Mesenchymal stem cells for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central to September 2023 for trials that (1) enrolled patients with chronic pain associated with knee OA, and (2) randomized them to MSC therapy vs. placebo or usual care. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 16 trials (807 participants). At 3-6 months, MSC therapy probably results in little to no difference in pain relief (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.74 cm on a 10 cm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -1.16 to -0.33; minimally important difference [MID] 1.5 cm) or physical functioning (WMD 2.23 points on 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) physical functioning subscale, 95%CI -0.97 to 5.43; MID 10-points; both moderate certainty). At 12 months, injection of MSCs probably results in little to no difference in pain (WMD -0.73 cm on a 10 cm VAS, 95%CI -1.69 to 0.24; moderate certainty) and may improve physical functioning (WMD 19.36 points on 100-point SF-36 PF subscale, 95%CI -0.19 to 38.9; low certainty). MSC therapy may increase risk of any adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 2.67, 95%CI 1.19 to 5.99; low certainty) and pain and swelling of the knee joint (RR 1.58, 95%CI 1.04 to 2.38; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular injection of MSCs for chronic knee pain associated with OA probably provides little to no improvement in pain or physical function.

Therapist-guided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for several psychiatric and somatic conditions; however, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have administered treatment in person and whether remote delivery is similarly effective remains uncertain. We sought to compare the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote CBT and in-person CBT. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 4, 2023, for RCTs that enrolled adults (aged ≥ 18 yr) presenting with any clinical condition and that randomized participants to either therapist-guided remote CBT (e.g., teleconference, videoconference) or in-person CBT. Paired reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to pool patient-important primary outcomes across eligible RCTs as standardized mean differences (SMDs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to assess the certainty of evidence and used the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to rate the credibility of subgroup effects. RESULTS: We included 54 RCTs that enrolled a total of 5463 patients. Seventeen studies focused on treatment of anxiety and related disorders, 14 on depressive symptoms, 7 on insomnia, 6 on chronic pain or fatigue syndromes, 5 on body image or eating disorders, 3 on tinnitus, 1 on alcohol use disorder, and 1 on mood and anxiety disorders. Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote and in-person CBT on primary outcomes (SMD -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.07). INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of in-person and therapist-guided remote CBT across a range of mental health and somatic disorders, suggesting potential for the use of therapist-guided remote CBT to facilitate greater access to evidence-based care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7asrc).

Simulation-based medical education in Canadian anesthesiology academic institutions: a national survey.

