Protocol for a randomised trial of a self-directed digital pain management intervention (Empowered Relief) tailored to adults with chronic pain and prescription opioid misuse/disorder: the MOBILE Relief study.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain increases the risk of prescription opioid misuse or opioid use disorder (OUD). Non-pharmacological treatments are needed to dually address pain and opioid risks. The purpose of the Mobile and Online-Based Interventions to Lessen Pain (MOBILE Relief) study is to compare a one-session, video-based, on-demand digital pain relief skills intervention for chronic pain ('Empowered Relief' (ER); tailored to people at risk for opioid misuse or with opioid misuse/OUD) to a one-session digital health education intervention ('Living Better'; no pain management skills). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MOBILE Relief is an international online randomised controlled clinical trial. Study participants are adults with chronic, non-cancer pain (≥6 months) with daily pain intensity ≥3/10, taking ≥10 morphine equivalent daily dose and score ≥6 on the Current Opioid Misuse Measure. Participants are recruited through clinician referrals and clinic advertisements. Study procedures include electronic eligibility screening, informed consent, automated 1:1 randomisation to the treatment group, baseline measures, receipt of assigned digital treatment and six post-treatment surveys spanning 3 months. Study staff will call participants at baseline and 1-month and 3 months post-treatment to verify the opioid prescription. The main statistical analyses will include analysis of covariance and mixed effects model for repeated measurements regression. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes are self-reported pain catastrophising, pain intensity, pain interference, opioid craving and opioid misuse at 1-month and 3 months post-treatment. We will determine the feasibility of ER (≥50% participant engagement, ≥70% treatment appraisal ratings). We hypothesise the ER group will be superior to the Living Better group in the reduction of multiprimary pain outcomes at 1-month post-treatment and opioid outcomes at 1-month and 3 months post-treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Stanford University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB 61643). We will publish results in peer-reviewed journals; National Institute of Drug Abuse (funder) and MOBILE Relief participants will receive result summaries. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05152134.

Utilizing a learning health system to capture real-world patient data: Application of the reliable change index to evaluate and improve the outcome of a pain rehabilitation program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The learning healthcare system (LHS) has been developed to integrate patients' clinical data into clinical decisions and improve treatment outcomes. Having little guidance on this integration process, we aim to explain (a) an applicable analytic tool for clinicians to evaluate the clinical outcomes at a group and an individual level and (b) our quality improvement (QI) project, analyzing the outcomes of a new outpatient pain rehabilitation program ("Back-in-Action": BIA) and applying the analysis results to modify our clinical practice. METHODS: Through our LHS (CHOIR; https://choir.stanford.edu), we administered the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMIS)® before and after BIA. After searching for appropriate analytic tools, we decided to use the Reliable Change Index (RCI) to determine if an observed change in the direction of better (improvement) or worse (deterioration) would be beyond or within the measurement error (no change). RESULTS: Our RCI calculations revealed that at least a 9-point decrease in the PCS scores and 10-point increase in the CPAQ scores would indicate reliable improvement. RCIs for the PROMIS measures ranged from 5 to 8 T-score points (i.e., 0.5-0.8 SD). When evaluating change scores of the PCS, CPAQ, and PROMIS measures, we found that 94% of patients showed improvement in at least one domain after BIA and 6% showed no reliable improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our QI project revealed RCI as a useful tool to evaluate treatment outcomes at a group and an individual level, and RCI could be incorporated into the LHS to generate a progress report automatically for clinicians. We further explained how clinicians could use RCI results to modify a clinical practice, to improve the outcomes of a pain program, and to develop individualized care plans. Lastly, we suggested future research areas to improve the LHS application in pain practice.

Is There an Association Between Lateralization of Chronic Pain in the Body and Depression?

