The association between violence against women and chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Violence against women is a phenomenon that involves at least 35% of women worldwide. Violence can be sexual, physical, and/or psychological, perpetrated by the partner, another family member, or a stranger. Violence is a public health problem because its consequences include higher morbidity, higher mortality, and short and long-term physical and psychological health diseases. Most studies prove an association between any type of violence and some chronic pain diagnoses but no one has done a complete collection of this evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether this association is statistically significant, including the largest number of studies. Through the inclusion of 37 articles, the association has been demonstrated. Compared with no history of violence, women who did experience violence showed 2 times greater odds of developing chronic pain. The impact of violence was significant also on fibromyalgia separately, but not on pelvic pain.PROSPERO registrationPROSPERO CRD42023425477.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Hand and Wrist Pain: 2023 Update.

Chronic hand and wrist pain is a common presenting complaint. The intricate anatomy results in a variety of pain generators-multiple bones, articular cartilage, intrinsic ligaments, triangular fibrocartilage complex, joint capsules and synovium, tendons and tendon sheaths, muscles, and nerves-in a compact space. The need for imaging and the choice of the appropriate imaging modality are best determined by the patient's presentation, physical examination, and the clinician's working differential diagnosis. Radiography is usually appropriate as the initial imaging study in the evaluation of chronic hand or wrist pain. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity. METHODS: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes. CONCLUSION: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

The role of attention bias malleability in experiencing pain and associated disability.

Background: Attentional processing of pain has been theorized to play a key role in the severity of pain and associated disability. In particular attentional bias towards pain information, resulting in poor pain outcomes, has been extensively researched. Recently, the idea was put forward that attention bias malleability (AM), i.e., the readiness to acquire an attentional bias irrespective of its direction, may be key in predicting poor pain outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in two studies. Methods: In Study 1, 55 healthy participants completed an AM paradigm, followed by an experimental heat pain paradigm probing pain experience and pain-related task interference. In Study 2, 71 people with chronic pain completed an AM paradigm and questionnaires probing pain experience and associated disability. Results: In Study 1, including healthy participants, no relationship was found between AM indices and experimental pain outcomes. In Study 2, including chronic pain patients, results indicated that higher levels of overall AM were related to higher levels of pain experience and disability. Conclusion: This study partially supports the hypotheses that the degree to which individuals can adapt their attentional preference in line with changing environmental conditions is associated with poor pain outcomes. However, future research is needed to clarify inconsistent findings between healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients as well as to determine the causal status of AM in poor pain outcomes.

Spinal cord stimulation has a place in the treatment of chronic pain conditions. / Ryggmargsstimulering har en plass i behandling av langvarige smertetilstander.

Spinal cord stimulation is an important modality of treatment for some patients with chronic pain. Patient satisfaction following this treatment is comparable to outcomes from spine surgery in Norway.

Evaluation of fibromyalgia frequency and quality of life in Notalgia paresthetica patients.

Based on the presence of chronic pain and the potential use of common treatment agents in Notalgia Paresthetica (NP) and Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS) for improvement, we aimed to investigate the frequency of FMS symptoms in NP patients and its impact on quality of life. This study is a case control cohort study including 26 patients diagnosed with NP and a total of 26 controls matched for age and gender. The 2016 revised fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) were used to inquire about FMS diagnosis criteria in the study. According to the 2016 ACR revised FMS diagnostic criteria, the frequency of FMS was significantly higher in the patient group (n = 9, 34.6%) compared to the control group (n = 2, 7.7%) (p = 0.042). The Wide Pain Index (WPI) score in the control group was 2.00 (3.25), while in the patient group, it was 4.00 (8.00), with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.035). Furthermore, significant statistical differences were found between the two groups in terms of Symptom Severity Scale (SSS), Fibromyalgia Score (FS), and FIQ (p < 0.035, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). In NP patients with accompanying FMS, Dermatology Life Quality Index was significantly more affected compared to those without FMS (p = 0.025). In conclusion, we recommend that NP patients be questioned about FMS, which is characterized by generalized pain, as well as regional neuropathic symptoms. Treatment success can be enhanced by using common agents in the treatment choice for accompanying FMS.

