Functional DisorderPhase 4EDULOXNCT06232473
Patient Education and Duloxetine, Alone and in Combination, for Patients With Multisystem Functional Somatic Disorder
A Phase 4 study testing Patient Education and Duloxetine in people with Functional Disorder, run by Aarhus University Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to test if patient education or duloxetine can be used to treat multisystem functional somatic disorder (FSD). The main questions it aims to answer are: Does duloxetine work better than placebo in the treatment of FSD? Does patient education work better than usual treatment for FSD?… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Functional Disorder
- What is being tested?
- Patient Education and Duloxetine
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 424 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2024to 1 Nov 2029
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- A diagnosis of multisystem functional somatic disorder (operationalized as fulfilling the criteria for the research diagnosis multiorgan bodily distress syndrome)
- Symptoms present for at least six months at the time of inclusion
- Multisystem functional somatic disorder is the predominant health complaint, i.e. concurrent physical or psychiatric illness is stable and well controlled and symptoms can be separated from BDS symptoms
- Understands and speaks Danish fluently and is able to follow and benefit from an educational program
- First-time referral to specialized treatment for functional somatic disorder
- Additional inclusion criteria for the nested study drug trial:
- Use of efficient contraception for women in the fertile age (contractive pills, intrauterine device, deposit injections of gestagen, subdermal implant, hormone vaginal ring, or transdermal deposit plaster)
- Men with a pregnant or non-pregnant female partner in the fertile age must use a condom in the full length of the trial plus a minimum of one week after end of study drug treatment
Who cannot join
- Participation in psychotherapy or educational programs specifically for FSD within the past 12 months
- Current or previous diagnosis of mania, bipolar disorder, psychosis, severe agitation, imminent deliria or psychotic symptoms
- SCAN or clinical diagnosis of moderate to severe depression, anxiety or other psychiatric disorders
- Current affective disorder requiring fast initiation or continuation of psychiatric pharmacological treatment or psychiatric monitoring
- Alcohol, substance or medicine abuse or addiction
- Additional exclusion criteria for the nested trial
Show all 17Show fewer
- Treatment with duloxetine for a period of at least 8 successive weeks within the past 6 months
- Allergy to study medication or excipients in study medication
- Serious or unstabile somatic illness, e.g. stroke, Alzheimers disease, ischemic heart disease, epilepsy, fructose intolerance, glucosegalactose malabsorption, invertase-isomaltase insufficiency, increased intraocular pressure, uncontrolled narrow-angle glaucoma, hemodialysis, hemophilia, reduced platelet function, increased bleeding tendency, Raynaud's phenomenon, uncontrolled hypertension, prostate hypertrophy, urin retension or previous anaphylactic shock
- Severe renal impairment with creatinine clearance <30 ml / min. (risk of increased plasma concentration of duloxetine)
- Liver disease with reduced function with affected blood tests (risk of increased plasma concentration of duloxetine)
- Sweat gland disorder (risk of hyperthermia in high temperatures related to use of benztropine)
- Current pregnancy or lactation
- Concomitant use of CNS-acting drugs (drugs with pain-modulating or antidepressant properties and others) besides paracetamol and ibuprofen (escape medication in restricted doses). When clinically relevant and safe, the prohibited medication is gradually titrated down at the time of study inclusion, and treatments are discontinued at least 2 weeks before the study drug treatment begins)
- Concomitant use of drugs interacting with or contraindicating duloxetine treatment, e.g. serotonergic antidepressants (SSRI og TCA præparater, e.g. clomipramine or amitriptyline), dietary supplement St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum), venlafaxine, MAO inhibitants or triptanes, tramadol, pethidin and tryptophan (risik of serotonin syndrome)
- Concomitant use of potent CYP1A2-inhibitants, e.g. fluvoxamine, ciprofloxacine og enoxacine (risk of increased plasma concentration of duloxetine)
- Concomitant use of non-selective, irreversible or selective, reversible monoaminoxidase (MAO) inhibitants; at least 14 days between termination of treatment with MAO-inhibitants and beginning of treatment with duloxetine. Additionally, treatment with MAO-inhibitants are not allowed before duloxetine treatment has been terminated for 5 days (risk of serotonin syndrome)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Denmark1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Research Cinic for Functional Disorders
Aarhus, 8200
Lise Gormsen, 78464310, lisgorm@rm.dk
Cecilia Pihl, 78464310, cecijesp@rm.dk
About this study
Official title: Efficacy of Patient Education and Duloxetine, Alone or in Combination, for Patients With Multisystem Functional Somatic Disorder
The goal of this clinical trial is to test if patient education or duloxetine can be used to treat multisystem functional somatic disorder (FSD). The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Does duloxetine work better than placebo in the treatment of FSD?
- Does patient education work better than usual treatment for FSD?
- Does the combination of patient education and duloxetine work better than using only one of these treatments?
Read more
Participants are patients with FSD. They will receive one of six different treatment combinations:
- Patient education alone (three individual consultations with a doctor and one group session)
- Treatment as usual (receiving the diagnosis and a short presentation of what FSD is)
- Duloxetine
- Active placebo (a treatment that looks like duloxetine and has similar side effects, but no known effect on FSD)
- Patient education and duloxetine
- Patient education and active placebo
Researchers will compare the groups receiving patient education with those receiving only treatment as usual to see if patient education is a better treatment than just receiving a diagnosis and short explanation. Furthermore, researchers will compare the groups receiving duloxetine to those receiving placebo to see if duloxetine works better than placebo. Finally, researchers will compare the groups receiving both patient education and duloxetine to those receiving only one of these treatments to see if the combination works better than the treatments given alone.
The researchers will also collect samples of blood and stool in a biobank to be used in future research.