PURPOSE: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is provided by all anesthesiology residency programs in Canada. The purpose of this study was to characterize SBME in Canadian anesthesiology residency training programs. METHODS: We administered a 21-question survey to the simulation director/coordinator for all 17 Canadian academic departments of anesthesiology from October 2019 to January 2020. The survey consisted of questions pertaining to the characteristics of the simulation centres, their faculty, learners, curriculum, and assessment processes. RESULTS: All 17 residency training programs participated in the survey and reported large variability in the number and formal training of simulation faculty and in content delivery. Five programs (29%) did not provide faculty recognition for curriculum design and running simulation sessions. Most programs offered one to four simulation sessions per academic year for each year of residency. All programs offered mannequin-based and part-task trainers for teaching technical and nontechnical skills. Fourteen programs (82%) offered interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation sessions, and ten programs (59%) did not include in situ simulation training. Commonly reported barriers to faculty involvement were lack of protected time (12 programs, 71%), lack of financial compensation (ten programs, 59%), and lack of appreciation for SBME (seven programs, 41%). CONCLUSION: Large variability exists in the delivery of SBME in Canadian anesthesiology residency simulation programs, in part because of differences in financial/human resources and educational content. Future studies should explore whether training and patient outcomes differ between SBME programs and, if so, whether additional standardization is warranted.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La formation médicale par simulation est offerte par tous les programmes de résidence en anesthésiologie au Canada. L'objectif de cette étude était de déterminer l'état actuel de la formation médicale par simulation dans les programmes canadiens de résidence en anesthésiologie. MéTHODE: D'octobre 2019 à janvier 2020, nous avons administré un sondage comportant 21 questions aux directions et équipes de coordination de la simulation des 17 départements universitaires d'anesthésiologie canadiens. L'enquête comportait des questions portant sur les caractéristiques des centres de simulation, le corps professoral, les apprenants et apprenantes, le programme d'études et les processus d'évaluation. RéSULTATS: Les 17 programmes de résidence ont tous participé à l'enquête et ont fait état d'une grande variabilité dans le nombre et la formation officielle du corps professoral en simulation ainsi que dans la prestation de contenu. Cinq programmes (29 %) n'ont pas reconnu le corps professoral en charge de la conception des programmes d'études et de l'organisation des séances de simulation. La plupart des programmes offraient une à quatre séances de simulation par année universitaire à chaque année de résidence. Tous les programmes disposaient de simulateurs d'entraînement pour tâches partielles et de mannequins pour enseigner des compétences techniques et non techniques. Quatorze programmes (82 %) offraient des séances de simulation interprofessionnelles et interdisciplinaires, et dix programmes (59 %) ne comportaient pas de formation par simulation in situ. Les obstacles les plus fréquemment signalés à la participation du corps professoral étaient le manque de temps protégé (12 programmes, 71 %), le manque de compensation financière (dix programmes, 59 %) et le manque d'appréciation de la formation médicale par simulation (sept programmes, 41 %). CONCLUSION: Il existe une grande variabilité dans la prestation de formation médicale par simulation dans les programmes de simulation pendant la résidence en anesthésiologie au Canada, causée en partie par des différences dans les ressources financières et humaines et par le contenu de la formation. Des études futures devraient déterminer si la formation et les issues pour les patient·es diffèrent d'un programme de formation médicale par simulation à l'autre et, dans l'affirmative, si une normalisation supplémentaire est justifiée.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Wakefulness-Promoting Agents for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of drugs for EDS in OSA using network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 7 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Reviewers identified randomized trials that enrolled patients with EDS-associated OSA on or eligible for conventional therapy assigned to any pharmacologic intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers independently extracted data addressing effects of drugs on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and adverse events at the longest reported follow-up. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen trials (3085 patients) were eligible. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol improves ESS scores (mean difference [MD], -3.85 [95% CI, -5.24 to -2.50]; high certainty), and armodafinil-modafinil (MD, -2.25 [CI, -2.85 to -1.64]; moderate certainty) and pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers (MD, -2.78 [CI, -4.03 to -1.51]; moderate certainty) probably improve ESS scores. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.9 [CI, 0.64 to 1.17]) and armodafinil-modafinil (SMD, 0.41 [CI, 0.27 to 0.55]) improve MWT (both high certainty), whereas pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers probably do not (moderate certainty). At 4 weeks, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk [RR], 2.01 [CI, 1.14 to 3.51]; moderate certainty); solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.07 [CI, 0.67 to 6.25]; low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggests these interventions may not increase the risk for serious adverse events. LIMITATIONS: There is limited evidence on long term or effectiveness among patients nonadherent or with mixed adherence to conventional OSA therapies. CONCLUSION: Solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant reduce daytime sleepiness for patients with OSA already on conventional therapy, with solriamfetol likely superior. Adverse events probably increase the risk for discontinuation of armodafinil-modafinil and may increase the risk for discontinuation with solriamfetol. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Mental health and addiction service utilization among people living with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems, particularly anxiety and depression, are common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and negatively impact quality of life, treatment adherence, and mortality. However, the degree to which mental health and addictions services are utilized by those with CKD is unknown. We examined the history of mental health and addictions service use of individuals across levels of kidney function. METHODS: We performed a population-based cross-sectional study using linked healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada from 2009 to 2017. We abstracted the prevalence of individuals with mental health and addictions service use within the previous 3 years across levels of kidney function (eGFR$\ \ge $60, 45 to < 60, 30 to < 45, 15 to < 30, <15 mL/min per 1.73m2 and maintenance dialysis). We calculated prevalence ratios (PR) to compare prevalence across kidney function strata, while adjusting for age, sex, year of cohort entry, urban versus rural location, area-level marginalization, and Charlson comorbidity scores. RESULTS: Of 5 956 589 adults, 9% (n = 534 605) had an eGFR<60 mL/min per 1.73m2 or were receiving maintenance dialysis. Fewer individuals with eGFR < 60 had a history of any mental health and addictions service utilization (crude prevalence range 28% to 31%), compared to individuals with eGFR ≥ 60 (35%). Compared to eGFR ≥ 60, the lowest prevalence of individuals with any mental health and addictions service utilization was among those with eGFR 15 to < 30 (adjusted PR 0.86, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.88), eGFR < 15 (adjusted PR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86) and those receiving maintenance dialysis (adjusted PR 0.83, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.84). Less use of outpatient services accounted for differences in service utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health and addictions service utilization is common but less so in individuals with advanced CKD in Ontario, Canada.

Predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose after prescription of opioids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as risk factors for opioid overdose; however, the magnitude of these associations and their credibility are unclear. We sought to identify predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose from prescription opioids. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to Oct. 30, 2022, for observational studies that explored predictors of opioid overdose after their prescription for chronic pain. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for all predictors reported by 2 or more studies using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (23 963 716 patients) reported the association of 103 predictors with fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose. Moderate- to high-certainty evidence supported large relative associations with history of overdose (OR 5.85, 95% CI 3.78-9.04), higher opioid dose (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment), 3 or more prescribers (OR 4.68, 95% CI 3.57-6.12), 4 or more dispensing pharmacies (OR 4.92, 95% CI 4.35-5.57), prescription of fentanyl (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.30-3.41), current substance use disorder (OR 2.62, 95% CI 2.09-3.27), any mental health diagnosis (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.73-2.61), depression (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.57-3.14), bipolar disorder (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.77-2.41) or pancreatitis (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.52-2.64), with absolute risks among patients with the predictor ranging from 2-6 per 1000 for fatal overdose and 4-12 per 1000 for nonfatal overdose. INTERPRETATION: We identified 10 predictors that were strongly associated with opioid overdose. Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and inform harm-reduction strategies SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vznxj/).

Predictors of Persistent Post-Surgical Pain Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately one in four total knee replacement patients develop persistent pain. Identification of those at higher risk could help inform optimal management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO for observational studies that explored the association between risk factors and persistent pain (≥3 months) after total knee replacement. We pooled estimates of association for all independent variables reported by >1 study. RESULTS: Thirty studies (26,517 patients) reported the association of 151 independent variables with persistent pain after knee replacement. High certainty evidence demonstrated an increased risk of persistent pain with pain catastrophizing (absolute risk increase [ARI] 23%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12 to 35), younger age (ARI for every 10-year decrement from age 80, 4%, 95% CI 2 to 6), and moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain (ARI 30%, 95% CI 20 to 39). Moderate certainty evidence suggested an association with female sex (ARI 7%, 95% CI 3 to 11) and higher pre-operative pain (ARI 35%, 95% CI 7 to 58). Studies did not adjust for both peri-operative pain severity and pain catastrophizing, which are unlikely to be independent. High to moderate certainty evidence demonstrated no association with pre-operative range of motion, body mass index, bilateral or unilateral knee replacement, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorously conducted observational studies are required to establish the relative importance of higher levels of peri-operative pain and pain catastrophizing with persistent pain after knee replacement surgery.

Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria. METHODS: In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria. RESULTS: Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (r = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.

Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Benefits and Concerns regarding Use of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes Among People Living with Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Research Study.

OBJECTIVE: Although there is growing interest in medically authorized cannabis for chronic pain, little is known about patients' perspectives. We explored perceptions of people living with chronic pain regarding benefits and concerns surrounding their use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes. SETTING: A hospital-based clinic in Hamilton and two community-based interdisciplinary pain clinics in Burlington, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 people living with chronic pain who used cannabis therapeutically, living in Ontario, Canada. We used thematic analysis, with data collection, coding, and analysis occurring concurrently. RESULTS: People living with chronic pain reported important benefits associated with use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, including reduced pain, improved functionality, and less risk of harms compared to prescription opioids. Most patients also acknowledged harms, such as grogginess and coughing, and there was considerable variability in patient experiences. Financial costs and stigma were identified as important barriers to use of cannabis. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based guidance that incorporates patients' values and preferences may be helpful to inform the role of cannabis in the management of chronic pain.

