Should Physicians Disclose Their Own Health Challenges? Perspectives of Patients With Chronic Pain.

This study explores how patients with chronic pain view the impact of physician self-disclosure on the patient-physician relationship. We conducted mixed-methods analyses of a cross-sectional survey eliciting experiences and attitudes regarding physician self-disclosure among 934 adults with self-reported chronic pain. Patients with chronic pain commonly recalled experiences of physician self-disclosure, most often "small talk" or physicians' disclosure of their own chronic pain. Patients generally rated these experiences to be beneficial. Patients frequently said they would benefit from seeing a physician who has had chronic pain, or that they would want their physician to self-disclose their own chronic pain. Those who had never experienced self-disclosure were more likely to want their physician to self-disclose their own chronic pain. Nonetheless, patients held varying perspectives toward the advantages and disadvantages of physician self-disclosure, believing that self-disclosure could either positively or negatively impact the patient-physician relationship and care and communication.

Scrambler Therapy for the Treatment of Pain in Schwannomatosis.

Schwannomatosis patients (SP) suffer from chronic nerve pain that is often inadequately relieved. Scrambler therapy (ST) can relieve neuropathic pain quickly, safely, and inexpensively. We successfully treated a patient who had disabling leg pain with five daily sessions of ST, each for 40 minutes. She had complete relief of pain and hyperalgesia, with return to normal function, by day 5, that has persisted for at least three weeks. This article briefly describes Schwannomatosis, scrambler therapy, and the need for further research to ascertain the best way to use this neuromodulation.

Understanding the role of patient preference in the treatment algorithm for chronic low back pain: results from a survey-based study.

Aims: Interventional pain treatments range from injections to established radiofrequency ablation techniques and finally neuromodulation. In addition to safety, efficacy and cost dominance, patient preference for type of treatment is important. Methods: Chronic pain patients (n = 129) completed a preference scale to determine which interventional pain management procedures they would prefer from among radiofrequency ablation, temporary (60-day) peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), conventional PNS and spinal cord stimulation/dorsal root ganglion stimulation. A second survey (n = 347) specific to assessing the preference for radiofrequency ablation or temporary PNS treatment was completed by patients with low back pain. Results: On the basis of mean rank, temporary PNS percutaneously implanted for up to 60 days was the most preferred treatment compared with the other options presented (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Patient preference should be unbiased and considered as an independent variable for physician discussion in treatment options and future research.

Patient preference is an important variable for physicians to consider when discussing treatment options for low back pain. A consumer survey study was completed discussing patient preference among various invasive treatments for low back pain. When given scenarios discussing risks and benefits of each procedure (temporary peripheral nerve stimulation for 60 days, heat ablation of small back nerves and permanently implanted back pain devices) temporary peripheral nerve stimulation was considered the preferred option.

Successful spinal cord stimulation for chronic pancreatitis and post-laminectomy pain.

Approximately one in five adults in the United States experiences chronic pain. Over the last 50 years, spinal cord stimulation has become increasingly recognized as a minimally invasive, efficacious treatment modality for the management of chronic pain. The authors report a case study of a 46-year-old female in the first documented spinal cord stimulation simultaneously targeting intractable neuropathic and visceral pain caused by post-laminectomy syndrome and chronic pancreatitis, respectively. This case study demonstrates near-total relief of the patient's neuropathic low back/leg pain and visceral epigastric pain, showing evidence of potential clinical usefulness for spinal cord stimulation as a treatment option in patients who present with a combination of visceral and somatic pain symptoms.

Lay abstract Approximately one in five adults in the United States experiences chronic pain. Over the last 50 years, a treatment for chronic pain referred to as spinal cord stimulation has become a promising alternative to back surgery and may minimize the need for strong opioid pain medications. The authors report a case study of a 46-year-old female patient who suffered from chronic pain following back surgery as well as persistent pain from chronic pancreatitis. This case study demonstrates the use of spinal cord stimulation to provide near-total relief of the patient's low back/leg pain and pain from visceral inflammatory symptoms.

Mission Reborn in the COVID Crisis.

The COVID crisis continues to affect many in ways which have led to health, economic, and personal loss of no small consequence. All of us have a unique and personal perspective on the pandemic. I share my experience as a front-line attending physician caring for critically ill COVID patients in the intensive care unit, and how it relates to the call of mission we receive as Catholic physicians.

Retrospective analysis on the effect of spinal cord stimulation on opioid consumption.

