Somatic Symptoms In Primary Care Research Articles

Early identification of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care: data-driven and theory-driven predictive modelling based on electronic medical records of Dutch general practices

ObjectiveThe present study aimed to early identify patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) in primary care by exploring routine care data-based approaches.Design/settingA cohort study based on routine primary care data...

Perceived working mechanisms of psychosomatic therapy in patients with persistent somatic symptoms in primary care: a qualitative study

ObjectivesTo explore the perceived working mechanisms of psychosomatic therapy according to patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) and their psychosomatic therapists.DesignQualitative study using semistructured face-to-face interviews and focus groups. All...

The general practitioners perspective regarding registration of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care: a survey

BackgroundPersistent somatic symptoms (PSS) are common in primary care and often accompanied by an increasing disease burden for both the patient and healthcare. In medical practice, PSS is historically considered a diagnosis by exclusion or primarily seen as psychological. Besides, registration of PSS in electronic health records (EHR) is ambiguous and possibly does not reflect classification adequately. The present study explores how general practitioners (GPs) currently register PSS, and their view regarding the need for improvements in classification, registration, and consultations.MethodDutch GPs were invited by email to participate in a national cross-sectional online survey. The survey addressed ICPC-codes used by GPs to register PSS, PSS-related terminology added to free text areas, usage of PSS-related syndrome codes, and GPs’ need for improvement of PSS classification, registration and care.ResultsGPs (n = 259) were most likely to use codes specific to the symptom presented (89.3%). PSS-related terminology in free-text areas was used sparsely. PSS-related syndrome codes were reportedly used by 91.5% of GPs, but this was primarily the case for the code for irritable bowel syndrome. The ambiguous registration of PSS is reported as problematic by 47.9% of GPs. Over 56.7% of GPs reported needing additional training, tools or other support for PSS classification and consultation. GPs also reported needing other referral options and better guidelines.ConclusionsRegistration of PSS in primary care is currently ambiguous. Approximately half of GPs felt a need for more options for registration of PSS and reported a need for further support. In order to improve classification, registration and care for patients with PSS, there is a need for a more appropriate coding scheme and additional training.

Sex differences in the trajectories to diagnosis of patients presenting with common somatic symptoms in primary care: an observational cohort study

ObjectiveLittle insight exists into sex differences in diagnostic trajectories for common somatic symptoms. This study aims to quantify sex differences in the provided primary care diagnostic interventions for common somatic symptoms, as well as the consequences hereof for final diagnoses. MethodsIn this observational cohort study, we used real-world clinical data from the Dutch Family Medicine Network (N = 34,268 episodes of care related to common somatic symptoms; 61,4% female). The association between patients' sex on the one hand, and diagnostic interventions and disease diagnoses on the other hand, were assessed using multilevel multiple logistic regression analyses. Structural equation modelling was used to estimate a mediation model with multiple parallel mediators to assess whether the fewer disease diagnoses given to female patients were mediated by the fewer diagnostic interventions female patients receive, compared to male patients. ResultsWomen received fewer physical examinations (OR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.79–0.89), diagnostic imaging (OR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.84–0.99) and specialist referrals (OR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.79–0.91) than men, but more laboratory diagnostics (OR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.19–1.35). Women received disease diagnoses less often than men for their common somatic symptoms (OR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.89–0.98). Mediation analysis showed that the fewer disease diagnosis in female patients were mediated by the fewer diagnostic interventions conducted in women compared to men. ConclusionThis study shows that sex inequalities are present in primary care diagnostic trajectories of patients with common somatic symptoms and that these lead to unequal health outcomes in terms of diagnoses between women and men. FPs have to be aware of these inequalities to ensure equal high-quality care for all patients.

