Spontaneous self-affirmation: an adaptive coping strategy for people with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES: Self-affirmation may be a promising treatment strategy for improving clinical outcomes. This study examined the association between self-affirmation and self-reported health status among people with chronic pain. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 768 treatment seeking people (female 67.2%, mean age=50.4 years with SD of 17.1, White/Caucasian 59.9%) completed surveys using a learning healthcare system. Measures included spontaneous self-affirmation (SSA) items, PROMIS® outcome measures, and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Multiple regressions were conducted to examine if strength-based SSA, value-based SSA, and their interaction would predict perceived health status and pain coping strategy. Sensitivity analysis was done by performing additional regressions with covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education). Lastly, exploratory analysis examined if average SSA scores would have a linear relationship with perceived health status. RESULTS: The strength x value-based SSA interaction significantly predicted the PROMIS-depression, anxiety, and social isolation T-scores (ps≤0.007), but not anger T-scores (p=0.067). Specifically, greater tendency to use both SSA styles predicted less symptoms of depression, anxiety and social isolation. This interaction remained significant when controlling for the covariates. The two SSA styles and their interaction did not significantly predict pain interference, sleep disturbance, fatigue, average pain rating and PCS scores (ps≥0.054). Exploratory analysis revealed SSA average scores did not have a significant linear relationship with perceived health status. CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed self-affirmation as being associated with better psychosocial health, but not associated with physical health and pain catastrophizing among patients with chronic pain. Our findings suggested the potential benefit of incorporating strength- and value-based affirmations in pain intervention approaches.

Comparing Perceived Pain Impact Between Younger and Older Adults With High Impact Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Qualitative and Quantitative Survey.

High impact chronic pain (HICP) is a recently proposed concept for treatment stratifying patients with chronic pain and monitoring their progress. The goal is to reduce the impact of chronic pain on the individual, their family, and society. The US National Pain Strategy defined HICP as the chronic pain associated with substantial restrictions on participation in work, social, and self-care activities for at least 6 months. To understand the meaning and characteristics of HICP from the younger (<65 years old) and older adults (≥65 years old) with chronic pain, our study examined patients' perceived pain impact between the two age groups. We also characterize the degree of pain impact, assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI), between adults and older adults with HICP. We recruited patients at a tertiary pain clinic. The survey included open-ended questions about pain impact, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised to identify patients' meeting criteria for HICP, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 8-item PI short form (v.8a). A total of 55 younger adults (65.5% women, 72.7% HICP, mean age = 55.0 with SD of 16.2) and 28 older adults (53.6% women, 64.3% HICP, mean age = 72.6 with SD of 5.4) with chronic pain participated in this study. In response to an open-ended question in which participants were asked to list out the areas of major impact pain, those with HICP in the younger group most commonly listed work, social activity, and basic physical activity (e.g., walking and standing); for those in the older group, basic physical activity, instrumental activity of daily living (e.g., housework, grocery shopping), and participating in social or fun activity for older adults with HICP were the most common. A 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted using age (younger adults vs. older adults) and HICP classification (HICP vs. No HICP). A statistically significant difference was found in the PROMIS-PI T-scores by HICP status (HICP: M = 58.4, SD = 6.3; No HICP: M = 67.8, SD = 6.3), but not by age groups with HICP. In conclusion, perceived pain impacts were qualitatively, but not quantitatively different between younger and older adults with HICP. We discuss limitations and offer recommendations for future research.

The impact of COVID-19 on patients with chronic pain seeking care at a tertiary pain clinic.

Empirical data on the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic remain scarce, especially among patients with chronic pain. We conducted a cross-sectional study matched by season to examine patient-reported health symptoms among patients with chronic pain pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic onset. Survey responses were analyzed from 7535 patients during their initial visit at a tertiary pain clinic between April 2017-October 2020. Surveys included measures of pain and pain-related physical, emotional, and social function. The post-COVID-19 onset cohort included 1798 initial evaluations, and the control pre-COVID-19 cohort included 5737 initial evaluations. Patients were majority female, White/Caucasian, and middle-aged. The results indicated that pain ratings remained unchanged among patients after the pandemic onset. However, pain catastrophizing scores were elevated when COVID-19 cases peaked in July 2020. Pain interference, physical function, sleep impairment, and emotional support were improved in the post-COVID-19 cohort. Depression, anxiety, anger, and social isolation remained unchanged. Our findings provide evidence of encouraging resilience among patients seeking treatment for pain conditions in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our findings that pain catastrophizing increased when COVID-19 cases peaked in July 2020 suggests that future monitoring and consideration of the impacts of the pandemic on patients' pain is warranted.

