Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing vs. Treatment-as-Usual for Non-Specific Chronic Back Pain Patients with Psychological Trauma: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR)-an evidence-based approach to eliminate emotional distress from traumatic experiences-was recently suggested for the treatment of chronic pain. The aim of this study was to estimate preliminary efficacy of a pain-focused EMDR intervention for the treatment of non-specific chronic back pain (CBP). DESIGN: Randomized controlled pilot study. METHODS: 40 non-specific CBP (nsCBP) patients reporting previous experiences of psychological trauma were consecutively recruited from outpatient tertiary care pain centers. After baseline assessment, patients were randomized to intervention or control group (1:1). The intervention group received 10 sessions standardized pain-focused EMDR in addition to treatment-as-usual (TAU). The control group received TAU alone. The primary outcome was preliminary efficacy, measured by pain intensity, disability, and treatment satisfaction from the patients' perspective. Clinical relevance of changes was determined according to the established recommendations. Assessments were conducted at the baseline, posttreatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward method was used. Registered with http://ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01850875). RESULTS: Estimated effect sizes (between-group, pooled SD) for pain intensity and disability were d = 0.79 (CI95%: 0.13, 1.42) and d = 0.39 (CI95%: -0.24, 1.01) posttreatment, and d = 0.50 (CI95%: 0.14, 1.12) and d = 0.14 (CI95%: -0.48, 0.76) at 6-month follow-up. Evaluation on individual patient basis showed that about 50% of the patients in the intervention group improved clinically relevant and also rated their situation as clinically satisfactory improved, compared to 0 patients in the control group. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence that pain-focused EMDR might be useful for nsCBP patients with previous experiences of psychological trauma, with benefits for pain intensity maintained over 6 months.

Effects of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) treatment in chronic pain patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This study systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the effects of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy for treating chronic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We screened MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL Plus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, the Francine Shapiro Library, and citations of original studies and reviews. All studies using EMDR for treating chronic pain were eligible for inclusion in the present study. The main outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and negative mood (depression and anxiety). The effects were described as standardized mean differences. RESULTS: Two controlled trials with a total of 80 subjects and 10 observational studies with 116 subjects met the inclusion criteria. All of these studies assessed pain intensity. In addition, five studies measured disability, eight studies depression, and five studies anxiety. Controlled trials demonstrated significant improvements in pain intensity with high effect sizes (Hedges' g: -6.87 [95% confidence interval (CI95 ): -8.51, -5.23] and -1.12 [CI95 : -1.82, -0.42]). The pretreatment/posttreatment effect size calculations of the observational studies revealed that the effect sizes varied considerably, ranging from Hedges' g values of -0.24 (CI95 : -0.88, 0.40) to -5.86 (CI95 : -10.12, -1.60) for reductions in pain intensity, -0.34 (CI95 : -1.27, 0.59) to -3.69 (CI95 : -24.66, 17.28) for improvements in disability, -0.57 (CI95 : -1.47, 0.32) to -1.47 (CI95 : -3.18, 0.25) for improvements in depressive symptoms, and -0.59 (CI95 : -1.05, 0.13) to -1.10 (CI95 : -2.68, 0.48) for anxiety. Follow-up assessments showed maintained improvements. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results of our study suggest that EMDR may be a safe and promising treatment option in chronic pain conditions, the small number of high-quality studies leads to insufficient evidence for definite treatment recommendations.

Effects of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) on non-specific chronic back pain: a randomized controlled trial with additional exploration of the underlying mechanisms.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific chronic back pain (CBP) is often accompanied by psychological trauma, but treatment for this associated condition is often insufficient.Nevertheless, despite the common co-occurrence of pain and psychological trauma, a specific trauma-focused approach for treating CBP has been neglected to date. Accordingly, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), originally developed as a treatment approach for posttraumatic stress disorders, is a promising approach for treating CBP in patients who have experienced psychological trauma.Thus, the aim of this study is to determine whether a standardized, short-term EMDR intervention added to treatment as usual (TAU) reduces pain intensity in CBP patients with psychological trauma vs. TAU alone. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will recruit 40 non-specific CBP patients who have experienced psychological trauma. After a baseline assessment, the patients will be randomized to either an intervention group (n = 20) or a control group (n = 20). Individuals in the EMDR group will receive ten 90-minute sessions of EMDR fortnightly in addition to TAU. The control group will receive TAU alone. The post-treatment assessments will take place two weeks after the last EMDR session and six months later.The primary outcome will be the change in the intensity of CBP within the last four weeks (numeric rating scale 0-10) from the pre-treatment assessment to the post-treatment assessment two weeks after the completion of treatment.In addition, the patients will undergo a thorough assessment of the change in the experience of pain, disability, trauma-associated distress, mental co-morbidities, resilience, and quality of life to explore distinct treatment effects. To explore the mechanisms of action that are involved, changes in pain perception and pain processing (quantitative sensory testing, conditioned pain modulation) will also be assessed.The statistical analysis of the primary outcome will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The secondary outcomes will be analyzed in an explorative, descriptive manner. DISCUSSION: This study adapts the standard EMDR treatment for traumatized patients to patients with CBP who have experienced psychological trauma. This specific, mechanism-based approach might benefit patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01850875).

