Effects of pain and prescription opioid use on outcomes in a collaborative care intervention for anxiety

Collaborative Care Models to Improve Pain and Reduce Opioid Use in Primary Care: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care management (CCM) is an empirically driven model to overcome fractured medical care and improve health outcomes. While CCM has been applied across numerous conditions, it remains underused for chronic pain and opioid use. Our objective was to establish the state of the science for CCM approaches to addressing pain-related outcomes and opioid-related behaviors through a systematic review.

METHODS

We identified peer-reviewed articles from Cochrane, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases from January 1, 1995, to October 31, 2022. Abstracts and full-text articles were screened for study inclusion, resulting in 18 studies for the final review. In addition, authors used the Patient-Centered Integrated Behavioral Health Care Principles and Tasks Checklist as a tool for assessing the reported CCM components within and across studies. We conducted this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement.

RESULTS

Several CCM trials evidenced statistically significant improvements in pain-related outcomes (n = 11), such as pain severity and pain-related activity interference. However, effect sizes varied considerably across studies and some effects were not clinically meaningful. CCM had some success in targeting opioid-related behaviors (n = 4), including reduction in opioid prescription dose. Other opioid-related work focused on CCM to facilitate buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (n = 2), including improved odds of receiving treatment and greater prevalence of abstinence from opioids and alcohol. Uniquely, several interventions used CCM to target mental health as a way to address pain (n = 10). Generally, there was moderate alignment with the CCM model.

CONCLUSIONS

CCM shows promise for improving pain-related outcomes, as well as facilitating buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. More robust research is needed to determine which aspects of CCM best support improved outcomes and how to maximize the effectiveness of such interventions.

Association of opioid misuse with anxiety and depression: A systematic review of the literature

The opioid epidemic is a public health problem associated with a host of negative outcomes. Although clinicians recognize covariation between opioid misuse with anxiety and depressive symptoms and disorders, research on this topic has only recently accumulated. Progress in this domain is impeded by the lack of systematic and integrative research to better understand and treat these co-occurring problems. This paper represents the first attempt to systematically review the empirical literature examining relations between opioid use and misuse, and anxiety and depression. In the first section, we define key terms and describe the article selection strategy. In the second section, we review the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among individuals who use and misuse prescription and illicit opioids. In the third section, we review the magnitude of associations between anxiety and depressive symptoms and disorders with opioid misuse, as well as highlight studies examining the longitudinal and temporal sequence of the relations between these variables. In the fourth section, we focus on experimental therapeutics, reviewing what is known about individual difference and transdiagnostic vulnerability factors for anxiety and depression that might contribute to opioid misuse and its symptoms. Finally, we discuss current knowledge gaps and present a heuristic model to guide future research.

The Effect of Lavender Oil on Perioperative Pain, Anxiety, Depression, and Sleep after Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective, Single-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

 Psychosocial distress, depression, or anxiety can occur in up to 50% of women after a breast cancer diagnosis and mastectomy. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential benefit of lavender oil as a perioperative adjunct to improve anxiety, depression, pain, and sleep in women undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction.

METHODS

 This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 49 patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction. Patients were randomized to receive lavender oil or placebo (coconut oil) throughout their hospitalization. The effect of lavender oil on perioperative stress, anxiety, depression, sleep, and pain was measured using the hospital anxiety and depression scale, Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, and the visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

 Twenty-seven patients were assigned to the lavender group and 22 patients were assigned to the control group. No significant differences were seen in the perioperative setting between the groups with regard to anxiety (p = 0.82), depression (p = 0.21), sleep (p = 0.86), or pain (p = 0.30) scores. No adverse events (i.e., allergic reaction) were captured, and no significant differences in surgery-related complications were observed. When evaluating the entire cohort, postoperative anxiety scores were significantly lower than preoperative scores (p < 0.001), while depression scores were significantly higher postoperatively as compared with preoperatively (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