Diagnostic and treatment barriers to persistent somatic symptoms in primary care \u2013 representative survey with physicians

BackgroundMany patients consult their primary care physician with persistent somatic symptoms such as pain or sickness. Quite often these consultations and further diagnostic measures yield no medical explanation for the symptoms – patients and physicians are left in uncertainty. In fact, diagnostic and treatment barriers in primary care hinder timely health-care provision for patients suffering from persistent somatic symptoms (PSS). The significance of individual barriers is still unknown. We compare and quantify these barriers from the perspective of primary care physicians and identify subpopulations of primary care physicians who experience particular barriers as most severe.MethodsWe mailed a questionnaire to primary care physicians (PCP) in Germany and asked them which barriers they consider most important. We invited a random sample of 12,004 primary care physicians in eight federal states in Germany. Physicians provided anonymous mailed or online responses. We also mailed a postcard to announce the survey and a mail reminder. Main measures were Likert rating scales of items relating to barriers in the diagnosis and treatment of PSS in primary care. Information on demography and medical practice were also collected.ResultsWe analyzed 1719 data sets from 1829 respondents. PCPs showed strongest agreement with statements regarding (1.) their lack of knowledge about treatment guidelines, (2.) their perceptions that patients with PSS would expect symptom relief, (3.) their concern to overlook physical disease in these patients, and (4.) their usage of psychotropic drugs with these patients. More experienced PCPs were better able to cope with the possibility of overlooking physical disease than those less experienced.ConclusionsThe PCPs in our survey answered that the obligation to rule out severe physical disease and the demand to relieve patients from symptoms belong to the most severe barriers for adequate treatment and diagnosis. Moreover, many physicians admitted to not knowing the appropriate treatment guidelines for these patients. Based on our results, raising awareness of guidelines and improving knowledge about the management of persistent somatic symptoms appear to be promising approaches for overcoming the barriers to diagnosis and treatment of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS)https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.doThe date the study was registered: October 2nd 2017The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9th 2018DRKS-ID: DRKS00012942

Developing a clinical prediction rule for repeated consultations with functional somatic symptoms in primary care: a cohort study

ObjectivesPatients who present in primary care with chronic functional somatic symptoms (FSS) have reduced quality of life and increased health care costs. Recognising these early is a challenge. The aim...

289 - Grip self-help: First analyses of referrals to an online toolbox for patient-tailored care for functional somatic symptoms in primary care

The term “red face” is reserved for lesions located exclusively or very predominantly on the face. Diagnosis is based on different data: date and mode of appearance, characteristics of the erythema, functional signs, and associated systemic manifestations. A case of red face can have an infectious origin, caused by vascular, congenital, or acquired lesions, or be caused by photodermatosis, or be the main location of inflammatory dermatosis or collagenosis, but depending on the clinical context, many other diagnoses can be suggested. A few observations are presented so as to discuss the management of red face in the atopic patient, the role played by ultraviolet rays in the cutaneous lesions of dermatomyositis, as well as the diagnostic criteria of polymorphous light eruption, and lupus erythematosus.Le terme de visage rouge ou red face des anglo-saxons est réservé à des lésions localisées au visage de manière exclusive ou très prédominante. Le diagnostic repose sur différentes données: date et mode d’apparition, caractéristiques de l’érythème, signes fonctionnels et manifestations systémiques associés. Un visage rouge peut être d’origine infectieuse, dû à des lésions vasculaires, congénitales ou acquises, ou à une photodermatose, être la localisation principale d’une dermatose inflammatoire ou d’une collagénose mais en fonction du contexte clinique, beaucoup d’autres diagnostics peuvent être évoqués. Quelques observations sont présentées permettant de discuter la prise en charge du visage rouge de l’atopique, le rôle des ultra-violets dans les lésions cutanées de la dermatomyosite, et les critères de diagnostic de la lucite polymorphe et du lupus érythémateux.

Development of Grip self-help: An online patient-tailored self-help intervention for functional somatic symptoms in primary care

Functional Somatic Symptoms (FSS) are somatic symptoms for which no somatic cause can be identified despite adequate diagnostic testing. FSS are common, costly, and disabling, and treatment options are limited.Psychotherapy is one of few evidence-based treatments for FSS. Yet, this form of therapy is not widely used, since it is usually reserved for severe symptoms, requires a highly trained therapist, and is not well accepted by patients.The current paper describes the development of the online intervention ‘Grip self-help’ and provides a description of the intervention itself. Grip self-help is an early intervention for mild to moderate FSS in primary care, which aims to reduce somatic symptoms and improve quality of life.In the Grip self-help intervention, patients fill out a set of online questionnaires exploring unhelpful cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and social factors associated with the symptoms. Using this information, a personal profile is generated, identifying factors that might maintain FSS in that individual. As a next step, patients are offered online self-help exercises that are tailored to these factors. Guidance is offered by a primary care professional. The intervention will ultimately result in a personalized self-help guide, composed of texts that are extracted from the exercises patients found useful during the intervention.Grip self-help is the first intervention for FSS combining the concepts of e-health, self-help, and personalized medicine. Guided by a primary care professional, patients are offered an easily accessible, yet highly personalized treatment. Grip self-help thus has the potential to meet the needs of the large group of patients with mild to moderate FSS.