Read the detailed description
Background Functional somatic disorders (FSD) are characterized by specific patterns of persistent physical symptoms with a complex etiology involving a multiform interplay between physiological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. Patients with FSD are prevalent in all medical settings and receive diagnoses such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and other functional somatic syndromes (FSS) depending on which medical specialty they consult. Multisystem FSD describes a severely affected subgroup of patients who suffer from symptoms from multiple organ systems. The diagnosis can be operationalized by the criteria for the unifying research diagnosis bodily distress syndrome (BDS).
Multisystem FSD affects 1.3-2.2% of the general population. The condition inflicts suffering and is associated with a substantial socioeconomic impact, involving costly diagnostic examinations and procedures, sick leaves, and long-term disability.
Evidence on treatment options for multisystem FSD is emerging but not yet sufficient. A number of clinical trials investigating non-pharmacological interventions are available and clinical guidelines in some FSS, e.g. fibromyalgia and chronic primary pain, highlight the importance of patient education (PE). PE may support the effect of other treatments by empowering and engaging patients in managing their condition. As a stand-alone treatment, the effect of PE has only sparsely been investigated, yet a PE program targeting multisystem FSD has been tested in an uncontrolled pilot study with promising results.
Pharmacotherapy in FSS includes centrally acting drugs, especially antidepressants. In multisystem FSD, evidence exists for treatment with low-dose tricyclic antidepressants (TCA). Unfortunately, TCAs given in higher, antidepressive doses significantly reduces tolerability and thereby treatment potential for comorbid depression or anxiety which are common in multisystem FSD. Duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), offers effect sizes similar to low-dose TCA in FSS with a more favorable adverse event profile. Evidence furthermore suggests an effect on cognitive functioning. In addition to reducing symptoms in multisystem FSD, duloxetine could improve cognitive functioning and, if relevant, treat comorbid anxiety and depression.
From a clinical perspective, a synergic effect between a PE program and pharmacological treatment could be hypothesized. On one hand, PE may improve the effect of pharmacological treatment by balancing treatment expectations and enhancing treatment adherence. Conversely, pharmacological treatment may indirectly enhance the effect of PE by improving cognitive functioning and thereby improving the patients' ability to receive and implement relevant educational elements.
As mentioned above, the etiology of FSD is complex and especially the role of biological factors remains largely undiscovered. Research findings support involvement of the immune system, neuroendocrine and neurotransmitter systems, pain processing and gut microbiota. In order to investigate the relevance of such components in multisystem FSD, this study will collect blood, plasma and feces from participants and healthy controls in order to establish a biobank enabling future research in these relevant factors.
Purpose and aim The EDULOX trial aims to investigate the effect of a PE program compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) for patients with multisystem FSD in EDULOX1. Additionally, the study investigates the effect of treatment with duloxetine 60 mg daily against active placebo and explores the effect of combinations of the two interventions in EDULOX2. This is to our knowledge the first study to investigate the combination of medical treatment and PE for patients with multisystem FSD.
By establishing a biobank with blood, plasma and feces from both EDULOX participants and healthy controls, the EDULOX trial furthermore aims to identify possible biomarkers in multisystem FSD and relate these to the outcome measures in the study.
Hypothesis EDULOX1:
The primary hypothesis is that the PE program is superior to EUC in improving patient-rated health-related quality of life measured by a Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) aggregate score and patient-rated overall health measured by the Clinical Global Improvement Scale (CGI).
Hypothesis EDULOX2:
The primary hypothesis is that duloxetine is superior to active placebo in improving the SF-36 aggregate score, the CGI and cognitive functioning measured by Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) at end of treatment.
Exploratory hypothesis:
There is a synergistic effect of receiving both PE and duloxetine, i.e. participants receiving both interventions show larger improvement in SF-36 aggregate score and CGI, than would be expected from simple additive effect of each intervention.
Hypothesis biobank We hypothesize that the immune system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, neurotransmitter levels, symptom- and/or pain processes are changed, and that the gut microbiota is disturbed. Changes are correlated to the severity of symptoms.
Methods For study design please see separate segment in the clinical trial registration.
Setting The project is initiated and managed by the Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics (RCF), Aarhus University Hospital (AUH), Denmark. Participants will be recruited from eligible patients from the RCF, AUH or patients referred to the RCF for possible participation from the Pain and Headache Clinic, AUH, Center for Functional Disorders, the Hospital Lillebælt, and the Center for Functional Disorders, Aalborg University Hospital.
Interventions Please see Arms and Interventions segment of the clinical trial registration.
Data sources and effect measures Data sources include patient-rated outcomes, clinician-rated outcomes, and a qualitative evaluation consisting of 10-15 patient interviews examining acceptability and patient experiences regarding the PE intervention.
Questionnaire data will be collected at 5 time points:
- T0: Baseline (before inclusion)
- T1: Week 0 (before randomization)
- T2: Week 6 (during treatment)
- T3: Week 12 (end of treatment, primary endpoint)
- T4: 3-months follow-up after end of treatment
Naturalistic follow-up measurements are collected at 12 and 24 months from randomization (T5 and T6).
Please see further details in the Outcome Measures segment of the clinical trial registration.
Acceptability and feasibility measures Acceptability and feasibility measures will be collected from the first 40 participants. Reasons for non-participation, drop-out and breaking protocol will be analyzed. These data will be used to identify any major obstacles for the smooth running of the EDULOX. Patient acceptancy will be investigated through the Experience of Service Questionnaire and through a qualitative interview study with 10-15 planned semi-structured interviews.
Feasibility criteria are based on prior studies and will include:
- Inclusion rate more than 85% on the PE trial and 45% on the duloxetine trial.
