British Journal of Pain最新文献

Chronic pain is becoming increasingly prevalent and burdensome both worldwide and in the United Kingdom. Due to the complexity of chronic pain and the therapeutic challenge associated, management is often difficult and requires multidisciplinary care encompassing a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Conventional analgesic treatments, such as opioids and anticonvulsants, are effective in less than half of chronic pain sufferers and are typically limited to short-term use to prevent complications associated with long-term use such as tolerance and dependence. Consequently, research and clinical interest in alternative management options for chronic pain have increased in recent years, with ketamine being one example under investigation. However, since ketamine has been licensed as an anaesthetic for decades, it has bypassed the traditional scrutinous drug development sequence that is typically seen for therapeutics marketed for pain. As such, data supporting the unlicensed administration of ketamine for chronic pain management is lacking and is being outpaced by the rates of off-label use in pain clinics. Recent limited evidence suggests that ketamine, when given as an intravenous infusion in subanaesthetic doses for refractory pain patients, may provide modest analgesic effects in nearly all aetiologies of chronic pain, with side effects common but typically mild. However, there are concerns over the safety of this practice due to the paucity of robust supportive evidence and the accompanying lack of clinical guidelines or standardised protocols. This review shall summarise the literature examining the use of subanaesthetic-dose ketamine infusions for chronic pain to comment on the current level of evidence, with limitations of existing research and future recommendations discussed.

Introduction: Mechanical chronic low back pain is often associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscles, the most important stabilizers of the lumbar spine. Restorative neurostimulation is a modality for the treatment for this specific subset of patients aimed to facilitate restoration of neuromuscular control by bilateral stimulation of the L2 medial branches. Evidence from both prospective and randomised clinical trials to date has demonstrated substantial improvements in clinical outcomes such as pain, disability and health-related quality of life.

Methods: This study is an open label prospective follow-up for the treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain of nociceptive origin with restorative neurostimulation. Patients completed assessments for pain, disability and health-related quality of life. Outcomes were collected at 45, 90 and 180 days, and 1, 2 and 3 years after the activation visit.

Results: Forty-two patients were implanted with the device and 33 (79%) were available at the 3-year appointment. Patients in this cohort presented with severe chronic low back pain (NRS = 7.0 ± 0.2) and severe disability (ODI 46.6 ± 12.0). The health-related quality of life was also severely impacted at baseline (EQ-5D 0.426 ± 0.061). Changes in pain, disability and quality of life at three-year follow-up demonstrated a statistically significant improvement between baseline and 1, 2 and 3 years. After 3 years of therapy, average NRS scores had reduced to 2.7± 0.3 and mean ODI score to 26.0 ± 3.1 while EQ-5D-5L index improved to 0.707 ± 0.036.

Conclusions: The ongoing follow-up of this post market cohort continues to demonstrate that restorative neurostimulation provides a statistically significant, clinically meaningful and durable response across pain, disability and quality-of life scores for patients suffering chronic mechanical low back pain that has been refractory to conventional management.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01985230.

Introduction: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a persistent pain condition with low prevalence. Multi-centre collaborative research is needed to attain sufficient sample sizes for meaningful studies. This international observational study: (1) tested the feasibility and acceptability of collecting outcome data using an agreed core measurement set (2) tested and refined an electronic data management system to collect and manage the data.

Methods: Adults with CRPS, meeting the Budapest diagnostic clinical criteria, were recruited to the study from 7 international research centres. After informed consent, a questionnaire comprising the core set outcome measures was completed: on paper at baseline (T1), and at 3 or 6 months (T2) using a paper or e-version. Participants and clinicians provided feedback on the data collection process. Clinicians completed the CRPS severity score at T1 and optionally, at T2. Ethical approval was obtained at each international centre.

Results: Ninety-eight adults were recruited (female n=66; mean age 46.6 years, range 19-89), of whom 32% chose to receive the T2 questionnaire in an electronic format. Fifty-five participants completed both T1 and T2. Eighteen participants and nine clinicians provided feedback on their data collection experience.

Conclusion: This study confirmed the questionnaire core outcome data are feasible and practicable to collect in clinical practice. The electronic data management system provided a robust means of collecting and managing the data across an international population. The findings have informed the final data collection tools and processes which will comprise the first international, clinical research registry and data bank for CRPS.

Background: The prescription of opioids in emergency care has been associated with harm, including overdose and dependence. The aim of this trial was to assess restriction of access to oxycodone (ROXY), in combination with education and guideline modifications, versus education and guideline modifications alone (standard care) to reduce oxycodone administration in the Emergency Department (ED).

Methods: An unblinded, active control, randomised controlled trial was conducted in an adult tertiary ED. Participants were patients aged 18-75 years who had analgesics administered in the ED. The primary intervention was ROXY, through removal of all oxycodone immediate release tablets from the ED imprest, with availability of a small supply after senior clinician approval. The intervention did not restrict prescription of discharge medications. The primary outcome measure was oxycodone administration rates. Secondary outcomes were administration rates of other analgesic medications, time to initial analgesics and oxycodone prescription on discharge.

Results: There were 2258 patients eligible for analysis. Oxycodone was administered to 80 (6.1%) patients in the ROXY group and 221 (23.3%) patients in the standard care group (relative risk (RR) 0.26; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.33; p < .001). Tapentadol was prescribed more frequently in the ROXY group (RR 2.17; 95% CI: 1.71-2.74), while there were no differences in prescription of other analgesic medications. On discharge, significantly fewer patients were prescribed oxycodone (RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39-0.66) and no differences were observed in prescription rates of other analgesic medications. There was no difference in time to first analgesic (HR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86-1.02).

