Opioid Therapy for Cancer Pain in Vietnam: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers Among Health Care Professionals, Policymakers, and Regulators.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers among health care professionals (HCPs), policymakers, and regulators in Vietnam related to opioid therapy for cancer pain. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Vietnam from June to August 2022. Participants completed a questionnaire on their demographic characteristics, knowledge and attitudes toward opioid therapy, and barriers to accessing opioids for cancer pain. RESULTS: Two hundred seven HCPs and 15 policymakers/regulators completed the questionnaire. Poor knowledge about opioids in cancer pain was found in 63.3% of HCPs and 80.0% of policymakers/regulators. Poor knowledge was associated with a lack of training in cancer pain management or palliative care (PC; prevalence ratio [PR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.24]). Negative attitudes toward opioid therapy in cancer pain were held by 64.7% of HCPs and 80.0% of policymakers/regulators. Negative attitudes were associated with the unavailability of oral morphine in the workplace (PR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.20]). The most common major barriers reported were the absence of national policy on pain management and PC (34.7%), inadequate training in opioid use for cancer pain (33.8%), lockdown of health facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic (32.4%), limited opioid availability in local health facilities (32.4%), and excessively restrictive regulation of opioid dispensing in pharmacies (32.4%). CONCLUSION: This study found a knowledge deficit and negative attitudes toward opioid therapy for cancer pain among HCPs and policymakers/regulators. Improving education and training in opioid therapy is essential. Recognizing major barriers can guide strategies to enhance safe opioid accessibility for cancer pain management in Vietnam.

Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Venipuncture Decreases the Procedure's Pain and Positively Impacts Patient's Experience: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

This study aimed to compare patients' experience of pain during ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venipuncture versus conventional peripheral venipuncture. This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a public university hospital in 2021. Adult patients with indication for intravenous therapy compatible with peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) were included: intervention group (IG), US peripheral venipuncture executed by specialist nurses; control group (CG), conventional peripheral venipuncture executed by clinical practice nurses. The primary outcome was patient experience of pain during the procedure and patient experience related to the PIVC placement method. Sixty-four patients were included, 32 for each group. The pain experienced was none-to-mild in the IG for 25 patients (78.1%) and moderate-to-severe in the CG for 21 patients (65.7%; P < .001). The overall pain rating was 2 (1-3) in the IG and 4 (3-6) in the CG (P < .001). The recommendation of the procedure in IG (net promoter score [NPS] + 90.6%) versus CG (NPS + 18.8%) was considered excellent and good, respectively (P < .001). Patients had less pain and significantly recommended the US-guided procedure. Patient experience with US-guided PIVC, performed by a specialist nurse, was superior to that of conventional peripheral venipuncture.

Acupuncture for the treatment of the pain-fatigue-sleep disturbance-numbness/tingling symptom cluster in breast cancer survivors: a feasibility trial.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer survivors following disease-modifying treatment frequently experience multiple-concurrent symptoms (Jansana et al. in Int J Cancer 149(10):1755 1767, 2021), negatively impacting their quality of life and increasing the risk of polypharmacy (Alwhaibi et al. in J Oncol Pharm Pract 26(5):1052 1059, 2020). This study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of acupuncture for the management of the pain-fatigue-sleep disturbance-numbness/tingling symptom cluster in breast cancer survivors, and investigates relationships between the symptom cluster and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) syndrome diagnosis. METHODS: This was a single-arm, pre-test/post-test feasibility trial conducted at Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Hospital, Australia. Breast cancer survivors who completed treatment and experienced clinically significant levels of two or more symptoms (pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, numbness/tingling) were eligible to participate in the individualized, pragmatic 6-week acupuncture intervention. The primary outcome was feasibility and acceptability. Effectiveness was explored using a symptom cluster mean score. RESULTS: Twenty women enrolled in the study over an 11-week period and 90% completed the study. Most women agreed or completely agreed that acupuncture was feasible (85%), acceptable (90%), and appropriate (90%). Both mean and composite symptom cluster scores were significantly reduced (p < 0.001), as were individual symptom scores in fatigue (p < 0.001), sleep disturbance (p = 0.04), and numbness/tingling (p = 0.01). TCM syndromes most closely associated with this symptom cluster were Spleen qi deficiency and Heart fire. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that acupuncture was safe and feasible, justifying a powered randomized control trial. Preliminary findings suggest beneficial effects of acupuncture for the management of the pain-fatigue-sleep disturbance-numbness/tingling symptom cluster for women with breast cancer. TCM syndromes identified in this trial may be used to guide acupuncture treatment protocols. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000590763) on 21 April 2022.