Depression commonly co-occurs with chronic pain and can worsen pain outcomes. Recent theoretical work has hypothesized that pain localized to the left hemibody is a risk factor for worse depression due to overlap in underlying neural substrates. This hypothesis has not been tested a priori. Using a large sample of treatment-seeking adults with mixed-etiology chronic pain (N = 1,185), our cross-sectional study tested whether patients with left-sided pain endorse worse depressive symptoms. We also examined differences in other pain-related functioning measures. We tested 4 comparisons based on painful body areas using the CHOIR body map: 1) only left-sided (OL) versus any right-sided pain; 2) only right-sided (OR) versus any left-sided pain; 3) OL versus OR versus bilateral pain; and 4) more left-sided versus more right-sided versus equal-sided pain. Analysis of variance models showed OL pain was not associated with worse depression (F = 5.50, P = .019). Any left-sided pain was associated with worse depression, though the effect was small (F = 8.58, P = .003, Cohens d = .29). Bilateral pain was associated with worse depression (F = 8.05, P < .001, Cohens d = .24-.33). Regardless of pain location, more body areas endorsed was associated with greater depression. Although a more rigorous assessment of pain laterality is needed, our findings do not support the hypothesis that left-lateralized pain is associated with worse depression. PERSPECTIVE: Pain lateralized to the left side of the body has been hypothesized as a risk factor for worse depression in chronic pain, despite never being tested in a large, real-world sample of patients with chronic pain. Findings showed that more widespread pain, not pain laterality, was associated with worse depression.

Empowered Relief, cognitive behavioral therapy, and health education for people with chronic pain: a comparison of outcomes at 6-month Follow-up for a randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: We previously conducted a 3-arm randomized trial (263 adults with chronic low back pain) which compared group-based (1) single-session pain relief skills intervention (Empowered Relief; ER); (2) 8-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic back pain; and (3) single-session health and back pain education class (HE). Results suggested non-inferiority of ER vs. CBT at 3 months post-treatment on an array of outcomes. Methods: Here, we tested the durability of treatment effects at 6 months post-treatment. We examined group differences in primary and secondary outcomes at 6 months and the degree to which outcomes eroded or improved from 3-month to 6-month within each treatment group. Results: Empowered Relief remained non-inferior to CBT on most outcomes, whereas both ER and CBT remained superior to HE on most outcomes. Outcome improvements within ER did not decrease significantly from 3-month to 6-month, and indeed ER showed additional 3- to 6-month improvements on pain catastrophizing, pain bothersomeness, and anxiety. Effects of ER at 6 months post-treatment (moderate term outcomes) kept pace with effects reported by participants who underwent 8-session CBT. Conclusions: The maintenance of these absolute levels implies strong stability of ER effects. Results extend to 6 months post-treatment previous findings documenting that ER and CBT exhibit similarly potent effects on outcomes.

Establishing the interpretability and utility of the 4-item BriefPCS.

To reduce the patient burden associated with completing the 13-item Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the 4-item "BriefPCS" was developed. To date, no crosswalk has been developed that associates scores on the BriefPCS with PCS scores. Further, no study has compared the use of BriefPCS and PCS scores in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). We aimed to: (1) establish the interpretability of BriefPCS scores in reference to PCS scores, (2) compare the concurrent validity between the BriefPCS and PCS, and (3) asssess the use of BriefPCS in an RCT. First, we conducted equipercentile linking, created a crosswalk that associated scores of BriefPCS with PCS, and calculated differences between PCS and crosswalked PCS scores. Secondly, we compared Bootstrap correlation coefficients between PCS and self-reported measures of other domains. Lastly, we compared results from an RCT using BriefPCS scores versus PCS scores. Findings indicated that the correlation coefficient estimates with the BriefPCS and PCS scores were not significantly different. BriefPCS and PCS scores had similar ability to detect treatment-related changes. The BriefPCS scores validly, reliably, and accurately distinguish levels of pain catastrophizing. Additionally, the BriefPCS scores are sensitive to changes after behavioral interventions, with less respondent burden compared to the PCS scores.

Links between brain neuroimaging and blood inflammatory markers in urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

Urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome (UCPPS) is a debilitating painful condition with unclear etiology. Prior researchers have indicated that compared to healthy controls, patients with UCPPS demonstrated altered brain activity. Researchers have also shown that in UCPPS, several blood inflammatory markers relate to clinical variables of pain, fatigue, and pain widespreadness. However, how altered brain function in patients with UCPPS relates to blood inflammation remains unknown. To extend and connect prior findings of altered brain function and inflammatory factors in UCPPS, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a cohort of UCPPS patients (N = 29) and healthy controls (N = 31) who provided both neuroimaging and blood data (National Institute of Health MAPP Research Network publicly available dataset). In our present study, we aimed to evaluate relationships between a priori-defined brain neuroimaging markers and inflammatory factors of interest and their relationships to pain-psychological variables. We hypothesized that two brain alterations of interest (i.e., PCC - left hippocampus functional connectivity and PCC - bilateral amygdala functional connectivity) would be correlated with four cytokine markers of interest: interleukin (IL) - 6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a), IL-8, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). In the UCPPS cohort, we identified a significant PCC - left hippocampus functional connectivity relationship with IL-6 (p = 0.0044). Additionally, in the UCPPS cohort, we identified a PCC - amygdala functional connectivity relationship with GM-CSF which did not meet our model's threshold for statistical significance (p = 0.0665). While these data are preliminary and cross-sectional, our findings suggest connections between brain function and levels of low-grade systemic inflammation in UCPPS. Thus, while further study is needed, our data indicate the potential for advancing the understanding of how brain functional circuits may relate to clinical symptoms and systemic inflammation.