[Fibromyalgia syndrome as a psychosomatic disorder - diagnosis and therapy according to current evidence-based guidelines]. / Das Fibromyalgiesyndrom als psychosomatische Erkrankung - empfehlungen Aktueller Evidenzbasierter Leitlinien zu Diagnostik und Therapie.

OBJECTIVES: The classification and therapy of patients with chronic widespread pain without evidence of somatic factors as an explanation is currently a matter of debate. The diagnostic label "fibromyalgia syndrome"(FMS) has been rejected by some representatives of general and psychosomatic medicine. METHODS: A summary is given of the main recommendations from current evidence-based guidelines on FMS and nonspecific/functional/somatoform bodily complaints. RESULTS: The criteria of FMS and of persistent somatoform pain disorder or chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors partly overlap. They include differential clinical characteristics of persons with chronic widespread pain but without sufficiently explaining somatic factors. Not all patients diagnosed with FMS meet the criteria of a persistent somatoform pain disorder. FMS is a functional disorder, in which in most patients psychosocial factors play an important role in both the etiology and course of illness. FMS can be diagnosed by looking at the history of a typical symptom cluster and excluding somatic differential diagnoses (without a tender point examination) using the modified 2010 diagnostic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. Various levels of severity of FMS can be distinguished from a psychosomatic point of view, ranging from slight (single functional syndrome) to severe (meeting the criteria of multiple functional syndromes) forms of chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors, of persistent somatoform pain disorder or of a somatization disorder. The diagnosis of FMS as a functional syndrome/stress-associated disorder should be explicitly communicated to the patient. A therapy within collaborative care adapted to the severity should be provided. For long-term management, nonpharmacological therapies such as aerobic exercise are recommended. In more severe cases, psychotherapy of comorbid mental disorders should be conducted. CONCLUSIONS: The coordinated recommendations of both guidelines can synthesize general medical, somatic, and psychosocial perspectives, and can promote graduated care of patients diagnosed with FMS.

Management of fibromyalgia syndrome--an interdisciplinary evidence-based guideline.

The prevalence of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) of 1-2% in the general population associated with high disease-related costs and the conflicting data on treatment effectiveness had led to the development of evidence-based guidelines designed to provide patients and physicians guidance in selecting among the alternatives. Until now no evidence-based interdisciplinary (including patients) guideline for the management of FMS was available in Europe. Therefore a guideline for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) was developed by 13 German medical and psychological associations and two patient self-help organisations. The task was coordinated by two German scientific umbrella organisations, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany AWMF and the German Interdisciplinary Association of Pain Therapy DIVS. A systematic search of the literature including all controlled studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of FMS was performed in the Cochrane Library (1993-12/2006), Medline (1980-12/2006), PsychInfo (1966-12/2006) and Scopus (1980-12/ 2006). Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford-Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Grading of the strengths of recommendations was done according to the German program for disease management guidelines. Standardized procedures were used to reach a consensus on recommendations. The guideline was reviewed and finally approved by the boards of the societies involved and published online by the AWMF on april 25, 2008: http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/AWMF/ll/041-004.htm. A short version of the guideline for patients is available as well: http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/AWMF/ll/041-004p.htm. The following procedures in the management of fms were strongly recommended: information on diagnosis and therapeutic options and patient-centered communication, aerobic exercise, cognitive and operant behavioural therapy, multicomponent treatment and amitriptyline. Based on expert opinion, a stepwise FMS-management was proposed. Step 1 comprises confirming the diagnosis and patient education and treatment of physical or mental comorbidities or aerobic exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy or amitriptyline. Step 2 includes multicomponent treatment. Step 3 comprises no further treatment or self-management (aerobic exercise, stress management) and/or booster multicomponent therapy and/or pharmacological therapy (duloxetine or fluoxetine or paroxetine or pregabalin or tramadol/aminoacetophen) and/or psychotherapy (hypnotherapy or written emotional disclosure) and/or physical therapy (balneotherapy or whole body heat therapy) and/or complementary therapies (homeopathy or vegetarian diet). The choice of treatment options should be based on informed decision-making and respect of the patients' preferences.