Low-dose short infusion ketamine as adjunct to morphine for acute long bone fracture in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine is recognized as an alternative for pain management; however, concerns about emergent adverse reactions have limited its widespread adoption. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a short infusion of low-dose ketamine (LDK) compared to intravenous morphine (MOR) as adjunctive analgesia for acute long bone fracture pain. METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a single emergency department. Patients with acute long bone fractures and numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores ≥ 6 following an initial dose of intravenous morphine were assigned to receive either a LDK (0.3 mg/kg) over 15 min or intravenous MOR at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg administered over 5 min. Throughout a 120-min observation period, patients were regularly evaluated for pain level (0-10), side effects, and the need for additional rescue analgesia. RESULTS: A total of 58 subjects participated, with 27 in the MOR group and 31 in the LDK group. Demographic variables and baseline NRS scores were comparable between the MOR (8.3 ± 1.3) and LDK (8.9 ± 1.2) groups. At 30 min, the LDK group showed a significantly greater mean reduction in NRS scores (3.1 ± 2.03) compared to the MOR group (1.8 ± 1.59) (p = 0.009). Similarly, at 60 min, there were significant differences in mean NRS score reductions (LDK 3.5 ± 2.17; MOR mean reduction = 2.4, ± 1.84) with a p-value of 0.04. No significant differences were observed at other time intervals. The incidence of dizziness was higher in the LDK group at 19.4% (p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Short infusion low-dose ketamine, as an adjunct to morphine, is effective in reducing pain during the initial 30 to 60 min and demonstrated comparability to intravenous morphine alone in reducing pain over the subsequent 60 min for acute long bone fractures. However, it was associated with a higher incidence of dizziness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NMRR17318438970 (2 May 2018; www.nmrr.gov.my ).

Importance of heat therapy in the treatment of pain in the daily clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain includes a wide variety of causes and conditions. Despite the heterogeneity of MSK pain, it is possible to identify some common clinical features and treatments. Heat therapy (HT) is one of the most common and could be a suitable non-pharmacological approach. OBJECTIVE: To obtain a European overview on the use of non-pharmacological approaches and the role of heat therapy in the treatment of MSK pain. METHODS: Through a two-cycle Delphi-like method, an international board of experts reached a consensus on 13 questions for a survey to healthcare professionals who provide direct patient care. Between November 2021 and January 2022, the resulting web survey was distributed to professionals with the collaboration of ten European scientific societies and associations. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed on collected data. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-two answers were validated. Most of the respondents had extensive professional experience. Participants were widely distributed throughout Europe. HT is administered to about 50% of patients, with a higher percentage administered to those affected by low back pain (92%) and neck pain (84%). The choice of exogenous HT is based on both personal clinical experience and scientific evidence. HT is primarily chosen due to its relaxation effect, high safety profile and enhancement of tissue perfusion. The use of HT is recommended by 86.5% of respondents. CONCLUSION: Experts indicate that exogenous HT represents a valid therapeutic choice and is widely used in Europe. Patients should be informed about the use of heat therapy as a valuable self-management therapy option.

Association between myofascial trigger point therapy and conditioned pain modulation.