Feasibility of Web-Based Single-Session Empowered Relief in Patients With Chronic Pain Taking Methadone or Buprenorphine: Protocol for a Single-Arm Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects tens of millions of US adults and continues to rise in prevalence. Nonpharmacologic behavioral pain treatments are greatly needed and yet are often inaccessible, particularly in settings where medication prescribing is prioritized. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the feasibility of a live-instructor, web-based 1-session pain relief skills class in an underserved and potentially at-risk population: people with chronic pain prescribed methadone or buprenorphine either solely for pain or for comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: This is a national, prospective, single-arm, uncontrolled feasibility trial. The trial is untethered from medical care; to enhance participants' willingness to join the study, no medical records or drug-monitoring records are accessed. At least 45 participants will be recruited from outpatient pain clinics and from an existing research database of individuals who have chronic pain and are taking methadone or buprenorphine. Patient-reported measures will be collected at 6 time points (baseline, immediately post treatment, 2 weeks, and months 1-3) via a web-based platform, paper, or phone formats to include individuals with limited internet or computer access and low literacy skills. At baseline, participants complete demographic questions and 13 study measures (Treatment Expectations, Body Pain Map, Medication Use, Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS], Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Measures, and Opioid Craving Scale). Immediately post treatment, a treatment satisfaction and acceptability measure is administered on a 0 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied) scale, with 3 of these items being the primary outcome (perceived usefulness, participant satisfaction, and likelihood of using the skills). At each remaining time point, the participants complete all study measures minus treatment expectations and satisfaction. Participants who do not have current OUD will be assessed for historical OUD, with presence of OUD (yes or no), and history of OUD (yes or no) reported separately. Feasibility threshold is set as an overall group treatment satisfaction rating of 8 of 10. In-depth qualitative interviews will be conducted with about 10 participants to obtain additional data on patient perceptions, satisfactions, needs, and wants. To assess preliminary efficacy, we will examine changes in pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain bothersomeness, sleep disturbance, pain interference, depression, anxiety, physical function, global impression of change, and opioid craving at 1 month post treatment. RESULTS: This project opened to enrollment in September 2021 and completed the recruitment in October 2023. The data collection was completed in February 2024. Results are expected to be published in late 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this trial will inform the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of Empowered Relief in this population and will inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial testing web-based Empowered Relief in chronic pain and comorbid OUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05057988; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05057988. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/53784.

What are medical students taught about persistent physical symptoms? A scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Persistent Physical Symptoms (PPS) include symptoms such as chronic pain, and syndromes such as chronic fatigue. They are common, but are often inadequately managed, causing distress and higher costs for health care systems. A lack of teaching about PPS has been recognised as a contributing factor to poor management. METHODS: The authors conducted a scoping review of the literature, including all studies published before 31 March 2023. Systematic methods were used to determine what teaching on PPS was taking place for medical undergraduates. Studies were restricted to publications in English and needed to include undergraduate medical students. Teaching about cancer pain was excluded. After descriptive data was extracted, a narrative synthesis was undertaken to analyse qualitative findings. RESULTS: A total of 1116 studies were found, after exclusion, from 3 databases. A further 28 studies were found by searching the grey literature and by citation analysis. After screening for relevance, a total of 57 studies were included in the review. The most commonly taught condition was chronic non-cancer pain, but overall, there was a widespread lack of teaching and learning on PPS. Several factors contributed to this lack including: educators and learners viewing the topic as awkward, learners feeling that there was no science behind the symptoms, and the topic being overlooked in the taught curriculum. The gap between the taught curriculum and learners' experiences in practice was addressed through informal sources and this risked stigmatising attitudes towards sufferers of PPS. CONCLUSION: Faculties need to find ways to integrate more teaching on PPS and address the barriers outlined above. Teaching on chronic non-cancer pain, which is built on a science of symptoms, can be used as an exemplar for teaching on PPS more widely. Any future teaching interventions should be robustly evaluated to ensure improvements for learners and patients.