The association between chiropractic integration in an Ontario community health centre and continued prescription opioid use for chronic non-cancer spinal pain: a sequential explanatory mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that access to chiropractic care may reduce the likelihood of initiating an opioid prescription for spinal pain; however, the impact of chiropractic care for patients already prescribed opioids is uncertain. We undertook a sequential explanatory mixed methods study to evaluate the association between initiating chiropractic care and continued opioid use among adult patients attending an Ontario community health centre (CHC) and receiving opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer spinal pain. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 210 patient records between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020. We used generalized estimating equations, adjusted for patient demographics, co-morbidities, visit frequency, and calendar year, to evaluate the association between receipt versus non-receipt of chiropractic services and continued opioid use (e.g., unique opioid fills, number of refills, and dosages) up to one year following the index chiropractic visit. We also completed follow-up interviews with 14 patients and nine general practitioners from the CHC and integrated these data with our quantitative findings. RESULTS: Over 12-month follow-up, there were lower rates of opioid fills (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.83) and refills (IRR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.42) among chiropractic recipients (n = 49) versus non-recipients (n = 161). Although patients who did and did not receive chiropractic care began the study with the same dose of opioids, recipients were less likely to be prescribed higher-dose opioids (i.e., ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents daily) compared to non-recipients at three months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.47), six months (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.40), nine months (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57), and 12 months (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.62). Interviews suggested that patient self-efficacy, limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain, stigma regarding use of opioids, and access to chiropractic treatment were important influencing factors. CONCLUSION: We found that continued prescription opioid use among patients with chronic non-cancer spinal pain who received chiropractic care was lower than in patients who did not receive chiropractic care. Four themes emerged in our qualitative interviews to help provide a richer understanding of this association. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the effect of chiropractic care on opioid use for chronic spinal pain.

Association of Chiropractic Care With Receiving an Opioid Prescription for Noncancer Spinal Pain Within a Canadian Community Health Center: A Mixed Methods Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between receipt of chiropractic services and initiating a prescription for opioids among adult patients with noncancer spinal pain in a Canadian community health center. METHODS: In this sequential explanatory mixed methods analysis, we conducted a retrospective study of 945 patient records (January 2014 to December 2020) and completed interviews with 14 patients and 9 general practitioners. We used Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, visit frequency, and calendar year to evaluate the association between receipt of chiropractic care and time to first opioid prescription up to 1 year after presentation. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically and integrated with our quantitative findings. RESULTS: There were 24% of patients (227 of 945) with noncancer spinal pain who received a prescription for opioids. The risk of initiating a prescription for opioids at 1 year after presentation was 52% lower in chiropractic recipients vs nonrecipients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.77) and 71% lower in patients who received chiropractic services within 30 days of their index visit (HR, 0.29; 99% CI, 0.13-0.68). Patients whose index visit date was in a more recent calendar year were also less likely to receive opioids (HR, 0.86; 99% CI, 0.76-0.97). Interviews suggested that self-efficacy, access to chiropractic services, opioid stigma, and treatment impact were influencing factors. CONCLUSION: Patients with noncancer spinal pain who received chiropractic care were less likely to obtain a prescription for opioids than patients who did not receive chiropractic care.

Persistent Incisional Pain after Noncardiac Surgery: An International Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, characteristics, impact, and risk factors associated with persistent incisional pain. The hypothesis was that patient demographics and perioperative interventions are associated with persistent pain. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study from 2012 to 2014. This study included patients who were 45 yr of age or older who underwent major inpatient noncardiac surgery. Data were collected perioperatively and at 1 yr after surgery to assess for the development of persistent incisional pain (pain present around incision at 1 yr after surgery). RESULTS: Among 14,831 patients, 495 (3.3%; 95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) reported persistent incisional pain at 1 yr, with an average pain intensity of 3.6 ± 2.5 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale), with 35% and 14% reporting moderate and severe pain intensities, respectively. More than half of patients with persistent pain reported needing analgesic medications, and 85% reported interference with daily activities (denominator = 495 in the above proportions). Risk factors for persistent pain included female sex (P = 0.007), Asian ethnicity (P < 0.001), surgery for fracture (P < 0.001), history of chronic pain (P < 0.001), coronary artery disease (P < 0.001), history of tobacco use (P = 0.048), postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (P < 0.001), postoperative continuous nerve block (P = 0.010), insulin initiation within 24 h of surgery (P < 0.001), and withholding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors on the day of surgery (P = 0.029 and P < 0.001, respectively). Older age (P < 0.001), endoscopic surgery (P = 0.005), and South Asian (P < 0.001), Native American/Australian (P = 0.004), and Latin/Hispanic ethnicities (P < 0.001) were associated with a lower risk of persistent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent incisional pain is a common complication of inpatient noncardiac surgery, occurring in approximately 1 in 30 adults. It results in significant morbidity, interferes with daily living, and is associated with persistent analgesic consumption. Certain demographics, ethnicities, and perioperative practices are associated with increased risk of persistent pain.

