Search

Economic implications of pain management. By Loeser JD. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999; 43:957–95. Reprinted with permission. Multidisciplinary pain management was an invention of John J. Bonica, M.D. He started the Multidisciplinary Pain Clinic at the University of Washington in 1960. This clinical service evolved over the years, and when John Loeser, M.D., became its director in 1982, he collaborated with Bill Fordyce, Ph.D., to create what was known as "the structured program." The program has served as the model for pain treatment programs throughout the world, many of which have fared better than that at the University of Washington. The migration of Stephen Butler, M.D., to Uppsala, Sweden, in 2000 has given us the opportunity to contrast multidisciplinary pain management in the Nordic countries with that in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The traditional construct of acute pain vs chronic pain is arbitrary and obscures fundamental differences in clinical pain phenomena. A more powerful dichotomy between peripherally generated pain and centrally maintained pains can facilitate advances in both pain research and clinical care. We should abandon the temporally based pain classification scheme because it does not accurately reflect the underlying principles inherent in the phenomena of pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This interesting letter to the editor[2] does not really address the issues raised in my paper, A New Way of Thinking About Pains.[1] My concern was the fallacy of a temporally based classification of pains, and I did not address the utilities of painful states, which is Manhapra's concern. It is certainly possible to describe a variety of roles for pain and suffering, which are usually based on the describer's belief system rather than something inherent in pain itself. 2022; 163: 1670-4. 2 Manhapra A. Rethinking clinically significant pain: a marker of recovery rather than a warning of injury. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents a clinical practice guideline's study which has developed evidence-based recommendations on use of invasive diagnostic tests, interventional therapies, surgeries and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain, with or without leg pain. The recommendations by the multidisciplinary panel from the American Pain Society were based on a systematic review that focused on evidence from randomized controlled trials. A total of eight recommendations were developed.

A man in his 50''s with a prior traumatic brain injury and multiple psychiatric disorders developed acute pain and swelling in his left leg distal to the mid shin. These symptoms arose during an exacerbation of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among his traumatic memories, he reported having witnessed the combat injury and death of a friend who had lost his left leg distal to the mid shin. A diagnosis of conversion disorder was technically excluded because the findings met criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) type I. Based on recent research into the neurobiology of CRPS, PTSD and conversion disorder, we propose a supraspinal mechanism which could explain how emotional stress can produce both symptoms and signs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in relieving pain and improving functioning for patients with failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). We also reviewed SCS complications. Literature searches yielded 583 articles, of which seven met the inclusion criteria for the review of SCS effectiveness, and 15 others met the criteria only for the review of SCS complications. Two authors independently extracted data from each article, and then resolved discrepancies by discussion. We identified only one randomized trial, which found that physical therapy (PT) plus SCS, compared with PT alone, had a statistically significant but clinically modest effect at 6 and 12 months in relieving pain among patients with CRPS. Similarly, six other studies of much lower methodological quality suggest mild to moderate improvement in pain with SCS. Pain relief with SCS appears to decrease over time. The one randomized trial suggested no benefits of SCS in improving patient functioning. Although life-threatening complications with SCS are rare, other adverse events are frequent. On average, 34% of patients who received a stimulator had an adverse occurrence. We conclude with suggestions for methodologically stronger studies to provide more definitive data regarding the effectiveness of SCS in relieving pain and improving functioning, short- and long-term, among patients with chronic pain syndromes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has become the leading professional association dedicated to promoting pain research and management. Through its many activities, including research funding, educational programs, advocacy initiatives, and global collaborations, the Association has significantly contributed to the understanding and treatment of pain. Looking into the future, the IASP is determined to continue its mission of reducing the burden of pain on individuals and societies worldwide. Here, we explore how current and past activities of the IASP will shape the future of pain research, treatment, education, and advocacy as well as provide a valuable service to its members across the world., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)