- Drop-out will be less than 15% (reasons for drop out will be analyzed)
- More than 90% of the participants allocated to receive PE completes the PE program by attending at least two individual sessions and the group PE session
- Missing data will be less than 15%
- Questionnaire response-rate of minimum 90% at baseline and minimum 85% for the endpoint questionnaires (12 weeks, T3)
- PE will prove acceptable to patients with a patient satisfaction score of moderate to high
- Blinding in the duloxetine trial will be sufficient
Safety and monitoring The safety profile of duloxetine is well-described for patients with fibromyalgia and patients will be informed about the most common and the most severe adverse events for both duloxetine and benztropine mesylate.
Safety is assessed by collecting information on adverse events by the clinician (final visit, all contacts regarding adverse events). Patients are instructed to contact the project nurse by phone if experiencing any problems with the study drug. The nurse will have access to advice from medical doctors. Project workers can be contacted by telephone at all times if acute unblinding is required.
The project will be conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration (II). General procedures for quality control and quality assurance will be followed. All protocol violations will be recorded. The quality and safety of the project are monitored by the Good Clinical Practise GCP unit at Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University.
Discussion Solid and rigidly designed intervention studies for patients suffering from severe functional somatic disorders are highly needed. A documented positive effect of duloxetine will provide clinicians with an easily delivered pharmacological treatment option, and furthermore, new cost-effective treatment approaches arise if study results suggest a synergic effect of the combination of duloxetine and PE.
Such results could support the development of a stepped care model securing better treatment faster for those who can benefit from treatment in less specialized settings. This is of great significance since many clinics currently have waiting lists of more than a year, risking possible chronification of symptoms while patients wait for relevant treatment.
A biobank with relevant biological samples may enable future research into important etiological factors of FSD which remains largely uncovered. Insight into such possible biomarkers and their relation to the severity of the disorder could open up new possibilities for targeted treatment.
- Conditions
- Functional Disorder
- Being tested
- Patient Education, Duloxetine, Benztropine Mesylate 0.5 MG and passive placebo RAP, Enhanced usual care
- Keywords
- Patient Education, Duloxetine, Medically Unexplained Symptoms, SNRI, Bodily Distress Syndrome, Functional Somatic Symptoms, Functional Somatic Disorders, Randomized Controlled Trial, Biobank, Biomarker
- Medical subject headings
- Medically Unexplained Symptoms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Patient EducationBehavioural
Please see arm desciption
DuloxetineDrug
Also called Cymbalta, SNRI
Please see arm description
Benztropine Mesylate 0.5 MG and passive placebo RAPDrug
Please see arm description
Enhanced usual careBehavioural
Please see arm description
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Education | Experimental | The patient education program consists of three individual sessions (consultations with the participant's doctor, one to one and a half hour duration each) and one group session (three hours in groups of up to 16 participants). The program focuses on providing patients with a positive and evidence-based understanding of their illness by providing an individualized bio-psycho-social explanation of multisystem functional somatic disorder. Receives: Behavioral: Patient Education |
| Enhanced Usual Care | Active comparator | Inclusion consultation and final visit at end of treatment (week 12) are the only contacts provided to participants randomized to receive enhanced usual care. Receives: Behavioral: Enhanced usual care |
| Duloxetine and Enhanced Usual Care | Experimental | Duloxetine will be given as capsules orally once daily. Participants will commence with 2 weeks of 30 mg duloxetine and then increase the dose to 60 mg duloxetine (two capsules). If participants are unable to increase in dose due to adverse events, but still tolerate the initial dose of 30 mg duloxetine, this dose is kept for the remaining part of the trial. Treatment will continue for 8 weeks on highest dosis until primary endpoint (end of treatment). The dose is then reduced to 30 mg duloxetine for 1 week after which the study drug is discontinued.
In addition, participants will recieve enhanced usual care as described above. Receives: Drug: Duloxetine; Behavioral: Enhanced usual care |
| Placebo and Enhanced Usual Care | Placebo comparator | Participants will recieve the active placebo benztropine mesylate 0,5 mg. In order to best mimic the dosage increase of the duloxetine treatment program a passive placebo RAP will be added for the 8 weeks of high dosage treatment. Benztropine mesylate and passive placebo will be given as capsules orally, and will be re-encapsulated by the hospital pharmacy to assure identical appearance to the duloxetine capsules. Participants will commence with 2 weeks of 0.5 mg benztropine mesylate (one capsule) and continue with 0.5 mg benztropine mesylate and passive placebo RAP (two capsules) for 8 weeks. This will be end of treatment. Participants will then be asked to reduce to one capsule (0.5 mg benztropine mesylate) for 1 week after which the study drug is discontinued.
In addition, participants will recieve enhanced usual care as decribed above. Receives: Drug: Benztropine Mesylate 0.5 MG and passive placebo RAP; Behavioral: Enhanced usual care |
| Patient Education and Duloxetine | Experimental | Participants in this arm will recieve patient education as described above. In addition, participants will recieve duloxetine as described above. Receives: Behavioral: Patient Education; Drug: Duloxetine |
| Patient Education and Placebo | Experimental | Participants in this arm will recieve patient education as described above. In addition, participants will recieve the placebo treatment as described above. Receives: Behavioral: Patient Education; Drug: Benztropine Mesylate 0.5 MG and passive placebo RAP |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Mean difference between groups in Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) aggregate score
Patient-rated health-related quality of life is measured by an aggregate score of the SF-36 subscales "physical functioning", "bodily pain" and "vitality" at endpoint (week 12).
Minimum score is 15 and maximum score is 62 with lower scores indicating worse health related quality of life. Primary outcome will be measured as the change from baseline to primary endpoint (12 weeks), but data will be collected on several timepoints to describe the development on the score
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(after inclusion, before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, week 12), T4 (3-month after end of treatment), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Clinical Global Improvement Scale (CGI) score
Patient-rated overall health improvement measured by the 5-point CGI. General health is rated as "much worse", "worse", "unchanged", "better" or "much better" in response to the question: "How do you consider your health status now compared with when you first came to the clinic?".
