The validity of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Depression item for screening for depression in individuals with cancer pain: A cross-sectional study.

CONTEXT: Depression is common in individuals with cancer and pain, negatively impacts quality of life, treatment adherence, tumor progression, and survival. OBJECTIVES: The primary aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the validity of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System's depression (ESAS-D) for detecting major depressive disorder (MDD) as diagnosed by a psychiatrist and (2) identify the best cutoff for this purpose in a sample of cancer pain individuals. The secondary aim was to compare ESAS-D with another commonly used screening measure (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2]) for classifying individuals as meeting or not meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for depression. METHODS: 49 cancer pain individuals completed the ESAS-D and PHQ-2 Within 2 weeks, a psychiatrist interviewed the participants and determined whether or not they met criteria for MDD based on the DSM-5. RESULTS: The ESAS-D demonstrated acceptable accuracy and validity for classifying MDD. A cutoff of ≥2 was identified as being best able to balance sensitivity (85%) and specificity (76%) and had an overall accuracy of 79%. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.94). The ESAS-D also compared favorably with the modified Thai PHQ-2 (sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 72%; overall accuracy, 73%; AUC, 0.74 [95% CI: 0.59-0.88]) for identifying MDD individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The ESAS-D showed acceptable sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for screening for MDD in cancer and pain. It could therefore be used to screen for probable depression in this population.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analyses in Thailand of Continuous Intrathecal Morphine Infusion Compared with Conventional Therapy in Cancer Pain: A 10-year Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Background: Because of the high initial cost of intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) therapy, this study investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ITDD therapy in refractory cancer pain management in Thailand over the past 10 years. Methods: The retrospective study was conducted in patients with cancer pain who underwent ITDD therapy from January 2011 to 2021 at three university hospitals. Clinical outcomes included the numerical rating scale (NRS), Palliative Performance Scale, and the EQ-5D. The direct medical and nonmedical as well as indirect costs were also recorded. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed comparing ITDD therapy with conventional therapy (extrapolated from costs of the same patient before ITDD therapy) from a societally oriented economic evaluation. Results: Twenty patients (F:M: 10:10) aged 60 ± 15 years who underwent implantation of an intrathecal percutaneous port (IT port; n = 15) or programmable intrathecal pump (IT pump; n = 5) were included. The median survival time was 78 (interquartile range = 121-54) days after ITDD therapy. At 2-month follow-up, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/pain reduction of an IT port (US$2065.36 (CA$2829.54)/2-point NRS reduction/lifetime) was lower than for patients with an IT pump (US$5479.26 (CA$7506.58)/2-point NRS reduction/lifetime) compared with continued conventional therapy. The ICER/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for an IT port compared with conventional treatment was US$93,999.31(CA$128,799.06)/QALY gained, which is above the cost-effectiveness threshold for Thailand. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of IT port therapy for cancer pain was high relative to the cost of living in Thailand, above the cost-effectiveness threshold. Prospective cost analysis studies enrolling more patients with diverse cancers that investigate the benefit of early ITDD therapy with devices over a range of prices are warranted.

Contexte: En raison du coût initial élevé du traitement par administration intrathécale de médicaments (AIM), cette étude a étudié le rapport coût-efficacité et le rapport coût-utilité du traitement par AIM dans la prise en charge de la douleur cancéreuse réfractaire en Thaïlande au cours des 10 dernières années.Méthodes: L'étude rétrospective a été menée auprès de patients souffrant de douleur cancéreuse ayant subi un traitement par AIM de janvier 2011 et 2021 dans trois hôpitaux universitaires. Les résultats cliniques comprenaient l'échelle d'évaluation numérique (EEN), l'échelle de performance palliative et l'EQ-5D. Les coûts médicaux et non médicaux directs et indirects ont également été consignés. Les analyses coûts-efficacité et coût-utilité ont été effectuées en comparant le traitement par AIM au traitement conventionnel (extrapolé à partir des coûts pour le même patient avant le traitement par AIM) à partir d'une évaluation économique sociétale.Résultats: Vingt patients (F : M : 10 : 10) âgés de 60 ± 15 ans ayant subi l'implantation d'un port percutané intrathécal (port IT; n = 15) ou d'une pompe intrathécale programmable (pompe IT; n = 5) ont été inclus. Le temps de survie médian était de 78 jours (intervalle interquartile = 121­54) après le traitement par AIM. À deux mois de suivi, le ratio coût-efficacité incrémental (RCEI/réduction de la douleur d'un port IT (2 065,36 $ US (2 829,54 $ CA) /réduction de 2 points sur l'EEN/durée de vie) était inférieur à celui des patients avec une pompe IT (5479,26 $ US (7506,58 $ CA) /réduction de 2 points sur l'EEN/durée de vie) comparativement au traitement conventionnel en continu. Le RCEI/année de vie pondérée par la qualité (AVPQ) gagnée pour un port IT comparativement au traitement conventionnel était de 93 999,31 $ US (128 799,06 $ CA) /AVPQ gagné, ce qui est au-dessus du seuil de rentabilité pour la Thaïlande.Conclusion: Le rapport coût-efficacité et le rapport coût-utilité du traitement par port IT pour la douleur cancéreuse étaient élevés par rapport au coût de la vie en Thaïlande, soit au-dessus du seuil de rentabilité. Les études d'analyse de coût prospectives portant sur un plus grand nombre de patients atteints de divers cancers qui étudient les avantages des traitements par AIM précoces à l'aide d'appareils de prix différents sont justifiées.