Blood cadmium level as a risk factor for chronic pain: NHANES database 1999-2004.

Objective: The escalating prevalence of chronic pain poses a substantial socio-economic burden. Chronic pain primarily stems from musculoskeletal and nervous system impairments. Given cadmium's known toxicity to these systems, our study sought to investigate the correlation between blood cadmium levels and chronic pain. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999-2004), and comprised US adults who participated in a chronic pain interview. We employed logistic regression models and smooth curve fitting to elucidate the relationship between blood cadmium levels and chronic pain. Results: Our findings revealed a linear association between blood cadmium levels and chronic pain. Compared to the lower blood cadmium tertile 1 (<0.3 ug/dL), the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for tertile 2 (0.3-0.4 ug/dL), and tertile 3 (≥0.5 ug/dL), were 1.11 (0.96-1.29) and 1.2 (1.03-1.39), respectively. Sensitivity analyses corroborated these results. Conclusion: Elevated levels of blood cadmium are associated with a heightened risk of chronic pain among adults in the United States. Mitigating cadmium exposure could potentially decrease the risk of chronic pain, thereby enhancing strategies for chronic pain prevention and management.

Comparative analysis of centrally mediated and inflammatory pain experiences amongst patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis: A multimethods study.

BACKGROUND: The identification of pain originating from distinct biological processes may lead to individualised pain treatment. In this study, we aimed to explore the pain experiences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), differentiating between those predominantly exhibiting features of peripheral inflammatory versus centrally mediated pain. METHODS: Through a multimethods approach we (i) quantitatively analysed the differences in pain descriptors between patients diagnosed with RA experiencing peripheral inflammatory and centrally mediated pain, utilising the Short Form-McGill Pain Questionnaire which includes the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and (ii) qualitatively explored their subjective pain experiences grounded in the biopsychosocial model, commonly applied in chronic pain. RESULTS: Participants with centrally mediated pain reported higher pain scores on the VAS, used a wider range of pain descriptors, and a higher proportion selected each descriptor compared to those with inflammatory pain (p < .001). The qualitative analysis revealed the centrally mediated pain group's experiences were overwhelming and relentless, struggling to precisely articulate the nature of their pain. In contrast, individuals with inflammatory pain expressed their pain in more tangible terms and shared their adaptive and coping strategies. Importantly, both groups revealed the substantial psychological, functional and social impacts of their pain, highlighting the often 'invisible' and misunderstood nature of their symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study has gained a deeper insight into the pain experiences of patients living with RA, particularly in differentiating between centrally mediated and inflammatory types of pain, potentially facilitating a more individualised approach to pain treatment. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients actively participated in the study conception and design. This engagement includes collaboration with key stakeholders, such as members of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and Patient Research Partners (PRPs), who provided continuous feedback and guidance throughout the research process. Specifically, the qualitative element was coproduced with two PRPs, who were involved in co-leading the focus groups and data analysis.

Cannabis Co-Use Among Black Individuals with Chronic Pain Who Use Opioids: Associations with Other Substance Use and Pain Related Outcomes.

Background Black individuals with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain tend to experience worse pain and opioid use-related outcomes, including other substance co-use, compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Co-using cannabis with opioids could instigate a cascade of pain-related vulnerabilities and poor outcomes. Here, we test associations between cannabis/opioid co-use and pain-related outcomes among Black individuals with chronic MSK pain. Methods Black adults with chronic MSK pain who use opioids (N=401; 51.62% female, Mage=35.90, SD=11.03) completed online measures of pain intensity/interference, emotional distress, opioid dependence, and risky use of other substances. Results Compared with opioid use alone, opioid and cannabis co-use was associated with elevated anxiety and depression symptoms, opioid dependence, and risky substance use, but not pain. Conclusions Black individuals with chronic MSK pain who co-use opioids and cannabis warrant targeted interventions that address their needs. Tailored interventions could help address disparities in pain-related outcomes and opioid morbidity and mortality rates.

