Social economic factors and the risk of multiple chemical sensitivity in a Danish population-based cross-sectional study: Danish Study of Functional Disorders (DanFunD).

OBJECTIVES: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a rare multisystem and poly-symptomatic disease characterised by a report of various somatic symptoms attributed to inhalation of volatile chemicals in usually harmless doses. The aim was to explore four selected social factors and the risk of MCS in the general Danish population. DESIGN: A cross-sectional general population-based study. SETTING: The Danish Study of Functional Disorders was conducted from 2011 to 2015 which included 9656 participants. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 8800 participants were included in analyses after observations with missing data on exposure and/or outcome were excluded. A total of 164 cases fulfilled the questionnaire criteria for MCS. Of the 164 MCS cases, 101 reported no comorbid functional somatic disorder (FSD) and were included in a subgroup analysis. A total of 63 MCS cases fulfilled the criteria for at least one additional FSD, this subgroup was not included in further analysis. The remaining study population without MCS or any FSD were regarded as controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: We used adjusted logistic regression to calculate OR and 95% CIs of MCS and MCS without FSD comorbidities for each social variable separately including education, employment, cohabitation and subjective social status. RESULTS: We found an increased risk of MCS among the unemployed (OR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.75 to 4.97), and a twofold increased risk of MCS among individuals with low subjective social status (OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.08 to 3.70). At the same time, 4 years or more of vocational training were protective of MCS. No significant associations were observed among MCS cases with no comorbid FSD. CONCLUSION: Lower socioeconomic status was found to be associated with a higher risk of having MCS but not with MCS without FSD comorbidities. Due to the cross-sectional design of the study, we cannot determine whether social status is a determinant or a consequence of MCS.

Physiological Health and Physical Performance in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity-Described in the General Population.

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a multifactorial somatic disorder characterized by physical reactions triggered by even extremely low levels of different airborne chemicals. In most individuals with MCS, these reactions have substantial negative impact on social, occupational, and everyday life often including limited or no engagement in physical activities. The aim of this study was to explore associations between MCS and objective measurements of anthropometry, cardiorespiratory health, and physical performance. From the Danish population-based cohort DanFunD counting 9656 participants aged 18-76 years, 1.95% (n = 188) were categorized as MCS individuals (MCS All). Of those 188, 109 participants were subcategorized as having MCS without functional somatic disorders (FSD) (MCS with no comorbid FSD). The remaining study population without any FSD were regarded controls. We used adjusted multiple linear regression analyses to evaluate associations between MCS and anthropometry, cardiorespiratory fitness, and physical performance. Compared with the general population, MCS All had less optimal body composition, increased risk of obesity, impaired cardiorespiratory fitness, and physical performance which was not seen in MCS with no comorbid FSD. MCS individuals may be inhibited to maintain an active lifestyle which can increase risk of obesity and consequently have negatively impact on general health, which may not be the case among MCS with no comorbid FSD.

The use of prescription medication in 239 patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of prescription drugs and their association with patient characteristics in patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes (FSS) focusing on drugs generally recommended and not recommended in FSS treatment. METHOD: Using data from a national prescription registry, we describe the drug use during a two-year period for 239 trial participants. Using regression models, we analyse the associations of patient characteristics with the patterns of use of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids and sedatives. RESULTS: The use of prescription drugs was highly heterogeneous. Antidepressants were used at least temporarily by 34% (88/239), anticonvulsants by 7% (16/239), opioids by 26% (61/239) and sedatives by 20% (47/239) of the patients. Severe impairment due to multiple FSS was associated with use of opioids or sedatives (OR 6.49 (95% CI 2.68-15.68; p < 0.001)) but also with use of antidepressants or anticonvulsants (OR 3.42 (95% CI 1.35-8.65; p = 0.009)). Poor self-reported physical health, additional physical comorbidities and low socioeconomic status were associated with use of opioids or sedatives only. CONCLUSION: Antidepressants and anticonvulsants were modestly used. Opioids and sedatives were especially used by the severely affected patients. Balancing treatment expectations and enhancing patients' understanding of FSS may direct treatments towards more generally recommended drugs.

Imipramine versus placebo for multiple functional somatic syndromes (STreSS-3): a double-blind, randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Functional somatic syndromes, including chronic fatigue syndrome or irritable bowel syndrome, often co-exist. Treatment guidelines supported by high quality evidence exist for most functional somatic syndromes, but are lacking for multiple comorbid functional somatic syndromes. We aimed to assess the effect of the tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, in patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes defined by the criteria for multiorgan bodily distress syndrome, a unifying diagnosis that encompasses most functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial done in a Danish university hospital setting, participants were patients consecutively referred (age 20-50 years) fulfilling criteria for multiorgan bodily distress syndrome with no concurrent comorbid depression or anxiety disorder. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 10 weeks of low-dose imipramine or placebo (oral daily doses of 25-75 mg). The hospital pharmacy handled randomisation (computer-generated) and masking, providing sequentially numbered packs of study drug that were given serially to the participants. All others involved were masked to allocation. Primary outcome was patient-rated overall health improvement on a 5-point clinical global improvement scale. Improvement was defined as patients responding "better" or "much better" as opposed to "unchanged" and "worse" or "much worse" when rating their overall health status after 10 weeks of minimum 25 mg study drug. Analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01518634. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2012, and Nov 24, 2014, 138 patients were randomly assigned; 70 to receive imipramine and 68 to receive placebo. The study was completed on May 1, 2015. 125 patients received at least one dose of study drug: 65 received imipramine and 60 received placebo. Treatment was terminated prematurely for eight (12%) patients receiving imipramine and seven (12%) patients receiving placebo. Data were missing for two (3%) patients receiving imipramine and three (5%) patients receiving placebo. Of the 120 patients (96%) who provided primary outcome data, 33 (53%) receiving imipramine reported their overall health status as "better" or "much better" compared with 14 patients (25%) receiving placebo. The improvement after imipramine was significantly greater than after placebo (odds ratio 3·3 [95% CI 1·6-6·8]; p=0·001). Number needed to treat was 3·6 (95% CI 2·3-8·9). Analysis of the worst-case scenario for patients with missing outcome did not change the interpretation of the results. 32 patients (49%) receiving imipramine and 10 patients (17%) receiving placebo had at least one adverse event of moderate intensity (p=0·0001); eight patients (12%) receiving imipramine and three patients (5%) receiving placebo had at least one adverse event of severe intensity (p=0·1496). One patient (1%) receiving placebo experienced a serious adverse event (a subdural haematoma sustained after an accident). Adverse events caused dropout in four patients (6%) receiving imipramine and three patients (5%) receiving placebo. INTERPRETATION: Imipramine treatment compared with placebo significantly improved overall health in patients with multiple functional somatic syndromes when both treatments were supported by regular contacts with clinicians. Adverse events were more common in the imipramine group, but only rarely led to discontinuation of treatment. FUNDING: The Danish Foundation, Trygfonden.