Faculty Bibliography

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:The 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. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This 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. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 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. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:This 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.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the relationship between opioid dose change, pain severity, and function in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Community interdisciplinary pain management practice. SUBJECTS:A total of 778 patients with chronic pain prescribed opioids for three or more consecutive months between April 1, 2013, and March 1, 2015. METHODS:Changes in opioid dose, pain severity rating, modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire score, and opioid risk data were extracted from medical records and analyzed for associations. RESULTS:Two hundred forty-three subjects (31.2%) had an overall dose decrease, 223 (28.7%) had a dose increase, and 312 (40.1%) had no significant change in dose (<20% change). There was a weak negative correlation between change in opioid dose and change in pain severity (r = -0.08, P = 0.04) but no association between change in disability scores and dose change (N = 526, P = 0.13). There was a weak positive correlation between change in pain severity rating and change in disability scores (r = 0.16, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:The results suggest that escalating opioid doses may not necessarily result in clinically significant improvement of pain or disability. Similarly, significant opioid dose reductions may not necessarily result in worsened pain or disability. This exploratory investigation raised questions of possible subgroups of patients who might demonstrate improvement of pain and disability with opioid dose adjustments, and further research should prospectively explore this potential, given the limitations inherent in retrospective analyses. Prescribers should still consider reduction of opioid doses as recommended by current guidelines, in an effort to mitigate the potential risks associated with high-dose treatment.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To examine the validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for the assessment of function in a community-based sample of patients with chronic pain conditions undergoing evaluation for chronic opioid therapy. Patients and methods/UNASSIGNED:One hundred nine of 124 patients were evaluated for a chronic opioid therapy program between December 1, 2014 and April 10, 2015, inclusive, at one community-based interdisciplinary pain management practice. Measures included: demographic data; the WHODAS 2.0; a modified version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-m); the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item (PHQ-9); the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R); the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM), the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT); opioid dose. These data were collected as part of routine care, and this retrospective chart review study examined the data from this convenience sample, comparing the results of each assessment tool to the results of the WHODAS 2.0. Results/UNASSIGNED:=0.47). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:The WHODAS 2.0 was significantly positively correlated with other measures, including measures of disability, risk of opioid misuse, and depression among patients being evaluated for chronic opioid therapy. The WHODAS 2.0 may be a useful measure of disability across a number of important domains when discussing expectations of both patients and providers at initiation of opioid therapy for chronic pain management. This assessment and discussion is crucial, particularly given the focus on function, rather than analgesia alone, when evaluating the effectiveness of opioid treatment.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the average amount of time required to detect opioid aberrancy based upon varying frequencies of urine drug testing (UDT) in a community-based, tertiary care pain management center. Subjects/UNASSIGNED:This study was a retrospective analysis of 513 consecutive patients enrolled in a medication management program, receiving chronic opioid therapy between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Data were extracted from medical records including age at start of the study period, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and smoking status. UDT was performed at each prescribing visit via semi-quantitative immunoassay, and at the discretion of the clinician, a sample was sent for external confirmation using gas chromatography or mass spectrometry testing to clarify questions of inconsistency with patients' reports or prescribed medications. For purposes of the study, "opioid aberrancy" was defined through inconsistent UDT. Results/UNASSIGNED:One hundred and fifteen patients (22.4%) had at least one inconsistent UDT during the study period, and 160 (2.8%) of all UDTs were inconsistent. At this rate of inconsistency, it was determined that with monthly screening, it would require up to 36 months to detect a single aberrancy, and semi-annual testing would require as long as 216 months to detect an aberrancy. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:More frequent UDT can be helpful in terms of earlier detection of opioid aberrancy. This has significant implications for helping avoid misuse, overdose, and potential diversion. Furthermore, early detection will ideally result in earlier implementation of treatment of the emotional and behavioral factors causing aberrancy. Such early intervention is more likely to be successful in terms of reducing substance misuse in a chronic pain population, providing a higher degree of patient adherence and safety, as well as producing superior overall patient outcomes. Finally, economic benefits may include substantial savings through avoidance of the necessity for drug rehabilitation and the empirically established higher costs of treating opioid misuse comorbidities.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Increasing 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. Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To 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). Methods/UNASSIGNED:We 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. Results/UNASSIGNED:Focus 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. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Results 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.