Pain Medicine最新文献

This two-sample Mendelian randomization study examined causal associations of C-reactive protein (CRP) with spinal pain, the extent of multisite chronic pain, and chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain. No causal associations were found between CRP and these pain conditions.

Objective: To compare localized (primary) and widespread (secondary) hyperalgesia using pressure pain threshold (PPT) of patients with normal imaging findings, rotator cuff tear, or other pathologies.

Design: This was a cross-sectional design with data collected at a single time point.

Setting: This study was performed at two large, urban, academic medical centers.

Subjects: Participants included had chronic subacromial pain syndrome for three months or longer. Each participant was categorized into one of three imaging groups: normal imaging, rotator cuff tear, or other structural pathology.

Methods: Primary hyperalgesia was assessed with PPT at the midsection of the painful shoulder's lateral deltoid. Secondary hyperalgesia was assessed with PPT at the contralateral tibialis anterior muscle (TA). An ANOVA and ANCOVA was performed for each objective. ANCOVA covariates included age, sex, education level, and pain duration.

Results: The 103 participants included 55 males, had a median age of 55 years, median pain duration of 14.0 months, and a median composite Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score of 43.1%. The ANCOVA for primary hyperalgesia showed no significant difference in square-root adjusted deltoid PPT between imaging groups (F = 1.04, p = 0.3589). The ANCOVA for secondary hyperalgesia showed no significant difference in log-adjusted TA PPT between imaging groups (F = 0.24, p = 0.7900).

Conclusions: No significant difference was observed in the analysis of ipsilateral deltoid or contralateral TA PPT between patients with differing structural shoulder pathologies. These findings suggest that the three types of structural shoulder abnormalities we examined are not significantly associated with differences in one measure of hyperalgesia.

Objective: Tapering of chronic opioids has increased, with subsequent reports of exacerbated pain among patients who tapered. We aimed to evaluate the association between opioid dose tapering and subsequent pain-related healthcare utilization (ED visits, hospitalizations and primary care visits).

Design, setting and subjects: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2015-2019 using data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse that contains de-identified retrospective administrative claims data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees in the US. Adults aged ≥18 years who were prescribed stable doses of opioids, ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, during a 12-month baseline period.

Methods: Tapering was defined as ≥ 15% relative reduction in mean daily opioid dose during one of 6 overlapping 60-day periods. Tapered patient-periods were subclassified as tapered-and-continued (MME > 0) vs. tapered-and-discontinued (MME = 0). We modeled monthly counts of visits for pain diagnoses up to 12 months after cohort entry using negative binomial regression as a function of tapering, baseline utilization, and patient level-covariates.

Results: Among 47,033 patients, 13,793 patients tapered. Compared to no taper, any taper was associated with more ED visits for pain (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 1.21, 95% CI: 1.11-1.30), tapered then continued status was associated with more ED visits (aIRR 1.23, CI: 1.14-1.32) and hospitalizations (aIRR 1.14, CI: 1.03-1.27) for pain, and tapered-and-discontinued was associated with fewer primary care visits for pain (aIRR 0.68, CI: 0.61-0.76).

Conclusions: These associations suggest that opioid tapering may lead to increased emergency and hospital utilization for acute pain and possibly a decreased perceived need for primary care for those whose opioids were discontinued.

Objective: Despite careful design of clinical trials, unforeseen disruptions can arise. The PICOTS (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timepoints, Setting) framework was used to assess disruptions in pain management research imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the Pain Management Collaboratory.

Methods: Rapid qualitative methods were employed to identify trial disruptions due to COVID-19 in 11 pragmatic clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches for pain management. The PICOTS framework was applied by investigators of 4 Collaboratory trials selected to cover 4 types of trial designs (individually randomized, stepped-wedge, cluster, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial-SMART). Interviews with the lead investigators of these trials were completed, and findings were presented/discussed on video calls over a 6-month period (March-August 2021) from which themes/lessons learned were identified and consensus reached.

Results: Investigators indicated that patient populations remained generally stable. A major COVID-19 trial disruption was moving from in-person to virtual care affecting delivery of interventions/comparators and outcome assessments. The resultant mixed-mode of care delivery created issues with intervention fidelity posing analytic challenges. COVID-19 also induced ongoing/intermittent delays and other barriers to accessing primary and specialty care at some facilities, creating research capacity issues affecting delivery of experimental interventions requiring sustained, reliable participation of clinical partners. Study designs most affected by COVID-19 were stepped-wedge (intervention/comparator changing over time), cluster (increased site variability inflating intracluster correlation), and SMART (second-stage randomizations disrupted); stratified individually-randomized trials were less vulnerable because of individual-level randomization.

Conclusions: PICOTS provides a framework for assessing the impact of trial disruptions in a structured manner. Given the COVID-19 experience, it is important for researchers to consider the potential impact of future trial disruptions during study planning.

Background: Despite the increased availability of evidence-based treatments for chronic pain, many patients in rural areas experience poor access to services. Patients receiving care through the VA may also need to navigate multiple systems of care.

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a remotely delivered collaborative care intervention for improving pain interference among veterans with high-impact chronic pain living in rural areas.

Design: We will conduct a four-site pragmatic effectiveness trial of remotely delivered collaborative care for high-impact chronic pain. Participants (n = 608) will be randomized to the Tele-Collaborative Outreach to Rural Patients (CORPs) intervention or to minimally enhanced usual care (MEUC). Participants randomized to CORPs will complete a biopsychosocial assessment and five follow-up sessions with a nurse care manager (NCM), who will collaborate with a consulting clinician to provide personalized recommendations and care management. CORP participants will also be invited to a virtual 6-session pain education group class. Participants randomized to MEUC will receive a one-time education session with the NCM to review available pain services. All participants will complete quarterly research assessments for one year. The primary study outcome is pain interference. This trial will oversample veterans of female birth sex and minoritized race or ethnicity to test heterogeneity of treatment effects across these patient characteristics. We will conduct an implementation process evaluation and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis.

Discussion: This pragmatic trial will test the real-world effectiveness of a remotely delivered collaborative care intervention for chronic pain. Study findings will inform future implementation efforts to support potential uptake of the intervention.