 In the setting of microvascular breast reconstruction, lavender oil and aromatherapy had no significant adverse events or complications; however, there were no measurable advantages pertaining to metrics of depression, anxiety, sleep, or pain as compared with the control group.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of introducing general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A cluster-randomized trial-based economic evaluation to assess general practitioners screening for anxiety and depression symptoms in patients consulting for OA compared to usual care (screening for pain intensity) was undertaken over a 12-month period from a UK National Health Service and societal perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves controlling for cluster-level data were constructed. The base-case analysis used the net benefit regressions approach. The 2-stage nonparametric sampling technique was explored in a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis demonstrated that the intervention was as costly as, and less effective than, the control (QALY differential -0.029 [95% confidence interval -0.062, 0.003]). In the base-case analyses, general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression was unlikely to be a cost-effective option (probability <5% at £20,000/QALY). Similar results were observed in all sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Prompting general practitioners to routinely screen and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with OA is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to explore clinically effective and cost-effective models of managing anxiety and depression in patients presenting with clinical OA.

Relationship of anxiety with joint pain and its management: A population survey

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the present study was to examine the associations between the severity of pain and anxiety in a community population reporting joint pain, and to investigate the management of joint pain in the presence of comorbid anxiety.

METHODS

A population survey was carried out of people aged ≥45 years, registered with eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, UK. Respondents were asked to report pain intensity in their hands, hips, knees and feet (on a numerical rating scale), anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder seven-item [GAD-7] scale) and guideline-recommended treatments used to manage pain. Clinical anxiety was defined by a GAD-7 score of 10 or more.

RESULTS

A total of 11,222 respondents with joint pain were included in the analysis, with 1,802 (16.1%) reporting clinical anxiety. Respondents reporting more severe pain were more likely to report clinical anxiety (severe versus mild pain, odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.56 to 6.31). The number of pain sites was also positively associated with clinical anxiety (four versus one site; OR 3.64, 95% CI 3.09 to 4.30). Those with clinical anxiety were less likely to undertake general fitness exercises (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.70), but more likely to diet (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.69), use walking aids (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.77) and assistive devices (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49), and more likely to use opioids (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to1.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety is common among patients presenting to primary care with joint pain. Patients with anxiety are likely to manage their joint pain differently to those without. Case-finding to identify and treat anxiety would be appropriate in this population, with caution about opioid prescribing and consideration of exercise as an intervention.

Optimal primary care management of clinical osteoarthritis and joint pain in older people: a mixed-methods programme of systematic reviews, observational and qualitative studies, and randomised controlled trials

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common long-term condition managed in UK general practice. However, care is suboptimal despite evidence that primary care and community-based interventions can reduce OA pain and disability.

Objectives

The overall aim was to improve primary care management of OA and the health of patients with OA. Four parallel linked workstreams aimed to (1) develop a health economic decision model for estimating the potential for cost-effective delivery of primary care OA interventions to improve population health, (2) develop and evaluate new health-care models for delivery of core treatments and support for self-management among primary care consulters with OA, and to investigate prioritisation and implementation of OA care among the public, patients, doctors, health-care professionals and NHS trusts, (3) determine the effectiveness of strategies to optimise specific components of core OA treatment using the example of exercise and (4) investigate the effect of interventions to tackle barriers to core OA treatment, using the example of comorbid anxiety and depression in persons with OA.

Data sources

The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project database, held by Keele University, was the source of data for secondary analyses in workstream 1.

Methods

Workstream 1 used meta-analysis and synthesis of published evidence about effectiveness of primary care treatments, combined with secondary analysis of existing longitudinal population-based cohort data, to identify predictors of poor long-term outcome (prognostic factors) and design a health economic decision model to estimate cost-effectiveness of different hypothetical strategies for implementing optimal primary care for patients with OA. Workstream 2 used mixed methods to (1) develop and test a ‘model OA consultation’ for primary care health-care professionals (qualitative interviews, consensus, training and evaluation) and (2) evaluate the combined effect of a computerised ‘pop-up’ guideline for general practitioners (GPs) in the consultation and implementing the model OA consultation on practice and patient outcomes (parallel group intervention study). Workstream 3 developed and investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) how to optimise the effect of exercise in persons with knee OA by tailoring it to the individual and improving adherence. Workstream 4 developed and investigated in a cluster RCT the extent to which screening patients for comorbid anxiety and depression can improve OA outcomes. Public and patient involvement included proposal development, project steering and analysis. An OA forum involved public, patient, health professional, social care and researcher representatives to debate the results and formulate proposals for wider implementation and dissemination.