Measured: T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Secondary outcomes (11)
Mean difference between groups in the Symptom Checklist (SCL-92) score on subscales somatic symptoms (SCL-som), anxiety and depression (SCL-anx 4, SCL-depr 6)
Health related physical and psychological functioning will be measured using relevant subscales of the Somatisation score measured using the SCL-92.
SCL-som contains 12 items, SCL-anx 4 and SCL-depr 6 contains a total of 10 items. All items are scored on a 5 point Likert scale. Higher scores indicates more symptoms.
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in the Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) check-list score
The BDS check-list will be used to measure the severity of FSD symptoms. The BDS symptom score ranges from 0-100, with each of the 25 symptoms being scored on a Likert scale from 0-4. A higher score indicates more symptoms.
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) score
Cognitive functioning will be measured using the 25 item CFQ. The total score ranges from 0-100 with a higher score indicating a more impaired cognitive functioning.
Measured: T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks)
Mean difference between groups in Whiteley-6-R score
Whiteley-6-R is used to measure illness worry. This 6 item score ranges from 0-24 with a higher score indicating more illness worry.
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Patients' Endorsement of a Biopsychosocial Model of Pain/Persistent Somatic Symptoms (PEB) score
The participants' bio-psycho-social understanding of their symptoms will we measured using the 11 item PEB questionnaire. The PEB is developed to measure patients' specific beliefs regarding pain. The scale has been adjusted to include a broader spectrum of physical symptoms relevant to functional somatic disorder instead of focusing on pain alone. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale resulting in a total score ranging from 11-44 with higher scores indicating a better bio-psycho-social understanding.
Measured: T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on symptom intensity and symptom interference
Symptom intensity and symptom interference is measured on a NRS ranging 0 to 10 on 2 items. This results in scores ranging from 0 to 20 with higher scores meaning worse symptoms.
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on pain intensity
Pain intensity is measured on a NRS ranging 0 to 10 on 1 item. A higher score indicates higher pain intensity.
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Brief-Illness Perception Questionnaire (b-IPQ)
Illness perception is measured using b-IPQ, containing 8 items each scored on a 11-point scale from 0 to 10. This results in a total score ranging from 0 to 80 with higher scores indicating more negative illness perception.
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Behavioural Responses to Illness Questionnaire (BRIQ)
Illness behaviour is measured using the BRIQ containing 13 items scored on a 5 point Likert scale. This results in a total score from 13 to 65 with higher scores indicating more negative illness behaviour.
Measured: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in clinician-rated Clinical Global Improvement Scale (CGI) score
Clinician-rated overall health improvement measured by the 5-point CGI. Clinicians are asked to rate the patient's general health as "much worse", "worse", "unchanged", "better" or "much better" in response to the question: "How do you consider your patient's health status now compared with when the patient first came to the clinic?"
Measured: T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks)
Mean difference between groups in diagnosis based on a clinical diagnostic reassessment
Doctors will evaluate if the diagnostic criteria for multisystem functional somatic disorder, operationalized using the criteria for multiorgan bodily distress syndrome.
Measured: T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Jan 2024
- Study start1 Jan 2024
- Primary completion1 Nov 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Nov 2029 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (47)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Functional DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Aarhus University HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Model description
- This is a nested design. The parent trial (EDULOX 1) is an open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing patient education (PE) with enhanced usual care (EUC). The parent trial nests a concomitantly running, two-by-two factorial, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial (EDULOX 2) comparing duloxetine with active placebo in combination with the PE program or EUC. Participants in the parent trial will be randomized (open-label) to receive either EUC or the PE program. Participants in the nested trial will be randomized (open-label + blinded) to receive either EUC or PE along with either duloxetine or active placebo. This will result in a total of six randomization groups for the full EDULOX trial. A total of 424 participants will be recruited for the EDULOX parent trial, of these 212 participants will participate in the nested study drug trial. Biological material for the biobank will be collected from all participants and an additional 75 healthy controls.
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 424 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Aarhus University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Central Denmark Region, University of Aarhus, Vejle Hospital, Aalborg University Hospital, TrygFonden, Denmark, Independent Research Fund Denmark
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Lise K Gormsen, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Department of Funtional disorders, Aarhus University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06232473
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 9515
- Acronym
- EDULOX
- Status last verified
- Jan 2024
- First submitted
- 2 Jan 2024
- Last updated
- 30 Jan 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Before and during the study the Study protocol, statistical analysis plan and inform consent form can be shared.
Publications
Burton C, Fink P, Henningsen P, Lowe B, Rief W; EURONET-SOMA Group. Functional somatic disorders: discussion paper for a new common classification for research and clinical use. BMC Med. 2020 Mar 3;18(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-1505-4.
PubMed 32122350Roenneberg C, Sattel H, Schaefert R, Henningsen P, Hausteiner-Wiehle C. Functional Somatic Symptoms. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019 Aug 9;116(33-34):553-560. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2019.0553.
PubMed 31554544Henningsen P, Zipfel S, Sattel H, Creed F. Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress. Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(1):12-31. doi: 10.1159/000484413. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
PubMed 29306954Petersen MW, Schroder A, Jorgensen T, Ornbol E, Dantoft TM, Eliasen M, Carstensen TW, Falgaard Eplov L, Fink P. Prevalence of functional somatic syndromes and bodily distress syndrome in the Danish population: the DanFunD study. Scand J Public Health. 2020 Jul;48(5):567-576. doi: 10.1177/1403494819868592. Epub 2019 Aug 14.
PubMed 31409218Fink P, Schroder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.02.004.
PubMed 20403500Hauser W, Hausteiner-Wiehle C, Henningsen P, Brahler E, Schmalbach B, Wolfe F. Prevalence and overlap of somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress syndrome and fibromyalgia syndrome in the German general population: A cross sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2020 Jun;133:110111. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110111. Epub 2020 Apr 11.
