Presentation Transcript

1. 2012 Canadian Fibromyalgia Guidelines

   Executive committee: Dr. Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, Peter A. Ste-Marie, Dr. Don L. Goldenberg, Dr. John X. Pereira, Dr. Susan Abbey, Dr. ManonChoinière, Dr. Gordon Ko, Dr. Dwight Moulin, Dr. PantelisPanopalis, Johanne Proulx, Dr. YoramShir
2. Why develop Guidelines? Recent guidelines ±10 years old Advances in understanding FM Neurophysiologic Treatments New diagnostic criteria (ACR 2010) Call for guidance & direction Requested by Canadian Pain Society
3. Objectives To provide Canadian healthcare professionals clinically applicable guidelines for use in daily practice Diagnosis Management Patient trajectory
4. Makeup of guideline group Executive committee: 11 persons Health care professionals, international expert, project coordinator, patient representative National Fibromyalgia Guideline Advisory Panel (NFGAP) 139 healthcare professionals invited 35 agreed to participate and completed voting process All healthcare professionals active in the care of FM and chronic pain patients.
5. Methods Step 1: Needs assessment Step 2: Literature search Step 3: Grading of evidence Step 4: Writing Step 5: Advisory Panel votes on recommendations Step 6: External Revision Step 7: Publication & Dissemination
6. Financial support &conflicts of interest Guideline development requested by CPS Louise and Alan Edwards Foundation Research assistant: salary support All participants stated conflicts of interest Needs assessment Unrestricted educational grant by Valeant without any input to content No additional industry support
7. The literature search 18 key questions McGill Librarians did formal lit search Embase, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Pubmed, Cochrane, grey literature, hand search >5000 articles Titles, abstracts reviewed, duplicates removed 360 retained
8. How we did the job 18 questions & 360 articles Each article read graded (JADAD) level of evidence (Oxford) Literature is summarized in three sections Recommendations are formulated by the Executive committee, assigned a level of evidence and a grade.
9. Methods: Assessing individual studies Grading of individual articles was by JADAD method (out of 5): Was the study described as randomized? Was the study described as double blind? Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? The method of randomization was described in the paper, and that method was appropriate. The method of blinding was described, and it was appropriate. Points deductedif: The method of randomization was described, but was inappropriate. The method of blinding was described, but was inappropriate.

10. Assigning a level of evidence for each recommendation

    Overview of the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (level of evidence table)
11. Grading of recommendations * Level may be graded down or up by experts
12. 46 recommendations formulated NFGAP voting process: SurveyMonkey used Advisors had access to full document Voted in three sections: Recommendation Grading of recommendation 80% required for acceptance
13. Guidelines address three broad concepts Diagnosis and evaluation 12 Management 23 Patient trajectory and follow-up 11 new clinical concepts regarding FM have been incorporated into these guidelines.
14. Where we currently stand 44 page document (12 000 words) 336 references Endorsed by Canadian Pain Society and Canadian Rheumatology Association. Publication & dissemination in progress
15. The diagnosis Composite of symptoms (level 5) 2/3 pain 1/3 other (Sleep disturbance, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction..) Diagnosis (level 5) Clinical construct Simple blood tests only Physical exam must be done (level 5) Exclude other conditions Tender points not required
16. Diagnosis (cont.) As early as possible (level 5) Primary care is ideal setting (level 1) Access to team member for support (level 3) Specialist referral only if (level 5) Atypical symptoms Difficulties in management eg. sleep specialist, psychologist
17. Diagnosis (cont.) Healthcare professionals need education (level 5) Empathetic, shared decision-making (level 3) Contributing factors such as genetics or triggering events must not hinder care(level 5) ACR 2010 criteria (level 3) May validate clinical diagnosis
18. Management (overview) No ideal treatment Patient tailored approach (level 5) Symptom-based management Non-pharmacologic & pharmacologic strategies Aim to  symptoms Maintain / improve function
19. Management(overview cont.) Self-management strategies are imperative (level 1) Patient active participant!! (level 1) Multimodal approach (level 1) Realistic goals (level 5) Pacing, but continue normal life (level 4)
20. Management(psychological interventions) Internal locus of control Recognize psychological distress (level 3) Patient education – better coping skills (level 5) Improve self-efficacy (level 1) Psych counselling helpful for some (level 5) CBT (level 1)
21. Management (non-pharmacologic) Exercise (level 1) Best available evidence Any type aerobics, water based, stretching, etc. CAM Insufficient evidence (level 1) Encourage disclosure of use (level 5)
22. Management (pharmacologic) No perfect drug Lowest dose, gradual increase (level 5) Expect only a modest response Consider combination drugs (level 5) Be knowledgeable regarding drug mechanisms (level 5) Constant evaluation re risk vs. benefit (level 5)
23. Management(pharmacologic cont.) WHO step-up analgesic ladder (level 5) NSAIDS – low dose, short use (level 5) Tramadol – moderate/severe pain (level 2) Strong opioids – discouraged (level 5) Cannabinoid (pharma) – sleep (level 3)
24. Management(pharmacologic cont.) Antidepressants Explain mechanism to patient (level 5) TCAs, SSRIs & SNRIs can be used (level 1) Choice – MD knowledge, Pt characteristics (level 5) Anticonvulsants Explain mechanism to patient (level 5) Low dose (level 1)
25. Patient trajectory Follow-up time interval depends on MD judgment (level 5) New symptoms Evaluate using clinical judgment(level 5) FM symptoms persist, wax and wane (level 3) No value to dwell on past lifetime events, move forward (level 5)
26. Patient trajectory (continued) Poor outcome when (level 5) Passive patient External locus of control Untreated prominent mood disorder Outcome tools Patient Global Impression of Change (level 3) Goal attainment (level 5) Do not use tender points for outcome (level 3)
27. Patient trajectory (work & costs) Retention in workforce encouraged (level 3) Rehab program if necessary (level 5) Reduce costs by treating depression (level 3)
28. Key points… Clinical construct Primary setting is recommended Do not over medicalize patient Non-pharma strategies VIP Patient ownership Symptom-based management No ideal drug Drugs show modest effects only Encourage retention in workforce
29. Thank you!! Any questions?