Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: To describe the diagnosis status and outcome of patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia (FM) by US rheumatologists.
METHODS: We assessed 1555 patients with FM with detailed outcome questionnaires during 11,006 semiannual observations for up to 11 years. At entry, all patients satisfied American College of Rheumatology preliminary 2010 FM criteria modified for survey research. We determined diagnosis status, rates of improvement, responder subgroups, and standardized mean differences (effect sizes) between start and study completion scores of global well-being, pain, sleep problems, and health related quality of life. (QOL) RESULTS: The 5-year improvement rates were pain 0.4 (95% CI 0.2, 0.5), fatigue 0.4 (95% CI 0.2, 0.05), and global 0.0 (95% CI -0.1, 0.1). The standardized mean differences were patient global 0.03 (95% CI -0.02, 0.08), pain 0.22 (95% CI 0.16, 0.28), sleep problems 0.20 (95% CI 0.14, 0.25), physical component summary of the Short-form 36 (SF-36) 0.11 (95% CI -0.14, -0.07), and SF-36 mental component summary 0.03 (95% CI -0.07, 0.02). Patients switched between criteria-positive and criteria-negative states, with 716 patients (44.0%) failing to meet criteria at least once during 4228.5 patient-years (7448 observations). About 10% of patients had substantial improvement and about 15% had moderate improvement of pain. Overall, FM severity worsened in 35.9% and pain in 38.6%.
CONCLUSION: Although we found no average clinically meaningful improvement in symptom severity overall, 25% had at least moderate improvement of pain over time. The result that emerged from this longitudinal study was one of generally continuing high levels of self-reported symptoms and distress for most patients, but a slight trend toward improvement.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVES: Meta-analysis of pregabalin trials in FM using company trial reports, which provide more detailed information about trials than published papers. FM is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life.
METHODS: Reports of five high-quality randomized trials (3808 patients) of pregabalin in FM were obtained from Pfizer. Four trials (2754 patients) were of classical trial design and one was an enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design. Outcomes for meta-analysis from the four trials with classical design were pooled in an intention-to-treat analysis.
RESULTS: Significant benefit of pregabalin over placebo was seen for a variety of outcomes including mean pain and sleep scores, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief and most of the individual domains of short-form 36. Only a minority of patients achieve moderate or substantial pain relief. The proportions of patients with any adverse event, somnolence or dizziness were also significantly greater with pregabalin than with placebo. There was no difference with regard to serious adverse events. A dose-response relationship was apparent for at least 50% pain relief and for adverse event outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin is effective in treating FM and is relatively safe. The size of therapeutic effect is similar to that with other recent interventions such as duloxetine and the combination of tramadol and paracetamol. Enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design gives similar results to classical trial designs in FM.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: The original European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for managing fibromyalgia assessed evidence up to 2005. The paucity of studies meant that most recommendations were 'expert opinion'.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary group from 12 countries assessed evidence with a focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerned with pharmacological/non-pharmacological management for fibromyalgia. A review, in May 2015, identified eligible publications and key outcomes assessed were pain, fatigue, sleep and daily functioning. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used for making recommendations.
RESULTS: 2979 titles were identified: from these 275 full papers were selected for review and 107 reviews (and/or meta-analyses) evaluated as eligible. Based on meta-analyses, the only 'strong for' therapy-based recommendation in the guidelines was exercise. Based on expert opinion, a graduated approach, the following four main stages are suggested underpinned by shared decision-making with patients. Initial management should involve patient education and focus on non-pharmacological therapies. In case of non-response, further therapies (all of which were evaluated as 'weak for' based on meta-analyses) should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual and may involve psychological therapies (for mood disorders and unhelpful coping strategies), pharmacotherapy (for severe pain or sleep disturbance) and/or a multimodal rehabilitation programme (for severe disability).
CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are underpinned by high-quality reviews and meta-analyses. The size of effect for most treatments is relatively modest. We propose research priorities clarifying who will benefit from specific interventions, their effect in combination and organisation of healthcare systems to optimise outcome.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.