Rationale and design of a multisite randomized clinical trial examining an integrated behavioral treatment for veterans with co-occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder: The pain and opioids integrated treatment in veterans (POSITIVE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain and opioid use disorder (OUD) individually represent a risk to health and well-being. Concerningly, there is evidence that they are frequently co-morbid. While few treatments exist that simultaneously target both conditions, preliminary work has supported the feasibility of an integrated behavioral treatment targeting pain interference and opioid misuse. This treatment combined Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention (ACT+MBRP). This paper describes the protocol for the adequately powered efficacy study of this integrated treatment. METHODS: A multisite randomized controlled trial will examine the efficacy of ACT+MBRP in comparison to a parallel education control condition, focusing on opioid safety and pain education. Participants include veterans (n = 160; 21-75 years old) recruited from three Veterans Administration (VA) Healthcare Systems with chronic pain who are on a stable dose of buprenorphine. Both conditions include twelve weekly 90 min group sessions delivered via telehealth. Primary outcomes include pain interference (Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System - Pain Interference) and hazardous opioid use (Current Opioid Misuse Measure), which will be examined at the end of the active treatment phase and through 12 months post-intervention. Secondary analyses will evaluate outcomes including pain intensity, depression, pain-related fear, and substance use, as well as treatment mechanisms. CONCLUSION: This study will determine the efficacy of an integrated behavioral treatment program for pain interference and hazardous opioid use among veterans with chronic pain and OUD who are prescribed buprenorphine, addressing a critical need for more integrated treatments for chronic pain and OUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04648228.

Challenges with Implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline: A Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Restoring Function in Veterans With Complex Chronic Pain.

A pain management program focused on improving self-management, function, and overall quality of life for veterans with chronic pain.

Patient-perceived differences between constant current and constant voltage spinal cord stimulation systems.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems employ implantable pulse generators that use either a constant current (CC) or a constant voltage (CV) power source. CC power sources adjust voltage in response to resistance (impedance) to ensure that consistent current is delivered to the patient. CV power sources do not adjust voltage in response to impedance; therefore, current delivered to the patient will vary in response to changes in impedance. Both systems produce paresthesia and have been shown to treat chronic pain; however, it has been suggested that patients prefer CC stimulation over CV stimulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved, randomized, double-blinded crossover study compared patient preference for the stimulation sensation elicited by a CC or CV neurostimulation system. Thirty patients completed a baseline evaluation prior to implantation of a percutaneous trial system and returned one-day postimplant for randomization and initiation of SCS. Three days later, patients were evaluated and crossed over into the alternate treatment group. Final evaluation of patient well-being, pain relief, satisfaction, quality of life, preference, and stimulation sensation occurred on Day 6. Patient preference was assessed using a one-sample Z-test. Treatment and group differences were explored using paired t-test for continuous and ordinal variables and chi-square of Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: More patients (70%) preferred CC stimulation over CV stimulation (30%), and CC stimulation produced a significantly larger decrease in pain scores than CV stimulation. Interestingly, patients initially exposed to CC stimulation were less likely to be satisfied with CV stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicate that patients preferred and experienced greater satisfaction and pain relief with the CC system during an SCS trial period. Differences between the two systems following long-term use has yet to be compared. However, the benefits of the CC system seen with short-term use should be considered when selecting an SCS system.

A severe case of complex regional pain syndrome I (reflex sympathetic dystrophy) managed with spinal cord stimulation.

Complex regional pain syndrome is a condition that usually affects the upper or lower extremities. The cause is not clearly understood. We report a case of a severe form of a rapidly progressive complex regional pain syndrome type I developing after a right shoulder injury managed with spinal cord stimulation (SCS). After failed conservative treatments, a rechargeable SCS system was implanted in the cervical spine. Allodynia and dystonia improved but the patient subsequently developed similar symptoms in lower right extremity followed by her lower left extremity. The patient became wheelchair bound. A second rechargeable SCS with a paddle electrode was implanted for the lower extremity coverage. The patient's allodynia and skin lesions improved significantly. However, over time, her initial symptoms reappeared which included skin breakdown. Due to the need for frequent recharging, the system was removed. During explantation of the surgical paddle lead, it was noted by the neurosurgeon that the contacts of the paddle lead were detached from the lead. After successful implantation of another SCS system, the patient was able to reduce her medications and is now able to ambulate with the use of a left elbow crutch.

Current updates on post-operative pain management

This article discusses the current updates in the post-operative pain management with regards to the pathophysiology of pain, adverse physiologic sequelae of pain, pharmacological considerations, and the use of oral, parenteral, peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial analgesics in conjunction with the mutimodal approach in controlling post- surgical pain for better patient outcome.