Viewpoint

Fibromyalgia falls foul of a fallacy

Chronic pain has high comorbidity with psychiatric disorders, therefore, better understanding of the relationship between chronic pain and mental illness is needed. This study aimed to investigate the pathway relationships among parental attachment, personality characteristics, alexithymic trait and mental health in patients with chronic widespread pain, those with chronic regional pain, and controls. Two hundred and thirty participants were recruited. The parental Bonding Inventory, Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Chinese Health Questionnaire, and Short-Form 36 were filled out. The pathway relationships revealed that patients of mothers who were more protective were more neurotic, had more difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), worse mental health, and a higher association with chronic widespread pain. No differences were found between patients with chronic regional pain and the controls. The predisposing factors for chronic widespread pain, when compared with chronic regional pain, may be more closely related to psychiatric disorders. The pathways to chronic regional pain and chronic widespread pain differ, with neuroticism and the alexithymic DIF trait being the main factors defining chronic widespread pain. Therefore, besides therapies targeting pain symptoms, psychiatric consultation, medication and psychotherapy are also recommended for those with chronic widespread pain to alleviate their mental health conditions.

The provisional criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2010 and the 2011 self-report modification for survey and clinical research are widely used for fibromyalgia diagnosis. To determine the validity, usefulness, potential problems, and modifications required for the criteria, we assessed multiple research reports published in 2010–2016 in order to provide a 2016 update to the criteria.

We reviewed 14 validation studies that compared 2010/2011 criteria with ACR 1990 classification and clinical criteria, as well as epidemiology, clinical, and databank studies that addressed important criteria-level variables. Based on definitional differences between 1990 and 2010/2011 criteria, we interpreted 85% sensitivity and 90% specificity as excellent agreement.

Against 1990 and clinical criteria, the median sensitivity and specificity of the 2010/2011 criteria were 86% and 90%, respectively. The 2010/2011 criteria led to misclassification when applied to regional pain syndromes, but when a modified widespread pain criterion (the “generalized pain criterion”) was added misclassification was eliminated. Based on the above data and clinic usage data, we developed a (2016) revision to the 2010/2011 fibromyalgia criteria. Fibromyalgia may now be diagnosed in adults when all of the following criteria are met:

• (1)

  Generalized pain, defined as pain in at least 4 of 5 regions, is present.

• (2)

  Symptoms have been present at a similar level for at least 3 months.

• (3)

  Widespread pain index (WPI) ≥ 7 and symptom severity scale (SSS) score ≥ 5 OR WPI of 4–6 and SSS score ≥ 9.

• (4)

  A diagnosis of fibromyalgia is valid irrespective of other diagnoses. A diagnosis of fibromyalgia does not exclude the presence of other clinically important illnesses.

The fibromyalgia criteria have good sensitivity and specificity. This revision combines physician and questionnaire criteria, minimizes misclassification of regional pain disorders, and eliminates the previously confusing recommendation regarding diagnostic exclusions. The physician-based criteria are valid for individual patient diagnosis. The self-report version of the criteria is not valid for clinical diagnosis in individual patients but is valid for research studies. These changes allow the criteria to function as diagnostic criteria, while still being useful for classification.

Recopilar la información existente sobre la clasificación de la fibromialgia (FM), analizar los antecedentes relevantes en relación con una subdivisión nosológica y proponer una hipótesis clasificatoria fundamentada en la evidencia científica existente en la actualidad.

Revisión sistemática de la literatura mediante búsqueda en la página web PubMed. Los términos de búsqueda en MEDLINE fueron «fibromyalgia» y «classification». Se realizó una búsqueda manual adicional entre las referencias de los artículos seleccionados.

La revisión sistemática de la literatura ha permitido identificar, por una parte, la existencia de varias propuestas clasificatorias esencialmente basadas en criterios psicopatológicos y, por otra parte, la importancia de evaluar las enfermedades relacionadas con la FM. Según la evidencia analizada, se han identificado los siguientes subgrupos clasificatorios en el paciente que cumple los criterios vigentes de 1990: pacientes sin ninguna enfermedad concomitante (FM tipo I), pacientes con enfermedades crónicas reumáticas y autoinmunitarias (FM tipo II), pacientes con grave alteración en la esfera psicopatológica (FM tipo III) y pacientes simuladores (FM tipo IV).

Son pocos los estudios que analizan de forma específica cómo identificar subgrupos de pacientes con FM con una expresión clínica más homogénea. El análisis ha permitido identificar que los principales aspectos a evaluar en la clasificación del paciente con FM son el perfil psicopatológico y la coexistencia de otros procesos. Una adecuada clasificación del paciente con FM sólo puede realizarse mediante una evaluación diagnóstica individualizada por parte de un equipo mutidisciplinario.

To review the scientific literature concerning the classification of fibromyalgia (FM), including previous studies focusing on the gnosologic evaluation of FM, with the aim of proposing a classificatory hypothesis based on the current scientific evidence.

Systematic review using a baseline MEDLINE search. Search terms included «fibromyalgia» and «classification». Additional articles were identified through a comprehensive manual search of the references of retrieved articles.

This systematic review has identified, on the one hand, several classificatory proposals based on psychopathological aspects, and, on the other hand, the key role of associated diseases. Based on the scientific evidence currently available, the following FM subsets were defined: patients with no associated processes (type I FM), patients with associated rheumatic/autoimmune chronic diseases (type II FM), patients with severe psychiatric disorders (type III FM) and patients with simulated FM (type IV FM).

Few studies have specifically analysed the classification of FM into subgroups with a more homogeneous clinical expression. Correct classification of patients with FM requires the integration of two key concepts (psychopathological evaluation and coexistence of comorbid processes), with an individual diagnostic evaluation by a multidisciplinary team.