The Complexity Model: A Novel Approach to Improve Chronic Pain Care

The Biology of Chronic Pain and Its Implications for Pain Neuroscience Education: State of the Art

Pain is an individualized experience for the person suffering from chronic pain. Significant strides have been made in the last few decades in understanding various biological changes that coincide with chronic pain. This state-of-the-art overview looks at the current evidence related to the biology of chronic pain and the implications these findings have on the delivery of pain neuroscience education (PNE). The paper summarizes the various (epi)genetic, neural, endocrine, and immune factors discovered and explored in the scientific literature concerning chronic pain. Each of these biological factors has various implications for the content and delivery of PNE. We discuss the future directions these biological factors have for the clinical implementation of PNE by linking the importance of behavior change, optimizing the learning environment, and using an individualized multimodal treatment approach with PNE. In addition, future directions for research of PNE based on these biological factors are provided with importance placed on individualized patient-centered care and how PNE can be used with traditional modes of care and growing trends with other care methods. PNE was originally and continues to be rooted in understanding chronic pain biology and how that understanding can improve patient care and outcomes.

A Call for Interdisciplinary Collaboration to Promote Musculoskeletal Health: The Creation of the International Musculoskeletal Mental and Social Health Consortium (I-MESH)

Despite increasing recognition of psychosocial factors in musculoskeletal conditions, its impact on reducing the global toll of musculoskeletal symptoms has been only incremental. It is time to bring together clinicians and researchers with heterogeneous backgrounds, unified by a commitment to reduce the global impact of musculoskeletal illness by addressing mental and social health factors. In 2020, we initiated the International Musculoskeletal Mental and Social Health Consortium. Our current key priority areas are: (1) Develop best practices for uniform terminology, (2) Understand barriers to mental and social health care for musculoskeletal conditions, (3) Develop clinical and research resources. The purpose of this paper is to render a call to interdisciplinary collaboration on the psychological aspects of musculoskeletal health. We believe this international interdisciplinary collaboration is pivotal to the advancement of the biopsychosocial model of musculoskeletal care and has the potential to improve the health of individuals with musculoskeletal conditions globally.

Can a Brief Online Interdisciplinary Program Enhance the Understanding of Musculoskeletal Pain amongst Primary Care Staff? A Prospective Study

Background

Primary care staff do not provide consistent education on musculoskeletal pain management to patients in accordance with the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines. We have developed a concise online learning program to bridge this gap.

Objectives

To investigate (1) the effectiveness of 1-hour musculoskeletal pain neurophysiology education program conducted by a physiotherapist on primary care staff; (2) the correlation between demographic factors of staff and the interdisciplinary learning performances.

Methods

We piloted a multicenter single-blind prospective study on sixty-four staff from the pharmacy department in eight public primary care clinics. Participants in the intervention group attended the 1-hour online program compared to a control group. The Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) to assess learning and the 10-point Likert scale program evaluation form to assess learning reaction of participants after the program were used.

Results

The participants reacted positively to the online learning program. The intervention group significantly improved in their musculoskeletal pain knowledge by a greater mean NPQ score difference 2.39 ( p < 0.001) compared with the control group. There were poor correlations between the demographic factors and their learning.

Conclusion

The pilot study shows that primary care staff may still utilize a biomedical approach in managing musculoskeletal pain. The improvement in knowledge demonstrates that short online programs could be a valuable part of interdisciplinary education in primary care because it is easily accessible by healthcare professionals and can benefit other healthcare staff regardless of their background.

