OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether mild water-filtered near infrared whole-body hyperthermia (NI-WBH) produces an additional benefit when applied as an adjunct to a standard multimodal rehabilitation (MR) compared with MR only in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS:One hundred thirty-nine patients of a German inpatient rehabilitation hospital meeting the ACR 1990 criteria for FM were randomly allocated to NI-WBH (heating-up to 38.1 degrees C body core temperature followed by a 15 min heat retention period) and MR or MR only, twice a week over 3 weeks. Main outcome measures were affective and sensory pain assessed by a German version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, measured at baseline, postintervention, 3 and 6 months postintervention and analyzed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Repeated measures analysis of covariance showed significant differences between groups for both primary outcome measures in favor of NI-WBH and MR compared with MR only (P<0.001 for affective pain, P=0.001 for sensory pain). Secondary analyses on pain intensity, FM-related quality of life and tender point assessment yielded similar results. Moderate effect sizes were observed for all outcome measures considered (range, 0.41 to 0.75). NI-WBH related side effects were observed in 14 of 69 participants (20%) but all disappeared in less than 30 minutes. DISCUSSION: The study indicates that NI-WBH is a worthwhile adjunct to MR in the treatment of FM.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether mild water-filtered near infrared whole-body hyperthermia (NI-WBH) produces an additional benefit when applied as an adjunct to a standard multimodal rehabilitation (MR) compared with MR only in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine patients of a German inpatient rehabilitation hospital meeting the ACR 1990 criteria for FM were randomly allocated to NI-WBH (heating-up to 38.1 degrees C body core temperature followed by a 15 min heat retention period) and MR or MR only, twice a week over 3 weeks. Main outcome measures were affective and sensory pain assessed by a German version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, measured at baseline, postintervention, 3 and 6 months postintervention and analyzed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Repeated measures analysis of covariance showed significant differences between groups for both primary outcome measures in favor of NI-WBH and MR compared with MR only (P<0.001 for affective pain, P=0.001 for sensory pain). Secondary analyses on pain intensity, FM-related quality of life and tender point assessment yielded similar results. Moderate effect sizes were observed for all outcome measures considered (range, 0.41 to 0.75). NI-WBH related side effects were observed in 14 of 69 participants (20%) but all disappeared in less than 30 minutes. DISCUSSION: The study indicates that NI-WBH is a worthwhile adjunct to MR in the treatment of FM.
Authors: A Winkelmann; W Häuser; E Friedel; M Moog-Egan; D Seeger; M Settan; T Weiss; M Schiltenwolf Journal: Schmerz Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.107
Authors: A Winkelmann; H Bork; W Brückle; C Dexl; P Heldmann; P Henningsen; L Krumbein; V Pullwitt; M Schiltenwolf; W Häuser Journal: Schmerz Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.107
Authors: B Arnold; W Häuser; M Arnold; M Bernateck; K Bernardy; W Brückle; E Friedel; H J Hesselschwerdt; W Jäckel; V Köllner; E Kühn; F Petzke; M Settan; M Weigl; E Winter; M Offenbächer Journal: Schmerz Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.107
Authors: B Arnold; W Häuser; K Bernardy; W Brückle; E Friedel; V Köllner; H Kühn-Becker; M Richter; M Weigl; T Weiss; M Offenbächer Journal: Schmerz Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.107