PEER simplified chronic pain guideline: Management of chronic low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical practice guideline to support the management of chronic pain, including low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care. METHODS: The guideline was developed with an emphasis on best available evidence and shared decision-making principles. Ten health professionals (4 generalist family physicians, 1 pain management-focused family physician, 1 anesthesiologist, 1 physical therapist, 1 pharmacist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 psychologist), a patient representative, and a nonvoting pharmacist and guideline methodologist comprised the Guideline Committee. Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative in identification of key questions, evidence review, and development of guideline recommendations. Three systematic reviews, including a total of 285 randomized controlled trials, were completed. Randomized controlled trials were included only if they reported a responder analysis (eg, how many patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in pain). The committee directed an Evidence Team (composed of evidence experts) to address an additional 11 complementary questions. Key recommendations were derived through committee consensus. The guideline and shared decision-making tools underwent extensive review by clinicians and patients before publication. RECOMMENDATIONS: Physical activity is recommended as the foundation for managing osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain; evidence of benefit is unclear for neuropathic pain. Cognitive-behavioural therapy or mindfulness-based stress reduction are also suggested as options for managing chronic pain. Treatments for which there is clear, unclear, or no benefit are outlined for each condition. Treatments for which harms likely outweigh benefits for all or most conditions studied include opioids and cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: This guideline for the management of chronic pain, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic pain, highlights best available evidence including both benefits and harms for a number of treatment interventions. A strong recommendation for exercise as the primary treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and low back pain is made based on demonstrated long-term evidence of benefit. This information is intended to assist with, not dictate, shared decision making with patients.

PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with neuropathic pain who achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in their pain with the use of different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and a gray literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that reported a responder analysis of adults with neuropathic pain-specifically diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or trigeminal neuralgia-treated with any of the following 8 treatments: exercise, acupuncture, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical rubefacients, opioids, anticonvulsant medications, and topical lidocaine. SYNTHESIS: A total of 67 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications (risk ratio of 1.54; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.63; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7) and SNRIs (risk ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; NNT = 7) might provide a clinically meaningful benefit to patients with neuropathic pain. There was low certainty of evidence for a clinically meaningful benefit for rubefacients (ie, capsaicin; NNT = 7) and opioids (NNT = 8), and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that acupuncture was ineffective. All drug classes, except TCAs, had a greater likelihood of deriving a clinically meaningful benefit than having withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm between 12 and 15). No trials met the inclusion criteria for exercise or lidocaine, nor were any trials identified for trigeminal neuralgia. CONCLUSION: There is moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications and SNRIs provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain in those with neuropathic pain, with lower certainty of evidence for rubefacients and opioids, and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Owing to low-quality evidence for many interventions, future high-quality trials that report responder analyses will be important to strengthen understanding of the relative benefits and harms of treatments in patients with neuropathic pain.

PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic low back pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients. SYNTHESIS: A total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Exercise, oral NSAIDs, and SNRIs (duloxetine) provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain, with exercise being the only intervention that demonstrated sustained benefit after the intervention ended. Future high-quality trials that report responder analyses are required to provide a better understanding of the benefits and harms of interventions for patients with chronic low back pain.

Return on Investment of the Primary Health Care Integrated Geriatric Services Initiative Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Since June 2017, the Primary Health Care Integrated Geriatric Services Initiative (PHC IGSI) has been implemented in Alberta, Canada to, among other aims, reduce costs of unplanned health service utilization while maximizing the utilization of available community resources to support people living with dementia living in communities. AIM OF THE STUDY: We performed an economic evaluation of this initiative to inform policy regarding sustainability, scale up and spread. METHODS: We used a cohort design together with a difference-in-difference approach and a propensity score matching technique to calculate impacts of the intervention on patient's health service utilization, including inpatient, outpatient and physician services, as well as prescription drugs. We then used a decision tree to compare between benefits and costs of the intervention and reported net benefits (NB) and return on investment ratios (ROI). We used a health system perspective and a time horizon of 1 year. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for the uncertainty of parameters. We analyzed real-world data extracted from the Alberta Health Administrative Databases. All costs/savings were inflated to 2019 CAD (CAD 1 \sim = USD 0.75) using the Canadian Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: The intervention reduced the use of hospital (inpatient, emergency, and outpatient) services by increasing the use of community services (physician and prescription drug). As hospital services are expensive, the PHC IGSI community intervention resulted in a NB from CAD 554 to 4,046 per patient-year for the health system, and a ROI from 1.3 to 3.1 meaning that every CAD invested in PHC IGSI would bring CAD 1.3 to 3.1 in return. The probability of PHC IGSI to be cost-saving was 56.4% to 69.3%. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: The PHC IGSI is cost-effective in Alberta. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: The savings would be larger if the initiative is sustained, scaled up and spread because of not only a reduced cost of intervention in the sustainability phase, but also because of the increased number of patients that would be impacted. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Future studies taking a societal perspective to also include costs for families and health and social sectors at the community level, would be desirable. Additionally, future works to determine how wellbeing is impacted by the PHC IGSI as vertical and horizontal integration interventions are implemented at the community level, are essential to undertake. Finally, in addition to people living with dementia, the PHC IGSI also supports people living in the community with frailty and other geriatric syndromes, therefore, the cost-savings estimated in this study are likely underestimated.

PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews: Management of osteoarthritis in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain respond to various non-surgical treatments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included meta-analysis of responder outcomes for at least 1 of the following interventions were included: acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, cannabinoids, counseling, exercise, platelet-rich plasma, viscosupplementation, glucosamine, chondroitin, intra-articular corticosteroids, rubefacients, or opioids. SYNTHESIS: In total, 235 systematic reviews were included. Owing to limited reporting of responder meta-analyses, a post hoc decision was made to evaluate individual RCTs with responder analysis within the included systematic reviews. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. A total of 155 RCTs were included. Interventions that led to more patients attaining meaningful pain relief compared with control included exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 2.36; 95% CI 1.79 to 3.12), intra-articular corticosteroids (RR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.62), SNRIs (RR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.87), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.52), glucosamine (RR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.74), topical NSAIDs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.38), chondroitin (RR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41), viscosupplementation (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33), and opioids (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32). Preplanned subgroup analysis demonstrated no effect with glucosamine, chondroitin, or viscosupplementation in studies that were only publicly funded. When trials longer than 4 weeks were analyzed, the benefits of opioids were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Interventions that provide meaningful relief for chronic osteoarthritis pain might include exercise, intra-articular corticosteroids, SNRIs, oral and topical NSAIDs, glucosamine, chondroitin, viscosupplementation, and opioids. However, funding of studies and length of treatment are important considerations in interpreting these data.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur la douleur chronique: Gestion de la douleur chronique lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique en première ligne.

OBJECTIF: Formuler des lignes directrices de pratique clinique pour soutenir la prise en charge de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique, dans les soins primaires. MÉTHODES: Ces lignes directrices ont été élaborées en mettant l'accent sur les meilleures données probantes disponibles et sur les principes de décision partagée. Dix professionnels de la santé (4 omnipraticiens, 1 médecin de famille spécialisée en gestion de la douleur, 1 anesthésiste, 1 physiothérapeute, 1 pharmacienne, 1 infirmière praticienne et 1 psychologue), 1 représentant des patients, et 1 pharmacienne et spécialiste de la méthodologie des lignes directrices sans droit de vote composaient le comité des lignes directrices. Les membres ont été sélectionnés en fonction de leur profession, de leur milieu de pratique, et de l'absence d'un conflit d'intérêts de nature financière. Les lignes directrices sont le fruit d'un processus itératif incluant la détermination des questions clés, l'examen des données probantes et la formulation des recommandations des lignes directrices. Trois revues systématiques, totalisant 285 études avec répartition aléatoire et contrôlées ont été réalisées. Ces études n'étaient incluses que si elles avaient rapporté une analyse des répondants (p. ex. combien de patients ont obtenu un soulagement d'au moins 30% de la douleur). Le comité a confié à une équipe d'examen des données (composée de spécialistes des données probantes) la tâche de répondre à 11 autres questions complémentaires. Les principales recommandations découlent d'un consensus au sein du comité. Des cliniciens et des patients ont minutieusement examiné les lignes directrices et les outils de décision partagée avant leur publication. RECOMMANDATIONS: L'activité physique est recommandée comme fondement de la gestion de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique; les données probantes étayant un bienfait ne sont pas concluantes dans le cas de la douleur neuropathique. La thérapie cognitivo-comportementale ou la réduction du stress basée sur la pleine conscience sont également suggérées comme des options pour gérer la douleur chronique. Les traitements pour lesquels le bienfait est clair, non concluant ou absent sont décrits sous chaque affection. Les traitements dont les préjudices surpassent probablement les bienfaits pour toutes les affections étudiées, ou la plupart d'entre elles, sont les opioïdes et les cannabinoïdes. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices sur la gestion de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur arthrosique, lombaire et neuropathique, met en lumière les meilleures données probantes disponibles, y compris les bienfaits et préjudices pour un certain nombre d'interventions thérapeutiques. Une forte recommandation en faveur de l'exercice comme principal traitement de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique repose sur des données probantes ayant démontré un bienfait depuis longtemps. Cette information vise à contribuer au processus de décision partagée avec le patient et non à le dicter.

