Long-COVID symptoms improved after MDMA and psilocybin therapy: A case report.

Key Clinical Message: Long-COVID syndrome lacks effective holistic treatment options. We present a case of a 41-year-old fully vaccinated female with Long-COVID syndrome who obtained significant symptomatic relief after self-medicating with psilocybin and MDMA. Abstract: Long-COVID, a syndrome persisting after the acute phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), lacks effective holistic treatment options. We present a case of a 41-year-old fully vaccinated female with Long-COVID syndrome who obtained significant symptomatic relief by self-prescribing psilocybin and MDMA. Future research is needed to assess safety and efficacy.

Age and Gender Confound PROMIS Scores in Spine Patients With Back and Neck Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center retrospective review. OBJECTIVES: To explore how age and gender affect PROMIS scores compared with traditional health-related quality of life (HRQL) in spine patients. METHODS: Patients presenting with a primary complaint of back pain (BP) or neck pain (NP) were included. Legacy HRQLs were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Intensity (Int), and Pain Interference (Inf) were also administered to patients in a clinical setting. Patients were grouped by chief complaint, age (18-44, 45-64, 65+ years) and gender. Two parallel analyses were conducted to identify the effects of age and gender on patient-reported outcomes. Age groups were compared after propensity-score matching by VAS-pain and gender. Separately, genders were compared after propensity-score matching by age and VAS-pain. RESULTS: A total of 484 BP and 128 NP patients were matched into gender cohorts (n = 201 in each BP group, 46 in each NP group). Among BP patients, female patients demonstrated worse disability by ODI (44.15 vs 38.45, P = .005); PROMIS-PF did not differ by gender. Among NP patients, neither legacy HRQLs nor PROMIS differed by gender when controlling for NP and age. BP and NP patients were matched into age cohorts (n = 135 in each BP group and n = 14 in each BP group). Among BP patients, ANOVA revealed differences between groups when controlling for BP and gender: ODI (P < .001), PROMIS-PF (P = .018), PROMIS-Int (P < .001) PROMIS-Inf (P < .001). Among NP patients, matched age groups differed significantly in terms of NDI (P = .032) and PROMIS-PF (P = .022) but not PROMIS-Int or PROMIS-Inf. CONCLUSIONS: Age and gender confound traditional HRQLs as well as PROMIS domains. However, PROMIS offers age and gender-specific scores, which traditional HRQLs lack.

Creating value in spine surgery: using patient reported outcomes to compare the short-term impact of different orthopedic surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Society increasingly asks Medicine to create "value" for patients. As health-care costs rise, this question will become more important. Debate exists regarding the relative "value" of many surgical procedures, including spinal surgery. Comparison of the relative value that patients experience after different orthopedic procedures is theoretical, but informs the ongoing debate. METHODS: The Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments for Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression are routinely collected in our orthopedic clinics. Patients who underwent lumbar discectomy (DSC) or arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) were retrospectively identified. Data relating to PROMIS domains, patient demographics, and other relevant encounter details were extracted. The primary outcomes were (1) preoperative PROMIS domain scores, (2) scores at a minimum of 40 days postoperatively for DSC patients and 133 days postoperatively for ACLR patients, and (3) the change in scores with surgery. Propensity score matching identified age-, sex-, race-, and comorbidity-matched groups from each cohort. Chi-square tests and nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests compared the distribution of outcomes and characteristics. Multivariate linear regression models with interactions between the matched cohort and operative phase estimated the change in the outcomes scores between the two cohorts and controlled for the baseline differences between them. RESULTS: Before surgery, the DSC cohort had lower physical function, higher pain interference and higher depression scores as compared with the ACLR cohort. This pattern remained postoperatively, indicating less desirable outcomes for DSC patients. However, after controlling for their baseline scores, DSC patients experienced significantly greater improvements after surgery of 3.84 (95% CI 1.08-6.60; p=.01), -4.87 (95% CI -7.52 to -2.23; p<.001), and -2.95 (95% CI -5.70 to -0.21; p=.04) points in their physical function, pain interference, and depression scores, respectively, as compared with ACLR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon PROMIS assessments at short-term follow-up, DSC patients receive a larger benefit from surgery than ACLR despite the overall less desirable postoperative PROMIS scores in the DSC cohort. This result, while theoretical, informs the debate regarding the comparative value of DSC to patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments: outperforming traditional quality of life measures in patients with back and neck pain.