[Psychosomatic care practice and cooperation needs as seen by physicians and psychologists providing outpatient care]. / Psychosomatische Versorgungspraxis und Kooperationsbedarf aus Sicht niedergelassener Arzte und Psychologen.

Cooperation in psychosocial care is gaining increasing importance due to newly established psychosomatic departments in the acute care setting and to structural changes following the Health Care Modernization Act. The presented study aims at describing the psychosomatic treatment and cooperation practice in the ambulatory sector and the cooperation possibilities with the inpatient psychosomatic care sector. Registered doctors in all specialties along with psychotherapists working in private practice in the southwestern region of the Association of Panel Doctors (Nordbaden) were surveyed about this in a written questionnaire in 2003. Respondents totaled 497 (33 %). General practitioners (GPs) and somatic specialists first estimated the psychosocial treatment necessities based on patients in their own practice. Half reported cooperation with a psychosomatic colleague, 10 % took part in a Balint-style group. GPs and somatic specialists unlicensed in psychosomatic basic care reported significantly lower numbers on the existing psychosocial care practice compared to those with the respective license. GPs and somatic specialists regard diagnostic procedures as central for improving their daily psychosomatic/psychosocial care. More than 50 % would request a brief diagnostic screening instrument. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists prefer the option of case conferences. The reported cooperation preferences of a psychosomatic department follow established setting structures with little mention of cooperation options falling outside established sectors. GPs and psychiatrists/psychotherapists share the same priority in designating a contact person in the department for crisis intervention. This expresses their feelings for greater need in direct and acute cooperation features. Somatic specialists prefer to request a second opinion from the department. The predominant diagnoses to admit patients for both psychiatrists and psychotherapists are eating disorders, pain syndromes, and personality disorders.

[Health service aspects of psychosomatic inpatient treatment in a general hospital]. / Versorgungsaspekte stationärer psychosomatischer Behandlung am Allgemeinkrankenhaus.

The study objective is to outline basic aspects of medical care service structure in the fields of psychosomatic medicine in a clinical acute-care setting. A total of 216 inpatients in a psychosomatic ward of a general hospital were investigated during a 32 months period using a retrospective study design. Referring physicians and clinics along with referral procedures, the waiting period, teamwork with other clinics, as well as patient and therapy characteristics are described. According to provisions of outpatient psychosocial care, general practitioners refer the majority of the inpatients (55 %), followed by other clinics (25 %) and psychosomatic and psychiatric outpatient specialists (20 %). An outpatient department along with a psychosomatic C-L service are key elements for a psychosomatic department to ensure coordination of the referral procedure. The average waiting period lasts 21 days, the average length of stay is 48 days. 60 % of the inpatients show somatic and psychiatric co morbidity. A psychopharmacological treatment has to be taken into consideration along with multi-modal psychotherapy in a third of all patients.

Communication between psychosomatic C-L consultants and general practitioners in a German health care system.

A randomized and prospective study examined the effects of intensive communication between treatment providers on physician behavior and patient care using a representative sample of patients referred to a German psychosomatic consultation-liaison (C-L) service (1998-1999). Sixty-seven patients were grouped (ICD-10) and randomized into intervention (n=33) and control groups (n=34). In the control group (CG), only the inpatient referring physicians were informed of consultation findings, as is standard practice in Germany. In the IG, the consultant directly reported the consultation findings to the general practitioner (GP). Patients were examined at 6-month (T2) and 3.5-year (T3) follow-up. Physician feedback and requests regarding the nature of communication were also assessed at T2. A significant reduction in symptoms was revealed at both follow-ups for the IG and CG. No significant group differences were found for acceptance of psychotherapy (59.1% IG and 42.3% CG at T3). The utilization of medical services remained stable across time. Patients who began psychotherapy were shown to have greater baseline symptom levels and "openness for new experiences" (NEO Five-Factor Inventory, NEO-FFi). Regular GP integration of psychosocial aspects into primary care differed between IG (44.0%) and CG (25.0%). Ninety-one percent of the GPs requested the option for a telephone conversation with the consultant or a case conference involving the patient at either their practice (37.7%) or the clinic (24.5%). We conclude that GPs are interested in a differentiated and more intensive cooperation concerning the integration of psychosocial aspects in their outpatient treatment. The patient's acceptance to follow a recommendation for psychotherapy, however, is related to the level of symptom severity and openness for new experiences.