INTRODUCTION: Myofascial trigger point therapy (MTrP) is a widely used therapeutic approach, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Mechanisms discussed include peripheral involvement of muscles as well as central pain modulating processes such as the conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of this study was to investigate whether the analgesic response of MTrP and the analgesic response of CPM correlate in asymptomatic participants in order to identify shared underlying mechanisms of MTrP and CPM. METHOD: Both, CPM and MTrP protocols consisted of heat-based test stimuli (heat pain thresholds before and after the intervention) and pressure-based (conditioning) stimuli. Asymptomatic participants (n = 94) were randomly assigned to receive either mild, intense or no pressure stimuli (between-group design) to both the fingernail and the MTrP of the infraspinatus muscle (within-group design). Pressure stimuli at both locations (fingernail, MTrP) were applied with a pressure algometer for 120 s and continuously adjusted to maintain a constant pain intensity of mild or intense pain. All thermal stimuli were applied on the lower leg with a thermal stimulator. RESULTS: A significant correlation was shown between the analgesic effect of CPM and MTrP therapy for mild (r = 0.53, p = 0.002) and intensive stimuli (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). 17.3% of the variance of the MTrP effect were explained by CPM after mild stimulation, and 47.1% after intense stimulation. Pain-related characteristics did not explain the variance within the analgesic response using a regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Between the analgesic responses following MTrP and CPM paradigms, a moderate to strong correlation was observed, suggesting shared underlying mechanisms.

Clinical analysis of transverse process fractures: A comprehensive study on patient characteristics, management, and outcomes in trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Transverse process fractures (TPFs) are commonly encountered in trauma patients and are often associated with polytrauma. While traditionally considered stable injuries, recent research suggests their significance in spinal trauma may be under-estimated. This study aims to provide insights into the management and outcomes of TPFs, evaluating their predictive potential for identifying clinically significant spinal fractures and associated injuries. METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma registry data from a Level I trauma center was conducted, encompassing patients with TPFs from September 2022 to September 2023. Inclusion criteria involved patients aged 18 or older with confirmed TPFs via com-puted tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), managed nonoperatively. Data on demographics, injury mechanisms, associated injuries, pain management, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Pain severity and functionality were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: A total of 190 patients, predominantly male (129 patients, 67.9%), with a mean age of 45.7 years, were included in the study. Motor vehicle accidents (MVA) were the leading cause of admission (44.7%). Thoracic injuries were the most common associ-ated pathology. Of the study cohort, 88 patients (46.3%) presented with single-level TPFs, while 102 patients (53.7%) had multilevel fractures. Analysis revealed distinct differences between these groups, with multilevel TPF patients exhibiting a higher frequency of associated injuries and a notable proportion requiring hospitalization or surgical intervention. Multilevel TPF patients exhibited higher initial pain and disability scores compared to single-level TPF patients. Both groups showed significant reductions in VAS and ODI scores at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: TPFs, previously considered minor injuries, demonstrate significant pain and functional limitations. They often accompany systemic pathologies, particularly in multilevel fractures, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach to management. The "Protection, Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation" (PRICE) approach, including Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and muscle relaxants, along with collar or brace support when necessary, proves effective in pain management and functional improvement. These findings emphasize the importance of recognizing TPFs as complex injuries requiring tailored management strategies. Further research and collaboration among healthcare providers are warranted to refine treatment approaches and optimize outcomes for patients with TPFs.

Ultrasound-Guided Sacral Erector Spinae Plane Block: A Feasible Option for Pain Management During Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Case Report.

Inability to remain motionless owing to pain during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may increase the need for sedation and analgesia. Here, we present a case where ultrasound-guided sacral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) was used successfully for pain management during an MRI in a patient suffering from severe sacral pain. Sacral ESPB was performed with a total of 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine at the level of the intermediate sacral crest. The patient achieved sensory block in the L5-S4 dermatomes without motor block, resulting in complete pain relief. This case report highlights the feasibility of ultrasound-guided sacral ESPB as a potential pain management technique.

[Pain therapy in urology-overview of current S3 guideline recommendations]. / Schmerztherapie in der Urologie ­ Überblick zu aktuellen Empfehlungen der S3-Leitlinen.

Dealing efficiently with patients suffering from pain is a central medical task. Pain, as an important function in developmental physiology, warns against damage to the body caused by external noxious agents as well as internal malfunctions and requires special attention in modern medicine. Peri- and postoperative pain is known to have a negative influence on postoperative convalescence. Treatment of tumor-related pain represents another relevant challenge in uro-oncology and palliative medicine. The updated guideline on perioperative pain therapy and palliative medicine for patients with incurable diseases or cancer is dedicated to these two topics.