Whole Body Pain Distribution and Risk Factors for Widespread Pain Among Patients Presenting with Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal pain frequently co-occurs with pain in other body sites. Chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs) represent a group of widespread pain diagnoses. Our study characterized how patterns of somatic pain distribution are associated with COPCs and aimed to characterize predictors of widespread pain among patients with chronic abdominal pain. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults presenting to a tertiary pain clinic, reporting abdominal pain at their initial visit, and with a follow-up visit at 12 months. Body maps divided patients into localized, intermediate, and widespread pain distribution patterns. Diagnostic and psychosocial measures were assessed across groups at the initial and follow-up visits. We analyzed the association of baseline diagnoses and demographics and time-varying changes in psychosocial measures from initial to follow-up visit with changes in pain distribution over time with alternating logistic regression (ALR). RESULTS: Among 258 patients, most were female (91.5%) and reported widespread pain (61.5%). Those with widespread pain at baseline reported elevated anger and 60.0% of patients remained in the same pain category at follow-up. Multivariable ALR demonstrated higher pain interference (AOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P = 0.002), higher anxiety (AOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, P = 0.01), more than one COPC at initial visit (AOR 2.85, 95% CI 1.59-5.11, P = 0.0005), and initial visit widespread pain categorization (AOR 4.18, 95% CI 2.20-8.00, P < 0.0001) were associated with an increased risk of widespread pain at the follow-up visit. CONCLUSION: Most patients with abdominal pain report additional pain locations at multiple other body sites, and non-localized pain persists 12 months after pain treatment. Screening for widespread pain and COPC at the initial visit may identify patients at higher risk for persistent or new-onset widespread pain, and interventions to reduce pain interference and anxiety may promote reversal of widespread pain.

Lack of Premeditation Predicts Aberrant Behaviors Related to Prescription Opioids in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: In light of the opioid epidemic, there is a need to identify factors that predict aberrant opioid behaviors including misuse and abuse. Impulsivity has been extensively studied in addiction literature, but not in the context of opioid misuse. Hence, this study aimed to identify which of the impulsivity facets (negative urgency, positive urgency, sensation seeking, lack of perseverance, and lack of premeditation) would predict current aberrant opioid-related behaviors in patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Data were collected through an online survey from patients with chronic pain who visited a tertiary pain clinic. Patients were predominately female (74%), middle aged (M = 55 years), and White/Caucasian (84%). Upon consent, they completed a series of surveys including UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, the Current Opioid misuse Measure, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PROMIS-anxiety, depression, and physical function, and a 0-10 numerical pain rating scale. Ordinal regression analyses were conducted to test study hypotheses. RESULTS: Contrary to expectations, only lack of premeditation predicted higher odds of aberrant opioid-related behaviors in the past 30 days, after controlling for known covariates, and explained 26% of variance. Interestingly, lack of premeditation together with pain catastrophizing as a covariate explained 56% of the variance in aberrant opioid-related behaviors. DISCUSSION: The current study is the first to identify a potential role of lack of premeditation as an impulsivity facet predicting aberrant opioid-related behaviors among patients with chronic pain.

Identification of work accommodations and interventions associated with work productivity in adults with migraine: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with work productivity in adults with migraine, and accommodations or interventions to improve productivity or the workplace environment for them. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Heath Literature, and Web of Science from their inception to 14 October 2019 for studies of any design that assessed workplace productivity in adults with migraine. RESULTS: We included 26 articles describing 24 studies after screening 4139 records. Five prospective cohort studies showed that education on managing migraine in the workplace was associated with an increase in productivity of 29-36%. Two studies showed that migraine education and management in the workplace were associated with increased productivity (absenteeism decreased by 50% in one study). One prospective cohort study showed that occupational health referrals were associated with more than 50% reduction in absenteeism. Autonomy, social support, and job satisfaction were positively associated with productivity, while quantitative demands, emotional demands, job instability, and non-conducive work environment triggers are negatively associated with productivity in workers with migraine. CONCLUSION: Despite migraine being the second leading cause of disability worldwide, there is a paucity of strong data on migraine-related work factors associated with productivity.Registration: None (scoping review).

Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of erenumab: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness and tolerability of erenumab in a clinical setting, specifically a tertiary headache center. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at the John Graham Headache Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital. All patients who received erenumab from a headache specialist at the Center from 17 May 2018 to 31 January 2019 were included. Patients were contacted and underwent a structured clinical interview including information about erenumab use, perceived benefit, adverse events (AEs), and a global assessment of benefit versus drawbacks. Chart review was performed for patients who could not be contacted. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-four patients were initially identified and 418 were eligible. Two hundred and ninety-five participants completed the structured clinical interview portion of the study (response rate 70.6%). Seventy-four patient charts were additionally reviewed. Two hundred and forty-one participants had used erenumab. One hundred and sixty nine (70%) of participants experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (43%), injection site reaction (24%), fatigue (15%), worsening headache (12%), and dizziness (11%) the five most commonly reported AEs. One hundred and sixty-eight participants (69.7%) felt that the benefits of erenumab outweighed any drawbacks. One hundred and fifty-one participants (62.7%) planned to continue using erenumab. Cost of treatment was cited by 12% of participants as a reason for either not starting or for stopping erenumab. Of patients who had an increase in dose due to lack of or partial efficacy, 46.5% felt that the dose increase was helpful. We identified one case of unintended pregnancy in our study population. CONCLUSIONS: This large "real-world" study validates the findings of benefit of erenumab observed in clinical trials. Although adverse events were far more common in this population than in clinical trials, the planned continuation rate was relatively high. The substantial discrepancy between adverse events seen in clinical practice compared with clinical trials suggests systematic differences between clinical trial participants and patients who receive the treatment in clinical practice, or may indicate suboptimal ascertainment of adverse events in the trials. Clinicians should continue to be vigilant for adverse events in clinical practice.