Emergence From the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Care of Chronic Pain: Guidance for the Interventionalist

Management of pain in cancer patients- lessons from practices during the COVID-19: a qualitative study of cancer care providers' perspectives

BACKGROUND

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has impacted health systems globally and affected managing many chronic conditions, including cancer. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of multi-disciplinary cancer care providers on how cancer pain management was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Participants were eligible if they were cancer care providers of any specialty and discipline from two tertiary hospitals in Australia. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews to explore cancer care providers' perspectives on cancer pain management within COVID-19. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts used an integrated approach that started with inductive coding before coding deductively against a behaviour framework called the COM-B Model, which proposes that 'capability', 'motivation' and 'opportunity' are requisites for any behaviour.

RESULTS

Twenty-three providers participated. Five themes were developed and interpreted from the analysis of data, namely: "Telehealth enables remote access to cancer pain management but also created a digital divide", "Access to cancer pain management in the community is compromised due to the pandemic", "COVID-19 negatively impacts hospital resource allocation", "Patients were required to trade off cancer pain management against other health priorities" and "Hospital restrictions result in decreased social and psychological support for patients with cancer pain".

CONCLUSIONS

The landscape of cancer pain management in the Australian health system underwent substantial shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic, with lasting impacts. Cancer care providers perceived the pandemic to have significant adverse effects on pain management across multiple levels, with repercussions for patients experiencing cancer-related pain. A more adaptive health system model needs to be established in the future to accommodate vulnerable cancer patients.

COVID-19 and Spontaneous Resolution of Lumbar Disk Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Patients Awaiting Microdiscectomy

BACKGROUND

 Between individual patients with lumbar disk prolapse (LDP), the natural course of disease is significantly variable. Spontaneous resolution is reported to occur in up to 70% of cases. However, we currently cannot predict for whom and when this will occur. Neurosurgical intervention is indicated for LDP patients with nontolerable pain after at least 8 to 12 weeks of conservative management, or significant neurologic deficit. Channeling essential resources in the National Health Service (NHS) to fight the COVID-19 pandemic led to the postponement of most elective operations, including microdiskectomy. This left many LDP patients previously considered to be surgical candidates with conservative-only options in the interim. To our knowledge, we are the first center to report the specific impact of the peri- and postpandemic period on waiting list times, delayed elective microdiskectomy, and the incidence of spontaneous LDP resolution.

METHODS

 Retrospective case series of a prospectively collected electronic departmental database identified LDP patients who would have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic at some point in their care pathway (March 2020-February 2022). Further information was obtained from electronic patient records.

RESULTS

 In total, 139 LDP patients were listed for elective microdiskectomy at the time of postponement of elective surgery. Over a third of LDP patients (n = 47, 33.8%), in shared decision with the responsible neurosurgeon, had their rescheduled microdiskectomy canceled due to clinical improvement (14.1%), radiologic regression (6.5%), or both (12.2%).

CONCLUSION

 Our single-center retrospective analysis revealed that for over a third of LDP patients, the prolonged postpandemic waiting list times for elective microdiskectomy resulted in their surgery not taking place either due to spontaneous clinical improvement or proven radiologic regression. Considering this, a prolonged conservative approach to LDP may be appropriate in some patients, allowing time for natural resolution, while avoiding perioperative risks.

Treating Chronic, Intractable Pain with a Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System: 1-Year Outcomes from the AUS-nPower Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in technology, treatment gaps remain. A small SCS system with a miniaturized implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG; <1.5 cm3 in volume) and an externally worn power source may be preferred by patients who do not want a large, implanted battery. We report here the long-term outcomes from the first-in-human study evaluating the safety and performance of a new neurostimulation system.

Patients and Methods

This was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate this SCS system, in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Consented subjects who passed screening continued on to the long-term phase of the study. One-year, patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) such as pain (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), functional disability, quality of life, and mood were captured.

Results

Twenty-six (26) evaluable subjects with permanent implants were included in this analysis. The average leg pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 at baseline to 1.1 ± 1.2 at the end of the study (p < 0.001), while the average low-back pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001). The responder rate (proportion with ≥50% pain relief) was 91% in the leg(s) and 82% in the low back. There were significant improvements in functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and in mood (Beck Depression Inventory), demonstrating a 46% and 62% improvement, respectively (p < 0.001). Eleven-point Likert scales demonstrated the wearable to be very comfortable and very easy to use.

