Mollii Suit and Fibromyalgia (EXOFIB 2)

Fibromyalgia Clinical Trial

Official title:

The Effects of EXOPULSE Mollii Suit on Fibromyalgia Syndrome in Patients With Fibromyalgia (EXOFIB 2): A Sham Controlled Randomized Double-Blind Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT06226376
• Other study ID #: EXOFIB2
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: January 8, 2024
• Est. completion date: July 1, 2025

Study information

• Verified date: April 2024
• Source: Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City
• Contact: Naji J Riachi, MD
• Phone: +97123144444
• Email: nriachi[@]ssmc.ae
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to demonstrate the improvement of fibromyalgia syndrome obtained following active stimulation compared to sham, with diminished functional disability and improved health status using Exopulse Molli suit stimulation. The main questions it aims to answer are:

Evaluation of pain, fatigue, mood and quality of life changes observed after active stimulation in comparison to sham.

Improvement of fibromyalgia syndrome as per the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ)

Study subjects will participate in:

A randomized sham controlled double-blind trial to demonstrate the improvement of pain, quality of life, fatigue and mood in adult patients with fibromyalgia following a 2-week intervention of "active" versus "sham" Exopulse Mollii suit. A 2-week washout period should be enough to prevent a potential carry over effect. After this phase (phase 1), a second open label phase (phase 2) will be proposed for patients to understand the effects of Exopulse Mollii suit employed for 4 weeks (7 sessions per week) on the studied outcomes.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 34
• Est. completion date: July 1, 2025
• Est. primary completion date: April 2, 2025
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 75 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients aged between 18 and 75 years, with a definite diagnosis of fibromyalgia according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2010 criteria, set for at least one month.

• Patients should be able to understand verbal instructions.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patient with VAS < 4

• Patient included in another research protocol during the study period

• Patient unable to undergo medical monitor for the study purposes due to geographical or social reasons

• Patient with contraindication to wearing Exopulse Mollii suit (e.g., cardiac stimulator, a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, intrathecal baclofen pump, pregnancy, and/or body mass index above 35 kg/m2)

• Patient with other somatic or psychiatric diagnoses other than anxiety and depression (e.g., arrhythmias, uncontrolled epilepsy, other diseases causing osteoarticular and muscular pain)

• Any change in the pharmacological therapy in the last three months

• Introduction of a medical device other than Exopulse Mollii suit during the study period

• Patient under juridical protection

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Collagen Diseases
• Fibromyalgia
• Muscular Diseases
• Myofascial Pain Syndromes
• Nervous System Diseases
• Neuromuscular Diseases
• Rheumatic Diseases

Intervention

Device:
• EXOPULSE Mollii Suit Stimulation
We designed a randomized sham controlled double-blind trial to demonstrate the improvement of pain, quality of life, fatigue and mood in adult patients with fibromyalgia following a 2-week intervention of "active" versus "sham" Exopulse Mollii suit. A 2-week washout period should be enough to prevent a potential carry over effect. After this phase (phase 1), a second open label phase (phase 2) will be proposed for patients to understand the effects of Exopulse Mollii suit employed for 4 weeks (7 sessions per week) on the studied outcomes.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United Arab Emirates	SSMC	Abu Dhabi

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United Arab Emirates, 

References & Publications (40)

Annemans L, Le Lay K, Taieb C. Societal and patient burden of fibromyalgia syndrome. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(7):547-59. doi: 10.2165/11313650-000000000-00000. — View Citation

Bengtsson A, Henriksson KG. The muscle in fibromyalgia--a review of Swedish studies. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1989 Nov;19:144-9. — View Citation

Bocerean C, Dupret E. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in a large sample of French employees. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Dec 16;14:354. doi: 10.1186/s12888-014-0354-0. — View Citation

Burckhardt CS, Clark SR, Bennett RM. The fibromyalgia impact questionnaire: development and validation. J Rheumatol. 1991 May;18(5):728-33. — View Citation

Burwinkle T, Robinson JP, Turk DC. Fear of movement: factor structure of the tampa scale of kinesiophobia in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. J Pain. 2005 Jun;6(6):384-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2005.01.355. — View Citation

Busner J, Targum SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007 Jul;4(7):28-37. — View Citation

Campbell WI, Lewis S. Visual analogue measurement of pain. Ulster Med J. 1990 Oct;59(2):149-54. — View Citation

Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38. — View Citation

Coskun Benlidayi I. The effectiveness and safety of electrotherapy in the management of fibromyalgia. Rheumatol Int. 2020 Oct;40(10):1571-1580. doi: 10.1007/s00296-020-04618-0. Epub 2020 Jun 10. — View Citation

Da Silva TFG, Suda EY, Marçulo CA, Paes FHS, Pinheiro GT. Comparison of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and hydrotherapy effects on pain, flexibility and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia [Comparação dos efeitos da estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea e da hidroterapia na dor, flexibilidade e qualidade de vida de pacientes com fibromialgia]. Fisioterapia e Pesquisa 2008;15:118-24.