Aim: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used to clinically manage and/or treat several chronic pain etiologies. A limited amount is known about the influence on patients' use of opioid pain medication. This retrospective analysis evaluated SCS effect on opioid consumption in patients presenting with chronic pain conditions. Materials & methods: Sixty-seven patients underwent a temporary trial device, permanent implant or both. Patients were divided for assessment based on the nature of their procedure(s). Primary outcome was change in morphine equivalent dose (MED), ascertained from preoperative and postoperative medication reports. Results: Postoperative MED was significantly lower in patients who received some form of neuromodulation therapy. Pretrial patients reported an average MED of 41.01 ± 10.23 mg per day while post-trial patients reported an average of 13.30 ± 5.34 mg per day (p < 0.001). Pre-implant patients reported an average MED of 39.14 ± 13.52 mg per day while post-implant patients reported an average MED of 20.23 ± 9.01 mg per day (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between pre-trial and pre-implant MED, nor between post-trial and post-implant MED. Of the 42 study subjects who reported some amount of pre-intervention opioid use, 78.57% indicated a lower MED (n = 33; p < 0.001), 16.67% indicated no change (n = 7) and 4.76% (n = 2) indicated a higher MED, following intervention. Moreover, SCS therapy resulted in a 26.83% reduction (p < 0.001) in the number of patients with MED >50 mg per day. Conclusion: Spinal cord stimulation may reduce opioid use when implemented appropriately. Neuromodulation may represent alternative therapy for alleviating chronic pain which may avoid a number of deleterious side effects commonly associated with opioid consumption.

What Clinicians and Health Professions Students Should Learn About How Pharmaceutical Marketing Influences Opioid Prescribing and Patient Outcomes.

Marketing drugs and devices to clinicians affects their prescribing behaviors, drives up health care costs, and increases risk of harm to patients. This article canvasses what clinicians and health professions students should know about undue influence of drug and device marketing on their practices. It also considers policy changes that would better protect patients and better situate clinicians to care for patients and communities in ways that are ethical, safe, and effective.

Time-dependent change in pain threshold following neurolytic celiac plexus block.

Aim: To determine the long-term effect of ethanol relative to the re-occurrence of pain in postneurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) patients. Patients & methods: A noninterventional study on 31 patients who had undergone NCPB to illustrate the average change of pain score over time. Results: All NCPB patients reported a pain score decrease of 83.8% right after the procedure. 73% of patients reported 50-66% decrease in pain 80-100 days postprocedure. The temporal threshold for the return of pain scores to average preblock level was determined to be 103 post-NCPB procedure days. Conclusion: In this study, NCPB patients demonstrate return of pain to baseline subsequent to the analgesic effects of ethanol after a mean 103 days.

Advanced Image-Guided Procedures for Painful Spine.

In addition to basic image-guided injections, there are many advanced procedures to address the challenges of spine pain. Patients with debilitating symptoms are offered relief, a shorter recovery period, and fewer potential complications. Pain arises from numerous sites along the spine, presenting as spine pain or radiculopathy. This article is an overview of advanced techniques in this rapidly progressing field, including neuromodulation, radiofrequency thermocoagulation, discography, intradiscal thermocoagulation, and percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression; and it highlights etiologic factors and their relationship to therapeutic technique and clinical evidence.

Interventional treatments for metastatic bone cancer pain.

Metastatic bone cancer pain may cause significant morbidity among the cancer patient population. Painful bone lesions are challenging to manage due to the aggressive pathophysiology of the pain generator involved. The WHO's approach to cancer pain treatment involves the use of a three-step ladder which provides a guideline for clinicians to treat patients who struggle from cancer pain syndromes. It is possible that this ladder is no longer helpful for patients who continue to fail oral or transdermal medication options. A fourth step in the cancer pain ladder has been proposed to include interventional approaches to cancer pain management. This review will discuss opioid therapy, radium-223, denosumab and bisphosphonate therapy, but will primarily review the available interventional treatment options for metastatic bone cancer pain.

Scrambler Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Central Pain: A Case Report.

Central pain syndromes affect several million people worldwide. A 52-year-old woman had central pain manifest as burning pain from her left foot to the knee for 12 years after treatment for a medullary cavernoma diagnosed after a right-sided brainstem bleeding episode. All this time, her baseline pain was 5-6/10 with spikes to 9-10/10 during activity. She underwent 10 daily Scrambler (Calmare) Therapy treatments (GEOMC, Inc, Seoul, Korea) with reduction in her pain from 9-10/10 to 0-0.5/10, then 5 more sessions a month later. Her baseline pain stayed at 2/10 at 140 days with spikes only to 5/10, and no additional medications. Scrambler (Calmare) Therapy deserves further study in central pain.