PubMed 32305723Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31802e46eb.
PubMed 17244846Budtz-Lilly A, Vestergaard M, Fink P, Carlsen AH, Rosendal M. Patient characteristics and frequency of bodily distress syndrome in primary care: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Sep;65(638):e617-23. doi: 10.3399/bjgp15X686545.
PubMed 26324499Rask MT, Rosendal M, Fenger-Gron M, Bro F, Ornbol E, Fink P. Sick leave and work disability in primary care patients with recent-onset multiple medically unexplained symptoms and persistent somatoform disorders: a 10-year follow-up of the FIP study. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2015 Jan-Feb;37(1):53-9. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.10.007. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
PubMed 25456975Schroder A, Ornbol E, Jensen JS, Sharpe M, Fink P. Long-term economic evaluation of cognitive-behavioural group treatment versus enhanced usual care for functional somatic syndromes. J Psychosom Res. 2017 Mar;94:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.01.005. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
PubMed 28183406van Dessel N, den Boeft M, van der Wouden JC, Kleinstauber M, Leone SS, Terluin B, Numans ME, van der Horst HE, van Marwijk H. Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 1;2014(11):CD011142. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011142.pub2.
PubMed 25362239Schroder A, Rehfeld E, Ornbol E, Sharpe M, Licht RW, Fink P. Cognitive-behavioural group treatment for a range of functional somatic syndromes: randomised trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;200(6):499-507. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.098681. Epub 2012 Apr 26.
PubMed 22539780Fjorback LO, Arendt M, Ornbol E, Walach H, Rehfeld E, Schroder A, Fink P. Mindfulness therapy for somatization disorder and functional somatic syndromes: randomized trial with one-year follow-up. J Psychosom Res. 2013 Jan;74(1):31-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.09.006. Epub 2012 Oct 1.
PubMed 23272986Agger JL, Schroder A, Gormsen LK, Jensen JS, Jensen TS, Fink PK. Imipramine versus placebo for multiple functional somatic syndromes (STreSS-3): a double-blind, randomised study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 May;4(5):378-388. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30126-8. Epub 2017 Apr 10.
PubMed 28408193Pedersen HF, Agger JL, Frostholm L, Jensen JS, Ornbol E, Fink P, Schroder A. Acceptance and Commitment group Therapy for patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes: a three-armed trial comparing ACT in a brief and extended version with enhanced care. Psychol Med. 2019 Apr;49(6):1005-1014. doi: 10.1017/S0033291718001666. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
PubMed 29941062
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Jan 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy of Patient Education and Duloxetine, Alone or in Combination, for Patients With Multisystem Functional Somatic Disorder
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06232473
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EDULOX / 9515
- Conditions
- Functional Disorder
- Keywords
- Patient Education, Duloxetine, Medically Unexplained Symptoms, SNRI, Bodily Distress Syndrome, Functional Somatic Symptoms, Functional Somatic Disorders, Randomized Controlled Trial
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 424 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Aarhus University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Central Denmark Region, University of Aarhus, Vejle Hospital, Aalborg University Hospital, TrygFonden, Denmark, Independent Research Fund Denmark
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Nov 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Nov 2029 (estimated)
- First posted
- 30 Jan 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this clinical trial is to test if patient education or duloxetine can be used to treat multisystem functional somatic disorder (FSD). The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Does duloxetine work better than placebo in the treatment of FSD?
- Does patient education work better than usual treatment for FSD?
- Does the combination of patient education and duloxetine work better than using only one of these treatments?
Participants are patients with FSD. They will receive one of six different treatment combinations:
- Patient education alone (three individual consultations with a doctor and one group session)
- Treatment as usual (receiving the diagnosis and a short presentation of what FSD is)
- Duloxetine
- Active placebo (a treatment that looks like duloxetine and has similar side effects, but no known effect on FSD)
- Patient education and duloxetine
- Patient education and active placebo
Researchers will compare the groups receiving patient education with those receiving only treatment as usual to see if patient education is a better treatment than just receiving a diagnosis and short explanation. Furthermore, researchers will compare the groups receiving duloxetine to those receiving placebo to see if duloxetine works better than placebo. Finally, researchers will compare the groups receiving both patient education and duloxetine to those receiving only one of these treatments to see if the combination works better than the treatments given alone.
The researchers will also collect samples of blood and stool in a biobank to be used in future research.
Detailed description
Background Functional somatic disorders (FSD) are characterized by specific patterns of persistent physical symptoms with a complex etiology involving a multiform interplay between physiological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. Patients with FSD are prevalent in all medical settings and receive diagnoses such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and other functional somatic syndromes (FSS) depending on which medical specialty they consult. Multisystem FSD describes a severely affected subgroup of patients who suffer from symptoms from multiple organ systems. The diagnosis can be operationalized by the criteria for the unifying research diagnosis bodily distress syndrome (BDS).
Multisystem FSD affects 1.3-2.2% of the general population. The condition inflicts suffering and is associated with a substantial socioeconomic impact, involving costly diagnostic examinations and procedures, sick leaves, and long-term disability.
Evidence on treatment options for multisystem FSD is emerging but not yet sufficient. A number of clinical trials investigating non-pharmacological interventions are available and clinical guidelines in some FSS, e.g. fibromyalgia and chronic primary pain, highlight the importance of patient education (PE). PE may support the effect of other treatments by empowering and engaging patients in managing their condition. As a stand-alone treatment, the effect of PE has only sparsely been investigated, yet a PE program targeting multisystem FSD has been tested in an uncontrolled pilot study with promising results.