Dailey DL, Rakel BA, Vance CGT, Liebano RE, Amrit AS, Bush HM, Lee KS, Lee JE, Sluka KA. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation reduces pain, fatigue and hyperalgesia while restoring central inhibition in primary fibromyalgia. Pain. 2013 Nov;154(11):2554-2562. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.07.043. Epub 2013 Jul 27. — View Citation

Dailey DL, Vance CGT, Rakel BA, Zimmerman MB, Embree J, Merriwether EN, Geasland KM, Chimenti R, Williams JM, Golchha M, Crofford LJ, Sluka KA. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Reduces Movement-Evoked Pain and Fatigue: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 May;72(5):824-836. doi: 10.1002/art.41170. Epub 2020 Mar 18. — View Citation

Drewes AM, Andreasen A, Schroder HD, Hogsaa B, Jennum P. Pathology of skeletal muscle in fibromyalgia: a histo-immuno-chemical and ultrastructural study. Br J Rheumatol. 1993 Jun;32(6):479-83. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/32.6.479. — View Citation

Elvin A, Siosteen AK, Nilsson A, Kosek E. Decreased muscle blood flow in fibromyalgia patients during standardised muscle exercise: a contrast media enhanced colour Doppler study. Eur J Pain. 2006 Feb;10(2):137-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.001. — View Citation

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146. — View Citation

French DJ, Noël M, Vigneau F, French JA, Cyr CP, Evans RT. [PCS-CF: A French-language, French-Canadian adaptation of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2005;37:181-192.

Ghavidel-Parsa B, Bidari A, Amir Maafi A, Ghalebaghi B. The Iceberg Nature of Fibromyalgia Burden: The Clinical and Economic Aspects. Korean J Pain. 2015 Jul;28(3):169-76. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2015.28.3.169. Epub 2015 Jul 1. — View Citation

Johnson MI, Claydon LS, Herbison GP, Jones G, Paley CA. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for fibromyalgia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 9;10(10):CD012172. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012172.pub2. — View Citation

Kahl C, Cleland J. Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale and the McGill Pain Quesitonniare: An Overview of Psychometric Properties. Phys Ther. 2005;10:123.

Kim SK, Kim SH, Lee CK, Lee HS, Lee SH, Park YB, Park HJ, Son MJ, Lee SS. Effect of fibromyalgia syndrome on the health-related quality of life and economic burden in Korea. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 Feb;52(2):311-20. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes255. Epub 2012 Sep 28. — View Citation

Macfarlane GJ, Kronisch C, Dean LE, Atzeni F, Hauser W, Fluss E, Choy E, Kosek E, Amris K, Branco J, Dincer F, Leino-Arjas P, Longley K, McCarthy GM, Makri S, Perrot S, Sarzi-Puttini P, Taylor A, Jones GT. EULAR revised recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Feb;76(2):318-328. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209724. Epub 2016 Jul 4. — View Citation

Marques AP, Assumpcao A, Matsutani LA, Pereira CA, Lage L. Pain in fibromyalgia and discrimination power of the instruments: Visual Analog Scale, Dolorimetry and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Acta Reumatol Port. 2008 Jul-Sep;33(3):345-51. — View Citation

Okifuji A, Hare BD. Management of fibromyalgia syndrome: review of evidence. Pain Ther. 2013 Dec;2(2):87-104. doi: 10.1007/s40122-013-0016-9. Epub 2013 Sep 21. — View Citation

Park JH, Phothimat P, Oates CT, Hernanz-Schulman M, Olsen NJ. Use of P-31 magnetic resonance spectroscopy to detect metabolic abnormalities in muscles of patients with fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Mar;41(3):406-13. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199803)41:33.0.CO;2-L. — View Citation

Perneger TV, Leplege A, Etter JF, Rougemont A. Validation of a French-language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Aug;48(8):1051-60. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00227-h. — View Citation

Perrot S, Dumont D, Guillemin F, Pouchot J, Coste J; French Group for Quality of Life Research. Quality of life in women with fibromyalgia syndrome: validation of the QIF, the French version of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 2003 May;30(5):1054-9. — View Citation

Queiroz LP. Worldwide epidemiology of fibromyalgia. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2013 Aug;17(8):356. doi: 10.1007/s11916-013-0356-5. — View Citation

Riachi N, Khazen G, Ahdab R, Jörgen S. Pain reducing properties of the Mollii suit on adults with chronic pain syndromes. J. Neurol. Sci. 2019;405:138-139

