Dynamic Pain Phenotypes are Associated with Spinal Cord Stimulation-Induced Reduction in Pain: A Repeated Measures Observational Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a widely used treatment option for a variety of pain conditions. Substantial variability exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS and patient selection is a topic of expanding interest and importance. However, few studies have examined the potential benefits of dynamic quantitative sensory testing (QST) to develop objective measures of SCS outcomes or as a predictive tool to help patient selection. Psychological characteristics have been shown to play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may aid in predicting responses to SCS. Static laboratory pain-induction measures have also been examined in their capacity for predicting SCS outcomes. METHODS: The current study evaluated clinical, psychological and laboratory pain measures at baseline, during trial SCS lead placement, as well as 1 month and 3 months following permanent SCS implantation in chronic pain patients who received SCS treatment. Several QST measures were conducted, with specific focus on examination of dynamic models (central sensitization and conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) and their association with pain outcomes 3 months post SCS implantation. RESULTS: Results suggest few changes in QST over time. However, central sensitization and CPM at baseline were significantly associated with clinical pain at 3 months following SCS implantation, controlling for psycho/behavioral factors and pain at baseline. Specifically, enhanced central sensitization and reduced CPM were associated with less self-reported pain 3 months following SCS implantation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a potentially important role for dynamic pain assessment in individuals undergoing SCS, and hint at potential mechanisms through which SCS may impart its benefit.

Disease-Related, Nondisease-Related, and Situational Catastrophizing in Sickle Cell Disease and Its Relationship With Pain.

Catastrophizing is a potent psychological modulator of pain across several chronic pain populations; yet despite evidence that patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) catastrophize more than patients with other chronic pain conditions, previous research indicates that catastrophizing is not related to sickle cell pain after controlling for relevant covariates such as depression. Recent research suggests that pain-related catastrophizing should be assessed across pain contexts (eg, dispositional and situational). In this study, we measured disease-specific, general non-disease-related, and situational catastrophizing and assessed the relationship between these contextual dimensions of catastrophizing and laboratory and clinical pain among patients with SCD. Results revealed differential catastrophizing across pain contexts, with patients reporting greater catastrophizing about SCD-specific pain compared with non-SCD pain and laboratory pain. SCD-specific and non-SCD catastrophizing were associated with clinical pain outcomes, and situational catastrophizing with markers of central sensitization and laboratory pain. Further examination of the time course of laboratory responses revealed that increases in situational catastrophizing were associated with subsequent increases in laboratory pain sensitivity. Taken together, results show the relevance of catastrophizing in understanding pain in SCD, and suggest that context-specific anchors may be beneficial in predicting different aspects of the pain experience (eg, chronic pain, pain sensitization). PERSPECTIVE: Patients with SCD report greater catastrophizing about sickle cell-specific pain relative to other pains. Disease-specific and non-disease-related pain catastrophizing were associated with clinical pain, and situational catastrophizing predictive of subsequent laboratory pain. Evaluation of context-specific catastrophizing may more accurately predict different aspects of the pain experience.

Multiple Levels of Suffering: Discrimination in Health-Care Settings is Associated With Enhanced Laboratory Pain Sensitivity in Sickle Cell Disease.

OBJECTIVE: People living with sickle cell disease (SCD) experience severe episodic and chronic pain and frequently report poor interpersonal treatment within health-care settings. In this particularly relevant context, we examined the relationship between perceived discrimination and both clinical and laboratory pain. METHODS: Seventy-one individuals with SCD provided self-reports of experiences with discrimination in health-care settings and clinical pain severity, and completed a psychophysical pain testing battery in the laboratory. RESULTS: Discrimination in health-care settings was correlated with greater clinical pain severity and enhanced sensitivity to multiple laboratory-induced pain measures, as well as stress, depression, and sleep. After controlling for relevant covariates, discrimination remained a significant predictor of mechanical temporal summation (a marker of central pain facilitation), but not clinical pain severity or suprathreshold heat pain response. Furthermore, a significant interaction between experience with discrimination and clinical pain severity was associated with mechanical temporal summation; increased experience with discrimination was associated with an increased correlation between clinical pain severity and temporal summation of pain. DISCUSSION: Perceived discrimination within health-care settings was associated with pain facilitation. These findings suggest that discrimination may be related to increased central sensitization among SCD patients, and more broadly that health-care social environments may interact with pain pathophysiology.

Measuring what matters: top-ranked quality indicators for hospice and palliative care from the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association.

CONTEXT: Measuring quality of hospice and palliative care is critical for evaluating and improving care, but no standard U.S. quality indicator set exists. OBJECTIVES: The Measuring What Matters (MWM) project aimed to recommend a concise portfolio of valid, clinically relevant, cross-cutting indicators for internal measurement of hospice and palliative care. METHODS: The MWM process was a sequential consensus project of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA). We identified candidate indicators mapped to National Consensus Project (NCP) Palliative Care Guidelines domains. We narrowed the list through a modified Delphi rating process by a Technical Advisory Panel and Clinical User Panel and ratings from AAHPM and HPNA membership and key organizations. RESULTS: We narrowed the initial 75 indicators to a final list of 10. These include one in the NCP domain Structure and Process (Comprehensive Assessment), three in Physical Aspects (Screening for Physical Symptoms, Pain Treatment, and Dyspnea Screening and Management), one in Psychological and Psychiatric Aspects (Discussion of Emotional or Psychological Needs), one in Spiritual and Existential Aspects (Discussion of Spiritual/Religious Concerns), and three in Ethical and Legal Aspects (Documentation of Surrogate, Treatment Preferences, and Care Consistency with Documented Care Preferences). The list also recommends a global indicator of patient/family perceptions of care, but does not endorse a specific survey instrument. CONCLUSION: This consensus set of hospice and palliative care quality indicators is a foundation for standard, valid internal quality measurement for U.S. SETTINGS: Further development will assemble implementation tools for quality measurement and benchmarking.