Outcomes of a Decision-Making Capacity Assessment Model at the Grey Nuns Community Hospital.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing elderly population, the number of persons with dementia is expected to increase and, consequently, the number of persons needing decision-making capacity assessments (DMCA) is too. However, many healthcare professionals do not feel ready to provide DMCAs. Since 2006, we implemented a DMCA Model that includes a care pathway, worksheets, education, and mentoring. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the utilization of this patient-centered DMCA model on the need for Capacity Interviews. METHODS: This was a retrospective quality assurance chart review of patients referred for DMCA to the Geriatric Service at the Grey Nuns Community Hospital from 2006-2020. The Geriatric Service is run by Family Physicians with extra training in Care of the Elderly. We extracted patient demographics, elements of the DMCA process, and whether Capacity Interviews were performed. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the data. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were referred for DMCAs, with a mean age of 76 years (SD = 10.5). Dementia affected 43.2% (38/88) of patients. Valid reasons for conducting a DMCA were evident in 93% (80/86) of referrals, and DMCAs were performed in 72.6% (61/84). 85.3% (58/68) of referrals identified the need for DMCA in two to four domains, most commonly accommodation, healthcare, and finances. Two to three disciplines, frequently social workers and occupational therapists, were involved in conducting the DMCAs for 67.2% (39/58) of patients. The Capacity Assessment Process Worksheet was used 63.2% of the time. Capacity Interviews were conducted in only 20.7% of referrals. Following the DMCAs, 48.2% (41/85) of those assessed were deemed to lack capacity. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the DMCA Model implemented has decreased the need for Capacity Interviews while simultaneously respecting patient autonomy. This is an important finding as DMCAs carried out following this process reduced the need for both a Capacity Interview and declarations of incapacity while simultaneously respecting patient autonomy and supporting patients in their decisions in accordance with the legislation.

Developing a Decision-Making Capacity Assessment Clinical Pathway for Use in Primary Care: a Qualitative Exploratory Case Study.

BACKGROUND: With an ageing population, the incidence of dementia will increase, as will the number of persons requiring decision-making capacity assessments. For over 10 years, we have trained family physicians in conducting decision-making capacity assessments. Physician feedback post-training, however, has highlighted the need to integrate the decision-making capacity assessment process into the primary care context. The purpose of this study was to develop a decision-making capacity assessment clinical pathway for implementation in primary care. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory case-study design was used to obtain participants' perspectives regarding the utility of a visual algorithm detailing a decision-making capacity assessment clinical pathway for use in primary care. Three focus groups were conducted with family physicians (n=4) and allied health professionals (n=6) in two primary care clinics in Alberta. A revised algorithm was developed based on their feedback. RESULTS: In the focus groups, participants identified inconsistencies and a lack of standardization regarding decision-making capacity assessments within primary care, and provided feedback regarding a decision-making capacity assessment clinical pathway to make it more applicable to primary care. Participants described this pathway as appealing and straightforward; they also made suggestions to make it more primary care-centric. Participants indicated that the presented pathway would improve teamwork and standardization of decision-making capacity assessments within primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision-making capacity assessment clinical pathway has the potential to standardize decision-making capacity assessment processes in primary care, and support least intrusive and least restrictive patient outcomes for community-dwelling older adults.

Family Physician's and Primary Care Team's Perspectives on Supporting Family Caregivers in Primary Care Networks.

BACKGROUND: Research, practice, and policy have focused on educating family caregivers to sustain care but failed to equip healthcare providers to effectively support family caregivers. Family physicians are well-positioned to care for family caregivers. METHODS: We adopted an interpretive description design to explore family physicians and primary care team members' perceptions of their current and recommended practices for supporting family caregivers. We conducted focus groups with family physicians and their primary care team members. RESULTS: Ten physicians and 42 team members participated. We identified three major themes. "Family physicians and primary care teams can be a valuable source of support for family caregivers" highlighted these primary care team members' broad recognition of the need to support family caregiver's health. "What stands in the way" spoke to the barriers in current practices that precluded supporting family caregivers. Primary care teams recommended, "A structured approach may be a way forward." CONCLUSION: A plethora of research and policy documents recommend proactive, consistent support for family caregivers, yet comprehensive caregiver support policy remains elusive. The continuity of care makes primary care an ideal setting to support family caregivers. Now policy-makers must develop consistent protocols to assess, and care for family caregivers in primary care.