Pharmacotherapy in FSS includes centrally acting drugs, especially antidepressants. In multisystem FSD, evidence exists for treatment with low-dose tricyclic antidepressants (TCA). Unfortunately, TCAs given in higher, antidepressive doses significantly reduces tolerability and thereby treatment potential for comorbid depression or anxiety which are common in multisystem FSD. Duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), offers effect sizes similar to low-dose TCA in FSS with a more favorable adverse event profile. Evidence furthermore suggests an effect on cognitive functioning. In addition to reducing symptoms in multisystem FSD, duloxetine could improve cognitive functioning and, if relevant, treat comorbid anxiety and depression.
From a clinical perspective, a synergic effect between a PE program and pharmacological treatment could be hypothesized. On one hand, PE may improve the effect of pharmacological treatment by balancing treatment expectations and enhancing treatment adherence. Conversely, pharmacological treatment may indirectly enhance the effect of PE by improving cognitive functioning and thereby improving the patients' ability to receive and implement relevant educational elements.
As mentioned above, the etiology of FSD is complex and especially the role of biological factors remains largely undiscovered. Research findings support involvement of the immune system, neuroendocrine and neurotransmitter systems, pain processing and gut microbiota. In order to investigate the relevance of such components in multisystem FSD, this study will collect blood, plasma and feces from participants and healthy controls in order to establish a biobank enabling future research in these relevant factors.
Purpose and aim The EDULOX trial aims to investigate the effect of a PE program compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) for patients with multisystem FSD in EDULOX1. Additionally, the study investigates the effect of treatment with duloxetine 60 mg daily against active placebo and explores the effect of combinations of the two interventions in EDULOX2. This is to our knowledge the first study to investigate the combination of medical treatment and PE for patients with multisystem FSD.
By establishing a biobank with blood, plasma and feces from both EDULOX participants and healthy controls, the EDULOX trial furthermore aims to identify possible biomarkers in multisystem FSD and relate these to the outcome measures in the study.
Hypothesis EDULOX1:
The primary hypothesis is that the PE program is superior to EUC in improving patient-rated health-related quality of life measured by a Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) aggregate score and patient-rated overall health measured by the Clinical Global Improvement Scale (CGI).
Hypothesis EDULOX2:
The primary hypothesis is that duloxetine is superior to active placebo in improving the SF-36 aggregate score, the CGI and cognitive functioning measured by Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) at end of treatment.
Exploratory hypothesis:
There is a synergistic effect of receiving both PE and duloxetine, i.e. participants receiving both interventions show larger improvement in SF-36 aggregate score and CGI, than would be expected from simple additive effect of each intervention.
Hypothesis biobank We hypothesize that the immune system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, neurotransmitter levels, symptom- and/or pain processes are changed, and that the gut microbiota is disturbed. Changes are correlated to the severity of symptoms.
Methods For study design please see separate segment in the clinical trial registration.
Setting The project is initiated and managed by the Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics (RCF), Aarhus University Hospital (AUH), Denmark. Participants will be recruited from eligible patients from the RCF, AUH or patients referred to the RCF for possible participation from the Pain and Headache Clinic, AUH, Center for Functional Disorders, the Hospital Lillebælt, and the Center for Functional Disorders, Aalborg University Hospital.
Interventions Please see Arms and Interventions segment of the clinical trial registration.
Data sources and effect measures Data sources include patient-rated outcomes, clinician-rated outcomes, and a qualitative evaluation consisting of 10-15 patient interviews examining acceptability and patient experiences regarding the PE intervention.
Questionnaire data will be collected at 5 time points:
- T0: Baseline (before inclusion)
- T1: Week 0 (before randomization)
- T2: Week 6 (during treatment)
- T3: Week 12 (end of treatment, primary endpoint)
- T4: 3-months follow-up after end of treatment
Naturalistic follow-up measurements are collected at 12 and 24 months from randomization (T5 and T6).
Please see further details in the Outcome Measures segment of the clinical trial registration.
Acceptability and feasibility measures Acceptability and feasibility measures will be collected from the first 40 participants. Reasons for non-participation, drop-out and breaking protocol will be analyzed. These data will be used to identify any major obstacles for the smooth running of the EDULOX. Patient acceptancy will be investigated through the Experience of Service Questionnaire and through a qualitative interview study with 10-15 planned semi-structured interviews.
Feasibility criteria are based on prior studies and will include:
- Inclusion rate more than 85% on the PE trial and 45% on the duloxetine trial.
- Drop-out will be less than 15% (reasons for drop out will be analyzed)
- More than 90% of the participants allocated to receive PE completes the PE program by attending at least two individual sessions and the group PE session
- Missing data will be less than 15%
- Questionnaire response-rate of minimum 90% at baseline and minimum 85% for the endpoint questionnaires (12 weeks, T3)
- PE will prove acceptable to patients with a patient satisfaction score of moderate to high
- Blinding in the duloxetine trial will be sufficient
Safety and monitoring The safety profile of duloxetine is well-described for patients with fibromyalgia and patients will be informed about the most common and the most severe adverse events for both duloxetine and benztropine mesylate.
Safety is assessed by collecting information on adverse events by the clinician (final visit, all contacts regarding adverse events). Patients are instructed to contact the project nurse by phone if experiencing any problems with the study drug. The nurse will have access to advice from medical doctors. Project workers can be contacted by telephone at all times if acute unblinding is required.
The project will be conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration (II). General procedures for quality control and quality assurance will be followed. All protocol violations will be recorded. The quality and safety of the project are monitored by the Good Clinical Practise GCP unit at Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University.
Discussion Solid and rigidly designed intervention studies for patients suffering from severe functional somatic disorders are highly needed. A documented positive effect of duloxetine will provide clinicians with an easily delivered pharmacological treatment option, and furthermore, new cost-effective treatment approaches arise if study results suggest a synergic effect of the combination of duloxetine and PE.
Such results could support the development of a stepped care model securing better treatment faster for those who can benefit from treatment in less specialized settings. This is of great significance since many clinics currently have waiting lists of more than a year, risking possible chronification of symptoms while patients wait for relevant treatment.
