Self-Reported Pain Treatment Practices Among U.S. and Canadian Adults: Findings From a Population Survey.

Background and Objectives: Pain treatments and their efficacy have been studied extensively. Yet surprisingly little is known about the types of treatments, and combinations of treatments, that community-dwelling adults use to manage pain, as well as how treatment types are associated with individual characteristics and national-level context. To fill this gap, we evaluated self-reported pain treatment types among community-dwelling adults in the United States and Canada. We also assessed how treatment types correlate with individuals' pain levels, sociodemographic characteristics, and country of residence, and identified unique clusters of adults in terms of treatment combinations. Research Design and Methods: We used the 2020 "Recovery and Resilience" United States-Canada general online survey with 2 041 U.S. and 2 072 Canadian community-dwelling adults. Respondents selected up to 10 pain treatment options including medication, physical therapy, exercise, etc., and an open-ended item was available for self-report of any additional treatments. Data were analyzed using descriptive, regression-based, and latent class analyses. Results: Over-the-counter (OTC) medication was reported most frequently (by 55% of respondents, 95% CI 53%-56%), followed by "just living with pain" (41%, 95% CI 40%-43%) and exercise (40%, 95% CI 38%-41%). The modal response (29%) to the open-ended item was cannabis use. Pain was the most salient correlate, predicting a greater frequency of all pain treatments. Country differences were generally small; a notable exception was alcohol use, which was reported twice as often among U.S. versus Canadian adults. Individuals were grouped into 5 distinct clusters: 2 groups relied predominantly on medication (prescription or OTC), another favored exercise and other self-care approaches, one included adults "just living with" pain, and the cluster with the highest pain levels employed all modalities heavily. Discussion and Implications: Our findings provide new insights into recent pain treatment strategies among North American adults and identify population subgroups with potentially unmet need for more adaptive and effective pain management.

Combination analgesic development for enhanced clinical efficacy (the CADENCE trial): a double-blind, controlled trial of an alpha-lipoic acid-pregabalin combination for fibromyalgia pain.

ABSTRACT: Drug therapy for fibromyalgia is limited by incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting adverse effects (AEs). Combining agents with complementary analgesic mechanisms-and differing AE profiles-could provide added benefits. We assessed an alpha-lipoic acid (ALA)-pregabalin combination with a randomized, double-blind, 3-period crossover design. Participants received maximally tolerated doses of ALA, pregabalin, and ALA-pregabalin combination for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was daily pain (0-10); secondary outcomes included Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, SF-36 survey, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), adverse events, and other measures. The primary outcome of daily pain (0-10) during ALA (4.9), pregabalin (4.6), and combination (4.5) was not significantly different ( P = 0.54). There were no significant differences between combination and each monotherapy for any secondary outcomes, although combination and pregabalin were both superior to ALA for measures of mood and sleep. Alpha-lipoic acid and pregabalin maximal tolerated doses were similar during combination and monotherapy, and AEs were not frequent with combination therapy. These results do not support any additive benefit of combining ALA with pregabalin for fibromyalgia. The observation of similarly reached maximal tolerated drug doses of these 2 agents (which have differing side-effect profiles) during combination and monotherapy-without increased side effects-provides support for future development of potentially more beneficial combinations with complementary mechanisms and nonoverlapping side effects.

Systematic scoping review of interactions between analgesic drug therapy and mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain in adults: current evidence and future directions.

Most patients with chronic pain do not find adequate pain relief with a single treatment, and accumulating evidence points to the added benefits of rational combinations of different treatments. Given that psychological therapies, such as mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), are often delivered in conjunction with concomitant analgesic drug therapies (CADTs), this systematic scoping review examines the evidence for any interactions between MBIs and CADTs. The protocol for this review has been published and registered. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases were searched until July 2019. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of MBIs for the treatment of chronic pain. A total of 40 randomized controlled trials (2978 participants) were included. Thirty-nine of 40 (97.5%) included mindfulness-based clinical trials allowed the use of CADTs. However, only 6 of these 39 (15.4%) trials provided adequate details of what these CADTs were, and only 4 (10.3%) trials controlled for CADTs. Of great relevance to this review, none of the included trials analyzed the interactions between MBIs and the CADTs to determine whether they have an additive, synergistic, or antagonistic effect on chronic pain. Adverse events were inconsistently reported, and no judgment could be made about safety. Future trials assessing the interactions between MBIs and CADTs, with better harms reporting, are needed to better define the role of MBIs in the management of chronic pain.