Health problems associated with irritable bowel syndrome: analysis of a primary care registry.

Associations between irritable bowel syndrome and other health problems have been described, but comprehensive reports are missing, especially in primary care. To investigate which health problems are associated with irritable bowel syndrome, how they cluster together and when they are typically diagnosed relative to irritable bowel syndrome. We used Intego, a general practice registry in Flanders, Belgium. Patients with an irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis (n=13701) were matched with controls without gastrointestinal diagnosis and controls with organic gastrointestinal disease. Long-term prevalences of 680 symptoms and diagnoses were compared between patients and controls. Results were summarised using functional enrichment analysis and visualised in a network and we calculated incidence rate ratios in the 10years before and after the irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis for the network's key components. Various symptoms and infections, but not neoplasms, were enriched in irritable bowel syndrome patients compared to both control groups. We characterised the comorbidities of irritable bowel syndrome as psychosocial health problems, urogenital symptoms and infections, musculoskeletal symptoms and other somatic symptoms. These had a uniform incidence in the years around the irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis, and did not structurally precede or follow irritable bowel syndrome. Irritable bowel syndrome shares long-term associations with psychosocial health problems, urogenital symptoms and infections, musculoskeletal symptoms and other somatic symptoms in primary care. Clinicians are encouraged to take comorbidities into account when diagnosing and managing irritable bowel syndrome, as this may have important treatment implications.

Multiple somatic symptoms in primary care: A field study for ICD-11 PHC, WHO's revised classification of mental disorders in primary care settings

ObjectiveA World Health Organization (WHO) field study conducted in five countries assessed proposals for Bodily Stress Syndrome (BSS) and Health Anxiety (HA) for the Primary Health Care Version of ICD-11. BSS requires multiple somatic symptoms not caused by known physical pathology and associated with distress or dysfunction. HA involves persistent, intrusive fears of having an illness or intense preoccupation with and misinterpretation of bodily sensations. This study examined how the proposed descriptions for BSS and HA corresponded to what was observed by working primary care physicians (PCPs) in participating countries, and the relationship of BSS and HA to depressive and anxiety disorders and to disability. MethodPCPs referred patients judged to have BSS or HA, who were then interviewed using a standardized psychiatric interview and a standardized measure of disability. ResultsOf 587 patients with BSS or HA, 70.4% were identified as having both conditions. Participants had an average of 10.9 somatic symptoms. Patients who presented somatic symptoms across multiple body systems were more disabled than patients with symptoms in a single system. Most referred patients (78.9%) had co-occurring diagnoses of depression, anxiety, or both. Anxious depression was the most common co-occurring psychological disorder, associated with the greatest disability. ConclusionStudy results indicate the importance of assessing for mood and anxiety disorders among patients who present multiple somatic symptoms without identifiable physical pathology. Although highly co-occurring with each other and with mood and anxiety disorders, BSS and HA represent distinct constructs that correspond to important presentations in primary care.

Enhanced care by generalists for functional somatic symptoms and disorders in primary care