A biobank with relevant biological samples may enable future research into important etiological factors of FSD which remains largely uncovered. Insight into such possible biomarkers and their relation to the severity of the disorder could open up new possibilities for targeted treatment.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 6
- Model description
- This is a nested design. The parent trial (EDULOX 1) is an open-labelled randomized controlled trial comparing patient education (PE) with enhanced usual care (EUC). The parent trial nests a concomitantly running, two-by-two factorial, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial (EDULOX 2) comparing duloxetine with active placebo in combination with the PE program or EUC. Participants in the parent trial will be randomized (open-label) to receive either EUC or the PE program. Participants in the nested trial will be randomized (open-label + blinded) to receive either EUC or PE along with either duloxetine or active placebo. This will result in a total of six randomization groups for the full EDULOX trial. A total of 424 participants will be recruited for the EDULOX parent trial, of these 212 participants will participate in the nested study drug trial. Biological material for the biobank will be collected from all participants and an additional 75 healthy controls.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Education | Experimental | Behavioral: Patient EducationThe patient education program consists of three individual sessions (consultations with the participant's doctor, one to one and a half hour duration each) and one group session (three hours in groups of up to 16 participants). The program focuses on providing patients with a positive and evidence-based understanding of their illness by providing an individualized bio-psycho-social explanation of multisystem functional somatic disorder. |
| Enhanced Usual Care | Active comparator | Behavioral: Enhanced usual careInclusion consultation and final visit at end of treatment (week 12) are the only contacts provided to participants randomized to receive enhanced usual care. |
| Duloxetine and Enhanced Usual Care | Experimental | Drug: Duloxetine, Behavioral: Enhanced usual careDuloxetine will be given as capsules orally once daily. Participants will commence with 2 weeks of 30 mg duloxetine and then increase the dose to 60 mg duloxetine (two capsules). If participants are unable to increase in dose due to adverse events, but still tolerate the initial dose of 30 mg duloxetine, this dose is kept for the remaining part of the trial. Treatment will continue for 8 weeks on highest dosis until primary endpoint (end of treatment). The dose is then reduced to 30 mg duloxetine for 1 week after which the study drug is discontinued. In addition, participants will recieve enhanced usual care as described above. |
| Placebo and Enhanced Usual Care | Placebo comparator | Drug: Benztropine Mesylate 0.5 MG and passive placebo RAP, Behavioral: Enhanced usual careParticipants will recieve the active placebo benztropine mesylate 0,5 mg. In order to best mimic the dosage increase of the duloxetine treatment program a passive placebo RAP will be added for the 8 weeks of high dosage treatment. Benztropine mesylate and passive placebo will be given as capsules orally, and will be re-encapsulated by the hospital pharmacy to assure identical appearance to the duloxetine capsules. Participants will commence with 2 weeks of 0.5 mg benztropine mesylate (one capsule) and continue with 0.5 mg benztropine mesylate and passive placebo RAP (two capsules) for 8 weeks. This will be end of treatment. Participants will then be asked to reduce to one capsule (0.5 mg benztropine mesylate) for 1 week after which the study drug is discontinued. In addition, participants will recieve enhanced usual care as decribed above. |
| Patient Education and Duloxetine | Experimental | Behavioral: Patient Education, Drug: DuloxetineParticipants in this arm will recieve patient education as described above. In addition, participants will recieve duloxetine as described above. |
| Patient Education and Placebo | Experimental | Behavioral: Patient Education, Drug: Benztropine Mesylate 0.5 MG and passive placebo RAPParticipants in this arm will recieve patient education as described above. In addition, participants will recieve the placebo treatment as described above. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- A diagnosis of multisystem functional somatic disorder (operationalized as fulfilling the criteria for the research diagnosis multiorgan bodily distress syndrome)
- Symptoms present for at least six months at the time of inclusion
- Multisystem functional somatic disorder is the predominant health complaint, i.e. concurrent physical or psychiatric illness is stable and well controlled and symptoms can be separated from BDS symptoms
- Understands and speaks Danish fluently and is able to follow and benefit from an educational program
- First-time referral to specialized treatment for functional somatic disorder
Key exclusion criteria (17 listed)
- Participation in psychotherapy or educational programs specifically for FSD within the past 12 months
- Current or previous diagnosis of mania, bipolar disorder, psychosis, severe agitation, imminent deliria or psychotic symptoms
- SCAN or clinical diagnosis of moderate to severe depression, anxiety or other psychiatric disorders
- Current affective disorder requiring fast initiation or continuation of psychiatric pharmacological treatment or psychiatric monitoring
- Alcohol, substance or medicine abuse or addiction
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Patient EducationPlease see arm desciption | Behavioural | Patient Education, Patient Education and Duloxetine, Patient Education and Placebo |
| DuloxetineAlso: Cymbalta, SNRIPlease see arm description | Drug | Duloxetine and Enhanced Usual Care, Patient Education and Duloxetine |
| Benztropine Mesylate 0.5 MG and passive placebo RAPPlease see arm description | Drug | Patient Education and Placebo, Placebo and Enhanced Usual Care |
| Enhanced usual carePlease see arm description | Behavioural | Duloxetine and Enhanced Usual Care, Enhanced Usual Care, Placebo and Enhanced Usual Care |
Primary outcome
Mean difference between groups in Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) aggregate score
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(after inclusion, before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, week 12), T4 (3-month after end of treatment), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Patient-rated health-related quality of life is measured by an aggregate score of the SF-36 subscales "physical functioning", "bodily pain" and "vitality" at endpoint (week 12). Minimum score is 15 and maximum score is 62 with lower scores indicating worse health related quality of life. Primary outcome will be measured as the change from baseline to primary endpoint (12 weeks), but data will be collected on several timepoints to describe the development on the score
Mean difference between groups in Clinical Global Improvement Scale (CGI) score
Time frame: T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Patient-rated overall health improvement measured by the 5-point CGI. General health is rated as "much worse", "worse", "unchanged", "better" or "much better" in response to the question: "How do you consider your health status now compared with when you first came to the clinic?".