Conclusions: Restricted access to oxycodone was superior to education and guideline modifications alone for reducing oxycodone use in the ED and reducing discharge prescriptions of oxycodone from the ED. The addition of simple restrictive interventions is recommended to enable rapid changes to clinician behaviour to reduce the potential harm associated with the prescribing of oxycodone in the ED.

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is prevalent among people after lower limb fracture surgery and is associated with lower health-related quality of life and greater disability. This study estimates the financial cost and pain medication use associated with neuropathic pain in this group.

Methods: A secondary analysis using pain data collected over six postoperative months from participants randomised in the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) trial. Pain states were classified as pain-free, chronic non-neuropathic pain (NNP) or chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Cost associated with each pain state from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective were estimated by multivariate models based on multiple imputed data. Pain medication usage was analysed by pain state.

Results: A total of 934 participants who provided either 3- or 6-months pain data were included. Compared to participants with NP, those with NNP (adjusted mean difference -£730, p = 0.38, 95% CI -2368 to 908) or were pain-free (adjusted mean difference -£716, p = 0.53, 95% CI -2929 to 1497) had lower costs from the NHS and PSS perspective in the first three postoperative months. Over the first three postoperative months, almost a third of participants with NP were prescribed opioids and 8% were prescribed NP medications. Similar trends were observed by 6 months postoperatively.

Conclusion: This study found healthcare costs were higher amongst those with chronic NP compared to those who were pain-free or had chronic NNP. Opioids, rather than neuropathic pain medications, were commonly prescribed for NP over the first six postoperative months, contrary to clinical guidelines.

Recently in the Journal, Amanda Williams described her experience of raising concerns about a group of trials with "untrustworthy data". We were inspired by the work of Williams and colleagues to examine these and other trials by the same research group. Similar to Williams, we found that the patterns of reported data differed from the patterns expected to arise from valid randomisation. We also identified a high proportion of reported baseline p-values for categorial variables that differed from independently calculated p-values. We reported these findings to the affected journals but none of the concerns were addressed and no action will be taken about the majority. Despite the large number of unresolved concerns about these trials, readers will be unaware of the issues, which seems entirely unsatisfactory.

Background: We aimed to compare the analgesic effect and quality of recovery of transmuscular quadratus lumborum block (QLB) and erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in the presence of multimodal analgesia following Caesarean section.

Methods: This randomised controlled trial included full-term pregnant women who underwent elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia without intrathecal morphine. The included women were randomised to receive either bilateral QLB (n = 51) or bilateral thoracic ESPB (n = 51), in addition to the control group (n = 51) who did not receive any block. All participants received regular paracetamol (1 g/6h) and diclofenac (50 mg/8 h). Intravenous morphine was used as a rescue analgesic. The primary outcome was time to first morphine requirement. Secondary outcomes included total postoperative morphine consumption and total Obstetric Quality of Recovery-11 (ObsQoR-11) score.

Results: We analysed 51, 50 and 48 patients in the QLB, ESPB and control groups, respectively. The time to first morphine requirement in both QLB and ESPB groups was longer than that in the control group (median [quartiles] time: 6 [6,12] h, 6 [6,6] h and 4 [3,4] h, respectively; p-value <0.001), without significant differences between the two former groups. The total morphine consumption in both QLB and ESPB groups was lower than that in the control group (median [quartiles]:0 [0,5] mg, 0 [0,5] mg and 25 [25,30] mg, respectively; p-value <0.001), without significant differences between the two former groups. The QLB and ESPB groups had comparable ObsQoR-11 score, and both groups' scores were higher than the control group.

Conclusion: In patients undergoing elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia without intrathecal morphine, both QLB and ESPB provided superior analgesia and quality of recovery compared to the standard care, without significant difference between the two blocks.

Chronic pain is experienced unequally by different population groups; we outline examples from the pain literature of inequities related to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic and migration status. Health inequities are systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes between groups of people, with the fundamental 'causes of causes' recognised as unequal distribution of income, power and wealth. Intersectionality can add further theory to health inequities literature; collective social identities including class/socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, migration status, age, sexuality and disabled status intersect in multiple interconnected systems of power leading to differing experiences of privilege and oppression which can be understood as axes of health inequities. The process of knowledge creation in pain research is shaped by these interconnected systems of power, and may perpetuate inequities in pain care as it is largely based on majority white, middle class, Eurocentric populations. Intersectionality can inform research epistemology (ways of knowing), priorities, methodology and methods. We give examples from the literature where intersectionality has informed a justice oriented approach across different research methods and we offer suggestions for further development. The use of a reductionist frame can force unachievable objectivity on to complex health concepts, and we note increasing realisation in the field of the need to understand the individuals within their social world, and recognise the fluid and contextual nature of this.

Purpose: Cancer-related pain (CRP) is a common and distressing symptom experienced by many patients receiving palliative care. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of the progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) technique in reducing CRP in patients receiving palliative care.

Methods: A total of 148 patients diagnosed with cancer and receiving palliative care were randomly allocated to either an intervention or control group. The intervention group received a 4-week daily course of PMR technique, while the control group received only usual care. Data was collected using a demographic and clinical characteristics form, as well as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Blind evaluations were conducted prior to the start of the intervention (T0), at the end of the 4-week PMR intervention (T1), and at 1-month follow-up (T2).

Results: The results of this trial demonstrated a significant decrease in pain intensity scores for the PMR group compared to the control group at both T1 and T2 (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the PMR group also exhibited significant improvements in pain interference with general activity, mood, relations with others, sleep, and enjoyment of life scores compared to the control group at both T1 and T2 (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The results of this trial suggest that the PMR technique may be an effective intervention for reducing pain intensity and improving pain interference with life activities in cancer patients receiving palliative care. However, further research is needed to provide more robust evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention.Clinical trial registration number: NCT04436705. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.