Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem which sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies have examined the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trials have evaluated treatment. This is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2005 and last updated in 2010. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for chest pain, quality of life and psychological parameters in people with non-specific chest pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, Issue 4 of 12, 2014 and DARE Issue 2 of 4, 2014), MEDLINE (OVID, 1966 to April week 4 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to week 18 2014), CINAHL (EBSCO, 1982 to April 2014), PsycINFO (OVID, 1887 to April week 5 2014) and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge, 1969 to 2 May 2014). We also searched citation lists and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain (NSCP), atypical chest pain, syndrome X or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. We contacted trial authors for further information about the included RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We included two new papers, one of which was an update of a previously included study. Therefore, a total of 17 RCTs with 1006 randomised participants met the inclusion criteria, with the one new study contributing an additional 113 participants. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention: random-effects relative risk = 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). This was maintained from three to nine months afterwards: relative risk 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain-free days up to three months following the intervention: mean difference (MD) 3.00 (95% CI 0.23 to 5.77). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (random-effects MD -2.26, 95% CI -4.41 to -0.12) but there was no evidence of effect of treatment on chest pain frequency from three to twelve months (random-effects MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.35 to 0.74). There was no effect on severity (random-effects MD -4.64 (95% CI -12.18 to 2.89) up to three months after the intervention. Due to the nature of the main interventions of interest, it was impossible to blind the therapists as to whether the participant was in the intervention or control arm. In addition, in three studies the blinding of participants was expressly forbidden by the local ethics committee because of issues in obtaining fully informed consent . For this reason, all studies had a high risk of performance bias. In addition, three studies were thought to have a high risk of outcome bias. In general, there was a low risk of bias in the other domains. However, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. The wide variability in secondary outcome measures made it difficult to integrate findings from studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. However, these conclusions are limited by high heterogeneity in many of the results and low numbers of participants in individual studies. The evidence for other brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.

Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem that sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies examine the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trials have evaluated treatment. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To update the previously published systematic review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane LIbrary (CENTRAL and DARE) (Issue 3 of 4 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to August Week 5, 2011), CINAHL (1982 to Sept 2011) EMBASE (1980 to Week 35 2011), PsycINFO (1887 to Sept Week 1, 2011), and Biological Abstracts (January 1980 to Sept 2011). We also searched citation lists and approached authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain (NSCP), atypical chest pain, syndrome X, or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. The authors contacted trial authors for further information about the RCTs included. MAIN RESULTS: Six new RCTs were located and added to the existing trials, therefore, a total of 15 RCTs (803 participants) were included. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention; fixed-effect relative risk = 0.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.81). This was maintained from three to nine months afterwards; relative risk = 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain free days up to three months following the intervention; mean difference = 2.81 (95% CI 1.28 to 4.34). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (random-effects mean difference = -2.26 95% CI -4.41 to -0.12) but there was no evidence of effect of treatment on chest pain frequency from three to twelve months (random-effects mean difference -0.81 95% CI -2.35, 0.74). There was no effect on severity (random-effects mean difference = -4.64 (95% CI -12.18 to 2.89) up to three months after the intervention. Overall there was generally a low risk of bias, however, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. Wide variability in outcome measures made integration of studies for secondary outcome measures difficult to report on. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. The evidence for brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.

Prolotherapy injections and eccentric loading exercises for painful Achilles tendinosis: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eccentric loading exercises (ELE) with prolotherapy injections used singly and in combination for painful Achilles tendinosis. DESIGN: A single-blinded randomised clinical trial. The primary outcome measure was the VISA-A questionnaire with a minimum clinically important change (MCIC) of 20 points. SETTING: Five Australian primary care centres. PARTICIPANTS: 43 patients with painful mid-portion Achilles tendinosis commenced and 40 completed treatment protocols. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to a 12-week program of ELE (n=15), or prolotherapy injections of hypertonic glucose with lignocaine alongside the affected tendon (n=14) or combined treatment (n=14). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: VISA-A, pain, stiffness and limitation of activity scores; treatment costs. RESULTS: At 12 months, proportions achieving the MCIC for VISA-A were 73% for ELE, 79% for prolotherapy and 86% for combined treatment. Mean (95% CI) increases in VISA-A scores at 12 months were 23.7 (15.6 to 31.9) for ELE, 27.5 (12.8 to 42.2) for prolotherapy and 41.1 (29.3 to 52.9) for combined treatment. At 6 weeks and 12 months, these increases were significantly less for ELE than for combined treatment. Compared with ELE, reductions in stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with prolotherapy and reductions in pain, stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with combined treatment. Combined treatment had the lowest incremental cost per additional responder ($A1539) compared with ELE. CONCLUSIONS: For Achilles tendinosis, prolotherapy and particularly ELE combined with prolotherapy give more rapid improvements in symptoms than ELE alone but long-term VISA-A scores are similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN: 12606000179538.

