AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

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
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.

Lise Gormsen, MD, PhD contact

+4578464310

lisgorm@rm.dk

Cecilia Jespersen, MD contact

+4578464310

cecijesp@rm.dk

Denmark1 site, 1 recruiting
  • Research Cinic for Functional Disorders

    Aarhus, 8200

    Lise Gormsen, 78464310, lisgorm@rm.dk

    Cecilia Pihl, 78464310, cecijesp@rm.dk

    Recruiting

Other trials in Denmark

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:

  1. Patient education alone (three individual consultations with a doctor and one group session)
  2. Treatment as usual (receiving the diagnosis and a short presentation of what FSD is)
  3. Duloxetine
  4. Active placebo (a treatment that looks like duloxetine and has similar side effects, but no known effect on FSD)
  5. Patient education and duloxetine
  6. 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.

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 groups in NCT06232473
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Patient EducationExperimentalThe 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 CareActive comparatorInclusion 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 CareExperimentalDuloxetine 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 CarePlacebo comparatorParticipants 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 DuloxetineExperimentalParticipants 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 PlaceboExperimentalParticipants 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.

  1. 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)

  2. 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)
  1. 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)

  2. 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)

  3. 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)

  4. 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)

  5. 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)

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. 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)

  9. 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)

  10. 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)

  11. 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.

  1. First posted30 Jan 2024
  2. Study start1 Jan 2024
  3. Primary completion1 Nov 2027 (estimated)
  4. Study completion1 Nov 2029 (estimated)

Resources

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)
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 32122350
  • Roenneberg 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 31554544
  • Henningsen 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 29306954
  • Petersen 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 31409218
  • Fink 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 20403500
  • Hauser 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 32305723
  • Fink 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 17244846
  • Budtz-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 26324499
  • Rask 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 25456975
  • Schroder 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 28183406
  • van 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 25362239
  • Schroder 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 22539780
  • Fjorback 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 23272986
  • Agger 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 28408193
  • Pedersen 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in