No abstract

Increasing concern about the risks and limited evidence supporting the therapeutic benefit of long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain are leading prescribers to consider discontinuing the use of opioids. In addition to overt addiction or diversion, the presence of adverse effects, diminishing analgesia, reduced function and quality of life, or the absence of progress toward functional goals can justify an attempt at weaning patients from long-term opioid therapy. However, discontinuing opioid therapy is often hindered by patients' psychiatric comorbidities and poor coping skills, as well as the lack of formal guidelines for the prescribers. The aim of this article is to review the existing literature and formulate recommendations for practitioners aiming to discontinue long-term opioid therapy. Specifically, this review aims to answer the following questions: What is an optimal opioid tapering regimen? How can the risks involved in a taper be managed? What are the alternatives to an opioid taper? A PubMed literature search was conducted using the keywords chronic pain combined with opioid withdrawal, taper, wean and detoxification. Six hundred ninety-five documents were identified and screened; 117 were deemed directly relevant and are included. On the base of this literature review, this article proposes evidence-based recommendations and expert-based suggestions for clinical practice. Furthermore, areas of lack of evidence are identified, providing opportunities for further research.

ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical outcomes and health care utilization at 12 months post spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation compared with baseline and a matched sample of patients receiving conventional medical management (CMM) for the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain.PatientsA retrospective study of patients with at least 24 months of active treatment at an interdisciplinary community pain center between December 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017. Thirty-two patients receiving implantation of a high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS and 64 patients receiving CMM were identified through propensity matching at a ratio of 2:1.MethodsData were extracted from medical records, including pain severity, prescribed opioid dose in morphine milligram equivalents, patient perception of disability, and volume of interventional pain procedures and total office visits to the pain center.ResultsReductions in opioid dose were significantly greater for the SCS group than the CMM group. The 26.2 mg morphine equivalent dose reduction represents a 28% reduction from baseline, with 71.4% of those prescribed opioids in the SCS group reducing their dose at 12 months post-implant. Among those with SCS, there were significant within-group reductions in numerical pain score for low back and lower extremity pain, reducing by 46.2% and 50.9% from baseline, respectively. Change in functional pain score was not significant for either SCS group or CMM. Both groups had significant within-group reduction in disability. Reduction of interventional procedure volume was significant for both groups with a greater reduction observed in the SCS group. Office visit volume reduction was significant for the CMM group, but this was not a significant difference from the SCS group.ConclusionsResults support the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS for analgesia, reduction of opioid utilization, reduction of interventional pain procedures, and patient perception of disability.

BackgroundIncreasing physical function is a challenging, yet imperative goal of pain management programs. Physical activity can improve physical function, but uptake is low due to chronic pain misconceptions, poor pain management skills, and doing too much too soon.PurposeTo increase physical function by 1) adapting an evidence-based, group, mind-body program to address the needs of patients with heterogeneous chronic pain and to facilitate individually tailored quota-based pacing with a Fitbit (GetActive with Fitbit) or without it (GetActive) (phase 1), and 2) assessing preliminary feasibility benchmarks (phase 2).MethodsWe followed evidence based frameworks for developing interventions and for early feasibility testing. In phase 1 we conducted 4 focus groups with 22 patients with heterogeneous chronic pain and adapted the mind-body program. In phase 2 we conducted a nonrandomized pilot trial of the 2 programs (N=7 and 6) with qualitative exit interviews.ResultsFocus groups showed high interest in increasing activity, a preference for walking linked to pleasurable activities, using a Fitbit to track number of steps, and learning skills to manage pain and aid with increased activity. Both programs had good to excellent feasibility markers. Participation in both programs was associated with signal of improvements in physical and emotional function, as well as intervention targets. Exit interviews confirmed high satisfaction and suggested modification.ConclusionResults informed subsequent adaptations of the 2 programs and methodology for an ongoing pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the 2 programs, necessary before an efficacy RCT of the 2 programs against an education control.