11 secondary outcomes
Mean difference between groups in the Symptom Checklist (SCL-92) score on subscales somatic symptoms (SCL-som), anxiety and depression (SCL-anx 4, SCL-depr 6)
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in the Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) check-list score
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) score
Time frame: T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks)
Mean difference between groups in Whiteley-6-R score
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Patients' Endorsement of a Biopsychosocial Model of Pain/Persistent Somatic Symptoms (PEB) score
Time frame: T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on symptom intensity and symptom interference
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on pain intensity
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Brief-Illness Perception Questionnaire (b-IPQ)
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in Behavioural Responses to Illness Questionnaire (BRIQ)
Time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks), T4 (3-month follow-up), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)
Mean difference between groups in clinician-rated Clinical Global Improvement Scale (CGI) score
Time frame: T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks)
Mean difference between groups in diagnosis based on a clinical diagnostic reassessment
Time frame: T3 (primary endpoint, 12 weeks)
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Jan 2024.
- Background: PubMed 32122350Burton C, Fink P, Henningsen P, Lowe B, Rief W; EURONET-SOMA Group. Functional somatic disorders: discussion paper for a new common classification for research and clinical use. BMC Med. 2020 Mar 3;18(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-1505-4.
- Background: PubMed 31554544Roenneberg C, Sattel H, Schaefert R, Henningsen P, Hausteiner-Wiehle C. Functional Somatic Symptoms. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019 Aug 9;116(33-34):553-560. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2019.0553.
- Background: PubMed 29306954Henningsen P, Zipfel S, Sattel H, Creed F. Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress. Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(1):12-31. doi: 10.1159/000484413. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
- Background: PubMed 31409218Petersen MW, Schroder A, Jorgensen T, Ornbol E, Dantoft TM, Eliasen M, Carstensen TW, Falgaard Eplov L, Fink P. Prevalence of functional somatic syndromes and bodily distress syndrome in the Danish population: the DanFunD study. Scand J Public Health. 2020 Jul;48(5):567-576. doi: 10.1177/1403494819868592. Epub 2019 Aug 14.
- Background: PubMed 20403500Fink P, Schroder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.02.004.
- Background: PubMed 32305723Hauser W, Hausteiner-Wiehle C, Henningsen P, Brahler E, Schmalbach B, Wolfe F. Prevalence and overlap of somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress syndrome and fibromyalgia syndrome in the German general population: A cross sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2020 Jun;133:110111. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110111. Epub 2020 Apr 11.
- Background: PubMed 17244846Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31802e46eb.
- Background: PubMed 26324499Budtz-Lilly A, Vestergaard M, Fink P, Carlsen AH, Rosendal M. Patient characteristics and frequency of bodily distress syndrome in primary care: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Sep;65(638):e617-23. doi: 10.3399/bjgp15X686545.
- Background: PubMed 25456975Rask MT, Rosendal M, Fenger-Gron M, Bro F, Ornbol E, Fink P. Sick leave and work disability in primary care patients with recent-onset multiple medically unexplained symptoms and persistent somatoform disorders: a 10-year follow-up of the FIP study. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2015 Jan-Feb;37(1):53-9. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.10.007. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
- Background: PubMed 28183406Schroder A, Ornbol E, Jensen JS, Sharpe M, Fink P. Long-term economic evaluation of cognitive-behavioural group treatment versus enhanced usual care for functional somatic syndromes. J Psychosom Res. 2017 Mar;94:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.01.005. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
- Background: PubMed 25362239van Dessel N, den Boeft M, van der Wouden JC, Kleinstauber M, Leone SS, Terluin B, Numans ME, van der Horst HE, van Marwijk H. Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 1;2014(11):CD011142. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011142.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 22539780Schroder A, Rehfeld E, Ornbol E, Sharpe M, Licht RW, Fink P. Cognitive-behavioural group treatment for a range of functional somatic syndromes: randomised trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;200(6):499-507. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.098681. Epub 2012 Apr 26.
- US Natl Inst Health. Current medication information for benztropine mesylate, A.a. Accessed August 2020.Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Before and during the study the Study protocol, statistical analysis plan and inform consent form can be shared.
Related trials for Functional Disorder
Recruiting
Safety and Performance of UCon Patch Electrode
Urinary Incontinence, Urinary Incontinence, Urge
Enrolling by invitation
Online Exercise Program for Transplant Patients: A Pilot Study
Kidney Transplantation, Physical Function
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Prevalence and Development of Liver Dysfunction in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Periodontal Status and Biomarkers in MASLD
Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Effects of Sequential Therapy With Mexidol® (Intravenous) and Mexidol® FORTE 250 (Oral) on Functional Brain Activity Assessed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biochemical Parameters in Patients With Chronic Cerebral Ischemia: A Comparison of Patients With and Without Metabolic Disorders
Metabolic Abnormalities, Obesity & Overweight
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Lise K Gormsen, MD, PhD principal investigator
Department of Funtional disorders, Aarhus University Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Patient Education and Duloxetine in people with Functional Disorder, run by Aarhus University Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 17 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Jan 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Lise Gormsen, MD, PhD (+4578464310, lisgorm@rm.dk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Mean difference between groups in Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) aggregate score (time frame: T0 (baseline, before assessment), T1(after inclusion, before randomization), T2 (week 6, mid-treatment), T3 (primary endpoint, week 12), T4 (3-month after end of treatment), T5 (1-year follow-up), T6 (2-year follow-up)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06232473, which also lists 47 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Jan 2024.