Sociodemographic Differences in Pain Medication Usage and Healthcare Provider Utilization Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the most common reason for individual suffering and health care utilization in adults. Ample evidence suggests sociodemographic variables and socioeconomic status (SES) influence pain. However, a framework informing associations on race, SES, and the utilization of pharmacologic therapies and provider type are limited—particularly in cLBP. Thus, this study examined the extent to which sociodemographic (i.e., age, race, and gender) and socioeconomic factors (i.e., national area deprivation index, NADI) influence pain treatment (i.e., NSAIDs, opioids, antidepressants, and non-NSAIDs) and provider utilization for cLBP (i.e., no provider care, primary care, or tertiary care). Eligible participants with cLBP completed a series of questionnaires. Of the 174 participants, 58% were women, 59% were non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and the mean age was 46.10 (SD 13.58). Based on NADI distributions by race, NHB participants lived in more socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods (p &lt; 0.001) than non-Hispanic White (NHW) adults. Results suggested that the use of one or more pharmacologic therapies was associated with race (p = 0.021). Specifically, NHW adults were two times more likely to take one or more pharmacologic therapies than NHBs (p = 0.009). NHWs were also more likely to use NSAIDs (p = 0.041) and antidepressants (p &lt; 0.001) than NHBs. Furthermore, provider utilization was significantly associated with gender (p = 0.037) and age (p = 0.018); which suggests older women were more likely to use primary or tertiary care. Findings from this study expand on the existing literature as it relates to associations between disparities in access to healthcare providers and access to medications. Future research should seek to understand differences in age and utilization of primary or tertiary care providers and continue to examine the influence of sociodemographic and SES factors to cLBP and compare with other types of chronic pain.

Managing osteoarthritis pain with smart technology: a narrative review

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition worldwide. More than 300 million individuals are affected by OA, and pain is the most common and challenging symptom to manage. Although many new advances have led to improved OA-related pain management, smart technology offers additional opportunities to enhance symptom management. This narrative review identifies and describes the current literature focused on smart technology for pain management in individuals with OA. In collaboration with a health sciences librarian, an interdisciplinary team of clinician-scientists searched multiple databases (e.g. PubMed, CINAHL and Embase), which generated 394 citations for review. After inclusion criteria were met, data were extracted from eight studies reporting on varied smart technologies, including mobile health, wearables and eHealth tools to measure or manage pain. Our review highlights the dearth of research in this crucial area, the implications for clinical practice and technology development, and future research needs.

A theoretical framework and nomenclature to characterize the iatrogenic contribution of therapeutic opioid exposure to opioid induced hyperalgesia, physical dependence, and opioid use disorder

Opioid use, misuse, and risky use contribute to a critically important and complex crisis in current healthcare. Consequences of long-term opioid use, including opioid induced hyperalgesia, physical dependence, and opioid use disorder, can be considered iatrogenic, or partially iatrogenic, in cases where therapeutic opioid exposures were contributory. Research investigation and presumptive clinical action are needed to attenuate the iatrogenic component of the opioid crisis; treatment of individuals already suffering from opioid use disorder will not prevent incident cases. This work will be challenged by a remarkably high degree of complexity involving myriad and highly variable factors along the continuum from initial opioid exposure to long-term opioid use. An organized view of this complex problem should accelerate the pace of innovation and facilitate clinical implementation of research findings. Herein, we propose a theoretical framework and modern nomenclature for characterizing therapeutic opioid exposure and the degree to which it contributes iatrogenically to adverse outcomes. In doing so, we separate the role of exposure from other factors contributing to long-term opioid use, clarify the relationship between opioid exposure and outcomes, emphasize that exposure source is an important consideration for health services research and practice in the areas of pain treatment and opioid prevention, and recommend terminology necessary to quantify therapeutic opioid exposure separately from nonmedical exposure.

Lessons learned from piloting a pain assessment program for high frequency emergency department users

Background and aims Chronic pain (CP) management presents a challenge for the healthcare system as many individuals experiencing CP cannot access appropriate services. Consequently, individuals may visit emergency departments (EDs) to address their CP, even though this setting is not the most appropriate. CP was identified as a common factor amongst patients with repeat ED use at a hospital in Ottawa, Canada. Thus, staff of the Pain Clinic developed the Rapid Interdisciplinary Pain Assessment Program to improve the care of patients with CP who had a minimum of 12 ED visits in the previous year, who were considered high frequency users (HFUs) of the ED. This evaluation was conducted to guide program improvements in advance of a clinical trial. The results are reported here in order to describe lessons that could be applied to the development of similar programs. The benefits of the program in reducing ED use, pain intensity, disability, and psychological distress have been described elsewhere (Rash JA et al. Pain Res Manag 2018:1875967). Methods Thirty-five people completed semi-structured interviews or a focus group, including eight patients, six ED staff, four primary care physicians (PCP), five Pain Clinic physicians, and 12 program staff members. Questions focused on the program's implementation, as well as strengths and areas for improvement. Results The program was generally consistent in offering the intended patients the services that were planned. Specifically, patients received an interdisciplinary assessment that informed the development of an assessment and treatment plan. These plans were shared with the PCP and added to the patient's hospital electronic medical record. Patients also received education about CP and had access to medical pain management, substance use, and psychological treatments. Inter-professional communication was facilitated by case conferences. Numerous aspects of the program were perceived as helpful, such as the quick access to services, the comprehensive assessment and treatment plans, the individualized treatment, the use of an interdisciplinary approach to care, and the communication and relationships with other care providers. However, challenges arose with respect to the coordination of services, the addition of supplementary services, the accessibility of the program, patients' perceptions of being misunderstood, communication, and relationship-building with other service providers. Conclusions The program sought to improve the care of HFUs with CP and reduce their ED use for CP management. The program had numerous strengths, but also encountered challenges. Developers of programs for HFUs with CP are encouraged to consider these challenges and suggested solutions. These programs have the potential to deliver effective healthcare to individuals with CP and reduce ED overutilization. Implications Our findings suggest that the following points should be considered in the development of similar programs: the inclusion of a case manager; the use of strategies to ensure inter-professional communication, such as secure electronic consultation, approaches to allow access to assessment and treatment plans, and offering a range of modalities for communication; holding regular case conferences; determining the appropriate types of services to offer; and working to address patients' fears of being labelled.