Effectiveness and safety of prehospital analgesia with nalbuphine and paracetamol versus morphine by paramedics - an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the development of various analgesic concepts, prehospital oligoanalgesia remains very common. The present work examines prehospital analgesia by paramedics using morphine vs. nalbuphine + paracetamol. METHODS: Patients with out-of-hospital-analgesia performed by paramedics from the emergency medical services of the districts of Fulda (morphine) and Gütersloh (nalbuphine + paracetamol) were evaluated with regards to pain intensity at the beginning and the end of prehospital treatment using the Numeric-Rating-Scale for pain (NRS), sex, age, and complications. The primary endpoint was achievement of adequate analgesia, defined as NRS < 4 at hospital handover, depending on the analgesics administered (nalbuphine + paracetamol vs. morphine). Pain intensity before and after receiving analgesia using the NRS, sex, age and complications were also monitored. RESULTS: A total of 1,808 patients who received out-of-hospital-analgesia were evaluated (nalbuphine + paracetamol: 1,635 (90.4%), NRS-initial: 8.0 ± 1.4, NRS-at-handover: 3.7 ± 2.0; morphine: 173(9.6%), NRS-initial: 8.5 ± 1.1, NRS-at-handover: 5.1 ± 2.0). Factors influencing the difference in NRS were: initial pain intensity on the NRS (regression coefficient (RK): 0.7276, 95%CI: 0.6602-0.7950, p < 0.001), therapy with morphine vs. nalbuphine + paracetamol (RK: -1.2594, 95%CI: -1.5770 - -0.9418, p < 0.001) and traumatic vs. non-traumatic causes of pain (RK: -0.2952, 95%CI: -0.4879 - -0.1024, p = 0.002). Therapy with morphine (n = 34 (19.6%)) compared to nalbuphine + paracetamol (n = 796 (48.7%)) (odds ratio (OR): 0.274, 95%CI: 0.185-0.405, p < 0.001) and the initial NRS score (OR:0.827, 95%CI: 0.771-0.887, p < 0.001) reduced the odds of having an NRS < 4 at hospital handover. Complications occurred with morphine in n = 10 (5.8%) and with nalbuphine + paracetamol in n = 35 (2.1%) cases. Risk factors for complications were analgesia with morphine (OR: 2.690, 95%CI: 1.287-5.621, p = 0.008), female sex (OR: 2.024, 95%CI: 1.040-3.937, p = 0.0379), as well as age (OR: 1.018, 95%CI: 1.003-1.034, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to morphine, prehospital analgesia with nalbuphine + paracetamol yields favourable effects in terms of analgesic effectiveness and a lower rate of complications and should therefore be considered in future recommendations for prehospital analgesia.

Chiropractic spinal manipulation and likelihood of tramadol prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using US data.

OBJECTIVES: Patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) for low back pain (LBP) are less likely to receive any opioid prescription for subsequent pain management. However, the likelihood of specifically being prescribed tramadol, a less potent opioid, has not been explored. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSM for newly diagnosed radicular LBP would be less likely to receive a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up, compared with those receiving usual medical care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: US medical records-based dataset including >115 million patients attending academic health centres (TriNetX, Inc), queried 9 November 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-naive adults aged 18-50 with a new diagnosis of radicular LBP were included. Patients with serious pathology and tramadol use contraindications were excluded. Variables associated with tramadol prescription were controlled via propensity matching. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into two cohorts dependent on treatment received on the index date of radicular LBP diagnosis (CSM or usual medical care). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratio (RR) for tramadol prescription (primary); markers of usual medical care utilisation (secondary). RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1171 patients per cohort (mean age 35 years). Tramadol prescription was significantly lower in the CSM cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an RR (95% CI) of 0.32 (0.18 to 0.57; p<0.0001). A cumulative incidence graph demonstrated that the reduced incidence of tramadol prescription in the CSM cohort relative to the usual medical care cohort was maintained throughout 1-year follow-up. Utilisation of NSAIDs, physical therapy evaluation and lumbar imaging was similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that US adults initially receiving CSM for radicular LBP had a reduced likelihood of receiving a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up. These findings should be corroborated by a prospective study to minimise residual confounding.