Smoking, Obesity, and Disability Benefits or Litigation Are Not Associated with Clinically Important Reductions in Physical Functioning After Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Forty percent of long bone fractures involve the tibia. These fractures are associated with prolonged recovery and may adversely affect patients' long-term physical functioning; however, there is limited evidence to inform what factors influence functional recovery in this patient population. QUESTION/PURPOSE: In a secondary analysis of a previous randomized trial, we asked: What fracture-related, demographic, social, or rehabilitative factors were associated with physical function 1 year after reamed intramedullary nailing of open or closed tibial shaft fractures? METHODS: This is a secondary (retrospective) analysis of a prior randomized trial (Trial to Re-evaluate Ultrasound in the Treatment of Tibial Fractures; TRUST trial). In the TRUST trial, 501 patients with unilateral open or closed tibial shaft fractures were randomized to self-administer daily low-intensity pulsed ultrasound or use a sham device, of which 15% (73 of 501) were not followed for 1 year due to early study termination as a result of futility (no difference between active and sham interventions). Of the remaining patients, 70% (299 of 428) provided full data. All fractures were fixed using reamed (298 of 299) or unreamed (1 of 299) intramedullary nailing. Thus, we excluded the sole fracture fixed using unreamed intramedullary nailing. The co-primary study outcomes of the TRUST trial were time to radiographic healing and SF-36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) scores at 1-year. SF-36 PCS scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores being better, and the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is 5 points. In this secondary analysis, based on clinical and biological rationale, we selected factors that may be associated with physical functioning as measured by SF-36 PCS scores. All selected factors were inserted simultaneously into a multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: After adjusting for potentially confounding factors, such as age, gender, and injury severity, we found that no factor showed an association that exceeded the MCID for physical functioning 1 year after intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. The independent variables associated with lower physical functioning were current smoking status (mean difference -3.0 [95% confidence interval -5 to -0.5]; p = 0.02), BMI > 30 kg/m2 (mean difference -3.0 [95% CI -5.0 to -0.3]; p = 0.03), and receipt of disability benefits or involvement in litigation, or plans to be (mean difference -3.0 [95% CI -5.0 to -1]; p = 0.007). Patients who were employed (mean difference 4.6 [95% CI 2.0 to 7]; p < 0.001) and those who were advised by their surgeon to partially or fully bear weight postoperatively (mean difference 2.0 [95% CI 0.1 to 4.0]; p = 0.04) were associated with higher physical functioning. Age, gender, fracture severity, and receipt of early physical therapy were not associated with physical functioning at 1-year following surgical fixation. CONCLUSION: Among patients with tibial fractures, none of the factors we analyzed, including smoking status, receipt of disability benefits or involvement in litigation, or BMI, showed an association with physical functioning that exceeded the MCID. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Attitudes towards chiropractic: a repeated cross-sectional survey of Canadian family physicians.

BACKGROUND: Many primary care patients receive both medical and chiropractic care; however, interprofessional relations between physicians and chiropractors are often suboptimal which may adversely affect care of shared patients. We surveyed Canadian family physicians in 2010 to explore their attitudes towards chiropractic and re-administered the same survey a decade later to explore for changes in attitudes. METHODS: A 50-item survey administered to a random sample of Canadian family physicians in 2010, and again in 2019, that inquired about demographic variables, knowledge and use of chiropractic. Imbedded in our survey was a 20-item chiropractic attitude questionnaire (CAQ); scores could range from 0 to 80 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward chiropractic. We constructed a multivariable regression model to explore factors associated with CAQ scores. RESULTS: Among eligible physicians, 251 of 685 in 2010 (37% response rate) and 162 of 2429 in 2019 (7% response rate) provided a completed survey. Approximately half of respondents (48%) endorsed a positive impression of chiropractic, 27% were uncertain, and 25% held negative views. Most respondents (72%) referred at least some patients for chiropractic care, mainly due to patient request or lack of response to medical care. Most physicians believed that chiropractors provide effective therapy for some musculoskeletal complaints (84%) and disagreed that chiropractic care was beneficial for non-musculoskeletal conditions (77%). The majority agreed that chiropractic care was a useful supplement to conventional care (65%) but most respondents (59%) also indicated that practice diversity among chiropractors presented a barrier to interprofessional collaboration. In our adjusted regression model, attitudes towards chiropractic showed trivial improvement from 2010 to 2019 (0.31 points on the 80-point CAQ; 95%CI 0.001 to 0.62). More negative attitudes were associated with older age (- 1.55 points for each 10-year increment from age 28; 95%CI - 2.67 to - 0.44), belief that adverse events are common with chiropractic care (- 1.41 points; 95% CI - 2.59 to - 0.23) and reported use of the research literature (- 6.04 points; 95% CI - 8.47 to - 3.61) or medical school (- 5.03 points; 95% CI - 7.89 to - 2.18) as sources of knowledge on chiropractic. More positive attitudes were associated with endorsing a relationship with a specific chiropractor (5.24 points; 95% CI 2.85 to 7.64), family and friends (4.06 points; 95% CI 1.53 to 6.60), or personal treatment experience (4.63 points; 95% CI 2.14 to 7.11) as sources of information regarding chiropractic. CONCLUSIONS: Although generally positive, Canadian family physicians' attitudes towards chiropractic are diverse, and most physicians felt that practice diversity among chiropractors was a barrier to interprofessional collaboration.

