Affect and Low Back Pain: More to Consider Than the Influence of Negative Affect Alone.

OBJECTIVES: Affect balance style, a measure of trait positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA), is predictive of pain and functioning in fibromyalgia and healthy individuals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the distribution of affect balance styles and the relationship between these styles and clinical factors in low back pain. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients with low back pain (N=443) completed questionnaires and were categorized as having 1 of 4 distinct affect balance styles: Healthy (high levels of PA and low levels of NA), Low (low PA/low NA), Reactive (high PA/high NA), and Depressive (low PA/high NA). Comparisons between groups were made in regard to pain, functioning, and psychiatric comorbidity. RESULTS: High NA was observed in 63% (n=281), whereas low PA was present in 81% (n=359). We found that having a Depressive style was associated with greater pain severity, increased odds for comorbid fibromyalgia, and worse functioning compared with having a Healthy or Low style. Yet, those with a Low style were at increased risk for depression compared with a Healthy style, whereas patients with a Reactive style had similar levels of pain, functioning, and depression as those with a Healthy affective style. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that there are important differences between trait affect balance styles in regard to pain, mood, and functioning in low back pain. Findings related to Reactive and Low affective styles suggest that relationships between affect, pain, and disability in low back pain extend beyond considering NA alone.

Intrathecal Versus Oral Baclofen: A Matched Cohort Study of Spasticity, Pain, Sleep, Fatigue, and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Baclofen commonly is used to manage spasticity caused by central nervous system lesions or dysfunction. Although both intrathecal and oral delivery routes are possible, no study has directly compared clinical outcomes associated with these 2 routes of treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare spasticity levels, pain, sleep, fatigue, and quality of life between individuals receiving treatment with intrathecal versus oral baclofen. DESIGN: Cross-sectional matched cohort survey study. SETTING: Urban academic rehabilitation outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with spasticity, treated with intrathecal or oral baclofen for at least 1 year, matched 1:1 for age, gender, and diagnosis. METHODS: Standardized surveys were administered during clinic appointments or by telephone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surveys included the Penn Spasm Frequency Scale, Brief Pain Inventory, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Diener Satisfaction with Life Scale. RESULTS: A total of 62 matched subjects were enrolled. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46 (11) years with a mean duration of intrathecal baclofen or oral baclofen treatment of 11 (6) and 13 (11) years, respectively. There were 40 (64%) male and 22 (36%) female subjects. Primary diagnoses included spinal cord injury (n = 38), cerebral palsy (n = 10), stroke (n = 10), and multiple sclerosis (n = 4). The mean (SD) dose of intrathecal and oral baclofen at the time of survey were 577 (1429) µg/day and 86 (50) mg/day, respectively. Patients receiving intrathecal compared with oral baclofen experienced significantly fewer (1.44 [0.92] versus 2.37 [1.12]) and less severe (1.44 [0.92] versus 2.16 [0.83]) spasms, respectively as measured by the Penn Spasm Frequency Scale (P < .01; P < .01). There were no significant differences in pain, sleep, fatigue, and quality of life between groups. Subanalysis of patients with SCI mirrored results of the entire study sample, with significant decreases in spasm frequency and severity associated with intrathecal compared to oral baclofen (P < .01; P < .01), but no other between group differences. The mean (SD) percent change in dose of oral (21% [33%]) compared with intrathecal (3% [28%]) baclofen was significantly larger two years prior to the date of survey (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with intrathecal compared with oral baclofen is associated with reduced spasm frequency and severity as well as greater dose stability. These benefits must be weighed against the risks of internal pump and catheter placement in patients considering intrathecal baclofen therapy.

Long-term intrathecal baclofen: outcomes after more than 10 years of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes of intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy for spasticity management in a cohort of patients who had received this treatment for at least 10 years. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey and retrospective chart review. SETTING: An academic rehabilitation outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with spasticity treated with ITB for at least 10 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Surveys included the Brief Pain Inventory, Penn Spasm Frequency Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, Diener Satisfaction with Life, Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Intrathecal Baclofen Survey. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects completed the surveys. The subjects had been treated with ITB from 10.0-28.4 years, with a mean (standard deviation) of 14.7 ± 4.2 years. The mean (standard deviation) dose of ITB was 627.9 ± 306.7 µg/d, with only 6 subjects averaging daily dose changes of more than 10% compared with 3 years earlier. The mean (standard deviation) scores on outcomes surveys were the following: 2.6 ± 2.3 for pain severity on the Brief Pain Inventory, 1.4 ± 0.7 for spasm severity on the Penn Spasm Frequency Scale, 7.9 ± 5.4 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, 4.1 ± 1.6 on the Fatigue Severity Scale, 19.4 ± 8.1 on the Diener Satisfaction with Life, 3.9 ± 0.9 on the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, and 8.8 ± 1.9 for overall satisfaction with ITB on the Intrathecal Baclofen Survey. On the Brief Pain Inventory, the mean scores for pain severity and interference of pain with life showed moderate inverse correlations with ITB dose (r = -0.386, P = .115; and r = -0.447, P = .062, respectively). On the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire, the mean scores for life satisfaction showed statistically significant positive correlation with ITB dose (r = 0.549, P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: The subjects reported low levels of pain, moderate levels of life satisfaction, normal levels of sleepiness, low-to-moderate levels of fatigue, infrequent spasms at mild-to-moderate severity, and high levels of satisfaction. The efficacy and favorable adverse effect profile of ITB therapy was sustained in this cohort of subjects with more than a decade of treatment.