Conclusion

There were considerable challenges conducting a clinical study during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed study programming visits. Nevertheless, subjects had significant PRO improvements through 1-year. The small size of the implanted device, along with a proprietary waveform, may allow for improved SCS outcomes and a drop in incidence of IPG-pocket pain.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prescribing of opioid and opioid use disorder medications within an academic medical center in California

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare operations affecting many patients with chronic pain and substance use disorder. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid and opioid use disorder (OUD) medication prescribing practices within a large academic health system in southern California.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who received a prescription for chronic opioids or therapy for OUD between November 1, 2019 and September 1, 2020. The date range was divided into five specific time periods during the pandemic: November through December 2019 (pre-COVID and reference period), January through February 2020 (early COVID), March through April 2020 (policy/guidance change period), May through June 2020 (early post-guidance period), and July through August 2020 (late post-guidance period). The primary outcome was change in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed. Secondary outcomes included encounter type, mode of prescription ordering, naloxone prescriptions, and urine drug screen obtainment.

Results

The cohort included 100 patients divided among the designated time periods. Seventy-percent of patients received opioids for chronic non-malignant pain and 10% received therapy for OUD. Although there were numerical increases in MMEs prescribed, no significant changes were seen in the MMEs prescribed at any timepoint relative to the pre-COVID timeframe despite reduced in-person visits, increased video and telephone encounters and increased electronic prescription utilization. Subgroup analyses of those with chronic pain only or OUD had similar findings.

Conclusion

It appears that, generally, prescribing practices were sustained despite the various phases of the pandemic including transitions to and from telemedicine.

Best Practices from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) for Clinical Research During a Pandemic or Emergency

The COVID-19 pandemic caught many areas of medicine in a state of unpreparedness for conducting research and completing ongoing projects during a global crisis, including the field of pain medicine. Waves of infection led to a disjointed ability to provide care and conduct clinical research. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Research Group has created guidance for pragmatic and ethical considerations for research during future emergency or disaster situations. This analysis uses governmental guidance, scientific best practices, and expert opinion to address procedure-based or device-based clinical trials during such times. Current literature offers limited recommendations on this important issue, and the findings of this group fill a void for protocols to improve patient safety and efficacy, especially as we anticipate the impact of future disasters and spreading global infectious diseases. We recommend local adaptations to best practices and innovations to enable continued research while respecting the stressors to the research subjects, investigator teams, health-care systems, and to local infrastructure.

Chronic pain and COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality: a UK Biobank cohort study

ABSTRACT

The risk of COVID-19 in those with chronic pain is unknown. We investigated whether self-reported chronic pain was associated with COVID-19 hospitalisation or mortality. UK Biobank recruited 502,624 participants aged 37 to 73 years between 2006 and 2010. Baseline exposure data, including chronic pain (>3 months, in at least 1 of 7 prespecified body sites) and chronic widespread pain (>3 months, all over body), were linked to COVID-19 hospitalisations or mortality. Univariable or multivariable Poisson regression analyses were performed on the association between chronic pain and COVID-19 hospitalisation and Cox regression analyses of the associations with COVID-19 mortality. Multivariable analyses adjusted incrementally for sociodemographic confounders, then lifestyle risk factors, and finally long-term condition count. Of 441,403 UK Biobank participants with complete data, 3180 (0.7%) were hospitalised for COVID-19 and 1040 (0.2%) died from COVID-19. Chronic pain was associated with hospital admission for COVID-19 even after adjustment for all covariates (incidence rate ratio 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.24; P < 0.001), as was chronic widespread pain (incidence rate ratio 1.33; 95% CI 1.06-1.66; P = 0.012). There was clear evidence of a dose-response relationship with number of pain sites (fully adjusted global P -value < 0.001). After adjustment for all covariates, there was no association between chronic pain (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.89-1.15; P = 0.834) but attenuated association with chronic widespread pain (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04-2.16, P -value = 0.032) and COVID-19 mortality. Chronic pain is associated with higher risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19, but the association with mortality is unclear. Future research is required to investigate these findings further and determine whether pain is associated with long COVID.