Reliability and responsivity of pain intensity scales in individuals with chronic pain.

ABSTRACT: Prior research supports the validity and short-term test-retest stability of 4 commonly used scales for assessing pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS], 6-point Verbal Rating Scale [VRS-6], Numerical Rating Scale [NRS-11], and Face Pain Scale-Revised [FPS-R]). However, the relative stability and ability of these measures to detect changes in pain intensity over longer time periods have not yet been examined, although knowledge regarding these psychometric issues is important for selecting from among these measures. To address this knowledge gap, we administered these scales assessing worst and average pain intensity to 250 chronic pain outpatients on 2 occasions, a little over 6 weeks apart on average. All 4 scales were found to be valid for detecting decreases in pain, and the VAS, NRS-11, and FPS-R evidenced the most validity for detecting increases in pain. The NRS-11 and VAS evidenced better test-retest stability than the VRS-6 and FPS-R. Age affected the ability of the VRS-6 for detecting improvement in worst pain, as well as the ability of the VAS for detecting worsening in both worst and average pain. However, the psychometric properties of the scales were not influenced by education level. Overall, the NRS-11 emerged as showing the most sensitivity and stability. The FPS-R seems to be a good second choice to consider for samples of individuals who might have difficulty understanding or using the NRS-11.

The Effectiveness of Cancer Pain Management in a Tertiary Hospital Outpatient Pain Clinic in Thailand: A Prospective Observational Study.

Objectives: The objective was to examine the effectiveness of the updated approach. Methods: With IRB approval, outpatients with cancer were enrolled from January to December 2018. Assessments were recorded at baseline and three consecutive visits (BL, FU1, FU2, and FU3), including Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), side effects, and analgesic use. The primary outcome was a favorable response, defined as an NRS decrease more than 30% or NRS <4. Secondary outcomes included trends over time in BPI, ESAS, side effects, and analgesic use. Pain response predictors at FU3 were analyzed using logistic regression. Results: Among 150 patients, 72 (48%) completed follow-ups. Of these, 61% achieved a favorable response at FU3. Pain interference diminished at all visits relative to baseline (p < 0.05). Median morphine equivalent daily dosage (MEDD) at BL was 20 mg/day, with a statistically significant, but clinically modest increase to 26.4 mg/day at FU3. Radiation therapy during pain care was a predictor of pain responders. Conclusion: The current Siriraj multidisciplinary approach provided effective relief of pain and stabilization of other cancer-related symptoms. Radiation therapy during pain care can be used to predict pain outcomes. Ongoing improvement domains were identified and considered in the context of cultural, economic, and geographic factors.

Validity and Utility of Four Pain Intensity Measures for Use in International Research.

