Vincent, Ann

Abstract Background and aims Affect balance reflects relative levels of negative affect (NA) and positive affect (PA) and includes four styles: Healthy (low NA/high PA), Depressive (high NA/low PA), Reactive (high NA/high PA) and Low (low NA/low PA). These affect balance styles may have important associations with clinical outcomes in patients with fibromyalgia. Herein, we evaluated the severity of core fibromyalgia symptom domains as described by the Outcomes Research in Rheumatology-Fibromyalgia working group in the context of the four affect balance styles. Methods Data from 735 patients with fibromyalgia who completed the Brief Pain Inventory, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, Profile of Mood States, Medical Outcomes Sleep Scale, Multiple Ability Self-Report Questionnaire, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule were included in this analysis. Results The majority (51.8%) of patients in our sample had a Depressive affect balance style; compared to patients with a Healthy affect balance style, they scored significantly worse in all fibromyalgia symptom domains including pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, dyscognition, depression, anxiety, stiffness, and functional status ( P = <.001 to .004). Overall, patients with a Healthy affect balance style had the lowest level of symptoms, while symptom levels of those with Reactive and Low affect balance styles were distributed in between those of the Depressive and Healthy groups. Conclusions and implications The results of our cross-sectional study suggest that having a Healthy affect balance style is associated with better physical and psychological symptom profiles in fibromyalgia. Futures studies evaluating these associations longitudinally could provide rationale for evaluating the effect of psychological interventions on affect balance and clinical outcomes in fibromyalgia.

Objective To provide information about the clinical use of acupuncture at an academic medical centre in the USA. Methods A retrospective review of 904 patients (receiving 6070 treatments) who were referred for acupuncture treatment at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, USA) between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2008. Data gathered included age, sex, primary diagnosis, number of treatments per diagnosis and health insurance carrier. Results The mean (SD) age of the patients was 53.4 (16.2) years; 73.8% were female and 26.2% were male. The three most common diagnostic categories for which acupuncture was used were spinal pain (33.4%), pain (other) (25.1%) and joint pain (12.3%). About 42% of visits were not covered by health insurance carriers and hence patients had to pay themselves. For the remaining 58% of visits, health insurance carriers picked up all or part of the cost of the acupuncture treatments. Conclusion The results indicate that pain is the most common reason for use of acupuncture in an academic medical centre and that women use acupuncture more than men. This is one of the few reports of clinical use of acupuncture at academic medical centres in the USA.

External qigong as a pharmacotherapy adjunct was investigated in 50 subjects with chronic pain (pain lasting > 3 months with pain score of ≥ 3 on 0–10 numeric analog scale) who presented to a qigong healing center. Participants were randomized to receive either external qigong treatment (EQT) or equivalent attention time (EAT) in weekly 30-min sessions for four consecutive weeks. Outcomes were assessed before and after sessions. The primary outcome measure was intensity of pain by a 10-cm visual analog scale used to rate all pain severity measurements. At 8-week follow-up, participants were contacted by telephone and mailed a questionnaire. Most had experienced pain for > 5 years (66%); the rest, for > 3 to 5 years (8%), 1 to 3 years (10%), or < 1 year but > 3 months (10%). The most frequent concomitant diagnoses were multifactorial (26%), osteoarthritis (18%), and low back pain (12%). Most patients were also receiving other treatments (74%); none previously had EQT. Participants were randomly assigned to EQT ( n = 26) or EAT ( n = 24). These groups had no significant differences at baseline except for prior awareness of qigong (EQT 31% vs. EAT 63%; p = 0.025). Compared to the EAT group, EQT participants had a significant decrease in pain intensity in the 2nd ( p = 0.003), 3rd ( p < 0.001), and 4th weeks of treatment ( p = 0.003). At week 8, these differences in overall decreased pain intensity persisted but were not statistically significant.