PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
J Clin Rheumatol. Author manuscript; available in PMC Nov 2, 2011.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3206258
NIHMSID: NIHMS330410
Effects of Lifestyle Physical Activity in Adults With Fibromyalgia
Results at Follow-Up
Kevin R. Fontaine, PhD,* Lora Conn, CMA,* and Daniel J. Clauw, MD
*Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
Departments of Anesthesiology and Medicine (Rheumatology), University of Michigan, Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Correspondence: Kevin Fontaine, PhD, Division of Rheumatology, 5200 Eastern Avenue, MFL Building, Center Tower, Suite 430-A, Baltimore, MD 21224. kfontai1/at/jhmi.edu
Background
In a 12-week randomized controlled trial of the effects of lifestyle physical activity (LPA) on symptoms and function among adults with fibromyalgia, we found that LPA participants increased their average daily step count by 54%, improved their self-reported functioning by 18%, and reduced their pain by 35%.
Objectives
The objective of the study was to evaluate the intermediate (6 months) and long-term (12 months) effects of the LPA intervention on outcomes.
Methods
Participants completed follow-up assessments of physical activity, pain, fibromyalgia-related function, fatigue, depression, number of tender points, 6-minute walk test, and perceived improvement at 6 and 12 months after intervention.
Results
Of the 73 participants who completed the 12-week trial, 53 (73%) completed both the 6- and 12-month follow-up. Although the LPA participants reported greater perceived improvement at each follow-up, they did not differ from controls on pain, physical activity, tenderness, fatigue, depression, or the 6-minute walk test. Self-reported functioning declined markedly at follow-up for the LPA participants.
Conclusions
Although participants reported greater perceived improvement at each assessment, the beneficial effects of LPA on physical activity, function, and pain found after the 12-week intervention were not sustained over time. This recidivism is seen in studies of activity and exercise in nearly any condition, and innovative methods that may prevent this are a focus of future studies.
Keywords: fibromyalgia, physical activity, pain
Fibromyalgia (FM), a chronic, multidimensional disorder characterized by persistent, widespread body pain and ten-derness,1 affects about 2% of the US population and occurs about 8 times more in women than in men.2 Fibromyalgia can hamper day-to-day functioning and is a major cause of disability.3 In a previous report,4 we evaluated the effects of 12 weeks of lifestyle physical activity (LPA; it involves working toward meeting the US Surgeon General’s 1996 Physical Activity Recommendations5 of accumulating at least 30 minutes, above one’s usual activity, of moderate-intensity physical activity 5–7 days a week by integrating short bouts of activity into the day, such as increasing the amount of walking, performing more yard work, or using the stairs) on pain, function, fatigue, and other outcomes in adults with FM. We found that, compared with education controls, the LPA participants increased their average daily step count by 54%, reduced their functional deficits, as assessed by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire6 (FIQ), by 18%, and reduced their pain by 35%. In this article, we report the results of 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments of physical activity, pain, functional deficits, fatigue, depression, tender points, 6-minute walk test, and perceived improvement.
Study Participants
Seventy-three participants (70 women and 3 men) 18 years or older who met American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria7 for FM completed the 12-week trial. The mean (SD) age of participants was 47.2 (11.1) years, and 84% were white. The mean duration of FM was 7.4 (6.2) years. Detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria, study procedures, and descriptions of the LPA intervention were described previously.4 In brief, participants assigned to LPA attended six 60-minute group sessions over 12 weeks designed to increase moderate-intensity physical activity by helping participants find ways to accumulate short bouts of physical activity throughout the day. Participants assigned to the fibromyalgia education (FME) control group met monthly for 3 months and were provided a minimal intervention that provided FM education and social support.4
Assessments
At each of the 4 assessments (i.e., baseline, postintervention, 6- and 12-month follow-up), participants completed a series of questionnaires, a tender point examination, and a 6-minute walk test. The questionnaires were the 10-item FIQ,6 a 100-mm pain visual analog scale, the 7-item Fatigue Severity Scale,8 and the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).9 A digital tender point examination, at the 18 sites specified in the American College of Rheumatology FM classification criteria,7 was also completed at each assessment. For the 6-minute walk test,10 participants walked as far they could in 6 minutes on a preselected course, with the distance walked recorded. At postintervention and at 6- and 12-month follow-up, they also completed a single-item measure that asked, “Since the start of the study, how much change has there been in your FM?” Responses were on a 7-point scale ranging from “very much better” to “very much worse,” with lower scores indicative of greater perceived improvement. Finally, for each assessment, participants wore a waist-mounted pedometer (AccuSplit Eagle 1020, Livermore, California) for 7 days (recalibrating it each morning) and recorded their daily step count (these data were used to calculate the mean steps per day as an estimate of physical activity).