Preoperative Versus Perioperative Risk Factors for Delayed Pain and Opioid Cessation After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The evolution of pre- versus postoperative risk factors remains unknown in the development of persistent postoperative pain and opioid use. We identified preoperative versus comprehensive perioperative models of delayed pain and opioid cessation after total joint arthroplasty including time-varying postoperative changes in emotional distress. We hypothesized that time-varying longitudinal measures of postoperative psychological distress, as well as pre- and postoperative use of opioids would be the most significant risk factors for both outcomes. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 188 patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty at Stanford Hospital completed baseline pain, opioid use, and emotional distress assessments. After surgery, a modified Brief Pain Inventory was assessed daily for 3 months, weekly thereafter up to 6 months, and monthly thereafter up to 1 year. Emotional distress and pain catastrophizing were assessed weekly to 6 months, then monthly thereafter. Stepwise multivariate time-varying Cox regression modeled preoperative variables alone, followed by all perioperative variables (before and after surgery) with time to postoperative opioid and pain cessation. RESULTS: The median time to opioid and pain cessation was 54 and 152 days, respectively. Preoperative total daily oral morphine equivalent use (hazard ratio-HR 0.97; 95% confidence interval-CI 0.96-0.98) was significantly associated with delayed postoperative opioid cessation in the perioperative model. In contrast, time-varying postoperative factors: elevated PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) depression scores (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.98), and higher Pain Catastrophizing Scale scores (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75-0.97) were independently associated with delayed postoperative pain resolution in the perioperative model. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight preoperative opioid use as a key determinant of delayed postoperative opioid cessation, while postoperative elevations in depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing are associated with persistent pain after total joint arthroplasty providing the rationale for continued risk stratification before and after surgery to identify patients at highest risk for these distinct outcomes. Interventions targeting these perioperative risk factors may prevent prolonged postoperative pain and opioid use.

A Longitudinal Investigation of the Impact of COVID-19 on Patients With Chronic Pain.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted unexpected changes in the healthcare system. This current longitudinal study had 2 aims: 1) describe the trajectory of pandemic-associated stressors and patient-reported health outcomes among patients receiving treatment at a tertiary pain clinic over 2 years (May 2020 to June 2022); and 2) identify vulnerable subgroups. We assessed changes in pandemic-associated stressors and patient-reported health outcome measures. The study sample included 1270 adult patients who were predominantly female (74.6%), White (66.2%), non-Hispanic (80.6%), married (66.1%), not on disability (71.2%), college-educated (59.45%), and not currently working (57.9%). We conducted linear mixed effect modeling to examine the main effect of time with controlling for a random intercept. Findings revealed a significant main effect of time for all pandemic-associated stressors except financial impact. Over time, patients reported increased proximity to COVID-19, but decreased pandemic-associated stressors. A significant improvement was also observed in pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and PROMIS-pain interference, sleep, anxiety, anger, and depression scores. Demographic-based subgroup analyses for pandemic-associated stressors revealed that younger adults, Hispanics, Asians, and patients receiving disability compensation were vulnerable groups either during the initial visit or follow-up visits. We observed additional differential pandemic effects between groups based on participant sex, education level, and working status. In conclusion, despite unanticipated changes in pain care services during the pandemic, patients receiving pain treatments adjusted to pandemic-related stressors and improved their health status over time. As the current study observed differential pandemic impacts on patient subgroups, future studies should investigate and address the unmet needs of vulnerable subgroups. PERSPECTIVE: Over a 2-year timeframe, the pandemic did not adversely influence physical and mental health among treatment-seeking patients with chronic pain. Patients reported small but significant improvements across indices of physical and psychosocial health. Differential impacts emerged among groups based on ethnicity, age, disability status, gender, education level, and working status.

