What Do We Owe Patients with Chronic Pain?

How initial perceptions of the effectiveness of mind and body complementary and integrative health therapies influence long-term adherence in a pragmatic trial

OBJECTIVE

Beliefs and perceptions about pain intervention effectiveness when initiating a therapy may influence long-term engagement. This study examines how early perceived effectiveness of complementary and integrative health therapies impacts long-term engagement in a pragmatic trial context.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain participating in a pragmatic trial of provider-delivered complementary and integrative health therapies (acupuncture, chiropractic care, or massage therapy) used alone compared to combining those therapies with self-care therapies (yoga, Tai Chi/Qigong, or meditation). This analysis focuses on 1713 participants using self-care therapies at baseline.

SETTING

18 Veterans Healthcare Administration Medical Facilities.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Predictors of total self-care complementary and integrative health therapy sessions over a 6-month assessment period were assessed using linear regression to determine how strongly perceptions of initial therapy effectiveness was associated with total utilization. Perception of initial therapy effectiveness was assessed at study entry across four domains (pain, mental health, fatigue, and general well-being).

RESULTS

In total, 56% (1032/1713) of Veterans reported a positive perceived effectiveness of their recent complementary and integrative health therapy use at study initiation. Older individuals and those using meditation were more likely to report early positive perceptions. Mean number of therapy sessions over the 6-month study was 11 (range 1 to 168). Early positive perceptions had a small effect on overall use, increasing mean sessions by 2.5 (1.3 to 3.6). Other factors such as recent physical therapy use and distance to primary care explained more variation in total utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Pragmatic pain trials should examine factors associated with engagement across assigned treatment protocols, especially if any of the treatment protocols being tested are sensitive to long-term engagement.

Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain in an Outpatient Palliative Medicine Clinic

Background: Despite widespread use of opioid therapy in outpatient palliative medicine, there is limited evidence supporting its efficacy and safety in the long term. Objectives: We sought to improve overdose risk scores, maintain pain reduction, and preserve patient function in a cohort with severe chronic pain as we managed opioid therapy for a duration of four years in an outpatient palliative care clinic. Design: Over four years, we provided ongoing goal-concordant outpatient palliative care, including opioid therapy, using quarterly clinical encounters for a patient cohort with chronic pain. Setting/Subjects: The project took place in the outpatient palliative medicine clinic of a regional cancer center in Orlando, Florida (United States). The subjects were a cohort group who received palliative care during the time period between July 2018 and October 2022. Measurements: Key metrics included treatment-related reduction in pain intensity, performance scores, and overall overdose risk scores. Secondary metrics included cohort demographics, average daily opioid use in morphine milligram equivalents and categorization of type of pain. Results: In 97 patients, we observed a stable mean treatment-related reduction in pain intensity of 4.9 out of 10 points over four years. The cohort showed a 2-point (out of 100) improvement in performance scores and an 81-point (out of 999) reduction in mean overall overdose risk score. Conclusions: We present evidence that providing outpatient palliative care longitudinally over four years offered lasting treatment-related reductions in pain intensity, preservation of performance status, and reduction in overall overdose risk.

The Association of Psychiatric Comorbidities With Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after spinal cord stimulator (SCS) placement are affected by psychologic comorbidities. It is part of routine practice to do psychologic assessments prior to SCS trials to assess for the presence of maladaptive behavioral patterns. However, few studies have sought to quantify the effect of psychiatric comorbidities on complications, reoperation, and readmission rates. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of psychiatric comorbidities with postprocedural outcomes after SCS implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Inclusion criteria included SCS placement between 2015 and 2020 (percutaneous approach or an open laminectomy-based approach) using Healthcare Corporation of America National Database. Data on psychiatric comorbidities present at the time of SCS implantation surgery were collected. Outcomes of interest included complication rates (defined as lead migration, fracture, malfunction, battery failure, postoperative pain, infection, dural puncture, or neurological injury), reoperation rates (defined as either revision or explant [ie, removal]), and readmission rates within 30-day and 1-year time after SCS implantation. We measured the association between psychiatric comorbidities and outcomes using multivariable regression and reported odds ratio (OR) and respective 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 12,751 cases were included. The most common psychiatric comorbidities were major depressive disorder (16.1%) and anxiety disorder (13.4%). In unadjusted univariate analysis, patients with any psychiatric comorbidity had heightened rates of any complication (27.1% vs 19.4%), infection (5.9% vs 1.9%), lead displacement (2.2% vs 1.3%), surgical pain (2.1% vs 1.2%), explant (14.7% vs 8.8%), and readmission rates at one year (54.2% vs 33.8%) (all p < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression, with each additional psychiatric comorbidity, a patient had increased odds of experiencing any complication (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.36-1.57, p < 0.001), requiring a reoperation (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.37-1.6, p < 0.001), and requiring readmission (OR = 1.7, 99% CI = 1.6-1.8, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of psychiatric comorbidities was found to be associated with postoperative complication rates, reoperation, and readmission rates after SCS placement. Furthermore, each consecutive increase in psychiatric comorbidity burden was associated with increased odds of complications, reoperation, and readmission. Future studies might consider examining the role of presurgical mental health screening (ie, patient selection, psychologic testing) and treatment in optimizing outcomes for patients with psychiatric comorbidities.

The Right to Pain Relief: Its Origins in End-of-life Care and Extension to Chronic Pain Care

OBJECTIVES

The claim of a right to pain relief was made in recent decades by pain professionals, courts, and patient advocacy groups and likely contributed to increased opioid prescribing, overdose deaths, and addictions, but the origins and nature of this right have not been investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant clinical, ethical, and legal literature concerning patient rights to pain care was reviewed.

RESULTS

The record describes the effort to improve end-of-life and cancer pain care in the 1980s and 1990s, which simultaneously legitimated pain relief as an independent goal of medical care and opioids as a safe and effective means to achieve this relief. In 1997, the US Supreme Court denied the right to assisted suicide but affirmed a right to palliative care to prevent dying in overwhelming pain. Other guidelines and regulations extended this right to pain relief from end-of-life care to chronic pain care, along with the titrate-to-effect principle, which specified that the correct opioid dose was the dose that relieved pain.

DISCUSSION

The most important consequence of combining the right to pain relief with the titrate-to-effect principle was the idea that a high pain score must not be ignored. This extension of the right to pain relief neglected important differences between end-of-life care and chronic pain care including: time frame, clinical setting and context, target of titration, and nature of iatrogenic harms. To help end our current opioid epidemic and prevent a future epidemic, we need to demedicalize pain and reintegrate it with the rest of human suffering as an experience connected to other personal behaviors and meanings.