Epidemiologie des Fibromyalgiesyndroms und dessen sozioökonomische Relevanz

Zusammenfassung

Die Prävalenz des Fibromyalgiesyndroms (FMS) liegt auch nach neueren epidemiologischen Berechnungen bei ca. drei Prozent. Ausgehend von einer Prävalenz von ca. fünf Prozent unter US-amerikanischen Frauen gilt es dort als dritthäufigste rheumatische Erkrankung nach dem “low back pain” und der Arthrose. Die durch das FMS im Vergleich zum Durchschnitt sonstiger Patienten entstehenden Mehrkosten sind erheblich und sollten dazu auffordern, die Erforschung eines solchen Krankheitsbildes zu intensivieren mit dem Ziel einer rationalen und letztlich kostensenkenden Behandlung.

Summary

Results from epidemiologic research on fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) still demonstrate an overall prevalence of 3 % in the general population. The most recent estimates from the United States suggest that FMS affects about 5 % of all women, and is the third most common rheumatic disorder following low back pain and osteoarthritis. A Spanish study from a multicenter primary care setting, analyzing the incremental costs of patients with FMS as compared with costs of patients with no claims related to FMS, highlights the socio- economic burden of the disease.The data support the need for an increase of research efforts in order to improve the efficacy of therapies and to consequently reduce costs.

Schlüsselwörter

Fibromyalgiesyndrom - Epidemiologie - sozioökonomische Relevanz

Keywords

Fibromyalgia syndrome - epidemiology - socioeconomic relevance

• Literatur

• 1 Bennett RM, Bushmakin AG, Cappelleri JC. et al. Minimal clinically important difference in the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2009; 36 (06) 1304-1311.
• 2 Berger A, Dukes E, Martin S. et al. Characteristics and healthcare costs of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61 (09) 1498-1508.
• 3 Bergman S, Herrstrom P, Hogstrom K. et al. Chronic musculoskeletal pain, prevalence rates, and sociodemographic associations in a Swedish population study. J Rheumatol 2001; 28 (06) 1369-1377.
• 4 Bergman S, Herrstrom P, Jacobsson LT, Petersson IF. Chronic widespread pain: a three year followup of pain distribution and risk factors. J Rheumatol 2002; 29 (04) 818-825.
• 5 Boonen A, van den Heuvel R, van Tubergen A. et al. Large differences in cost of illness and wellbeing between patients with fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, or ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 (03) 396-402.
• 6 Branco JC, Bannwarth B, Failde I. et al. Prevalence of Fibromyalgia: A Survey in Five European Countries. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Feb 26.
• 7 Croft P, Schollum J, Silman A. Population study of tender point counts and pain as evidence of fibromyalgia. Bmj 1994; 309 (6956): 696-699.
• 8 Forseth KO, Gran JT. The prevalence of fibromyalgia among women aged 20–49 years in Arendal, Norway. Scand J Rheumatol 1992; 21 (02) 74-78.
• 9 Hüppe A, Brockow T, Raspe H. [Chronic widespread pain and tender points in low back pain: a population-based study] Chronisch ausgebreitete Schmerzen und Tender Points bei Rückenschmerzen in der Bevölkerung. Z Rheumatol 2004; 63 (01) 76-83.
• 10 Hughes G, Martinez C, Myon E. et al. The impact of a diagnosis of fibromyalgia on health care resource use by primary care patients in the UK: an observational study based on clinical practice. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54 (01) 177-183.
• 11 Jacobsson L, Lindgärde F, Manthorpe R. The commonest rheumatic complaints of over six weeks’ duration in a twelve-month period in a defined Swedish population. Prevalences and relationships. Scand J Rheumatol 1989; 18 (06) 353-360.
• 12 Kohlmann T. [Musculoskeletal pain in the population] Muskuloskelettale Schmerzen in der Bevölkerung. Schmerz 2003; 17 (06) 405-411.
• 13 Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG. et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58 (01) 26-35.
• 14 Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC. et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41 (05) 778-799.
• 15 Lindell L, Bergman S, Petersson IF. et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia and chronic widespread pain. Scand J Prim Health Care 2000; 18 (03) 149-153.
• 16 Mäkelä M, Heliövaara M. Prevalence of primary fibromyalgia in the Finnish population. Bmj 1991; 303 (6796): 216-219.
• 17 Prescott E, Jacobsen S, Kjoller M. et al. Fibromyalgia in the adult Danish population: II. A study of clinical features. Scand J Rheumatol 1993; 22 (05) 238-242.
• 18 Robinson RL, Birnbaum HG, Morley MA. et al. Economic cost and epidemiological characteristics of patients with fibromyalgia claims. J Rheumatol 2003; 30 (06) 1318-1325.
• 19 Robinson RL, Birnbaum HG, Morley MA. et al. Depression and fibromyalgia: treatment and cost when diagnosed separately or concurrently. J Rheumatol 2004; 31 (08) 1621-1629.
• 20 Schochat T, Raspe H. Elements of fibromyalgia in an open population. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003; 42 (07) 829-835.
• 21 Sicras-Mainar A, Rejas J, Navarro R. et al. Treating patients with fibromyalgia in primary care settings under routine medical practice: a claim database cost and burden of illness study. Arthritis Res Ther 2009; 11 (02) R54.
• 22 Spaeth M. Epidemiology, costs, and the economic burden of fibromyalgia. Arthritis Res Ther 2009; 11 (03) 117.
• 23 White KP, Nielson WR, Harth M. et al. Does the label “fibromyalgia” alter health status, function, and health service utilization? A prospective, withingroup comparison in a community cohort of adults with chronic widespread pain. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47 (03) 260-265.
• 24 White KP, Speechley M, Harth M, Ostbye T. The London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study: direct health care costs of fibromyalgia syndrome in London, Canada. J Rheumatol 1999; 26 (04) 885-889.
• 25 White KP, Thompson J. Fibromyalgia syndrome in an Amish community: a controlled study to determine disease and symptom prevalence. J Rheumatol 2003; 30 (08) 1835-1840.
• 26 Wolfe F. The relation between tender points and fibromyalgia symptom variables: evidence that fibromyalgia is not a discrete disorder in the clinic. Ann Rheum Dis 1997; 56 (04) 268-271.
• 27 Wolfe F, Ross K, Anderson J. et al. The prevalence and characteristics of fibromyalgia in the general population. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38 (01) 19-28.
• 28 Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB. et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33 (02) 160-172.