BACKGROUND: The majority of previous research that has examined the validity of pain intensity rating scales has been conducted in western and developed countries. Research to evaluate the generalizability of previous findings in non-developed countries is necessary for identifying the scales that are most appropriate for use in international research. PURPOSE: The aims of the current study were to (1) evaluate the validity and utility of four commonly used measures of pain intensity in a sample of patients with chronic pain from Thailand and (2) compare findings in the current sample with published findings from research conducted in other countries, in order to identify the measure or measures which might be most appropriate for cross-country research. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty patients with chronic pain seen in a hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, were asked to rate their current pain and average, worst, and least pain intensity in the past week using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 6-point Verbal Rating Scale (VRS-6), 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11), and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). We evaluated the utility and validity of each measure by examining the (1) rates of correct responding and (2) association of each measure with a factor score representing the variance shared across measures, respectively. We also evaluated the associations between incorrect response rates and both age and education level, and then compared the findings from this sample with the findings from research conducted in other countries. RESULTS: The results indicated support for the validity of all measures among participants who were able to use these measures. However, there was variability in the incorrect response rates, with the VAS having the highest (45%) and the NRS-11 having the lowest (15%) incorrect response rates. The VAS was also the least preferred (9%) and the NRS-11 the most preferred (52%) scale. Education and age were significantly associated with incorrect response rates, and education level with scale preference. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that the NRS-11 has the most utility in our sample of Thai individuals with chronic pain. However, when considered in light of the findings from other countries, the results of this study suggest that the FPS-R may have the most utility for use in cross-cultural and international research. Research in additional samples in developing countries is needed to evaluate the generalizability of the current findings.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain.

Several types of pain occur following spinal cord injury (SCI); however, neuropathic pain (NP) is one of the most intractable. Invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation techniques have been studied in clinical trials to treat chronic NP following SCI. The evidence for invasive stimulation including motor cortex and deep brain stimulation via the use of implanted electrodes to reduce SCI-related NP remains limited, due to the small scale of existing studies. The lower risk of complications associated with non-invasive stimulation, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), provide potentially attractive alternative central neuromodulation techniques. Compared to rTMS, tDCS is technically easier to apply, more affordable, available, and potentially feasible for home use. Accordingly, several new studies have investigated the efficacy of tDCS to treat NP after SCI. In this review, articles relating to the mechanisms, clinical efficacy and safety of tDCS on SCI-related NP were searched from inception to December 2019. Six clinical trials, including five randomized placebo-controlled trials and one prospective controlled trial, were included for evidence specific to the efficacy of tDCS for treating SCI-related NP. The mechanisms of action of tDCS are complex and not fully understood. Several factors including stimulation parameters and individual patient characteristics may affect the efficacy of tDCS intervention. Current evidence to support the efficacy of utilizing tDCS for relieving chronic NP after SCI remains limited. Further strong evidence is needed to confirm the efficacy of tDCS intervention for treating SCI-related NP.

Chronic postsurgical pain: current evidence for prevention and management.

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an unwanted adverse event in any operation. It leads to functional limitations and psychological trauma for patients, and leaves the operative team with feelings of failure and humiliation. Therefore, it is crucial that preventive strategies for CPSP are considered in high-risk operations. Various techniques have been implemented to reduce the risk with variable success. Identifying the risk factors for each patient and applying a timely preventive strategy may help patients avoid the distress of chronic pain. The preventive strategies include modification of the surgical technique, good pain control throughout the perioperative period, and preoperative psychological intervention focusing on the psychosocial and cognitive risk factors. Appropriate management of CPSP patients is also necessary to reduce their suffering. CPSP usually has a neuropathic pain component; therefore, the current recommendations are based on data on chronic neuropathic pain. Hence, voltage-dependent calcium channel antagonists, antidepressants, topical lidocaine and topical capsaicin are the main pharmacological treatments. Paracetamol, NSAIDs and weak opioids can be used according to symptom severity, but strong opioids should be used with great caution and are not recommended. Other drugs that may be helpful are ketamine, clonidine, and intravenous lidocaine infusion. For patients with failed pharmacological treatment, consideration should be given to pain interventions; examples include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, botulinum toxin injections, pulsed radiofrequency, nerve blocks, nerve ablation, neuromodulation and surgical management. Physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and lifestyle modifications are also useful for relieving the pain and distress experienced by CPSP patients.