Evaluation of post-COVID health status using the EuroQol-5D-5L scale

SARS-CoV-2 has had a lasting effect on the overall health of recovered patients, called 'long COVID'. Currently, there is a lack of a validated standard questionnaire to assess post-COVID health status. A retrospective observational study involving the recovered COVID patients admitted to a secondary care hospital in India between June to December 2020 (n = 123), was conducted using the EuroQol-5D-5L scale at discharge, 4 weeks and 8 weeks post-discharge. A significant difference in anxiety/depression scores was found (χ² = 65.6, p < 0.000) among the 3 categories of time (discharge, 4 weeks and 8 weeks). The anxiety/depression dimension scores showed a significant change (p < 0.0001) between discharge and 8 weeks, using paired t-test. Age had a significant relationship with the anxiety/depression dimension at 4 weeks (OR = 5.617, 95% CI = 1.0320-30.5746, p < 0.05). A significant difference was found using Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test on mean index scores (χ² = 60.0, p < 0.000) among the three categories of time (discharge, 4 weeks and 8 weeks). There was a statistically significant difference of time on EQ Index scores as determined by one-way repeated measures ANOVA (F(2,375) = 18.941, p = <0.00001). Our study found time to have a statistically significant impact on the mean index scores, level sum scores and dimension scores. Smoking was found to be significantly associated with usual activity scores at 4 weeks. The most remarkable changes occurred in the anxiety/depression dimension. Overall, there was a general trend of health improvement.

SPINE20 recommendations 2021: spine care for people's health and prosperity

Purpose

The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability.

Methods

On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments.

Results

In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes.

Conclusions

SPINE20’s initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on chronic pain structures: data from French national survey

Aims: The authors evaluated the impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic wave on French chronic pain structures (CPSs). Methods: An online survey assessed CPS resource allocation, workflow and perceived impact on patient care. Results: All CPS workflow was severely impacted by the reallocation of 42% of specialists. In-person appointments were cancelled by 72% of participants. Follow-up was maintained in 91% of participants (telemedicine). Skills in end-of-life decision-making/counseling were rarely solicited. The perceived impact of the crisis on the experience of patients was high (eight out of ten), with a significant increase in access-to-care delay. Conclusion: CPSs maintained patient follow-up. Special features of CPS specialists were rarely solicited by coronavirus disease 2019 teams experiencing a high workload. Recommendations on optimal CPS resource reallocations have to be standardized in crisis conditions.

Teleprogramming Service Provides Safe and Remote Stimulation Options for Patients with DRG-S and SCS Implants

Background

Chronic pain patients implanted with a neurostimulation device typically require follow-up and device programming visits to address changes in symptoms or treatment. Follow-up visits require access to specialty care and necessitate patients to take time off work, commute long distances, arrange for travel, and/or work with a caregiver's schedule. Telemedicine was adopted for some patient management as a result of the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic; however, remote optimization for neuromodulation still required an in-person visit to adjust device parameters. An FDA-approved digital platform enables remote programming of an implanted neuromodulation device using a real-time audio-video link from the clinical programmer to the patient controller. The Remote Optimization, Adjustment, and Measurement for Chronic Pain Therapy (ROAM-CPT) is a multi-center, prospective study that is currently underway to access the effectiveness of the teleprogramming system in fulfilling patients' clinical demands.

Methods

This pilot study surveyed 16 patients to determine the ability of the teleprogramming platform to provide a rapid solution safely and effectively for patient's chronic pain. Data were collected using a questionnaire that asked 6 clinician-centric questions and 5 patient-centric questions.

Results

4/4 surveyed physicians were able to address patients' needs. 16/16 surveyed patients reported a quick resolution to pain and 15/16 did not require additional follow-up. Data curated from this pilot study show that the teleprogramming application greatly improves patient care, is preferred by both clinicians and patients with minimal disruptions to patients' everyday lives.

Conclusion

Teleprogramming provides real-time virtual programming capabilities and optimizes patients' therapy.

Perspective

This article describes remote device programming and analysis as an alternative to in-person programming/treatment sessions for neuromodulation patients. This remote option gives patients access to timely and clinically appropriate device management when in-person care may not be available.