Patients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are common in primary care. Previous reviews have reported benefit from specialised interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy and consultation letters, but there is a need for treatment models which can be applied within the primary care setting. Primary care studies of enhanced care, which includes techniques of reattribution or cognitive behavioural therapy, or both, have shown changes in healthcare professionals' attitudes and behaviour. However, studies of patient outcome have shown variable results and the value of enhanced care on patient outcome remains unclear. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of enhanced care interventions for adults with functional somatic symptoms in primary care. The intervention should be delivered by professionals providing first contact care and be compared to treatment as usual. The review focused on patient outcomes only. We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) (all years to August 2012), together with Ovid searches (to September 2012) on MEDLINE (1950 - ), EMBASE (1980 - ) and PsycINFO (1806 - ). Earlier searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), CINAHL, PSYNDEX, SIGLE, and LILACS were conducted in April 2010, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2009. No language restrictions were applied. Electronic searches were supplemented by handsearches of relevant conference proceedings (2004 to 2012), reference lists (2011) and contact with authors of included studies and experts in the field (2011). We limited our literature search to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), primary care, and adults with functional somatic symptoms. Subsequently we selected studies including all of the following: 1) a trial arm with treatment as usual; 2) an intervention using a structured treatment model which draws on explanations for symptoms in broad bio-psycho-social terms or encourages patients to develop additional strategies for dealing with their physical symptoms, or both; 3) delivery of the intervention by primary care professionals providing first contact care; and 4) assessment of patient outcome. Two authors independently screened identified study abstracts. Disagreements about trial selections were resolved by a third review author. Data from selected publications were independently extracted and risk of bias assessed by two of three authors, avoiding investigators reviewing their own studies. We contacted authors from included studies to obtain missing information. We used continuous outcomes converted to standardised mean differences (SMDs) and based analyses on changes from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for clustering. We included seven studies from the literature search, but only six provided sufficient data for analyses. Included studies were European, cluster RCTs with adult participants seeing their usual doctor (in total 233 general practitioners and 1787 participants). Methodological quality was only moderate as studies had no blinding of healthcare professionals and several studies had a risk of recruitment and attrition bias. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to selection of patient populations and intensity of interventions. Outcomes relating to physical or general health (physical symptoms, quality of life) showed substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) > 70%) and post hoc analysis suggested that benefit was confined to more intensive interventions; thus we did not calculate a pooled effect. Outcomes relating to mental health showed less heterogeneity and we conducted meta-analyses, which found non-significant overall effect sizes with SMDs for changes at 6 to 24 months follow-up: mental health (3 studies) SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10), illness worry (3 studies) SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22), depression (4 studies) SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20) and anxiety (2 studies) SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.25). Effects on sick leave could not be estimated. Three studies of patient satisfaction with care all showed positive but non-significant effects, and measures were too heterogeneous to allow meta-analysis. Results on healthcare utilisation were inconclusive. We analysed study discontinuation and found that both short term and long term discontinuation occurred more often in patients allocated to the intervention group, RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.46) at 12 to 24 months. Current evidence does not answer the question whether enhanced care delivered by front line primary care professionals has an effect or not on the outcome of patients with functional somatic symptoms. Enhanced care may have an effect when delivered per protocol to well-defined groups of patients with functional disorders, but this needs further investigation. Attention should be paid to difficulties including limited consultation time, lack of skills, the need for a degree of diagnostic openness, and patient resistance towards psychosomatic attributions. There is some indication from this and other reviews that more intensive interventions are more successful in changing patient outcomes.

Somatic symptoms in primary care and psychological comorbidities in Qatar: Neglected burden of disease

Although somatic complains are the predominant reasons for seeking general medical care, there has been limited research on the clinical presentation of somatic symptoms in primary care settings in developing countries. The frequency of somatic symptoms in primary care in Qatar and its relationship to comorbidities of mental disorders is presented here. A total of 2,320 Arab patients were approached, of whom 76% agreed to participate for the survey conducted among primary healthcare (PHC) centre patients. The study was conducted with the help of general practitioners (GPs), using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-8 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD)-7 for anxiety, PHQ-15 for somatic symptoms and the Psychological Stress Measure (PSM)-9 for stress. Of the subjects with somatic symptoms (229 cases), most were Qataris (57.2%). Poor hearing (52.1%), palpitation (47.1%) and stomach pain (43.8%) were the most common in men, whereas constipation (54.6%), feeling depressed (50.9%), and poor hearing (50.6%) were the most common in women; 48.5% had more than four somatic symptoms. Somatic symptoms were severe in 31.9%. Somatic symptoms were associated with depression (15.3%), anxiety (8.7%) and stress disorders (19.2%). The study findings revealed that somatic symptoms were significantly associated with socio-economic status. Somatic symptoms were significantly associated with depression, anxiety and stress disorders.

Role of mental health professionals in the management of functional somatic symptoms in primary care

Functional somatic symptoms associated with persistent frequent attendance is emotionally demanding, costly and intractable to treat. Such patients are hard to engage in practice and research by mental health professionals, whose main role may be indirect training, supporting and advising primary care professionals rather than direct patient care.