Risks of harm with cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine for pain management relevant to patients receiving pain treatment: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: With the increasing availability of cannabis and cannabinoids and their potential utility for pain treatment, there is a growing need to evaluate the risk-benefit considerations of cannabinoids for the management of pain. As part of the IASP Cannabis and Cannabinoids Task Force, this protocol describes a planned overview of systematic reviews summarizing the risks of harm with cannabinoids that are relevant to patients receiving pain treatment. METHODS: This overview will involve literature searches of several databases and a defined search strategy that will target systematic reviews or meta-analyses of cannabinoids where harms are the primary focus. Data extraction will include various features of the cannabinoid(s) and the harm(s) being studied as well as other methodological features of each included systematic review. Methodological quality of each included review will be assessed using AMSTAR-2 as well as compliance with the PRISMA harms checklist. Prospero registration pending. DISCUSSION: The broad overview of reviews defined by this protocol is expected to synthesize available good quality evidence of harms that will help inform risk-benefit considerations about the use of cannabinoids for pain management.

Magnesium for the Management of Chronic Noncancer Pain in Adults: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a highly prevalent and complex health problem that is associated with a severe symptom burden, as well as substantial economic and social impact. Many patients with chronic pain still suffer from unrelieved or undertreated pain due to the incomplete efficacy and dose-limiting adverse effects of current therapies. Long-term and high-dose opioid use has considerably increased in the past 20 years despite limited evidence supporting its effectiveness in several chronic pain conditions, and serious concerns have emerged regarding adverse effects and potential misuse. Until recently, the steady increase in opioid prescribing rates has been associated with rising opioid-related mortality and other serious problems, emphasizing the need for better nonopioid therapies. Emerging evidence supports the safe use of magnesium in controlling chronic pain, but its overall efficacy and safety is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to assess the efficacy and safety of magnesium compared with a placebo for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: We will conduct a detailed search on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from their inception until the date the searches are run to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. The reference lists of retrieved studies as well as Web-based trial registries will also be searched. We will include randomized double-blind trials comparing magnesium (at any dose, frequency, or route of administration) with placebo using participant-reported pain assessment. Two reviewers will independently evaluate studies for eligibility, extract data, and assess trial quality and potential bias. Risk of bias will be assessed using criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. Primary outcomes for this review will include any validated measure of pain intensity or pain relief. Dichotomous data will be used to calculate the risk ratio and number needed to treat or harm. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: This protocol is grant-funded and has undergone a peer-review process through the Queen's University Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine Vandewater Endowed Studentship. This project is also supported, in part, by the Chronic Pain Network of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. The electronic database search strategies are currently being developed and modified. The entire review is expected to be completed by January 1, 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The completion of this review is expected to identify available high-quality evidence describing the efficacy and safety of magnesium for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/11654.

Interactions between analgesic drug therapy and mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain in adults: protocol for a systematic scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Most current chronic pain treatment strategies have limitations in effectiveness and tolerability, and accumulating evidence points to the added benefits of rational combinations of different therapies. However, most published clinical trials of treatment combinations have involved combinations of 2 drugs, whereas very little research has been performed to characterize interactions between drug and nondrug interventions. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been emerging as a safe and potentially effective treatment option in the management of chronic pain, but it is unclear how MBIs can and should be integrated with various other pain treatment interventions. Thus, we seek to review available clinical trials of MBIs for chronic pain to evaluate available evidence on the interactions between MBIs and various pharmacological treatments. METHODS: A detailed search of trials of MBIs for the treatment of chronic pain in adults will be conducted on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from their inception until the date the searches are run to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Primary outcomes will include the following: (1) what concomitant analgesic drug therapies (CADTs) were allowed; (2) if and how trials controlled for CADTs and analyzed their interaction; and (3) results of available analyses of interactions between the MBI and CADT. PERSPECTIVE: This review is expected to synthesize available evidence describing the interactions between MBIs and various studied drug therapies for chronic pain. Available evidence may help inform the rational integration of MBIs with drug therapy for chronic pain.

Randomized Trial of the Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction on Pain-Related Disability, Pain Intensity, Health-Related Quality of Life, and A1C in Patients With Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

IN BRIEF Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) has a large negative impact on patients' physical and mental functioning, and pharmacological therapies rarely provide more than partial relief. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is a group psychosocial intervention that was developed for patients with chronic illness who were not responding to existing medical treatments. This study tested the effects of community-based MBSR courses for patients with PDPN. Among patients whose PDPN pharmacotherapy had been optimized in a chronic pain clinic, those randomly assigned to treatment with MBSR experienced improved function, better health-related quality of life, and reduced pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and depression compared to those receiving usual care.