Cryoneurolysis versus radiofrequency ablation outcome on pain experience in chronic low back pain (COPE): a single-blinded randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: A comparison of cryoneurolysis or radio frequency (RF) with placebo in patients with facetogenic chronic low back pain (LBP) for patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, function and quality of life, with 1-year follow-up. DESIGN: Single-centre, single-blinded placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single-centre study. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion from March 2020 to September 2022: consenting adults over 18 years of age, LBP>3 months, average Numeric Rating Scale LBP≥4 average last 14 days and a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block (>50% pain reduction after 60 min). INTERVENTIONS: 120 patients were block randomised 1:1:1 to cryoneurolysis, RF or placebo of the medial branch nerves. Physical therapy was added after 4 weeks for all groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was PGIC 4 weeks after the intervention. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), quality of life (Short Form 36, EQ-5D-5L), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), depression (Major Depression Inventory) and catastrophising (Pain Catastrophising Scale). Outcomes were measured at 4 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in PGIC at 4 weeks between cryoneurolysis and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2; 95% CI 0.75 to 5.33, p=0.17) and RF and placebo (RR 1.6; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.49, p=0.37), except PGIC for cryoneurolysis at 6-month follow-up (RR 5.1; 95% CI 1.20 to 22.03, p=0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in secondary follow-up endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Denervation of the medial branch nerve by either cryoneurolysis or RF compared with placebo did not demonstrate significant improvement in PGIC, pain intensity, function and quality of life in patients with facetogenic chronic LBP at short-term or long-term follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04786145.

Implementation of an integrated primary care prevention and management program for chronic low back pain (LBP): patient-reported outcomes and predictors of pain interference after six months.

BACKGROUND: Integrated primary care programs for patients living with chronic pain which are accessible, interdisciplinary, and patient-centered are needed for preventing chronicity and improving outcomes. Evaluation of the implementation and impact of such programs supports further development of primary care chronic pain management. This study examined patient-reported outcomes among individuals with low back pain (LBP) receiving care in a novel interdisciplinary primary care program. METHODS: Patients were referred by primary care physicians in four regions of Quebec, Canada, and eligible patients received an evidence-based interdisciplinary pain management program over a six-month period. Patients were screened for risk of chronicity. Patient-reported outcome measures of pain interference and intensity, physical function, depression, and anxiety were evaluated at regular intervals over the six-month follow-up. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics at baseline, including risk of chronicity, and change in pain outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-four individuals (mean age 55.4y, 63% female) completed the program. The majority (≥ 60%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity and interference at six months. Patients with moderate (71%) or high risk (81%) of chronicity showed greater improvement in pain interference than those with low risk (51%). Significant predictors of improvement in pain interference included a higher risk of chronicity, younger age, female sex, and lower baseline disability. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this novel LBP program will inform wider implementation considerations by identifying key components for further effectiveness, sustainability, and scale-up of the program.

Duloxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy with phone-based support for the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain: study protocol of the PRECICE randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is the most common, disabling, and costly of all pain conditions. While evidence exists for the efficacy of both duloxetine and web-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as monotherapy, there is a clear need to consider study of treatment components that may complement each other. In addition, given the reported association between patient's adherence and treatment outcomes, strategies are needed to enhance participant's motivation to adopt and maintain continued use of newly learned pain coping skills from CBT. METHODS: Two hundred eighty participants will be recruited from the primary care clinics of a large academic health care system in North Carolina. Participants with CMP will be randomized to one of three treatment arms: (1) combination treatment (duloxetine + web-based self-guided CBT) with phone-based motivational interviewing (MI), (2) combination treatment without phone-based MI, and (3) duloxetine monotherapy. Participants will be in the study for 24 weeks and will be assessed at baseline, week 13, and week 25. The primary outcome is the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-Global Pain Severity score, which combines BPI pain severity and BPI pain interference. Secondary measures include between-group comparisons in mean BPI pain severity and BPI pain interference scores. Data collection and outcome assessment will be blinded to treatment group assignment. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) will determine if combination treatment with duloxetine and web-based CBT is superior to duloxetine monotherapy for the management of CMP. Furthermore, this RCT will determine the effectiveness of phone-based motivational interviewing in promoting the continued practice of pain coping skills, thereby enhancing treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04395001 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered on May 15, 2020.