Patient-reported outcomes in light of supportive medications in treatment-naïve lung cancer patients

PURPOSE

The impact of supportive medications on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has not been systematically evaluated. We describe the supportive medications used by treatment-naïve lung cancer patients and assess their association with PROs from MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI).

METHODS

Treatment-naïve lung cancer patients who completed PROs from MDASI at the initial visit to MD Anderson Cancer Center were included. Medications from the initial visit were abstracted from the electronic medical records system and categorized into therapeutic classes based on U.S. Pharmacopeia v7.0. A chi-square or Mann-Whitney U test was conducted as appropriate.

RESULTS

Among 459 patients, ~ 50% took any analgesics and 25% were on opioids. One-third of patients with moderate-severe pain were not on any analgesics. Patients taking opioids had significantly worse median pain scores (6 vs. 0) compared with those not taking any analgesics (p < 0.0001). Higher proportion of patients with moderate-severe pain took opioids compared with those with mild pain (52% vs. 16%, p < 0.0001). Patients on opioids also reported significantly worse scores for five other cancer-specific core symptoms and all six symptoms rating interference with daily life. Only 15% of patients with higher composite score for depression-related symptoms were on antidepressants. However, patients taking antidepressants did not significantly differ in any individual MDASI symptom scores compared with those not on antidepressants (p = 0.4858).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a need for better screening for pain and depression and optimization of pain management in treatment-naïve lung cancer patients since their poor functional status may result in suboptimal cancer therapy.

Transitions of Care for Postoperative Opioid Prescribing in Previously Opioid-Naïve Patients in the USA: a Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

New persistent opioid use is a common postoperative complication, with 6% of previously opioid-naïve patients continuing to fill opioid prescriptions 3-6 months after surgery. Despite these risks, it is unknown which specialties prescribe opioids to these vulnerable patients.

OBJECTIVE

To identify specialties prescribing opioids to surgical patients who develop new persistent opioid use.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using a national dataset of insurance claims, we identified opioid-naïve patients aged 18-64 years undergoing surgical procedures (2008-2014) who continued filling opioid prescriptions 3 to 6 months after surgery. We then examined opioid prescriptions claims during the 12 months after surgery, and identified prescribing physician specialty using National Provider Identifier codes.

MAIN MEASURES

Percentage of opioid prescriptions provided by each specialty evaluated at 90-day intervals during the 12 months after surgery.

KEY RESULTS

We identified 5276 opioid-naïve patients who developed new persistent opioid use. During the first 3 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for 69% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 13%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 2%, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R)/Pain Medicine accounted for 1%, and all other specialties accounted for 15%. In contrast, 9 to 12 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for only 11% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 53%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 5%, PM&R/Pain Medicine accounted for 6%, and all other specialties provided 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

Among surgical patients who developed new persistent opioid use, surgeons provide the majority of opioid prescriptions during the first 3 months after surgery. By 9 to 12 months after surgery, however, the majority of opioid prescriptions were provided by primary care physicians. Enhanced care coordination between surgeons and primary care physicians could allow earlier identification of patients at risk for new persistent opioid use to prevent misuse and dependence.