Physicians and Family Caregivers: Two Perspectives of Physicians' Roles in Long-Term Care.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the roles of attending physicians of long-term care (LTC) residents in supporting their family caregivers (FCGs). DESIGN: In this mixed-methods study, we conducted surveys and focus group interviews with physicians and FCGs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: There were 78 FCGs and 18 physicians in the survey, and 18 FCGs and 9 physicians in the focus groups. They were recruited from 5 urban LTC settings. RESULTS: Although 83.3% of physicians reported they had experience caring for FCGs, 71.8% of FCGs perceived they had not received support from the physicians. There was no statistically significant difference between the FCGs' and physicians' mean responses to the mirrored survey questions. Both groups gave similar ratings, means neutral and agree indicative of ambivalence, on physician's knowledge to identify FCGs who need assistance, ability to assess FCG stress, and aid those experiencing distress and needing advocacy. Analysis of the focus groups revealed the overarching theme: ambiguity about the LTC residents' physicians' role in supporting FCGs. Although physicians noted that residents and families come as a unit, there was ambivalence about the physician's role in supporting FCGs. FCG roles in LTC are also vague. There were 3 sub-themes: "accord on the surface"; "tension in the interface"; and "smoothing the relationship." Both groups thought FCG medical care was beyond the purview of the resident's physician. Physicians and FCGs provided different explanations for the tensions in the FCG/physician interface. Physicians attributed tension to FCG stress and inadequate knowledge, whereas FCGs thought physicians' communication could be improved. Suggestions to smooth the relationship were to align FCG expectations to reality of LTC and different staffing models. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Family physicians, policy makers, and FCGs will need to work on polices to ensure LTC physicians' roles in supporting FCGs and FCGs' roles in LTC are delineated and supported.

Supporting Family Caregivers of Seniors Within Acute and Continuing Care Systems.

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers who provide care to seniors at no cost to the healthcare system are an integral part of the healthcare system. Caregiving, however, can cause significant emotional, physical and financial burden. We held a one-day symposium on how to best involve and support family caregivers in the healthcare system. The symposium brought together caregivers, healthcare providers, administrators and policy-makers to identify needs and make recommendations to address these issues. METHODS: Participants engaged in conversation circles which were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were qualitatively analyzed alongside written notes provided by participants. RESULTS: Symposium participants identified a lack of both orientation and education for healthcare providers about family caregivers and standardized processes for assessing caregiver burden. They highlighted a need to ensure that the family experience is captured and included as an essential component of care, foster a culture of collaboration, expand the notion of the healthcare team to include family caregivers, provide more integrated palliative care, and enhance policies and programs to acknowledge family caregivers. CONCLUSION: There is a need to recognize the essential role of family caregivers in seniors' health and well-being, and to take on a more comprehensive approach to patient care.

Role of D-alanylation of Streptococcus gordonii lipoteichoic acid in innate and adaptive immunity.

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in using the oral commensal gram-positive bacterium Streptococcus gordonii as a live vaccine vector. The present study investigated the role of d-alanylation of lipoteichoic acid (LTA) in the interaction of S. gordonii with the host innate and adaptive immune responses. A mutant strain defective in d-alanylation was generated by inactivation of the dltA gene in a recombinant strain of S. gordonii (PM14) expressing a fragment of the S1 subunit of pertussis toxin. The mutant strain was found to be more susceptible to killing by polymyxin B, nisin, magainin II, and human beta defensins than the parent strain. When it was examined for binding to murine bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (DCs), the dltA mutant exhibited 200- to 400-fold less binding than the parent but similar levels of binding were shown for Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) knockout DCs and HEp-2 cells. In a mouse oral colonization study, the mutant showed a colonization ability similar to that of the parent and was not able to induce a significant immune response. The mutant induced significantly less interleukin 12p70 (IL-12p70) and IL-10 than the parent from DCs. LTA purified from the bacteria induced tumor necrosis factor-alpha and IL-6 production from wild-type DCs but not from TLR2 knockout DCs, and the mutant LTA induced a significantly smaller amount of these two cytokines. These results show that d-alanylation of LTA in S. gordonii plays a role in the interaction with the host immune system by contributing to the relative resistance to host defense peptides and by modulating cytokine production by DCs.