Efficacy and factors determining the outcome of dorsal root entry zone lesioning procedure (DREZotomy) in the treatment of intractable pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a disabling condition that adversely affects patient quality of life. The dorsal root entry zone lesioning procedure (DREZotomy) is a modality used to treat intractable pain caused by insults to neural structures. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of and the factors that determine the outcome of microsurgical DREZotomy (MDT). METHOD: All consecutive patients who underwent MDT for treatment of intractable pain during September 2008 to December 2016 were enrolled. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, intraoperative findings, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The 40 included patients underwent MDT for relief of intractable pain caused by 27 brachial plexus injuries (BPIs), 6 spinal cord injuries, 3 neoplasms, and 4 other causes. A significant reduction in pain was observed post-MDT for both average (p < 0.001) and maximal pain (p < 0.001). Favorable outcome (≥50% pain reduction) was observed in 67.5% of patients, with the best outcome in BPI-related pain. In multivariate analysis, injury of the spinal nerve root (root avulsion or injury) was significantly associated with good average pain relief (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.2-27.5; p = 0.026) and pain freedom (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.12-22.30; p = 0.035). Electrical pain (OR, 6.49; 95% CI, 1.20-35.19; p = 0.030) and lower number of painful dermatomes (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.67; p = 0.039) were significantly associated with good maximal pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: MDT is an effective procedure for treatment of intractable pain in well-selected patients, particularly in cases with brachial plexus avulsion pain. Injury of the spinal nerve root (brachial plexus avulsion and cauda equina injury) was associated with good average pain relief and pain freedom, and electrical pain and lower number of painful dermatomes were associated with good maximal pain relief. The results are useful in the selection of candidates for DREZotomy and prediction of surgical outcome.

Psychometric Validity and Reliability of the Thai Version of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI-T) in Thai patients with neuropathic pain. Although the Thai version of Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI-T) has been linguistically validated, the tool has to be psychometrically validated before applying to neuropathic pain patients in daily practice. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Forty Thai patients with diagnosis of neuropathic pain were enrolled to the study and were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS), the Thai version of Neuropathic Pain Diagnostic Questionnaire (DN4-T) and NPSI-T questionnaires. Four hours later the patients were asked to perform retest NPSI-T and to evaluate the understanding of each NPSI-T question. RESULTS: The total score of NPSI-T questionnaire was statistically correlated to visual analog scale (VAS) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.599, p < 0.001) and neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4-T) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.695, p < 0.001). The reliability was determined by Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), an excellent interobserver agreement (ICC > 0.8) and good agreement (ICC 0.6-0.8) were presented in 30% and 70% of the questionnaire, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated validity and reliability of the NPSI-T for assessing the neuropathic pain in Thai patients.

Effective Pain Management for Inpatients at Siriraj Hospital: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of severe cancer and non-cancer pain among in patients has been reported at rates ranging from 15% to 36%. We examined the effectiveness of the pain management provided to inpatients by the Siriraj Pain Clinic. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective chart review was conducted among inpatients who had consulted the clinic between January 2013 and December 2014. Patients with a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) 4 on the day of consultation, those discharged within seven days, and postoperative patients were excluded. Successful pain control was defined as NRS ≤ 4 within seven days of the initial consultation. RESULTS: We identified 352 eligible patients, of which 231 (65.4%) had cancer pain. Only 42.6% achieved successful pain control. An absence of psychological problems (odds ratio (OR) 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-4.2; p = 0.010); an initial NRS < 7 (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0; p = 0.008); the use of either a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or a Coxibs (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-3.9; p = 0.017), and abdominal pain (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5-4.7; p =0.008) were factors associated with successful pain control. CONCLUSION: Adequate pain control was achieved in less than half of the inpatients in our institution. Psychological disturbance and severe pain predicted unsatisfactory pain control.

Pain management in trauma: A review study.

BACKGROUND: Pain in trauma has a role similar to the double-edged sword. On the one hand, pain is a good indicator to determine the severity and type of injury. On the other hand, pain can induce sever complications and it may lead to further deterioration of the patient. Therefore, knowing how to manage pain in trauma patients is an important part of systemic approach in trauma. The aim of this manuscript is to provide information about pain management in trauma in the Emergency Room settings. METHODS: In this review we searched among electronic and manual documents covering a 15-yr period between 2000 and 2016. Our electronic search included Pub Med, Google scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. We looked for articles in English and in peer-reviewed journals using the following keywords: acute pain management, trauma, emergency room and injury. RESULTS: More than 3200 documents were identified. After screening based on the study inclusion criteria, 560 studies that had direct linkage to the study aim were considered for evaluation based World Health Organization (WHO) pain ladder chart. CONCLUSIONS: To provide adequate pain management in trauma patients require: adequate assessment of age-specific pharmacologic pain management; identification of adequate analgesic to relieve moderate to severe pain; cognizance of serious adverse effects of pain medications and weighting medications against their benefits, and regularly reassessing patients and reevaluating their pain management regimen. Patient-centered trauma care will also require having knowledge of barriers to pain management and discussing them with the patient and his/her family to identify solutions.

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.