Opioid analgesic use in Australia and The Netherlands: a cross-country comparison

Background Increasing use of opioid analgesics (OA) has been reported worldwide. Objective To compare the use of OA in two countries in order to better understand these trends. Setting Outpatient settings in Australia and The Netherlands. Method We analysed publicly available government data on outpatient OA dispensing over 15 years (2000-2014). We compared dispensing trends for specific OA and explored medical (national clinical guidelines), contextual and policy-related factors to explain differences in use between the two countries. Main outcome measure OA prescribing in Australia and The Netherlands, absolute volume of use, preferred types of opioids and changes over time. Results The average annual increase in OA prescribing was 10% in Australia and 8% in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2014. In 2014, the total use of OA was 10.0 daily defined doses (DDD)/1000 population/day in Australia and 9.4 DDD/1000 population/day in The Netherlands. In Australia, the most commonly prescribed opioids were oxycodone and tramadol, compared to fentanyl and tramadol in The Netherlands. We found differences in prescribing guidelines, culture of prescribing and regulatory frameworks that could explain some of the observed differences. Conclusion OA prescribing has increased remarkably in both countries between 2000 and 2014 but the types of prescribed OA vary. Differences in national evidence-based guidelines influenced the types of OA used. Prescribing culture as well as regulatory policies and costs, may also contribute to the different patterns of OA use.

Rethinking chronic pain in a primary care setting

Chronic pain substantially impacts patient function and quality of life and is a burden to society at large in terms of increased health care utilization and loss of productivity. As a result, there is an increasing recognition of chronic pain as a public health crisis. However, there remains wide variability in clinical practices related to the prevention, assessment, and treatment of chronic pain. Certain fundamental aspects of chronic pain are often neglected including the contribution of the psychological, social, and contextual factors associated with chronic pain. Also commonly overlooked is the importance of understanding the likely neurobiological mechanism(s) of the presenting pain and how they can guide treatment selection. Finally, physicians may not recognize the value of using electronic medical records to systematically capture data on pain and its impact on mood, function, and sleep. Such data can be used to monitor onset and maintenance of treatments effects at the patient level and evaluate costs at the systems level. In this review we explain how these factors play a critical role in the development of a coordinated, evidence-based treatment approach tailored to meet specific needs of the patient. We also discuss some practical approaches and techniques that can be implemented by clinicians in order to enhance the assessment and management of individuals with chronic pain in primary care settings.

Specialized Pain Clinics in Primary Care: Common Diagnoses, Referral Patterns and Clinical Outcomes - Novel Pain Management Model

An estimated 19% of the adult population in western countries lives with chronic pain. Pain management lies mainly within the primary care and community setting. We evaluated the outcome of a new model of secondary care clinics, conducted by primary care physicians with specialized training in pain medicine. Data on referral patterns, prevalence of pain diagnosis, and medication consumption were recorded at five secondary pain management clinics in the community setting. In total, 997 patients with pain attended 2,652 visits (average 2.7 visits per patient) during 12 mo. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 92 yr (mean 59 ± 19). Mean pain intensity on the first visit, evaluated by the visual analogue scale was 7.7/10. Myofascial pain syndrome was the most common diagnosis (82%). Treatment included dry needling or trigger point injection (82%), manual myofascial release (23%), and pharmacotherapy (38%). Significant short-term improvement after treatment was reported by 75% of patients, and 72% reported long-term improvement. Four percent were referred to tertiary care pain clinics, 5% were referred to other specialists, and 5% to imaging. Secondary, community-based pain clinics, run by specially-trained primary physicians, demonstrated feasibility. The vast majority of patients referred to the clinics were treated using simple, inexpensive modalities, while sparing referrals to unnecessary consultation visits, imaging tests, and medications.

Biopsychosocial Approach to Assessing and Managing Patients with Chronic Pain

Chronic pain affects nearly one-third of the American population. Chronic pain can lead to a variety of problems for a pain sufferer, including developing secondary medical problems, depression, functional and vocational disability, opioid abuse and suicide. Current pain care models are deficient in providing a necessary comprehensive approach. Most patients with chronic pain are managed by primary care clinicians who are typically ill prepared to effectively and efficiently manage these cases. A biopsychosocial approach to evaluate and treat chronic pain is clinically and economically efficacious, but unique delivery systems are required to meet the challenge of access to specialty care.