Global cancer pain management: a systematic review comparing trials in Africa, Europe and North America.

AIM: Despite the rise in cancer survivorship, few reviews have examined the quality of studies of cancer pain management and practices around the globe. With a void in trials spanning multiple geographical settings, this review evaluates the quality of cancer trials across three continents. MATERIALS & METHODS: A literature review and search of established databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. The Cochrane method, the Jadad Score and a cancer pain-specific ad hoc tool were used to evaluate quality of studies. RESULTS: Eighteen studies representing a total of 4693 individuals were included in the review. Study quality correlated positively with study sample size and palliative care index. Trials in all three continents were prone to use opioids for pain management, whereas trials in Europe and North America utilized other adjuvant therapies such as antidepressants and steroids. CONCLUSION: This review underscores the need for better multidimensional quality assessment tools for cancer pain trials.

Connecting the Dots: A Comparative Global Multi-Institutional Study of Prohibitive Factors Affecting Cancer Pain Management.

Objective: The goal of this study was to elucidate the attitudes, beliefs, and barriers interfering with cancer pain management, the degree of barrier interference with trainees' care of patients, and the relationships among prohibitive factors to pain management for physicians in a low­middle-income countries (LMICs) vs high-income countries (HICs). Design and Setting: A multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of physicians in specialties with a focus in pain management training was performed. All surveys were completed anonymously from July 1, 2015, to November 30, 2015. Subjects: One hundred and twenty physicians participated in the survey. Methods: Surveys were based on prior questionnaires published in the literature. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and chi-square (ℵ2) analysis, Fisher's exact test, and Spearman rank correlation analyses were performed. Results: Compared with their peers in HICs, physicians in LMICs reported less experience with cancer pain management despite seeing more cancer patients with advanced disease (41% vs 15.2%, p < 0.05). Some barriers were common to both environments, but a few were unique to each setting. Organized by percentage of severity of interference, cultural values/beliefs about pain (84% vs 76%) and lack of training and expertise (87% vs 78%) were significantly more prohibitive for physicians in LMICs than those in HICs; p < 0.05. Conclusion: There are significant differences in perceived barriers and degree of prohibitive factors to cancer pain management among trainee physicians in low- vs high-resource environments. Understanding these differences may spur further collaboration in the design of contextually relevant solutions, which could potentially help improve the adequacy of cancer pain management

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations on Intrathecal Drug Infusion Systems Best Practices and Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment is best performed when a patient-centric, safety-based philosophy is used to determine an algorithmic process to guide care. Since 2007, the International Neuromodulation Society has organized a group of experts to evaluate evidence and create a Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) to guide practice. METHODS: The current PACC update was designed to address the deficiencies and innovations emerging since the previous PACC publication of 2012. An extensive literature search identified publications between January 15, 2007 and November 22, 2015 and authors contributed additional relevant sources. After reviewing the literature, the panel convened to determine evidence levels and degrees of recommendations for intrathecal therapy. This meeting served as the basis for consensus development, which was ranked as strong, moderate or weak. Algorithms were developed for intrathecal medication choices to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain for patients with cancer, terminal illness, and noncancer pain, with either localized or diffuse pain. RESULTS: The PACC has developed an algorithmic process for several aspects of intrathecal drug delivery to promote safe and efficacious evidence-based care. Consensus opinion, based on expertise, was used to fill gaps in evidence. Thirty-one consensus points emerged from the panel considerations. CONCLUSION: New algorithms and guidance have been established to improve care with the use of intrathecal drug delivery.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Guidance for Improving Safety and Mitigating Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal therapy is an important part of the pain treatment algorithm for chronic disease states. The use of this option is a viable treatment strategy, but it is inherent for pain physicians to understand risk assessment and mitigation. In this manuscript, we explore evidence and mitigating strategies to improve safety with intrathecal therapy. METHODS: A robust literature search was performed covering January 2011 to October 9, 2016, in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Biomed Central, Google Scholar, Current Contents Connect, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. The information was cross-referenced and compiled for evidence, analysis, and consensus review, with the intent to offer weighted recommendations and consensus statements on safety for targeted intrathecal therapy delivery. RESULTS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference has made several best practice recommendations to improve care and reduce morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy through all phases of management. The United States Prevention Service Task Force evidence level and consensus strength assessments are offered for each recommendation. CONCLUSION: Intrathecal therapy is a viable and relatively safe option for the treatment of cancer- and noncancer-related pain. Continued research and expert opinion are required to improve our current pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of intrathecal drug delivery, as this will undoubtedly improve safety and efficacy.