Data Analysis
Changes on physical activity (i.e., average daily steps) and outcome measures from baseline at postintervention and at 6- and 12-month follow-up were examined using a 2 × 4 (condition × time) repeated-measures analysis of variance and, when appropriate, post hoc comparisons on the participants who completed each follow-up assessment. Participants with missing data on 1 of the 4 physical activity assessments (n = 17) or on any outcome measures (n = 5) were included in the analysis by using their last observation carried forward. Because there was a significant difference between the LPA and FME groups on self-reported duration of FM, this variable was included as a covariate. Changes in medication (i.e., 0 = no change, 1 = change), queried at each assessment, were also included as a covariate in the models. Analyses were performed using SPSS software, version 16 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois). Two-tailed P < 0.05 was used to denote statistical significance.
Fifty-three of the 73 participants (73%) who completed the 12-week intervention also completed the 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments. Failure to complete the follow-up assessments was unrelated to randomized treatment assignment (P = 0.657), and there were no significant differences on any study variables between those who did or did not complete the follow-up assessments (data not shown). With the exception of duration of FM, the LPA and FME groups were comparable on age, race, education, and employment status or in medication changes during the trial (Table 1).
TABLE 1
TABLE 1
Characteristics of the 53 Adults With FM Who Completed the 6- and 12-Month Follow-Up Assessmentsa
Figure 1 shows average daily step counts during the four 7-day assessments for the LPA and FME groups. There was significant effect for condition (P = 0.038), but not for time (P = 0.197) or time × condition interaction (P = 0.117). The effect of condition was driven by a significant baseline to postintervention difference between LPA and FME (P = 0.002). Table 2 shows the results of the repeated-measures analysis on study outcomes. There was no significant condition or time effects on the FM Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) scores. However, there was a significant condition × time effect (P = 0.022) between comparisons of LPA and FME at baseline to postintervention and at postintervention to the 6-month follow-up assessments (P’s = 0.008 and 0.015, respectively). Specifically, the beneficial effects of LPA on FIQ scores found at the baseline to postintervention comparison with FME were not maintained at 6-month follow-up. Indeed, the LPA group’s FIQ scores increased at 6-month follow-up, whereas they decreased for FME. There was a significant time effect (P = 0.003) for CES-D scores, which was driven by a significant reduction in the scores for both groups between their postintervention and 6-month follow-up assessments (P = 0.009). There was also a significant condition effect (P = 0.001) on the perceived improvement variable indicating that LPA participants reported significantly greater improvement than did FME participants at postintervention and at 6- and 12-month follow-up (P’s = 0.001, 0.020, and 0.014, respectively).
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Average daily steps for the two study groups during each 7-day assessment.
TABLE 2
TABLE 2
Repeated-Measures Analysis of Differences Between LPA and FME Groups on Outcomes
Among the 53 patients who completed all assessments, the significant effects of LPA on physical activity, function, and pain found during the 12-week trial were not maintained at 6-and 12-month follow-up. The absence of sustained benefits at follow-up is consistent with the vast majority of studies on the effects of lifestyle intervention pertaining to, for example, weight loss and diabetes management.11,12 In FM exercise studies, attrition rates are relatively high, and adherence rates are relatively low,13 with patients reporting that pain and beliefs that exercise worsens their symptoms as primary impediments to maintaining an exercise regimen.14 Based on feedback from our study participants, the primary challenge of the LPA intervention was consistently (i.e., 5–7 d/wk) engaging in moderate-intensity physical activity, given the fluctuating nature of FM symptoms, particularly the fatigue and stiffness. That is, participants would have periods where their symptoms were quiescent so they could string together days of consistently elevated physical activity. However, during a period of increased symptoms, they found it difficult to adhere to the prescribed level of LPA. It is important to note, however, that although there was no statistically significant time or time × condition effect, the LPA group had an average daily step count at 12-month follow-up that represented a 44% increase from their baseline level of physical activity (the FME group, which did not receive information on the value of physical activity for FM until their last group session, increased their physical activity by 26% compared with their baseline level).
Interestingly, despite the absence of significant differences on outcomes at follow-up between the groups, the LPA participants perceived significantly greater improvement in their FM at each assessment compared with FME. It is possible that it is the result of developing a greater sense of self-efficacy as a function of participating in a trial that required tangible changes in behavior (e.g., self-monitoring of physical activity). This is conjecture, however, as self-efficacy was not assessed in this study.
