Pain
-
There is growing acceptance for combining complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies with standard rehabilitative care (SRC) for chronic pain management, yet little evidence on the best sequence of therapies. We investigated whether starting with CIH therapies or SRC is more effective in reducing pain impact. Participants were 280 service members with predominantly (88%) musculoskeletal chronic pain referred to an interdisciplinary pain management center who were randomized to a twice weekly program of either CIH therapies (n = 140) or SRC (n = 140) for the 3-week first stage of treatment. ⋯ At end of stage 1, pain impact decreased significantly more in the CIH group (29.8 points [SD 7.2] at baseline to 26.3 points [SD 7.9], change of -3.3 points [95% confidence interval, -4.2 to -2.5]) than in the SRC group (30.8 [SD 7.6] to 29.4 [SD 7.8], change of -0.9 points [95% confidence interval, -1.8 to -0.1]; P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed after 6 weeks of treatment nor at 3- or 6-month follow-ups. Complementary and integrative health therapies may provide earlier improvement in pain impact than SRC, but this difference is not sustained.
-
Pain clinical trials are notoriously complex and often inefficient in demonstrating efficacy, even for known efficacious treatments. A major issue is the difficulty in the a priori identification of specific phenotypes to include in the study population. Recent work has identified the extent of widespread pain as an important determinant of the likelihood of response to therapy, but it has not been tested in clinical trials for the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS). ⋯ Participants with predominately local pain (ie, limited widespread pain symptoms) responded to therapy targeting local symptoms, whereas those with widespread pain did not. Alternatively, participants with widespread pain beyond their local pelvic pain responded to more centrally acting treatments. Our results suggest that differentiating patients based on widespread vs more localized pain is a key consideration for designing future clinical trials for conditions with variable pain profiles, such as IC/BPS and potentially other pain-based syndromic disorders.
-
Review Meta Analysis
The bidirectional relationship between sleep problems and chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Chronic musculoskeletal pain and sleep problems/disorders exhibit a recognized bidirectional relationship; yet, systematic investigations of this claim, particularly in a prospective context, are lacking. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the literature on the prospective associations between sleep problems/disorders and chronic musculoskeletal pain. A comprehensive search across 6 databases identified prospective longitudinal cohort studies in adults examining the relationship between sleep problems/disorders and chronic musculoskeletal pain. ⋯ Chronic musculoskeletal pain at baseline may increase the risk of short-term sleep problems (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.02-2.38), but long-term evidence was very uncertain. The impact of only local or only widespread pain on short-term sleep problems was very uncertain, whereas widespread pain may elevate the risk of long-term sleep problems (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.81-2.21). In conclusion, this systematic review with meta-analysis suggests that sleep problems are associated with an increased risk of chronic musculoskeletal pain, but the bidirectional nature of this relationship requires further investigation.
-
Establishing clinically meaningful changes in pain experiences remains important for clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Regulatory guidance and pain measurement initiatives have recommended including patient-reported global assessment measures (eg, Patient-Global Impression of Change [PGIC]) to aid interpretation of within-patient differences in domain-specific clinical trial outcomes (eg, pain intensity). The objectives of this systematic review were to determine the frequency of global assessment measures inclusion, types of measures, domains assessed, number and types of response options, and how measures were analyzed. ⋯ Response options and reference periods even differed within the PGIC. Global assessment measures were most commonly analyzed as continuous variables (n = 24; 46.2%) or as dichotomous variables with positive categories combined to calculate the proportion of participants with a positive response to treatment (n = 18; 34.6%). This review highlights the substantial work necessary to clarify measurement and use of patient global assessment in chronic pain trials and provides short- and long-term considerations for measure selection, reporting and analysis, and measure development.