Objective Chronic Pain (CP) is a disabling illness, often comorbid with depression. We performed a randomized controlled pilot study on mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) targeting depression in a CP population. Methods Participants with CP lasting ≥ 3 months, DSM-IV Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Dysthymic Disorder, or Depressive disorder NOS, and a Quick Inventory of Depression scale (QIDS-C16) score ≥ 6 were randomized to MBCT (n = 26) or waitlist (n = 14). We adapted the original MBCT intervention for depression relapse prevention by modifying the psychoeducation and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) elements to an actively depressed chronic pain population. We analyzed an intent-to treat (ITT) and a per protocol sample; the per protocol sample included participants in the MBCT group who completed at least 4 out of 8 sessions. The change in the QIDS-C16 and Hamilton Rating Sale for Depression (HRSD17) were the primary outcome measures. Pain, quality of life and anxiety were secondary outcome measures. Data collection took place between January 2012 and July 2013. Results Nineteen (73%) participants completed the MBCT program. No significant adverse events were reported in either treatment group. ITT analysis (n=40) revealed no significant differences. Repeated measures ANOVAs for the per protocol sample (n=33) revealed a significant treatment × time interaction (F (1, 31) = 4.67, p = 0.039, η2p = 0.13) for the QIDS-C16, driven by a significant decrease in the MBCT group (t (18) = 5.15, p < 0.001, d = 1.6), but not in the control group (t (13) = 2.01, p = 0.066). The HRSD17 scores did not differ significantly between groups. The study ended before the projected sample size was obtained, which might have prevented effect detection in some outcome measures. Conclusions MBCT shows potential as a treatment for depression in individuals with CP, but larger controlled trials are needed. Trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01473615

The 12-item version of the SOAPP-R has potential as a short risk screener and should be tested prospectively.

PurposeThe importance of improved physical function as a primary outcome in the treatment of chronic pain is widely accepted. There have been limited attempts to assess the effects mindfulness skills training (MST) has on objective outcomes in chronic pain care.MethodsThis systematic review evaluated published reports of original randomized controlled trials that described physical function outcomes after MST in the chronic pain population and met methodological quality according to a list of predefined criteria. PRISMA criteria were used to identify and select studies, and assess their eligibility for inclusion. The established guidelines for best practice of systematic reviews were followed to report the results.ResultsOf the 2,818 articles identified from the original search of four electronic databases, inclusionary criteria were met by 15 studies published as of August 10, 2015, totaling 1,199 patients. All included studies used self-report measures of physical function, and only two studies also employed performance-based measures of function. There were wide variations in how physical function was conceptualized and measured. Although the quality of the studies was rated as high, there was inconclusive evidence for improvement in physical function assessed by self-report due to contradiction in individual study findings and the measures used to assess function. Strong evidence for lack of improvement in physical function assessed via performance-based measures was found.ConclusionThis review draws attention to the importance of having a unified approach to how physical function is conceptualized and assessed, as well as the importance of using quality performance-based measures in addition to subjective self-reports that appropriately assess the physical function construct within MSTs for chronic pain.

Background Chronic pain is associated with poor physical and emotional functioning. Nonpharmacological interventions can help, but improvements are small and not sustained. Previous clinical trials do not follow recommendations to comprehensively target objectively measured and performance-based physical function in addition to self-reported physical function. Objective This study aimed to establish feasibility benchmarks and explore improvements in physical (self-reported, performance based, and objectively measured) and emotional function, pain outcomes, and coping through a pilot randomized controlled trial of a mind-body physical activity program (GetActive) with and without a digital monitoring device (GetActive-Fitbit), which were iteratively refined through mixed methods. Methods Patients with chronic pain were randomized to the GetActive (n=41) or GetActive-Fitbit (n=41) programs, which combine relaxation, cognitive behavioral, and physical restoration skills and were delivered in person. They completed in-person assessments before and after the intervention. Performance-based function was assessed with the 6-min walk test, and step count was measured with an ActiGraph. Results Feasibility benchmarks (eg, recruitment, acceptability, credibility, therapist adherence, adherence to practice at home, ActiGraph wear, and client satisfaction) were good to excellent and similar in both programs. Within each program, we observed improvement in the 6-min walk test (mean increase=+41 m, SD 41.15; P<.001; effect size of 0.99 SD units for the GetActive group and mean increase=+50 m, SD 58.63; P<.001; effect size of 0.85 SD units for the GetActive-Fitbit group) and self-reported physical function (P=.001; effect size of 0.62 SD units for the GetActive group and P=.02; effect size of 0.38 SD units for the GetActive-Fitbit group). The mean step count increased only among sedentary patients (mean increase=+874 steps for the GetActive group and +867 steps for the GetActive-Fitbit group). Emotional function, pain intensity, pain coping, and mindfulness also improved in both groups. Participants rated themselves as much improved at the end of the program, and those in the GetActive-Fitbit group noted that Fitbit greatly helped with increasing their activity. Conclusions These preliminary findings support a fully powered efficacy trial of the two programs against an education control group. We present a model for successfully using the Initiative on the Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials criteria for a comprehensive assessment of physical function and following evidence-based models to maximize feasibility before formal efficacy testing. Trial Registration ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03412916; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03412916