Results

This programme provides evidence (1) that economic modelling can be used in OA to extrapolate findings of cost-effectiveness beyond the short-term outcomes of clinical trials, (2) about ways of implementing support for self-management and models of optimal primary care informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations, including the beneficial effects of training in a model OA consultation on GP behaviour and of pop-up screens in GP consultations on the quality of prescribing, (3) against adding enhanced interventions to current effective physiotherapy-led exercise for knee OA and (4) against screening for anxiety and depression in patients with musculoskeletal pain as an addition to current best practice for OA.

Conclusions

Implementation of evidence-based care for patients with OA is feasible in general practice and has an immediate impact on improving the quality of care delivered to patients. However, improved levels of quality of care, changes to current best practice physiotherapy and successful introduction of psychological screening, as achieved by this programme, did not substantially reduce patients’ pain and disability. This poses important challenges for clinical practice and OA research.

Limitations

The key limitation in this work is the lack of improvement in patient-reported pain and disability despite clear evidence of enhanced delivery of evidence-based care.

Future work recommendations

(1) New thinking and research is needed into the achievable and desirable long-term goals of care for people with OA, (2) continuing investigation into the resources needed to properly implement clinical guidelines for management of OA as a long-term condition, such as regular monitoring to maintain exercise and physical activity and (3) new research to identify subgroups of patients with OA as a basis for stratified primary care including (i) those with good prognosis who can self-manage with minimal investigation or specialist treatment, (ii) those who will respond to, and benefit from, specific interventions in primary care, such as physiotherapy-led exercise, and (iii) develop research into effective identification and treatment of clinically important anxiety and depression in patients with OA and into the effects of pain management on psychological outcomes in patients with OA.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06984617, ISRCTN93634563 and ISRCTN40721988.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research Programme; Vol. 6, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effects of implementing a point-of-care electronic template to prompt routine anxiety and depression screening in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (the Primary Care Osteoarthritis Trial): A cluster randomised trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate whether prompting general practitioners (GPs) to routinely assess and manage anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA) improves pain outcomes.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 45 English general practices. In intervention practices, patients aged ≥45 y consulting with OA received point-of-care anxiety and depression screening by the GP, prompted by an automated electronic template comprising five questions (a two-item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, a two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 questionnaire for anxiety, and a question about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]). The template signposted GPs to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for anxiety, depression, and OA and was supported by a brief training package. The template in control practices prompted GPs to ask the pain intensity question only. The primary outcome was patient-reported current pain intensity post-consultation and at 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, anxiety, depression, and general health. During the trial period, 7,279 patients aged ≥45 y consulted with a relevant OA-related code, and 4,240 patients were deemed potentially eligible by participating GPs. Templates were completed for 2,042 patients (1,339 [31.6%] in the control arm and 703 [23.1%] in the intervention arm). Of these 2,042 patients, 1,412 returned questionnaires (501 [71.3%] from 20 intervention practices, 911 [68.0%] from 24 control practices). Follow-up rates were similar in both arms, totalling 1,093 (77.4%) at 3 mo, 1,064 (75.4%) at 6 mo, and 1,017 (72.0%) at 12 mo. For the primary endpoint, multilevel modelling yielded significantly higher average pain intensity across follow-up to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.04, 0.59). Secondary outcomes were consistent with the primary outcome measure in reflecting better outcomes as a whole for the control group than the intervention group. Anxiety and depression scores did not reduce following the intervention. The main limitations of this study are two potential sources of bias: an imbalance in cluster size (mean practice size 7,397 [intervention] versus 5,850 [control]) and a difference in the proportion of patients for whom the GP deactivated the template (33.6% [intervention] versus 27.8% [control]).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed no beneficial effect on pain outcomes of prompting GPs to routinely screen for and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with symptoms due to OA, with those in the intervention group reporting statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than those in the control group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN40721988.

Treating co-occurring chronic low back pain & generalized anxiety disorder

The complex, bidirectional correlation between chronic low back pain (CLBP) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), common ailments in primary care, can increase the risk of inadequate treatment. This article will review the relationship between CLBP and GAD and provide optimal management strategies for NPs caring for individuals with this dyad.