Prevalence and Management of Chronic Pain, Including Neuropathic Pain, in Dialysis Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing global health concern. Chronic pain, as a common symptom of CKD, particularly among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), is influenced by complications, dialysis procedures, and comorbidities. We aimed to evaluate chronic pain and probable neuropathic pain in 96 dialysis patients with ESRD using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 96 patients from a single dialysis center were enrolled for the purpose of this study. ESRD was caused by diseases causing kidney damage, such as diabetes. The average duration of maintenance dialysis was 4.6±5.67 years. Comorbidities, functional and mental assessment, and pharmacological treatment data were collected using a questionnaire. The satisfaction with life scale was also used. Chronic pain was defined as lasting more than 3 months. The DN4 was used to determine the neuropathic component of pain. RESULTS Chronic pain was observed in 63.5% of the study participants, with 47.5% of them reporting the presence of neuropathic pain accompanied by a neuropathic component. Significantly more patients with chronic pain reported mood disorders and reduced life satisfaction, but there was no difference in their activities of daily living-assessed functional status or duration of dialysis. Patients experiencing chronic pain received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, and opioids. CONCLUSIONS Chronic pain, especially with a neuropathic component, is highly prevalent in patients with CKD, and its treatment remains ineffective. Undiagnosed components of pain can contribute to underdiagnosis and inadequate therapy. Further studies and staff education are needed to address this important issue.

[Management of bone metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer]. / Prise en charge des métastases osseuses du cancer pulmonaire non à petites cellules.

Lung cancer is notoriously known for its predisposition to metastasize to the bones. Diagnostic tools, including positron emission tomography coupled with computed tomography, offer increased sensitivity in detecting bone infiltration. Management strategies encompass a multidisciplinary approach, including pharmacological pain management, anti-resorptive therapy, radiotherapy, interventional techniques, and surgery. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the incidence and distribution of bone metastases, skeletal-related events (SRE), diagnostic imaging techniques, and contemporary therapeutic strategies to prevent SRE. Systemic anticancer therapy and pain management, although crucial for treating BM, are not discussed in this article.

Le cancer du poumon est notoirement connu pour sa prédisposition à métastaser dans les os. Les outils diagnostiques, notamment la tomographie par émission de positrons couplée à la tomodensitométrie, offrent une sensibilité accrue pour détecter l'infiltration osseuse. Les stratégies de prise en charge englobent une approche multidisciplinaire, comprenant le traitement médicamenteux de la douleur, la thérapie antirésorptive, la radiothérapie, les techniques interventionnelles ainsi que la chirurgie. Cet article propose une analyse approfondie de l'incidence et de la distribution des métastases osseuses (MO), des événements liés au squelette (SRE), des techniques d'imagerie diagnostique et des stratégies thérapeutiques contemporaines pour prévenir les SRE. Le traitement systémique anticancéreux et la gestion de la douleur, bien que cruciaux pour traiter les MO, ne sont pas discutés dans cet article.