The Association of Delayed Care With Depression Among US Middle-Aged and Older Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Analysis

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the depression level among US adults has significantly increased. Age disparity in depression during the pandemic has been reported in recent studies. Delay or avoidance of medical care is one of the collateral damages associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it can lead to increased morbidity and mortality.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the prevalence of depression and delayed care among US middle-aged adults and older adults during the pandemic, as well as investigate the association of delayed care with depression among those 2 age groups.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used data from the 2020 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) COVID-19 Project (Early, Version 1.0). Univariate analyses, bivariate analyses, and binary logistic regression were applied. US adults older than 46 years were included. Depression was measured by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form (CIDI-SF). Delayed care was measured by the following 4 items: delayed surgery, delayed seeing a doctor, delayed dental care, and other delayed care.

Results

A total of 3246 participants were identified. More than half of the participants were older than 65 years (n=1890, 58.2%), and 274 (8.8%) participants had depression during the pandemic. Delayed dental care was positively associated with depression among both middle-aged adults (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.04-4.03; P=.04) and older adults (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.07-8.87; P=.04). Delayed surgery was positively associated with depression among older adults (OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.06-12.90; P=.04). Self-reported pain was positively related to depression among both age groups. Middle-aged adults who reported higher education levels (some college or above) or worse self-reported health had a higher likelihood of having depression. While perceived more loneliness was positively associated with depression among older adults, financial difficulty was positively associated with depression among middle-aged adults.

Conclusions

This study found that depression was prevalent among middle-aged and older adults during the pandemic. The study highlighted the collateral damage of the COVID-19 pandemic by identifying the association of delayed surgery and dental care with depression during the pandemic. Although surgery and dental care cannot be delivered by telehealth, telehealth services can still be provided to address patients’ concerns on delayed surgery and dental care. Moreover, the implementation of telemental health services is needed to address mental health symptoms among US middle-aged and older adults during the pandemic. Future research that uses more comprehensive measurements for delayed care is needed to decipher the path through which delayed care is associated with depression.

Telemedicine and current clinical practice trends in the COVID-19 pandemic

Telemedicine is the medical practice of caring for and treating patients remotely. With the spread of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine has become increasingly prevalent. Although telemedicine was already in practice before the 2020 pandemic, the internet, smartphones, computers, and video-conferencing tools have made telemedicine easily accessible and available to almost everyone. However, there are also new challenges that health care providers may not be prepared for, including treating and diagnosing patients without physical contact. Physician adoption also depends upon reimbursement and education to improve the telemedicine visits. We review current trends involving telemedicine, how pandemics such as COVID-19 affect the remote treatment of patients, and key concepts important to healthcare providers who practice telemedicine.

Insomnia, Anxiety, and Depression Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic May Depend on the Pre-Existent Health Status Rather than the Profession

Despite the high number of studies on mental health among healthcare workers, only a few have attempted to assess the mental health of people with chronic diseases during the COVID-19 crisis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the symptoms of insomnia, anxiety, and depression among people with chronic diseases working in healthcare and in other professions. The study participants were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of 441 healthcare workers, and the second consisted of 572 non-healthcare professionals. Correlation analysis showed a strong correlation between autoimmune diseases and an increase in GAD-7 scale, ISI score, and PHQ-9 scale. Therefore, only autoimmune diseases were included for further analyses as a predictor of insomnia, depression, and anxiety. After adjusting the results for gender, age, smoking, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and profession, the group with autoimmune diseases showed a more than a 2-fold increase in the risk of anxiety symptoms, a more than 2.5-fold increase in the risk of depressive symptoms, and a 4-fold increase in the risk of insomnia symptoms. This study shows that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the incidence of insomnia, anxiety disorders, and depressive disorders may depend on the pre-existent health status of an individual rather than on their profession.

Practical Advices for Treating Chronic Pain in the Time of COVID-19: A Narrative Review Focusing on Interventional Techniques

BACKGROUND

Since the management of chronic pain has become even more challenging secondary to the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, we developed an exhaustive narrative review of the scientific literature, providing practical advices regarding the management of chronic pain in patients with suspected, presumed, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We focused particularly on interventional procedures, where physicians are in closer contact with patients.

METHODS

Narrative Review of the most relevant articles published between June and December of 2020 that focused on the treatment of chronic pain in COVID-19 patients.

RESULTS

Careful triage of patients is mandatory in order to avoid overcrowding of hospital spaces. Telemedicine could represent a promising tool to replace in-person visits and as a screening tool prior to admitting patients to hospitals. Opioid medications can affect the immune response, and therefore, care should be taken prior to initiating new treatments and increasing dosages. Epidural steroids should be avoided or limited to the lowest effective dose. Non urgent interventional procedures such as spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal pumps should be postponed. The use of personal protective equipment and disinfectants represent an important component of the strategy to prevent viral spread to operators and cross-infection between patients due to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.

