalgia: How to diagnose and treat].

[Functional gastrointestinal disorders].

[Benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines from the viewpoint of patients with chronic pain and their physicians : A cohort study in three pain centers of the German federal state Saarland].