Predictors of Prolonged Opioid Use After Initial Prescription for Acute Musculoskeletal Injuries in Adults : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for acute musculoskeletal injuries and may result in long-term use and consequent harms. PURPOSE: To explore factors associated with persistent opioid use after its prescription for acute musculoskeletal injury. DATA SOURCES: Searches of multiple electronic databases, without language restrictions, from inception to 6 January 2020, and reference lists of selected articles. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies of adults with opioid prescriptions for outpatient acute musculoskeletal injuries, in an adjusted model, that explored risk factors for prolonged use. DATA EXTRACTION: 6 reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data, rated the quality of studies, and evaluated the certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: 14 cohorts with 13 263 393 participants were included. The overall prevalence of prolonged opioid use after musculoskeletal injury for high-risk populations (that is, patients receiving workers' compensation benefits, Veterans Affairs claimants, or patients with high rates of concurrent substance use disorder) was 27% (95% CI, 18% to 37%). The prevalence among low-risk populations was 6% (CI, 4% to 8%; P for interaction < 0.001). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased odds of persistent opioid use with older age (absolute risk increase [ARI] for every 10-year increase, 1.1% [CI, 0.7% to 1.5%]) and physical comorbidity (ARI, 0.9% [CI, 0.1% to 1.7%]). Low-certainty evidence suggested increased risk for persistent opioid use with past or current substance use disorder (ARI, 10.5% [CI, 4.2% to 19.8%]), prescriptions lasting more than 7 days (median ARI, 4.5%), and higher morphine milligram equivalents per day. LIMITATION: Sparse, heterogeneous data with suboptimal adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Avoiding prescribing opioids for acute musculoskeletal injuries to patients with past or current substance use disorder, and restricting duration to 7 days or less and using lower doses when they are prescribed, are potentially important targets to reduce rates of persistent opioid use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018104968).

Management of Acute Pain From Non-Low Back, Musculoskeletal Injuries : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited. CONCLUSION: Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

Prevalence and intensity of persistent post-surgical pain following breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and intensity of persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) after breast cancer surgery are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to further elucidate this issue. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception to November 2018, for observational studies reporting persistent pain (≥3 months) after breast cancer surgery. We used random-effects meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to rate quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 187 observational studies with 297 612 breast cancer patients. The prevalence of PPSP ranged from 2% to 78%, median 37% (inter-quartile range: 22-48%); the pooled prevalence was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32-39%). The pooled pain intensity was 3.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI: 3.6-4.2 cm). Moderate-quality evidence supported the subgroup effects of PPSP prevalence for localized pain vs any pain (29% vs 44%), moderate or greater vs any pain (26% vs 44%), clinician-assessed vs patient-reported pain (23% vs 36%), and whether patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy vs axillary lymph node dissection (26% vs 43%). The adjusted analysis found that the prevalence of patient-reported PPSP (any severity/location) was 46% (95% CI: 36-56%), and the prevalence of patient-reported moderate-to-severe PPSP at any location was 27% (95% CI: 10-43%). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that almost half of all women undergoing breast cancer surgery develop persistent post-surgical pain, and about one in four develop moderate-to-severe persistent post-surgical pain; the higher prevalence was associated with axillary lymph node dissection. Future studies should explore whether nerve sparing for axillary procedures reduces persistent post-surgical pain after breast cancer surgery.