Pain in Covid Era

The COVID19 pandemic has impacted the lives and health of persons worldwide and although majority of COVID19 patients present with respiratory symptoms, pain emerges as an important feature of COVID19 infection. About 15–20% of patients progress to a severe condition that requires hospitalization. Although the disease was initially reported as a respiratory syndrome, other systems such as cardiovascular, renal, and nervous systems may be affected in the acute stages, increasing the need for continuous support to treat multiple sequelae caused by the disease. Due to the severity of the disease, damages found after discharge should also be considered. Providing multidisciplinary interventions promoting physical and psychological recovery in the first stages of hospitalization can minimize these damages. Cognitive, physical and psychological dysfunction reported by COVID19 patients after discharge can have profound effects on quality of life. Pain is usually part of this dysfunction, but it is still poorly understood how it affects survivors of COVID19 infections. There is limited information about the clinical characteristics, treatment and outcome of maintenance of pain in COVID19 patients. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the implications of COVID19 on acute and chronic pain states.

Distance Management of Spinal Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Evidence-Based Patient and Clinician Guides From the Global Spine Care Initiative

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain.

Objective

The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available.

Methods

Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process.

Results

The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient’s spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions.

Conclusions

The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on chronic pain in Spain: a scoping review

The COVID-19 outbreak has been a great challenge in the management of chronic pain patients. We have conducted a rapid scoping review to assess the impact of the pandemic (and the associated public health measures) on the health status and management practices of chronic pain patients in Spain. To this end, we performed a bibliographic search in LitCOVID and PubMed, and reviewed official websites and documents, and expert reports. The review showed that (1) the studies consistently indicate that the pandemic has had a very negative impact on the physical and psychological health of chronic pain patients; (2) there are scarce data on how the pandemic affected pain unit consultations and a lack of protocols to organize health care in the face of future waves of contagion, with little implementation of telehealth. We make proposals to improve management of chronic pain patients in pandemic situations, which should pivot around 3 axes: (1) a coordinated response of all the relevant stakeholders to define a future roadmap and research priorities, (2) a biopsychosocial approach in pain management, and (3) development and implementation of novel telemedicine solutions.

The Effects of the Health System Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chronic Disease Management: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Individuals with chronic conditions require ongoing disease management to reduce risks of adverse health outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care for non-COVID-19 cases was affected due to the reallocation of resources towards urgent care for COVID-19 patients, resulting in inadequate ongoing care for chronic conditions.

METHODS

A keyword search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Scopus for English language articles published between January 2020 and January 2021.

FINDINGS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person care for individuals with chronic conditions have decreased due to government restriction of elective and non-urgent healthcare visits, greater instilled fear over potential COVID-19 exposure during in-person visits, and higher utilization rates of telemedicine compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. Potential benefits of a virtual-care framework during the pandemic include more effective routine disease monitoring, improved patient satisfaction, and increased treatment compliance and follow-up rates. However, more needs to be done to ensure timely and effective access to telemedicine, particularly for individuals with lower digital literacy. Capitation primary care models have been proposed as a more financially-robust approach during the COVID-19 pandemic than fee-for-service primary care models; however, the interplay between different primary models and the health outcomes is still poorly understood and warrants further investigation. Shortages of medication used to manage chronic conditions were also observed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic due to global supply chain disruptions. Finally, patients with chronic conditions faced lifestyle disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in physical activity, sleep, stress, and mental health, which need to be better addressed.

INTERPRETATION

Overall, this review elucidates the disproportionately greater barriers to primary and specialty care that patients with chronic diseases face during the COVID-19 pandemic and emphasizes the urgent need for better chronic disease management strategies moving forward.

Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most medical services were shut down and resources were redistributed. Closures included pain management departments where many staff were redeployed. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to pain consultants working in public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland between the 22nd and 28th September 2020.