Collaborative Care for Chronic Pain After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is prevalent and associated with poor outcomes. By providing multidisciplinary care through expert consultation, a collaborative care (CC) treatment approach may reduce pain interference. Objective: To compare CC with usual care (UC) in decreasing pain interference. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2018 through April 2021 at 2 hospital-based academic rehabilitation medicine clinics in Seattle, Washington. Participants included adults with mild-to-severe TBI (at least 6 months before enrollment) and chronic pain. Data analysis was performed from March 30, 2022, to August 30, 2023. Intervention: The CC intervention (called TBI Care) included up to 12 in-person or telephone visits over 16 weeks with a care manager (CM) who provided person-centered cognitive behavioral treatment. The CM met weekly with members of the expert team to review participants and discuss recommendations to optimize treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain interference on the Brief Pain Inventory at treatment conclusion (4 months after randomization). Secondary outcomes included pain interference at 8 months; pain severity; symptoms of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance; pain-related emergency department visits; community participation; and participant satisfaction. Linear mixed-effects regression was used for analysis. Results: A total of 1379 individuals were screened for eligibility, and 158 were randomized (79 to CC and 79 to UC). The participants were mostly women (92 participants [58%]) with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (13.2) years and a mean (SD) of 15.3 (3.0) years of education. TBI occurred a mean (SD) of 4.0 (5.9) years (median [IQR], 1.9 [0.8-4.5] years) before enrollment. All TBI severities were included, and of 149 participants for whom TBI severity was known, the majority (97 participants [65%]) had mild TBI. In the CC group, 71 participants (90%) completed at least 11 sessions, and, at 4 months, this group had significantly lower pain interference scores compared with the UC group (mean [SD], 3.46 [2.17] vs 5.03 [2.28]). This difference was maintained at 8 months after randomization, with mean (SD) TBI care pain interference scores of 3.61 (2.22) for CC vs 4.68 (2.51) for UC. At 4 months, there was significantly lower pain severity in the CC group vs UC group (mean [SD] score, 3.63 [1.95] vs 4.90 [1.96]), as well as symptoms of depression (mean [SD] score, 8.07 [5.34] vs 11.31 [6.37]) and anxiety (mean [SD], 6.20 [5.17] vs 9.58 [6.00]). Satisfaction with pain treatment (mean [SD] score, 2.99 [1.23] vs 2.52 [1.25]), clinical care (mean [SD] score, 3.28 [1.00] vs 2.84 [1.26]), and overall health care (mean [SD] score, 3.25 [0.88] vs 2.82 [1.00]) were significantly higher in the CC group vs the UC group; global impression of change was significantly lower in the CC group vs the UC group (mean [SD] score, 2.74 [1.02] vs 3.47 [1.26]) (lower scores denote a better impression of change). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of CC compared with UC for patients with TBI, CC was effective at reducing pain interference and was sustained at 8-month follow-up. Further research is needed to examine the implementation and cost-effectiveness of CC for TBI in other health care settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03523923.

Longitudinal multisite study of the chronobiological control of chronic pain: the CircaHealth CircaPain study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: One in five Canadians lives with chronic pain. Evidence shows that some individuals experience pain that fluctuates in intensity following a circadian (24-hour) rhythm. Endogenous molecular rhythms regulate the function of physiological processes that govern pain mechanisms. Addressing chronic pain rhythmicity on a molecular and biopsychosocial level can advance understanding of the disease and identify new treatment/management strategies. Our CircaHealth CircaPain study uses an online survey combined with ecological momentary assessments and biosample collection to investigate the circadian control of chronic pain and identify potential biomarkers. Our primary objective is to understand interindividual variability in pain rhythmicity, by collecting biopsychosocial measures. The secondary objective accounts for seasonal variability and the effect of latitude on rhythmicity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following completion of a baseline questionnaire, participants complete a series of electronic symptom-tracking diaries to rate their pain intensity, negative affect, fatigue and stress on a 0-10 scale at 8:00, 14:00 and 20:00 daily over 10 days. These measures are repeated at 6 and 12 months postenrolment to account for potential seasonal changes. We aim to recruit ≥2500 adults with chronic pain within Canada. Infrastructure is being developed to facilitate the collection of blood samples from subgroups of participants (~800) two times per day over 24-48 hours to identify rhythmic expression of circulating genes and/or proteins. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained by the Queen's University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board (File No. 6038114). Participants provide informed consent to participate, and their data will not be identifiable in any publication or report. Findings will be published in a relevant scientific journal and disseminated at scientific meetings and online webinars. We maintain a website to post updated resources and engage with the community. We employ knowledge mobilisation in the form of direct data sharing with participants.

Effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme on the physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain compared with a standard back school programme: protocol for a randomised controlled study (END-LC).

INTRODUCTION: Education is recognised as an effective and necessary approach in chronic low back pain. Nevertheless, data regarding the effectiveness of education in promoting physical activity in the medium term or long term are still limited, as are the factors that could lead to successful outcomes. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme compared with traditional back school on physical activity 3 months and 1 year after educational sessions coupled with a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme. Additionally, we seek to evaluate the effects of these educational interventions on various factors, including pain intensity and psychobehavioural factors. Finally, our goal is to identify the determinants of success in educational sessions combined with the rehabilitation programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will involve 82 adults with chronic low back pain. It will be a monocentric, open, controlled, randomised, superiority trial with two parallel arms: an experimental group, 'pain neuroscience education', and a control group, 'back school'. The primary outcome is the average number of steps taken at home over a week, measured by an actigraph. Secondary outcomes include behavioural assessments. Descriptive and inferential analysis will be conducted. Multivariate modelling will be performed using actimetric data and data from the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee for Personal Protection of Ile de France VII (CPP) gave a favourable opinion on 22 June 2023 (National number: 2023-A00346-39). The study was previously registered with the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (IDRCB: 2023-A00346-39). Participants signed an informed consent during the inclusion visit. This protocol is the version submitted to the CPP entitled 'Protocol Version N°1 of 03/29/2023'. The results of the study will be presented nationally and internationally through conferences and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840302.

Effectiveness of in-group versus individually administered pain neuroscience education on clinical and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled study protocol.

Objective: (1) This trial will compare the clinical and psychosocial effectiveness of in-group and individually pain neuroscience education (PNE) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). In addition, (2) the influence of social determinants of health on post-treatment results will be analyzed. Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Sixty-nine participants with CLBP will be recruited in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants, assessor, and statistician will be blinded to group assignment. The PNE intervention will be adapted to the context of the participants. An experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an in-group modality, the other experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an individually modality and the control group (n = 33) will continue with usual care. Additionally, participants will be encouraged to stay active by walking for 20-30 min 3-5 times per week and will be taught an exercise to improve transversus abdominis activation (bracing or abdominal following). The outcome measures will be fear avoidance and beliefs, pressure pain threshold, pain self-efficacy, catastrophizing, pain intensity, and treatment expectation. Outcome measures will be collected at one-week before intervention, immediately post-intervention, and four-weeks post-intervention. Conclusion: The innovative approach of PNE oriented to fear beliefs proposed in this study could broaden the application strategies of this educational therapeutic modality. Impact. Contextualized PNE delivered by physical therapist could be essential to achieve a good cost-effectiveness ratio of this intervention to improve the clinical condition of people with CLBP.