Mechanisms and Preventative Strategies for Persistent Pain following Knee and Hip Joint Replacement Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a prevalent complication of joint replacement surgery which has the potential to decrease patient satisfaction, increase financial burden, and lead to long-term disability. The identification of risk factors for CPSP following TKA and THA is challenging but essential for targeted preventative therapy. Recent meta-analyses and individual studies highlight associations between elevated state anxiety, depression scores, preoperative pain, diabetes, sleep disturbances, and various other factors with an increased risk of CPSP, with differences observed in prevalence between TKA and THA. While the etiology of CPSP is not fully understood, several factors such as chronic inflammation and preoperative central sensitization have been identified. Other potential mechanisms include genetic factors (e.g., catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) and potassium inwardly rectifying channel subfamily J member 6 (KCNJ6) genes), lipid markers, and psychological risk factors (anxiety and depression). With regards to therapeutics and prevention, multimodal pharmacological analgesia, emphasizing nonopioid analgesics like acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), has gained prominence over epidural analgesia. Nerve blocks and local infiltrative anesthesia have shown mixed results in preventing CPSP. Ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor antagonist, exhibits antihyperalgesic properties, but its efficacy in reducing CPSP is inconclusive. Lidocaine, an amide-type local anesthetic, shows tentative positive effects on CPSP. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have mixed results, while gabapentinoids, like gabapentin and pregabalin, present hopeful data but require further research, especially in the context of TKA and THA, to justify their use for CPSP prevention.

Pain: The Silent Public Health Epidemic.

More than 50 million Americans suffer from chronic pain, costing our society an estimated 565 to 635 billion dollars annually. Its complexity and training deficits in healthcare providers result in many patients receiving ineffective care. Large health inequities also exist in access to effective pain care for vulnerable populations. The traumatic history of indigenous people and people of color in regards to the experience of pain care perpetuates a lack of trust in the healthcare system, causing many to hesitate to seek medical treatment for painful events and conditions. Other vulnerable populations include those with sickle cell disease or fibromyalgia, whose experience of pain has not been well-understood. There are both barriers to care and stigma for patients with pain, including those taking prescribed doses of long-term opioids, those with known substance use disorder, and those with mental health diagnoses. The suffering of patients with pain can be "invisible" to the clinician, and to one's community at large. Pain can affect all people; but those most vulnerable to not getting effective care may continue to suffer in silence because their voices are not heard. Since 1973, pain societies around the globe have worked tirelessly to bring clinicians together to advance pain and opioid education, research, and patient care. These improvements consist of pain education, integrative treatment, and the understanding that a therapeutic alliance is critical to effective pain management. Pain education for both pre and post-licensure health professionals has increased substantially over the last decade. In addition, integrative and interdisciplinary approaches for clinical pain management are now considered best practices in pain care for patients with moderate to severe pain in addition to the development of a strong therapeutic alliance.

Patient-reported pain and physical health for acupuncture and chiropractic care delivered by Veterans Affairs versus community providers.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture and chiropractic care are evidence-based pain management alternatives to opioids. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides this care in some VA facilities, but also refers patients to community providers. We aimed to determine if patient-reported outcomes differ for acupuncture and chiropractic care from VA versus community providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational study using survey outcome data and electronic medical record utilization data for acupuncture and chiropractic care provided in 18 VA facilities or in community facilities reimbursed by VA. Study participants were users of VA primary care, mental health, pain clinic, complementary and integrative therapies, coaching or education services in 2018-2019. Patients received 1) 4+ acupuncture visits (N = 201) or 4+ chiropractic care visits (N = 178) from a VA or community provider from 60 days prior to baseline to six-months survey and 2) no acupuncture or chiropractic visits from 1 year to 60 days prior to baseline. Outcomes measured included patient-reported pain (PEG) and physical health (PROMIS) at baseline and six-month surveys. Multivariate analyses examined outcomes at six months, adjusting for baseline outcomes and demographics. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, pain and physical health improved for patients receiving community-based acupuncture, while VA-based acupuncture patients experienced no change. Unadjusted analyses also showed improvements in physical health, but not pain, for patients receiving VA-based chiropractic care, with no changes for community-based chiropractic care patients. Using multivariate models, VA-based acupuncture was no different from community-based acupuncture for pain (-0.258, p = 0.172) or physical health (0.539, p = 0.399). Similarly, there were no differences between VA- and community-based chiropractic care in pain (-0.273, p = 0.154) or physical health (0.793, p = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture and chiropractic care were associated with modest improvements at six months, with no meaningful differences between VA and community providers. The choice to receive care from VA or community providers could be based on factors other than quality, like cost or convenience.