RESULTS

We received responses from 18 consultants from all 15 public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland with chronic pain services. Procedural volume during lockdown fell to 26% of pre-COVID levels. This had recovered somewhat by the time of the survey to 71%. Similarly, in-person outpatient clinic volume fell to 10% of per-COVID numbers and recovered to 50%. On average, 39% of public hospital activity was made up for by the availability of private hospitals. This varied significantly across the country. The use of telemedicine increased significantly during the pandemic. Before COVID, on average, 13% of outpatient clinic volume was composed of telephone or video consultations. This increased to 46% at the time of the survey.

CONCLUSION

This survey of consultant pain physicians in the Republic of Ireland has revealed how chronic pain services have been affected during the pandemic and how they have evolved.

Pain during and after COVID-19 in Germany and worldwide: a narrative review of current knowledge

COVID-19 may potentially increase the incidence of persisting pain syndromes and worsen symptoms of preexisting chronic pain.

Pain is a common symptom accompanying the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Nonspecific discomfort such as sore throat and body ache are frequent. Parainfectious pain such as headache, myalgia, or neuropathic pain has also been reported. The latter seems to be associated with an autoimmune response or an affection of the peripheral neuromuscular system or the central nervous system because of the viral infection. Furthermore, chronic pain can be a complication of intensive care unit treatment due to COVID-19 itself (such as intensive care–acquired weakness) or of secondary diseases associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, including Guillain–Barré syndrome, polyneuritis, critical illness polyneuropathy, or central pain following cerebrovascular events. Data on long-lasting painful symptoms after clinically manifest COVID-19 and their consequences are lacking. In addition, preexisting chronic pain may be exacerbated by limited and disrupted health care and the psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical providers should be vigilant on pain during and after COVID-19.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pharmacological, physical, and psychological treatments of pain: findings from the Chronic Pain & COVID-19 Pan-Canadian Study

INTRODUCTION

Multimodal treatment is recognized as the optimal paradigm for the management of chronic pain (CP). Careful balance between pharmacological and physical/psychological approaches is thus desirable but can be easily disrupted.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed at exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacological and physical/psychological treatments of CP.

METHODS

A Pan-Canadian cross-sectional web-based study was conducted between April 16th and May 31st 2020 among adults living with CP when the country was in the ascending slope of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave.

RESULTS

A total of 2864 participants shared their treatment experience (mean age: 49.7 years and women: 83.5%). Among medication users (n = 2533), 38.3% reported changes in their pharmacological pain treatment. The main reasons were as follows: (1) changes in pain symptoms, (2) lack of access to prescribers/cancellation of medical appointments, and (3) increased medication intake in compensation for stopping physical/psychological treatments because of the pandemic. Among participants who used physical/psychological pain management approaches before the pandemic (n = 2467), 68.3% had to modify their treatments or self-management strategies. Common reasons were lack of access to clinics/exercise facilities and the need to compensate for having to stop another type of physical/psychological treatment because of the pandemic-related public health safety measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underlines the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to pain relief, which is considered a fundamental human right. Results will help to justify resource allocation and inform the development of interventions to be better prepared for waves to come and future health crises.

Chronic pain and COVID-19: pathophysiological, clinical and organizational issues

During the lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a call not to neglect the continuum of care of patients who present with chronic diseases, including pain, was made. In the field of pain, COVID-19 had an impact both from a clinical (i.e., the influence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pain) and organizational (i.e., how patients with chronic pain should be managed in the post-COVID-19 era) perspective. Furthermore, patients with chronic pain are also frequently frail subjects, affected from multiple comorbidities and hence are at increased risk of infection. On these bases, how the necessity to continue pain therapy will be pursued in the post-COVID-19 era? In this paper, we comment on the above-mentioned topics, on the basis of available data and our experience as pain therapists.

Pain During COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review and Guide for the Interventionalist

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain, the leading cause of disability in the world, imposes limitations on activities of daily living and diminishes quality of life leading to unnecessary patient suffering. The personal and socioeconomic costs of chronic pain cannot be overstated. Physicians are at the crux of the pandemic and must attempt to limit the spread of the virus while maintaining their professional responsibility to their patients and staff members.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to analyze the existing literature to develop consensus recommendations for treating pain during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Relevant literature was located via computer-generated citations between the months of March and May of 2020. Online computer searches of multiple databases including Google Scholar, CINAHL, PubMed, and Cochrane Review were conducted in conjunction with a thorough review of local, state, national, and international governmental and organizational websites to locate research on the area of interest.