Blinded Pain Cocktails: A Reliable and Safe Opioid Weaning Method.

Weaning opioids in patients with noncancerous chronic pain often poses a challenge when psychosocial factors complicate the patient's chronic pain syndrome and opioid use. A blinded pain cocktail protocol used to wean opioid therapy has been described since the 1970s. At the Stanford Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Pain Program, a blinded pain cocktail remains a reliably effective medication-behavioral intervention. This review (1) outlines psychosocial factors that may complicate opioid weaning, (2) describes clinical goals and how to use blinded pain cocktails in opioid tapering, and (3) summarizes the mechanism of dose-extending placebos and ethical justification of its use in clinical practice.

Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials and Learning Health Systems in Pain Medicine: Opportunities and Challenges.

Large randomized clinical trials or aggregates of clinical trials represent the highest levels of clinical evidence because they minimize different sources of confounding and bias. The current review provides an in-depth discussion of the challenges faced and methods we can use to overcome these obstacles to tailor novel designs of pragmatic effectiveness trials to pain medicine. The authors describe their experiences with an open-source learning health system to collect high-quality evidence and conduct pragmatic clinical trials within a busy academic pain center.

Pain acceptance and psychological inflexibility predict pain interference outcomes for persons with chronic pain receiving pain psychology.

OBJECTIVES: Awareness (being present), acceptance, and engagement (committed action) are three dimensions of psychological flexibility. Understanding these in the context of chronic pain may identify treatment targets to help refine individual treatment. Our objective was to test the predictive capacity of three dimensions within the psychological flexibility model on the longitudinal trajectory of pain interference. METHODS: Patients receiving pain psychology treatment at a pain management center participated in this pragmatic clinical longitudinal study (n=86 with at least three assessments; Mean age=51 years; Gender=60 females, 26 males). Measures included the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-SF); Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ-8); Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS-12); and Committed Action Questionnaire (CAQ-8). The dependent variable was the Patient Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI). We used latent growth modelling to analyze scores assessed within 180 days of patient care. RESULTS: Psychological inflexibility (PIPS-12) and pain acceptance (CPAQ-8) measured at baseline predicted PI outcomes (n=86). PIPS-12 showed a direct relationship with pain interference (PI), where higher PIPS-12 scores predicted significantly higher PI mean scores on average across the study period (ρ=0.422, r2=0.382) but also predicted significantly greater decreases in PI across time (ρ=-0.489, r2=0.123). Higher CPAQ-8 scores predicted significantly lower PI mean scores on average across the study period (ρ=-0.478, r2=0.453) but also significantly smaller decreases in PI across time (ρ=0.495, r2=0.076). Awareness (FFMQ-SF) and engagement (CAQ-8) were not predictive of PI outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who entered pain psychology treatment with lower pain acceptance and higher psychological inflexibility showed the largest reductions in pain interference across time. These results contribute towards a novel prognostic understanding of the predictive roles of an enhancing dimension and limiting dimension of psychological flexibility.

Self-reported physical function is strongly related to pain behavior and pain interference and weakly related to physical capacity in people with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of self-reported and capacity-based measures may help to further elucidate the interactive link between how people think and move. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between self-reported factors of physical function and pain with objective physical capacity measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of 328 adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHOD: Spearman correlations assessed the relationship between pairs of measures. Multiple linear regression models assessed the association between self-reported measures of physical function and the grouping of physical capacity measures. Self-reported measures included Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Behavior, and Pain Interference; Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ). Capacity measures included walking speed and endurance, lower extremity functional strength, lumbopelvic range of motion, and trunk endurance. RESULTS: PROMIS Physical Function was directly and weakly correlated with walking speed (ρ = 0.26, 2-min walk) and inversely and weakly correlated with lower extremity strength (ρ = -0.29, 5x sit-to-stand). RMDQ was not correlated with any of the capacity-based measures. PROMIS Physical Function was inversely and moderately correlated with Pain Interference (ρ = -0.48) and Pain Behavior (ρ = -0.43), PCS (ρ = -0.36), and FABQ (ρ = -0.31). The RMDQ was strongly correlated with PROMIS Physical Function (ρ = -0.56), Pain Behavior (ρ = 0.51) and Pain Interference (ρ = 0.49); and moderately correlated with PCS (ρ = 0.37) and FABQ (ρ = 0.33). PROMIS Physical Function and RMDQ were not correlated with CPAQ. Lower scores on PROMIS Physical Function were weakly associated with lower measures of lower extremity strength (-0.30, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.09, p = 0.005). Higher scores on RMDQ were also weakly associated with lower measures of lower extremity strength (0.26, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.41, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A strong association emerged between self-reported limitations in physical function, pain behavior, and pain interference. A weak association emerged between self-reported physical function and lower extremity strength.

