Pathological baroreceptor sensitivity in patients suffering from somatization disorders: do they correlate with symptoms?

We conducted a study to investigate whether patients with somatization disorders (ICD-10, F45.0) show abnormal values in autonomic testing.

[Autonomic neuropathy in somatization disorders]

AIM: We conducted a study to investigate whether patients with somatization disorder show abnormal values in autonomic testing, especially in the central baroreceptor sensitivity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-one patients were included. All had a diagnosis of somatization disorder (ICD-10, F45.0). Psychometric testing was performed by means of validated questionnaires (STAI, STAXI, FPI, GBB, ADS, SOMS, SCL-90-R). Autonomic regulation was analyzed by international standards using frequency spectral calculation by fast Fourier transformation. Thereby 3 different groups were detected: 12 patients with a baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS) of less than 3.0 ms/mm Hg, 20 patients with normal BRS (> 9.0 ms/mm Hg), and an in-between group (n = 39) with intermediate BRS. Controlling for age, a covariance analysis was calculated. RESULTS: The two extreme groups showed no difference in psychometric testing. However, significant differences were discernible in spectral values of mid-frequency-band (p < 0.05) in a covariance analysis with age as covariate. Equally the 24 h blood pressure determination showed significantly higher values for the group with BRS < 3.0 ms/mm Hg (p < 0.05 to 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a high percentage (17 %) of patients diagnosed to have somatization disorder autonomic dysregulation becomes apparent and is accompanied by increased blood pressure. Therefore it doesn't seem accurate to overlook concomitant organic lesions in somatization disorders despite patients lacking overtly clinical signs but suffering from various unspecific symptoms.

Psychological distress in adult survivors of childhood cancer: the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor study

Purpose To evaluate the degree of psychological distress in adult childhood cancer survivors in Switzerland and to characterize survivors with significant distress. Methods Childhood cancer survivors who were age younger than 16 years when diagnosed between 1976 and 2003, had survived more than 5 years, and were currently age 20 years or older received a postal questionnaire. Psychological distress was assessed using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). Raw scores were transformed into T scores according to the German norm sample, and the proportion of participants being at increased risk for psychological distress was calculated (case rule: T ≥ 63). t tests and univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used for statistical analyses. Results One thousand seventy-six survivors (63.% of eligible survivors, 71.9% of contacted survivors) returned the questionnaire, 987 with complete data on BSI. Comparison with the norm populations showed lower T scores (T < 50) in the Global Severity Index (GSI; T = 46.2), somatization (T = 47.6), obsessive-compulsive tendencies (T = 46.9), and anxiety (T = 48.4). However, more childhood cancer survivors (especially women) had increased distress for GSI (14.4%), interpersonal sensitivity (16.5%), depression (13.4%), aggression (16.9%), and psychotic tendencies (15.6%) than the expected 10% from the norm population. Caseness was associated with female sex, being a single child, older age at study, and self-reported late effects, especially psychological problems. Conclusion Results show that childhood cancer survivors, on average, have less psychological distress than a norm population but that the proportion of survivors at risk for high psychological distress is disproportionally large. Monitoring psychological distress in childhood cancer survivors may be desirable during routine follow-up, and psychological support should be offered as needed.

Adolescent survivors of childhood cancer: are they vulnerable for psychological distress?

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to (i) evaluate psychological distress in adolescent survivors of childhood cancer and compare them to siblings and a norm population; (ii) compare the severity of distress of distressed survivors and siblings with that of psychotherapy patients; and (iii) determine risk factors for psychological distress in survivors. METHODS: We sent a questionnaire to all childhood cancer survivors aged <16 years when diagnosed, who had survived ≥5 years and were aged 16-19 years at the time of study. Our control groups were same-aged siblings, a norm population, and psychotherapy patients. Psychological distress was measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) assessing somatization, depression, anxiety, and a global severity index (GSI). Participants with a T-score ≥57 were defined as distressed. We used logistic regression to determine risk factors. RESULTS: We evaluated the BSI-18 in 407 survivors and 102 siblings. Fifty-two survivors (13%) and 11 siblings (11%) had scores above the distress threshold (T ≥ 57). Distressed survivors scored significantly higher in somatization (p = 0.027) and GSI (p = 0.016) than distressed siblings, and also scored higher in somatization (p ≤ 0.001) and anxiety (p = 0.002) than psychotherapy patients. In the multivariable regression, psychological distress was associated with female sex, self-reported late effects, and low perceived parental support. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of survivors did not report psychological distress. However, the severity of distress of distressed survivors exceeded that of distressed siblings and psychotherapy patients. Systematic psychological follow-up can help to identify survivors at risk and support them during the challenging period of adolescence. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hypersensitivity and hyperalgesia in somatoform pain disorders.

OBJECTIVE In psychiatry, pain disorders not explained by structural lesions have been classified for decades as somatoform pain disorders, the underlying concept being somatization. In a parallel move, somatic medicine has defined an expanding group of similar pain disorders, known as functional pain syndromes. Functional pain syndromes are characterized by enhanced pain sensitivity. The aim of our study was to investigate the proportion of patients with somatoform pain disorders who also meet the criteria of functional pain syndromes and the extent to which patients with somatoform pain disorders also show enhanced pain sensitivity. METHODS Data on pain sensitivity in 120 hospitalized patients were obtained by means of two algometric methods. The group of patients with somatoform pain disorders was further divided into two subsets: patients with and those without a co-diagnosis of a functional pain syndrome. Patients with nociceptive pain served as control group. RESULTS Of the 120 in-patients selected, 67 fulfilled the criteria of a somatoform pain disorder of which 41 (61%) also met the co-diagnosis of a functional pain syndrome. Patients with somatoform pain disorder differed from controls in that they showed enhanced pain sensitivity, irrespective of whether a functional pain syndrome was concomitantly present (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Somatoform pain disorders show considerable overlap with functional pain syndromes, including enhanced pain sensitivity. This suggests the relevance of integrating somatosensory aspects of pain into a modified understanding of somatoform pain disorders.

Who is likely to develop persistent low back pain? A longitudinal analysis of prognostic occupational factors

OBJECTIVE: Occupational low back pain (LBP) is considered to be the most expensive form of work disability, with the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP exceeding the costs of acute and subacute LBP by far. This makes the early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent LBP essential, especially in working populations. The aim of the study was to evaluate both risk factors (for the development of persistent LBP) and protective factors (preventing the development of persistent LBP) in the same cohort. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 315 patients with acute to subacute or with recurrent LBP was recruited from 14 health practitioners (twelve general practitioners and two physiotherapists) across New Zealand. METHODS: Patients with persistent LBP at six-month follow-up were compared to patients with non-persistent LBP looking at occupational, psychological, biomedical and demographic/lifestyle predictors at baseline using multiple logistic regression analyses. All significant variables from the different domains were combined into a one predictor model. RESULTS: A final two-predictor model with an overall predictive value of 78% included social support at work (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99) and somatization (OR 1.08; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Social support at work should be considered as a resource preventing the development of persistent LBP whereas somatization should be considered as a risk factor for the development of persistent LBP. Further studies are needed to determine if addressing these factors in workplace interventions for patients suffering from acute, subacute or recurrent LBP prevents subsequent development of persistent LBP.