Benefits and safety of gabapentinoids in chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is very common, with a lifetime prevalence between 51% and 80%. In majority, it is nonspecific in nature and multifactorial in etiology. Pregabalin (PG) and Gabapentin (GB) are gabapentinoids that have demonstrated benefit in neuropathic pain conditions. Despite no clear rationale, they are increasingly used for nonspecific CLBP. They necessitate prolonged use and are associated with adverse effects and increased cost. Recent guidelines from the National Health Service (NHS), England, expressed concerns on their off-label use, in addition to the risk of misuse. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of gabapentinoids in adult CLBP patients. METHODS: Electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched from their inception until December 20th, 2016. We included randomized control trials reporting the use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of CLBP of >3 months duration, in adult patients. Study selection and data extraction was performed independently by paired reviewers. Outcomes were guided by Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials guidelines, with pain relief and safety as the primary outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 in percentage representing the percentage variability in effect estimates that could be explained by heterogeneity. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Out of 1,385 citations, eight studies were included. Based on the interventions and comparators, studies were analyzed in 3 different groups. GB compared with placebo (3 studies, n = 185) showed minimal improvement of pain (MD = 0.22 units, 95% CI [-0.5 to 0.07] I2 = 0%; GRADE: very low). Three studies compared PG with other types of analgesic medication (n = 332) and showed greater improvement in the other analgesic group (MD = 0.42 units, 95% CI [0.20 to 0.64] I2 = 0; GRADE: very low). Studies using PG as an adjuvant (n = 423) were not pooled due to heterogeneity, but the largest of them showed no benefit of adding PG to tapentadol. There were no deaths or hospitalizations reported. Compared with placebo, the following adverse events were more commonly reported with GB: dizziness-(RR = 1.99, 95% CI [1.17 to 3.37], I2 = 49); fatigue (RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.12 to 3.05], I2 = 0); difficulties with mentation (RR = 3.34, 95% CI [1.54 to 7.25], I2 = 0); and visual disturbances (RR = 5.72, 95% CI [1.94 to 16.91], I2 = 0). The number needed to harm with 95% CI for dizziness, fatigue, difficulties with mentation, and visual disturbances were 7 (4 to 30), 8 (4 to 44), 6 (4 to 15), and 6 (4 to 13) respectively. The GRADE evidence quality was noted to be very low for dizziness and fatigue, low for difficulties with mentation, and moderate for visual disturbances. Functional and emotional improvements were reported by few studies and showed no significant improvements. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Existing evidence on the use of gabapentinoids in CLBP is limited and demonstrates significant risk of adverse effects without any demonstrated benefit. Given the lack of efficacy, risks, and costs associated, the use of gabapentinoids for CLBP merits caution. There is need for large high-quality trials to more definitively inform this issue. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016034040.

Pain Management Strategies and Health Care Use in Community-Dwelling Individuals Living with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To describe factors associated with high clinic and emergency room (ER) use among individuals with chronic pain. DESIGN: This study is part of a larger cross-sectional survey on the epidemiology of chronic pain in Canada. The current analysis was guided by the Andersen-Newman Service Utilization Model. METHODS: Respondents (N = 702) were grouped into high (top 10%) and low (bottom 90%) users based on the number of visits made to clinics and ERs over the past year. The two groups were compared on predisposing (e.g., pain self-efficacy and sociodemographic characteristics), enabling (e.g., income and education), and need (e.g., pain characteristics and number of comorbidities) factors as well as personal health behaviors (e.g., use of medications). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify characteristics associated with high use in each setting. RESULTS: High users were defined as 30 or more clinic visits or one or more ER visits. The factors associated with high clinic use in the adjusted analysis were low pain self-efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50-4.51), two or more comorbidities (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.23-3.69), five or more pain sites (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.28-4.14), and having an "other" pain diagnosis (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.01-3.20). Factors that increased ER use were low pain self-efficacy (OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.28-3.15) and two or more comorbidities (OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.48-3.59), while use of alternative pain management strategies reduced ER use (OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.21-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm if modifiable factors such as pain self-efficacy and use of alternative therapies reduce health care use.

Emerging drugs for neuropathic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Neuropathic pain is a costly and disabling condition, which affects up to 8% of the population. Available therapies often provide incomplete pain relief and treatment-related side effects are common. Preclinical neuropathic pain models have facilitated identification of several promising targets, which have progressed to human clinical phases of evaluation. AREAS COVERED: A systematic database search yielded 25 new molecular entities with specified pharmacological mechanisms that have reached Phase II or III clinical trials. These include calcium channel antagonists, vanilloid receptor antagonists, potassium channel agonists, NMDA antagonists, novel opioid receptor agonists, histamine H3 receptor antagonists, a novel sodium channel antagonist, serotonin modulators, a novel acetylcholine receptor agonist, α-2b adrenoreceptor agonist, cannabinoid CB2 receptor agonist, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, orexin receptor antagonist, angiotensin II 2 antagonist, imidazoline I2 receptor agonist, apoptosis inhibitor and fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitor. EXPERT OPINION: Although the diversity of pharmacological mechanisms of interest emphasise the complexity of neuropathic pain transmission, the considerable number of agents under development reflect a continued enthusiasm in drug development for neuropathic pain. Ongoing enhancements in methodology of both preclinical and clinical research and closer translation in both directions are expected to more efficiently identify new agents, which will improve the management of neuropathic pain.