The structure of depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms in primary care

Observed co-morbidity among the mood and anxiety disorders has led to the development of increasingly sophisticated dimensional models to represent the common and unique features of these disorders. Patients often present to primary care settings with a complex mixture of anxiety, depression and somatic symptoms. However, relatively little is known about how somatic symptoms fit into existing dimensional models. We examined the structure of 91 anxiety, depression and somatic symptoms in a sample of 5433 primary care patients drawn from 14 countries. One-, two- and three-factor lower-order models were considered; higher-order and hierarchical variants were studied for the best-fitting lower-order model. A hierarchical, bifactor model with all symptoms loading simultaneously on a general factor, along with one of three specific anxiety, depression and somatic factors, was the best-fitting model. The general factor accounted for the bulk of symptom variance and was associated with psychosocial dysfunction. Specific depression and somatic symptom factors accounted for meaningful incremental variance in diagnosis and dysfunction, whereas anxiety variance was associated primarily with the general factor. The results (a) are consistent with previous studies showing the presence and importance of a broad internalizing or distress factor linking diverse emotional disorders, and (b) extend the bounds of internalizing to include somatic complaints with non-physical etiologies.

Symptom Presentation, Interventions, and Outcome of Emotionally-Distressed Patients in Primary Care

Patients with psychosocial problems often present somatic symptoms in primary care. The authors compare interventions and outcomes of emotionally-distressed patients by presenting physical disease, somatoform symptoms, or psychological symptoms. General practitioners (N=191) documented data from 1,286 patients with psychosocial problems. Experts rated the presented reasons for encounter. Somatoform symptoms, as well as physical disease, result in patients' receiving physical treatments. Psychologically-oriented treatment is more likely with psychological presentation, but not significantly related to somatoform symptoms. These findings underline the importance of a specific treatment approach for patients with somatoform symptoms, so as to avoid inappropriate treatment.

Randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression with somatic symptoms in primary care: the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressant response) study

To determine (1) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression in patients with somatic symptoms in primary care; and (2) the impact of the initial severity of depression on effectiveness and relative costs. To investigate the impact of demographic and social variables. The study was a parallel group, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. The study took place in a UK primary care setting. Patients were referred by 177 GPs from 115 practices around three academic centres. Patients diagnosed with new episodes of depression and potentially in need of treatment. In total, 602 patients were referred to the study team, of whom 220 were randomised. GPs were asked to provide supportive care to all participants in follow-up consultations 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks after the baseline assessment, to prescribe an SSRI of their choice to patients in the SSRI plus supportive care arm and to continue treatment for at least 4 months after recovery. They could switch antidepressants during treatment if necessary. They were asked to refrain from prescribing an antidepressant to those in the supportive care alone arm during the first 12 weeks but could prescribe to these patients if treatment became necessary. The primary outcome measure was Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score at 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were scores on HDRS at 26-week follow-up, Beck Depression Inventory, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS), modified Client Service Receipt Inventory and medical record data. SSRIs were received by 87% of patients in the SSRI plus supportive care arm and 20% in the supportive care alone arm. Longitudinal analyses demonstrated statistically significant differences in favour of the SSRI plus supportive care arm in terms of lower HDRS scores and higher scores on the SF-36 and MISS. Significant mean differences in HDRS score adjusted for baseline were found at both follow-up points when analysed separately but were relatively small. The numbers needed to treat for remission (to HDRS > 8) were 6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4 to 26)] at 12 weeks and 6 (95% CI 3 to 31) at 26 weeks, and for significant improvement (HDRS reduction > or = 50%) were 7 (95% CI 4 to 83) and 5 (95% CI 3 to 13) respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness planes suggested that adding an SSRI to supportive care was probably cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for utility suggested that adding an SSRI to supportive care was cost-effective at the values of 20,000 pounds-30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. A poorer outcome on the HDRS was significantly related to greater severity at baseline, a higher physical symptom score and being unemployed. Treatment with an SSRI plus supportive care is more effective than supportive care alone for patients with mild to moderate depression, at least for those with symptoms persisting for 8 weeks and an HRDS score of > or = 12. The additional benefit is relatively small, and may be at least in part a placebo effect, but is probably cost-effective at the level used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to make judgements about recommending treatments within the National Health Service. However, further research is required.