Schaefer C, Chandran A, Hufstader M, Baik R, McNett M, Goldenberg D, Gerwin R, Zlateva G. The comparative burden of mild, moderate and severe fibromyalgia: results from a cross-sectional survey in the United States. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Aug 22;9:71. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-71. — View Citation

Schmidt-Wilcke T, Clauw DJ. Fibromyalgia: from pathophysiology to therapy. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011 Jul 19;7(9):518-27. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2011.98. — View Citation

Schmidt-Wilcke T, Diers M. New Insights into the Pathophysiology and Treatment of Fibromyalgia. Biomedicines. 2017 May 13;5(2):22. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines5020022. — View Citation

Sprott H, Rzanny R, Reichenbach JR, Kaiser WA, Hein G, Stein G. 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy in fibromyalgic muscle. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000 Oct;39(10):1121-5. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.10.1121. — View Citation

Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-Minute Walk Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002 Feb;82(2):128-37. doi: 10.1093/ptj/82.2.128. — View Citation

Sullivan MJ, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:524-532.

Taylor SJ, Steer M, Ashe SC, Furness PJ, Haywood-Small S, Lawson K. Patients' perspective of the effectiveness and acceptability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of fibromyalgia. Scand J Pain. 2019 Jan 28;19(1):167-181. doi: 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0116. — View Citation

Ware JE Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.

Winkelmann A, Perrot S, Schaefer C, Ryan K, Chandran A, Sadosky A, Zlateva G. Impact of fibromyalgia severity on health economic costs: results from a European cross-sectional study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011 Mar 1;9(2):125-36. doi: 10.2165/11535250-000000000-00000. — View Citation

Wolfe F, Brahler E, Hinz A, Hauser W. Fibromyalgia prevalence, somatic symptom reporting, and the dimensionality of polysymptomatic distress: results from a survey of the general population. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 May;65(5):777-85. doi: 10.1002/acr.21931. — View Citation

Wolfe F, Clauw DJ, Fitzcharles MA, Goldenberg DL, Katz RS, Mease P, Russell AS, Russell IJ, Winfield JB, Yunus MB. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia and measurement of symptom severity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010 May;62(5):600-10. doi: 10.1002/acr.20140. — View Citation

Wolfe F, Walitt BT, Hauser W. What is fibromyalgia, how is it diagnosed, and what does it really mean? Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014 Jul;66(7):969-71. doi: 10.1002/acr.22207. No abstract available. — View Citation

* Note: There are 40 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Visual Analogue Scale for Pain	Pain will be measured using a visual analog score from 0 to 10, 0 being no pain, to 10 being the worst possible pain.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8 and week 12.
Secondary	Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ)	It is an 11-item scale that assesses health status and functional disability by exploring the impact of fibromyalgia on work, wellbeing, fatigue, sleep, stiffness, anxiety, and depression. FIQ scores can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting worse health status. Scores could be used to classify fibromyalgia as mild (scores: 0-38), moderate (scores: 39-58), and severe (scores: 59-100)	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8 and week 12.
Secondary	Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)	will be used to assess pain severity (4 items) and pain interference (7 items). BPI items are rated on a 10-point scale running from 0 (no pain/does not interfere) to 10 (pain as bad as the participant can imagine/interferes completely).	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8 and week 12.
Secondary	Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)	Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) will be employed, which is a valid and reliable scale that includes 13 items assessing the presence and severity of feelings or thoughts that emerge when experiencing pain. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time). It is possible to calculate a total and three subscale scores (i.e., helplessness, magnification, and rumination)	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8 and week 12.
Secondary	Quality of life as per the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36)	It is a generic survey that contains 36 items which assess the quality of life and yield eight dimensions: physical functioning, physical role, emotional role, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, and mental health. The score of each dimension ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scales implying better health status.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8 and week 12.
Secondary	Visual Analogue Scale for Fatigue	Fatigue will be measured using a visual analog score from 0 to 10, 0 being no fatigue, to 10 being the worst possible fatigue	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8 and week 12.
Secondary	Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)	It is a 14-item generic scale with good psychometric properties and consists of seven items assessing anxiety and seven others assessing depression. Scores can range from 0 to 21 on each subscale, with higher scores indicating worse symptomatology.	This to be assessed at baseline, then at week 2, week 4, week 6, week 8 and week 12.
Secondary	Clinical Global Impression (CGI)	Evaluation of overall Clinical improvement will be done using the 7-point Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Patient will fill a questionnaire that will address their clinical situation as follows: Very much improved. Much improved. Slightly improved. No change. Slightly worse Much worse. Very much worse The score will range from 1-7, 1 being the best clinical outcome and 7 the worst.	This to be assessed at week 2, week 6 and week 12.