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.

Association of cannabis and/or opioid with quality of life and healthcare utilization in patients with chronic pain.

Background: Opioids have been commonly used to treat chronic pain, but they are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Cannabis has been advocated as an alternative; however, a growing number of patients are now using a combination of opioid and cannabis and the impact of this combination is not well-studied. Aim: We characterized use of opioid and/or cannabis in patients with chronic pain; and compared utilization of healthcare resources. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine if measures of physical, psychological and social functioning differed among patients according to whether they used opioids and/or cannabis. We used our learning healthcare system - CHOIR - to capture NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measure Information System surveys, and legacy pain and treatment specific questions. Results: Patients who report use of opioid and/or cannabis experience higher levels of physical, psychological and social distress. After adjusting for inversed weight of propensity scores, they have higher odds of visiting an emergency room, staying overnight at the hospital, and visiting a physician. Conclusion: Our results show that use of opioid and/or cannabis is associated with worse baseline characteristics and outcomes. Our study however cannot determine if worse outcomes are due to the opioids and/or cannabis or simply that these patients are worse off before using opioids and/or cannabis. Thus, it is important to characterize the trajectory of these patients in a prospective longitudinal study.

A literature review of the impact of exclusion criteria on generalizability of clinical trial findings to patients with chronic pain.

The ability of clinical trials to inform the care of chronic pain may be limited if only an unrepresentative subset of patients are allowed to enroll. We summarize and report new insights on published studies that report on how trial exclusions affect the generalizability of their results. We conducted a PubMed search on the following terms: (("eligibility criteria" AND generalizability) OR ("exclusion criteria" AND generalizability) OR "exclusion criteria"[ti] OR "eligibility criteria"[ti]) AND pain. We only considered studies relevant if they analyzed data on (1) the prevalence and nature of exclusion criteria or (2) the impact of exclusion criteria on sample representativeness or study results. The 4 articles that were identified reported differences in patients who were included and excluded in different clinical trials: excluded patients were older, less likely to have a paid job, had more functional limitations at baseline, and used strong opioids more often. The clinical significance of these differences remains unclear. The pain medicine literature has very few published studies on the prevalence and impact of exclusion criteria, and the outcomes of excluded patients are rarely tracked. The frequent use of psychosocial exclusions is especially compromising to generalizability because chronic pain commonly co-occurs with psychiatric comorbidities. Inclusion of more representative patients in research samples can reduce recruitment barriers and broaden the generalizability of findings in patients with chronic pain. We also call for more studies that examine the use of exclusion criteria in chronic pain trials to better understand their implications.

Altered resting-state functional connectivity within corticostriatal and subcortical-striatal circuits in chronic pain.

Brain corticostriatal circuits are important for understanding chronic pain and highly relevant to motivation and cognitive processes. It has been demonstrated that in patients with chronic back pain, altered nucleus accumbens (NAcc)-medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) circuit fMRI-based activity is predictive of patient outcome. We evaluated the NAcc-MPFC circuit in patients with another chronic pain condition, fibromyalgia, to extend these important findings. First, we compared fMRI-based NAcc-MPFC resting-state functional connectivity in patients with fibromyalgia (N = 32) vs. healthy controls (N = 37). Compared to controls, the NAcc-MPFC circuit's connectivity was significantly reduced in fibromyalgia. In addition, within the fibromyalgia group, NAcc-MPFC connectivity was significantly correlated with trait anxiety. Our expanded connectivity analysis of the NAcc to subcortical brain regions showed reduced connectivity of the right NAcc with mesolimbic circuit regions (putamen, thalamus, and ventral pallidum) in fibromyalgia. Lastly, in an exploratory analysis comparing our fibromyalgia and healthy control cohorts to a separate publicly available dataset from patients with chronic back pain, we identified reduced NAcc-MPFC connectivity across both the patient groups with unique alterations in NAcc-mesolimbic connectivity. Together, expanding upon prior observed alterations in brain corticostriatal circuits, our results provide novel evidence of altered corticostriatal and mesolimbic circuits in chronic pain.