OBJECTIVE The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has become increasingly popular due to computer adaptive testing methodology. This study aims to validate the association between PROMIS and legacy outcome metrics and compare PROMIS to legacy metrics in terms of ceiling and floor effects and questionnaire burden. METHODS A retrospective review of an outcomes database was performed at a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a chief complaint of back pain or neck pain. The PROMIS computer adaptive testing Pain Interference, Physical Function (PF), and Pain Intensity domains; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Neck Disability Index (NDI); and visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, VAS neck, and VAS arm were completed in random order. PROMIS was compared to legacy metrics in terms of the average number of questions needed to complete each questionnaire and the score distributions in the lower and higher bounds of scores. RESULTS A total of 494 patients with back pain and 130 patients with neck pain were included. For back pain, ODI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = −0.749, p < 0.001), Pain Intensity (R = 0.709, p < 0.001), and Pain Interference (R = 0.790, p < 0.001) domains. Additionally, the PROMIS Pain Intensity domain correlated to both VAS back and neck pain (R = 0.642, p < 0.001 for both). PROMIS-PF took significantly fewer questions to complete compared to the ODI (4.123 vs 9.906, p < 0.001). When assessing for instrument sensitivity, neither survey presented a significant ceiling and floor effect in the back pain population (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 0.60% and 1.41%). In the neck pain cohort, NDI showed a strong correlation with PROMIS-PF (R = 0.771, p < 0.001). Additionally, PROMIS Pain Intensity correlated to VAS neck (R = 0.642, p < 0.001). The mean number of questions required to complete the questionnaire was much lower for PROMIS-PF compared to NDI (4.417 vs 10, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences found in terms of ceiling and floor effects for neck complaints (NDI: 2.3% and 6.92%; PROMIS-PF: 0.00% and 5.38%) or back complaints (ODI: 0.40% and 2.63%; PROMIS-PF: 1.41% and 0.60%). CONCLUSIONS PROMIS correlates strongly with traditional disability measures in patients with back pain and neck pain. For both back and neck pain, the PROMIS-PF required patients to answer significantly fewer questions to achieve similar granularity. There were no significant differences in ceiling and floor effects for NDI or ODI when compared with the PROMIS-PF instrument.

Comparison of Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System With Neck Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale in Patients With Neck Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a patient-reported outcomes database from a single institution from December 2016 to April 2017. OBJECTIVE: To validate the association of Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) with Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with neck pain and examine each instruments ability to capture concomitant arm pain and concomitant back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PROMIS has been increasingly utilized and its computer adapted testing methodology improves assessment of pain and disability. However, literature is lacking regarding how these instruments perform in neck pain patients with concomitant arm pain or back pain. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age >18 years and a primary complaint of neck pain. The NDI; Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, neck, arm, and leg; and PROMIS physical function, pain intensity, and pain interference questionnaires were administered. Propensity score matching was performed to compare patients with high and low back and arm pain by controlling for neck pain. Bivariate correlations and independent samples t tests were performed to assess linear relationships and compare back and arm pain groups with PROMIS. RESULTS: Approximately, 130 patients were included. NDI correlated strongly to PROMIS physical function (r = -0.771, P < 0.001), pain intensity (r = 0.605, P < 0.001), and pain interference (r = 0.786, P < 0.001). VAS neck and arm pain also correlated to the PROMIS pain intensity instrument (VAS neck: r = 0.642, P < 0.001; VAS arm: r = 0.376, P < 0.001).After matching for neck pain, the high and low back pain groups each included 32 patients. There were significant differences in PROMIS physical function when high and low back pain groups were compared (39.07 vs. 43.68, P = 0.031). No significant difference was found for any outcome metric for high and low arm pain groups. CONCLUSION: PROMIS instruments are capable of characterizing pain and disability in patients with neck pain and are sensitive to disability in regions adjacent to the neck. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.