Search

Background: We examined whether the effect of true electroacupuncture on pain and functionality in chronic pain participants can be differentiated from that of medication (gabapentin) by analyzing quantitative sensory testing (QST)., Methods: We recruited chronic back and neck pain participants who received six sessions (twice weekly) of true electroacupuncture versus sham electroacupuncture or 3 weeks of gabapentin versus placebo treatment. QST profiles, pain scores, and functionality profile were obtained at baseline (visit 1) and after three sessions (visit 4) or six sessions (visit 7) of acupuncture or 3 weeks of gabapentin or placebo., Results: A total of 50 participants were analyzed. We found no differences in QST profile changes (p = 0.892), pain reduction (p = 0.222), or functionality (p = 0.254) between the four groups. A major limitation of this pilot study was the limited number of study participants in each group., Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that a large-scale clinical study with an adequate sample size would be warranted to compare acupuncture and medication therapy for chronic pain management., Trial Registration Number: NCT01678586 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Introduction: Chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) comorbidity is prevalent among veterans and is associated with increased levels of pain severity and pain-related disability. An improved understanding of the relationship between these co-occurring disorders, in addition to effective integrated treatments, will develop by considering the changes to the PTSD diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). The current study examined the relationship between the revised PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) symptom clusters (i.e., intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognition and mood [NACM], and arousal) and chronic pain measurements (i.e., pain severity, interference, and disability)., Materials and Methods: Participants included 103 veterans (ages 26-70, mean = 45.33) participating in a randomized clinical trial examining the efficacy of an interdisciplinary pain management program for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The study was approved by a university system Institutional Review Board and affiliated healthcare system., Results: The participants with a provisional PTSD diagnosis based on PCL-5 responses (N = 76) had significantly greater pain severity, interference, and disability than the participants without a provisional diagnosis (N = 23). Correlations between symptom clusters and pain measurements were mostly significant and positive with varying strengths. The avoidance symptom cluster, however, had relatively weaker correlations with pain measurements and was not significantly associated with the numeric rating scale of pain severity. Path analyses revealed that, after controlling for avoidance symptoms, significant associations remained between NACM and all the pain measurements. After controlling for NACM symptoms, however, there were no significant associations between avoidance symptoms and pain measurements., Conclusion: The current study highlights a need to re-examine the leading theories about the mutual maintenance of these disorders in order to develop effective integrative treatment approaches. PTSD-related avoidance may have a relatively weaker role in co-occurring chronic pain than the other symptom clusters and may have a qualitatively different role than chronic pain-related avoidance. Future research should explore the relationship between the avoidance in PTSD and the avoidance in chronic pain as well as identify which chronic pain measurements are the most useful when examining the relationship between PTSD and chronic pain. The potential impact of trauma-related cognition and mood on chronic pain indicates that this is an important area for intervention and should be considered in the development of integrated treatments for chronic pain and PTSD among veterans., (© The Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a complex problem, particularly for individuals with head injury and comorbid psychiatric conditions. The Fear Avoidance Model offers one of the strongest opportunities to conceptualize comorbid traumatic injury and pain, but this model is largely untested., Objective: This study tests the Fear Avoidance Model of chronic pain using a sample from a study of polytrauma patients in a large Department of Veterans Affairs facility who participated in a federally-funded study of interdisciplinary chronic pain management., Methods: The present study comprises a secondary analysis of 93 veterans with chronic pain, head injury, posttraumatic stress symptoms and a history of persistent opioid use. Standardized measures of Fear Avoidance Model risk factors (e.g., pain catastrophizing, fear avoidance beliefs, anxiety, depression) were examined as cross-sectional predictors of pain-related disability., Results: Secondary data analysis revealed that Fear Avoidance Model factors accounted for almost 40% of the variance in pain-related disability, with pain catastrophizing and depression demonstrating the strongest relationships with disability. A summary variable combining all four factors revealed a 6% increase in disability for each factor that was clinically significant for the sample patients., Conclusions: This study represents the first attempt to examine a complex, theoretical model of pain in a comorbid pain and TBI sample. Findings revealed a strong relationship between this model and pain-related disability that outperforms pain intensity ratings. This model could be used to guide better treatment for comorbid pain and TBI.

In this randomized clinical trial, we examined whether the effect of true acupuncture can be differentiated from sham acupuncture (pain and functionality) by analyzing quantitative sensory testing (QST) profiles in chronic pain participants. We recruited 254 healthy or chronic back and neck pain participants. Healthy subjects were included to control for a possible effect of acupuncture on baseline QST changes. Study participants received 6 sessions (twice weekly) of true acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or no acupuncture treatment (routine care). Quantitative sensory testing profiles, pain scores, and functionality profile were obtained at baseline (visit 1) and after 3 (visit 4) or 6 sessions (visit 7). A total of 204 participants were analyzed. We found no QST profile changes among 3 groups (P = 0.533 and P = 0.549, likelihood ratio tests) in either healthy or chronic pain participants. In chronic back and neck pain participants, true acupuncture reduced pain (visit 4: difference in mean [DIM] = -0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.4 to -0.1, adjusted P = 0.168; visit 7: DIM = -1.0, 95% CI: -1.7 to -0.3, adjusted P = 0.021) and improved functional status including physical functioning (DIM = 14.21, 95% CI: 5.84-22.58, adjusted P = 0.003) and energy/fatigue (DIM = 12.28, 95% CI: 3.46-21.11, adjusted P = 0.021) as compared to routine care. Our results indicate that QST was not helpful to differentiate between true acupuncture and sham acupuncture (primary outcome) in this study, although true acupuncture reduced pain and improved functionality (secondary outcomes) when compared with routine care.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic electromagnetic fields (TEMF) on chronic low back pain. Secondary objectives included the investigation of the effects of TEMF on psychometric measures. Setting: Pain Research center in an Urban Academic Rehabilitation Facility. Design: Prospective, randomized, single-blind, placebo (sham) treatment-controlled design in which participants were evaluated over a 6-week period. A total of 40 subjects were randomly assigned: 20 subjects to 15 milliTESLA (mT) treatment using a prototype electromagnetic field device and 20 to sham treatment. Interventions: After a 2-week baseline period, eligible individuals were randomized to one of the treatment groups (sham or 15 mT) for six 30-minute treatments over 2 weeks, then a 2-week follow-up period. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was the self-report of pain severity using a 100 mm visual analog scale collected using a twice daily McGill Pain Questionnaire—Short Form. Several secondary measures were assessed. Results: Both groups (15 mT and sham) improved over time ( P < 0.05). Although groups were similar during the treatment period, treated subjects (TEMF of 15 mT) improved significantly over sham treatment during the 2-week follow-up period (20.5% reduction in pain; F1,34 = 10.62, P = 0.003). There were no reported serious adverse events. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that TEMF may be an effective and safe modality for the treatment of chronic low back pain disorders. More studies are needed to test this hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]