Recent developments in the understanding and management of functional somatic symptoms in primary care

Medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are prevalent in primary care, but general practitioners commonly find them difficult to treat. We focus on the conceptual issues and treatment from a primary care perspective, although the field is difficult to review because of the inconsistency and multiplicity of terminology used by different authors and specialties. The training of general practitioners in management techniques has been hampered by an obsolete theoretical framework and outdated diagnostic systems. Epidemiological studies, however, indicate that valid, empirically based diagnostic criteria for functional disorders may be developed. Management studies in primary care have shown disappointing effects on patient outcome, but a lot may be gained by making the training programmes more sophisticated. Recently, stepped care approaches have been introduced but they need scientific evaluation. There is an immediate need for a common language and a theoretical framework of understanding of functional symptoms and disorders across medical specialties, clinically and scientifically. Any names that presuppose a mind-body dualism (such as somatization, medically unexplained) ought to be abolished. The overall ambition for treatment is to offer patients with functional somatic symptoms the same quality of professional healthcare as we offer any other patient.

Classification of Somatization and Functional Somatic Symptoms in Primary Care

A substantial proportion of patients found in primary care complain of physical symptoms not attributable to any known conventionally defined disorder, that is, medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms. The objective of this paper is to outline the problems with the current classification and propose a classification more suitable for primary health care. We refer to and discuss relevant literature including papers on our own research on the topic in the light of our experiences from major projects on somatizing patients in primary health care. Functional somatic symptoms may impose severe suffering on the patient and are costly for society because of high health-care utilization, lost working years and social expenses. At present, studies on functional somatic symptoms and disorders and their treatment are hampered by lack of a valid and reliable diagnostic classification. The diagnostic categories of somatoform disorders are overlapping. Thus, the present situation is that patients with identical symptoms and clinical pictures may receive different diagnostic labels depending on the focus of interests of the assessing physician. A particular problem in primary care is that the somatoform diagnostic categories only include persistent cases and do not offer the opportunity for classification of the patients with short-symptom duration found in this setting. We present a framework for a new descriptive classification of functional somatic symptoms and unfounded illness worrying, and outline a new classification that covers the whole spectrum of severity seen in clinical practice. A precondition for an appropriate management of patients with functional somatic symptoms is a valid taxonomy common for all medical specialties facilitating cooperative care. Classification systems as outlined in this paper may be a candidate for such a system, but it should be subject to further evaluation in research.

Classification of somatization and functional somatic symptoms in primary care

Classification of somatization and functional somatic symptoms in primary care

P.1.121 Venlafaxine XR in depressed and anxiouspatients with multiple, unexplained somatic symptoms in primary care

We examined whether early response/non-response to risperidone according to the Clinical Global Impressions-improvement scale (CGI-I) at 2 weeks could predict subsequent response. This prediction was also applied to olanzapine. We then investigated whether early non-responders (ENRs) to risperidone or olanzapine who switched to the other showed significantly greater improvement, compared with those staying on the initial antipsychotic. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized controlled trial in 18 psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia. Early response was defined as CGI-I ≤ 3 following 2 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome measure was achievement of remission and ≥ 50% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale at 4 weeks.At 4 weeks, 53% of risperidone early responders (ERs) went into remission, whereas only 9% of ENRs staying on risperidone (n = 11) did (P = 0.016). Similarly, at 4 weeks, 81% of risperidone ERs achieved ≥ 50% response, whereas only 9% of ENRs staying on risperidone achieved ≥ 50% response (P < 0.0001). In contrast, 58% of olanzapine ERs (n = 33) went into remission, whereas 38% of ENRs staying on olanzapine (n = 8) did at 4 weeks (P = 0.44). Similarly, 61% of olanzapine ERs achieved ≥ 50% response, whereas 25% of ENRs staying on olanzapine achieved ≥ 50% response (P = 0.12). The negative likelihood ratio for the prediction of ≥ 50% response at 4 weeks by early response status to risperidone at 2 weeks was 0.057.In newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia, non-response to risperidone using CGI-I at 2 weeks can predict subsequent response. It looks like there is significant response to olanzapine that doesn't occur until 4 weeks. Thus, clinicians may want to switch to another drug earlier when risperidone is the first drug, and later when olanzapine is the first drug.