RESULTS

The guidelines in this review are meant to offer a framework to pain practitioners and organizations for providing highly effective, ethical, and safe care to patients while maintaining their commitment to mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific areas addressed include general and interventional-specific treatment and mitigation recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the recommendations in this review, if used in conjunction with evolving recommendations of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and federal, state, and local governing bodies, provides a path to not only mitigate the spread of the pandemic but also limit the adverse impact of pain and suffering in chronic pain patients.

Efficacy and safety of decontamination for N95 respirator reuse: a systematic literature search and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

Under times of supply chain stress, the availability of some medical equipment and supplies may become limited. The current pandemic involving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has highlighted limitations to the ordinary provision of personal protective equipment (PPE). For perioperative healthcare workers, N95 masks provide a stark example of PPE in short supply necessitating the creation of scientifically valid protocols for their decontamination and reuse.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify peer-reviewed articles related to N95 mask decontamination and subsequent testing for the integrity of mask filtration and facial seal. To expand this search, we additionally surveyed the official statements from key health agencies, organizations, and societies for relevant citations.

RESULTS

Our initial database search resulted in five articles that met inclusion criteria, with 26 articles added from the expanded search. Our search did not reveal any relevant randomized clinical trials or cohort studies. We found that moist mask heating (65-80°C at 50-85% relative humidity for 20-30 min) and vaporous hydrogen peroxide treatment were supported by the literature to provide consistent viral decontamination without compromising mask seal and filtration efficiency. Other investigated decontamination methods lacked comprehensive scientific evidence for all three of these key criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

N95 mask reprocessing using either moist heat or vaporous hydrogen peroxide is recommended to ensure healthcare worker safety.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on chronic pain management: Looking for the best way to deliver care

Although pain treatment has been described as a fundamental human right, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced healthcare systems worldwide to redistribute healthcare resources toward intensive care units and other COVID-19 dedicated sites. As most chronic pain services were subsequently deemed non-urgent, all outpatient and elective interventional procedures have been reduced or interrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to reduce the risk of viral spread. The shutdown of pain services jointly to the home lockdown imposed by governments has affected chronic pain management worldwide with additional impact on patients' psychological health. Therefore, the aim of this review is to analyze the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on chronic pain treatment and to address what types of strategies can be implemented or supported in order to overcome imposed limitations in delivery of chronic pain patient care.

[Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy under the protective measures of the COVID-19 pandemic : Analysis and progress report]

Aufgrund der COVID-19-Pandemie mussten elektive medizinische Leistungen auf ein Minimum reduziert werden, wovon auch die schmerzmedizinische Versorgung betroffen war. Nach diesen drastischen Einschnitten steht nun eine vorsichtige Wiederaufnahme der elektiven Versorgungen an. Dies betrifft auch die Durchführung von stationären und teilstationären interdisziplinären multimodalen Schmerztherapien (IMST). Nachdem bis dato der Großteil der schmerzmedizinischen Einrichtungen geschlossen hat, stellte sich die Frage, ob unter den geforderten Schutzmaßnahmen eine Wiederaufnahme des Regelbetriebs problemlos umsetzbar ist. Um diese Fragestellung zu beantworten führten wir eine Patientenbefragung bei Patienten durch, die einen direkten Vergleich ziehen konnten zwischen einer IMST unter Normalbedingungen und unter den aktuell benötigten Schutzmaßnahmen. Die Umfrage erfasste dabei den Beeinträchtigungsgrad der unterschiedlichen Schutzmaßnahmen bei den verschiedenen Therapiebausteinen. Die Auswertung der Fragebögen von zwei Patientengruppen sowie aller beteiligten Therapeuten ergab, dass eine interdisziplinäre multimodale Schmerztherapie auch unter den benötigten Schutzmaßnahmen ohne größere Einschränkungen möglich ist. Insbesondere das Tragen einer Mund-Nasen-Schutzmaske erwies sich als die am stärksten beeinträchtigende Schutzmaßnahme. Durch Optionen wie die Verwendung einer Schutzscheibe oder die Verlegung der Therapiebausteine ins Freie stehen aber praktikable Schutzalternativen zur Verfügung. Die Zufriedenheit sowohl von Patienten als auch von Therapeuten war trotz dieser Einschränkungen groß und die persönliche Sorge vor einer möglichen Infektion gering.