Change of quality of life in patients with chronic pain with prescription opioid usage after opioid detoxification.

BACKGROUND: Managing patients with chronic pain with long-term opioid therapy can be challenging for the prescribers, as the development of treatment complications such as addiction and opioid-induced hyperalgesia has to be considered. There is a paucity of information on the use of opioid detoxification protocols in patients with chronic pain on a long-term opioid therapy who have developed opioid-induced complications. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of detoxification treatment while presenting a different opioid detoxification protocol intended to cease patient's prescription opioid use while assessing patient's quality of life (QoL) changes, implicated by our treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 41 patients with chronic pain with long-term prescription opioid usage who underwent elective opioid detoxification in years 2010-2019 at the Toxicology Centre of Republican Vilnius University Hospital. We ceased prescription opioids during detoxification treatment and monitored withdrawal symptoms, pain intensity, and QoL by using SF-36 scores before and right after and a minimum of 3 months after detoxification. RESULTS: This study was fully completed by 14 patients. At the third SF-36 evaluation, 12 out of 14 patients (85.71 percent) reported the detoxification treatment as beneficial to their overall health status compared to that before the treatment, and SF-36 scores after detoxification were significantly higher than before the treatment (p = 0.001). A decreased pain level right after detoxification was indicated by 11 patients (78.6 percent). Significant pain decrease was observed both right after and at least 3 months after the opioid detoxification treatment (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: As significant pain reduction, QoL life improvement, and opioid usage cessation were observed after opioid detoxification in the majority of patients with chronic pain, this leads us to believe that such a treatment can be safely administered and appropriated.

How are results of EEG activation procedures associated with patient perception of seizure provocative factors? A single-center cross-sectional pilot study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between subjectively perceived seizure provocative factors or inhibitors and objectively recorded changes in epileptiform activity (EA) during EEG activation procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consenting epilepsy patients (≥18 years old) were asked to complete a questionnaire by indicating whether items on a list provoke, inhibit or have no effect on their seizures. A scalp EEG was recorded afterwards to evaluate baseline epileptiform activity and its change (increase/decrease in frequency) during a set of activation procedures. These included hyperventilation, intermittent photic stimulation (IPS), eye-closing/eye-opening, tasks of reading aloud in a native and a foreign language, solving a Rubik's cube and crossing-out letters. We used correlation and multiple regression analysis to search for associations between the sum of self-reported provocative/inhibiting items and changes in EA. RESULTS: Of the 90 patients recruited 75 (83.3%) indicated at least one seizure provocative factor. Sleep deprivation, emotional stress, negative emotions and alcohol use were most frequently selected as provoking seizures. Positive feelings, focused thinking, mental calculation and exercising were the most predominant seizure inhibitors. EEG data revealed a weak, but statistically significant correlation with the sum of items in distinct questionnaire groups (0.20 ≤ Spearman's ρ ≤ 0.39). Sensory stimuli (olfactory, gustatory, auditory and visual), cognitive phenomena (thoughts and feelings) and substance use were found to be significantly correlated with EEG results by being self-reported as both provoking and inhibiting seizures. A statistically significant relationship was also found between the increase in EA while reading aloud in a native language and the number of physiological states (sleep deprivation, stress etc.) indicated as provoking seizures (Spearman's ρ = 0.320, P = 0.005). A suitable stepwise multiple regression model was feasible for this finding (F(3, 71) = 7.396, P < 0.001, adjusted R squared = 0.206) with the additional inclusion of EA change during IPS and epilepsy type as explanatory variables. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study indicates that there is a previously non-explored association between patients' self-perception of seizure provocative/inhibiting factors and objectively recorded changes in epileptiform activity during activation EEGs. Distinct EEG tests might be useful in activating ictogenic networks that are sensitive to indirect influence by hormonal, emotional or diurnally variable factors.