Psychological interventions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in patients with normal coronary anatomy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent chest pain in the absence of coronary artery disease is a common problem that sometimes leads to excess use of medical care. Although many studies examine the causes of pain in these patients, few clinical trials have evaluated treatment. The studies reviewed in this paper provide an insight into the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: To investigate psychological treatments for non-specific chest pain (NSCP) with normal coronary anatomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2008), CINAHL (1982 to December 2008) EMBASE (1980 to December 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2008), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Biological Abstracts (January 1980 to December 2008). We also searched citation lists and approached authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with standardised outcome methodology that tested any form of psychotherapy for chest pain with normal anatomy. Diagnoses included non-specific chest pain, atypical chest pain, syndrome X, or chest pain with normal coronary anatomy (as either inpatients or outpatients). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. The authors contacted trial authors for further information about the RCTs included. MAIN RESULTS: Ten RCTs (484 participants) were included. There was a significant reduction in reports of chest pain in the first three months following the intervention; fixed effects relative risk = 0.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.81). This was maintained from 3 to 9 months afterwards; relative risk = 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). There was also a significant increase in the number of chest pain free days up to three months following the intervention; mean difference = 2.81 (95% CI 1.28 to 4.34). This was associated with reduced chest pain frequency (mean difference = -1.73 (95% CI -2.21 to -1.26)) and severity (mean difference = -6.86 (95% CI -10.74 to -2.97)). However, there was high heterogeneity and caution is required in interpreting these results. Wide variability in outcome measures made integration of studies for secondary outcome measures difficult to report on. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests a modest to moderate benefit for psychological interventions, particularly those using a cognitive-behavioural framework, which was largely restricted to the first three months after the intervention. Hypnotherapy is also a possible alternative. The evidence for brief interventions was less clear. Further RCTs of psychological interventions for NSCP with follow-up periods of at least 12 months are needed.

Defining worthwhile and desired responses to treatment of chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' perceptions of minimum worthwhile and desired reductions in pain and disability upon commencing treatment for chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study nested within a community-based randomized controlled trial on prolotherapy injections and exercises. PATIENTS: A total of 110 participants with chronic low back pain. Interventions. Prior to treatment, participants were asked what minimum percentage reductions in pain and disability would make treatment worthwhile and what percentage reductions in pain and disability they desired with treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Minimum worthwhile reductions and desired reductions in pain and disability. RESULTS: Median (inter-quartile range) minimum worthwhile reductions were 25% (20%, 50%) for pain and 35% (20%, 50%) for disability. This compared with desired reductions of 80% (60%, 100%) for pain and 80% (50%, 100%) for disability. The internal consistency between pain and disability responses was high (Spearman's coefficient of association of 0.81 and 0.87, respectively). A significant association existed between minimum worthwhile reductions and desired reductions, but no association was found between these two factors and patient age, gender, pain severity or duration, disability, anxiety, depression, response to treatment, or treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Inquiring directly about patients' expectations of reductions in pain and in disability is important in establishing realistic treatment goals and setting benchmarks for success. There is a wide disparity between the reductions that they regard as minimum worthwhile and reductions that they hope to achieve. However, there is a high internal consistency between reductions in pain and disability that they expect.

Prolotherapy injections for chronic low back pain: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in adults with chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prolotherapy is an injection-based treatment for chronic low back pain. Proponents of prolotherapy suggest that some back pain stems from weakened or damaged ligaments. Repeatedly injecting them with irritant solutions is thought to strengthen the ligaments and reduce pain and disability. Prolotherapy protocols usually include co-interventions to enhance the effectiveness of the injections. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index up to January 2004, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2004, issue 1, and consulted content experts. Both randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing prolotherapy injections to control injections, either alone or in combination with other treatments, were included. Studies had to include measures of pain and disability before and after the intervention. Two reviewers independently selected the trials and assessed them for methodologic quality. Treatment and control group protocols varied from study to study, making meta-analysis impossible. RESULTS: Four studies, all of high quality and with a total of 344 participants, were included. All trials measured pain and disability levels at 6 months, three measured the proportion of participants reporting a greater than 50% reduction in pain or disability scores from baseline to 6 months. Two studies showed significant differences between the treatment and control groups for those reporting more than 50% reduction in pain or disability. Their results could not be pooled. In one, co-interventions confounded interpretation of results; in the other, there was no significant difference in mean pain and disability scores between the groups. In the third study, there was little or no difference between groups in the number of individuals who reported more than 50% improvement in pain and disability. The fourth study reporting only mean pain and disability scores showed no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Conclusions are confounded by clinical heterogeneity among studies and by the presence of co-interventions. There was no evidence that prolotherapy injections alone were more effective than control injections alone. However, in the presence of co-interventions, prolotherapy injections were more effective than control injections, more so when both injections and co-interventions were controlled concurrently.

Prolotherapy injections, saline injections, and exercises for chronic low-back pain: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of a prolotherapy injection and exercise protocol in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with two-by-two factorial design, triple-blinded for injection status, and single-blinded for exercise status. SETTING: General practice. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ten participants with nonspecific low-back pain of average 14 years duration were randomized to have repeated prolotherapy (20% glucose/0.2% lignocaine) or normal saline injections into tender lumbo-pelvic ligaments and randomized to perform either flexion/extension exercises or normal activity over 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity (VAS) and disability scores (Roland-Morris) at 2.5, 4, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: Follow-up was achieved in 96% at 12 months and 80% at 2 years. Ligament injections, with exercises and with normal activity, resulted in significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability throughout the trial, but no attributable effect was found for prolotherapy injections over saline injections or for exercises over normal activity. At 12 months, the proportions achieving more than 50% reduction in pain from baseline by injection group were glucose-lignocaine: 0.46 versus saline: 0.36. By activity group these proportions were exercise: 0.41 versus normal activity: 0.39. Corresponding proportions for >50% reduction in disability were glucose-lignocaine: 0.42 versus saline 0.36 and exercise: 0.36 versus normal activity: 0.38. There were no between group differences in any of the above measures. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic nonspecific low-back pain, significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability occur with ligament injections, irrespective of the solution injected or the concurrent use of exercises.