Cryoneurolysis versus radiofrequency ablation outcome on pain experience in chronic low back pain (COPE): a single-blinded randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: A comparison of cryoneurolysis or radio frequency (RF) with placebo in patients with facetogenic chronic low back pain (LBP) for patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, function and quality of life, with 1-year follow-up. DESIGN: Single-centre, single-blinded placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single-centre study. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion from March 2020 to September 2022: consenting adults over 18 years of age, LBP>3 months, average Numeric Rating Scale LBP≥4 average last 14 days and a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block (>50% pain reduction after 60 min). INTERVENTIONS: 120 patients were block randomised 1:1:1 to cryoneurolysis, RF or placebo of the medial branch nerves. Physical therapy was added after 4 weeks for all groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was PGIC 4 weeks after the intervention. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), quality of life (Short Form 36, EQ-5D-5L), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), depression (Major Depression Inventory) and catastrophising (Pain Catastrophising Scale). Outcomes were measured at 4 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in PGIC at 4 weeks between cryoneurolysis and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2; 95% CI 0.75 to 5.33, p=0.17) and RF and placebo (RR 1.6; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.49, p=0.37), except PGIC for cryoneurolysis at 6-month follow-up (RR 5.1; 95% CI 1.20 to 22.03, p=0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in secondary follow-up endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Denervation of the medial branch nerve by either cryoneurolysis or RF compared with placebo did not demonstrate significant improvement in PGIC, pain intensity, function and quality of life in patients with facetogenic chronic LBP at short-term or long-term follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04786145.

Implementation of an integrated primary care prevention and management program for chronic low back pain (LBP): patient-reported outcomes and predictors of pain interference after six months.

BACKGROUND: Integrated primary care programs for patients living with chronic pain which are accessible, interdisciplinary, and patient-centered are needed for preventing chronicity and improving outcomes. Evaluation of the implementation and impact of such programs supports further development of primary care chronic pain management. This study examined patient-reported outcomes among individuals with low back pain (LBP) receiving care in a novel interdisciplinary primary care program. METHODS: Patients were referred by primary care physicians in four regions of Quebec, Canada, and eligible patients received an evidence-based interdisciplinary pain management program over a six-month period. Patients were screened for risk of chronicity. Patient-reported outcome measures of pain interference and intensity, physical function, depression, and anxiety were evaluated at regular intervals over the six-month follow-up. A multilevel regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics at baseline, including risk of chronicity, and change in pain outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-four individuals (mean age 55.4y, 63% female) completed the program. The majority (≥ 60%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity and interference at six months. Patients with moderate (71%) or high risk (81%) of chronicity showed greater improvement in pain interference than those with low risk (51%). Significant predictors of improvement in pain interference included a higher risk of chronicity, younger age, female sex, and lower baseline disability. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this novel LBP program will inform wider implementation considerations by identifying key components for further effectiveness, sustainability, and scale-up of the program.

Cross-sectional study of psychiatric disorders in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and individuals without pain.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal chronic pain is a leading cause of global disability and laboral incapacity. However, there is a lack of population-based studies that investigate the relationship between chronic pain and mental disorders with a control group, particularly among low- and middle-income countries. Chronic pain is a serious public health problem in terms of human suffering, and in terms of socioeconomic implications. Frequent association with different mental disorders increases disability, decreases quality of life, and makes diagnosis and treatment challenging. The present study aimed to evaluate the presence of mental disorders in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and compare with a control group without pain. METHODS: We selected 100 patients in a regular follow-up at the Musculoskeletal Pain Outpatient Clinic of the University Hospital and compared them with 100 painless individuals from the control group from June 2016 to June 2018. The instruments used were the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI-PLUS) and a structured questionnaire to collect sociodemographic data. Statistical analysis used t-test, chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: In the sample evaluated, the majority of patients were women (83%), of brown color (54%), with lower-level education (51%), lower salary range (73%) and high absenteeism rate at work (60,7%). Patients with chronic pain had more psychiatric disorders (88% vs. 48% in the control group; p < 0.001). The most frequent diagnoses were anxiety disorders with panic attacks (44%), generalized anxiety (36%), mixed anxiety and depression disorder (33%), social phobia (30%), agoraphobia (29%), suicide risk (28%), and major depression (27%). CONCLUSION: Positive correlations of mental disorders and chronic musculoskeletal pain have been documented. This suggests that psychiatric components must be taken into account in the management of chronic pain syndromes. The use of Mini Plus as a diagnostic tool for psychiatric disorders can contribute to optimizing the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic pain and encourage the creation of policies with strategies and criteria for quick access to Multi-professional Services.