Limitations of this study include the relatively small sample of participants who completed all follow-up assessments; the use of an education, as opposed to a nontreatment control group; and the use of pedometers to assess physical activity. Despite these limitations, the results of this study suggest that the effects of LPA are not well sustained over time. Given the evidence suggesting that exercise and physical activity can be beneficial for people with FM,13,14 additional strategies and innovative approaches need to be developed to assist these patients in staying physically active.
For example, we think the LPA program could be significantly improved by encouraging and promoting increased interaction between participants and between participants and study staff between group meetings and during follow-up. In particular, the use of a study-specific Web site, where patients could have additional access to resources and could communicate with study staff and other participants, might assist them in staying physically active. Participants could also enter their step counts on the Web site to track their levels of physical activity overtime. This form of interactive self-monitoring might facilitate greater adherence. Moreover, the use of prompts, words of encouragement, and tailored messages sent to patients’ e-mail accounts might be useful to help them stay as physically active as the waxing and waning of their FM symptoms allow. Finally, the Web site could facilitate social networking to allow the participants to interact with each other and share advice and provide social support. Indeed, one of the authors (D.J.C.) has been involved in the development of such a Web site (www.knowfibro.com) to help patients better manage their FM15 (see also Lorig et al.16). The incorporation of Internet-based technologies to both deliver treatment and facilitate its adherence have also been applied to obesity (e.g., see Funk et al.17 and Arem and Irwin18), physical activity promotion,19,20 and smoking cessation,21 with some success. Innovative strategies such as these need to continue to be developed and refined to increase the chances that lifestyle modifications can be maintained in the intermediate and long term.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Johns Hopkins Bayview Clinical Research Unit for assistance with data collection.
Grant support was received from the NIH/NIAMS (grant AR053168). The funding body played no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Footnotes
Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00383084.
1. 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;58:26–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Marcus DA. Fibromyalgia diagnosis and treatment options. Gen Med. 2009;6(suppl 2):139–151. [PubMed]
3. Goldenberg DL, Burckhardt C, Crofford L. Management of fibromyalgia syndrome. JAMA. 2004;292:2388–2395. [PubMed]
4. Fontaine KR, Conn L, Clauw DJ. Effects of lifestyle physical activity on pain and function in adults with fibromyalgia: results of a randomized trial [published online ahead of print March 30, 2010] Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:R55. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996.
6. Burckhardt CS, Clark SR, Bennett RM. The fibromyalgia impact questionnaire: development and validation. J Rheum. 1991;18:728–733. [PubMed]
7. Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, et al. The American College of Rheumatology Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33:160–172. [PubMed]
8. Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, et al. The fatigue severity scale: application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol. 1989;46:1121–1123. [PubMed]
9. Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385–401.
10. Pankoff B, Overend T, Lucy D, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the 6 minute walk test for people with fibromyalgia. J Rheum. 2000;27:2666–2670. [PubMed]
11. Pinto AM, Gokee-Larose P, Wing RR. Behavioral approaches to weight control: a review of current research. Women Health. 2007;3:341–353. [PubMed]
12. Wing RR, Hamman RF, Bray GA, et al. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Achieving weight and activity goals among diabetes prevention program lifestyle participants. Obes Res. 2004;12:1426–1434. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Busch AJ, Schacter CL, Overend TJ, et al. Exercise for fibromyalgia: a systematic review. J Rheum. 2008;35:1130–1144. [PubMed]
14. Jones KD, Liptan GL. Exercise interventions in fibromyalgia: clinical applications from the evidence. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2009;35:373–391. [PubMed]
15. Williams DA, Kuper D, Segar M, et al. Internet-enhanced management of fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2010;151:694–702. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Lorig KR, Ritter PL, Laurent DD, et al. The Internet-based arthritis self-management program: a one-year randomized trial for patients with arthritis or fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:1009–1017. [PubMed]
17. Funk KL, Stevens VJ, Appel LJ, et al. Associations of Internet Website use with weight change in a long-term weight loss maintenance program. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12:e29. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Arem H, Irwin M. A review of Web-based weight loss intervention studies in adults. Obes Rev. 2010 doi: 10.1111/j.1467–789X.2010.00787.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
19. Bain TM, Frierseon GM, Trudelle-Jackson E, et al. Internet reporting of weekly physical activity behaviors: the WIN study. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:527–532. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Accelerometers and Internet for physical activity promotion in youth? Feasibility and effectiveness of a minimal intervention. Prev Med. 2010;51:31–36. [PubMed]
21. Civljak KM, Sheikh A, Stead LF, et al. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;9:CD007078. [PubMed]