The Clinical journal of pain
-
The authors apply eight ethical domains of analysis to the question of treatment of chronic pain with opioids in patients with histories of substance use disorders: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, medical condition, patient preference, quality of life, and consideration of specific individual or sociocultural issues. These eight domains are drawn from principle-based and case-based ethical perspectives. ⋯ Chronic pain and substance use disorders share a history of stigmatization, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment. Using the presented case as a point of departure, the authors discuss principles for prescription of opioids for treatment of chronic noncancer pain in the setting of history of substance use disorders.
-
Opioid contracts are widely used but not well studied. Despite the widespread use of the opioid contract or agreement, there is no standard approach. ⋯ While an opioid contract may be an appealing tool for obtaining informed consent, providing education, or otherwise overcoming some of the problems associated with chronic opioid therapy for noncancer pain, its efficacy is not well established. This article will consider many of the significant factors that impact clinicians and patients using a contract or agreement for chronic opioid therapy.
-
The identification of the disease of addiction is important to safe and effective clinical management of pain in persons with addictive disorders. The disease of addiction affects approximately 10% of the general population, and its prevalence may be higher in subpopulations of patients with pain. The presence of active addiction may facilitate the experience of pain. ⋯ The roles of medical interview, physical examination, laboratory studies, and standard addiction screening tools in assessing for addiction are outlined. Differential considerations in distinguishing therapeutic use of opioids for analgesia from addictive or other nontherapeutic use of opioids are discussed. In summary, the article provides salient background and a detailed approach to assessment for addictive disorders in the context of pain treatment.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
The treatment of fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain: further evidence on the effectiveness of exposure in vivo.
Several cognitive-behavioral factors contribute to the persistence of pain disability in patients with chronic back pain. Fear-avoidance beliefs and fear of movement/(re)injury in particular have been shown to be strong predictors of physical performance and pain disability. Patients reporting substantial pain-related fear might benefit from exposure in vivo to a set of individually tailored, fear-eliciting, and hierarchically ordered physical movements rather than more general graded activity. ⋯ Time series analysis of the daily measures showed that improvements in pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing occurred only during the exposure in vivo and not during the graded activity, irrespective of the treatment order. Analysis of the pretreatment to post-treatment differences also revealed that decreases in pain-related fear also concurred with decreases in pain disability and pain vigilance and an increase in physical activity levels. All improvements remained at the 1-year follow-up.
-
Review Comparative Study
Defining the therapeutic role of local anesthetic sympathetic blockade in complex regional pain syndrome: a narrative and systematic review.
There is growing controversy on the value of blocking the sympathetic nervous system for the treatment of complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS). The authors sought to evaluate the efficacy of sympathetic blockade with local anesthetic in these syndromes. In addition, they performed a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology and other treatments for CRPS. ⋯ This review raises questions as to the efficacy of local anesthetic sympathetic blockade as treatment of CRPS. Its efficacy is based mainly on case series. Less than one third of patients obtained full pain relief. The absence of control groups in case series leads to an overestimation of the treatment response that can explain the findings.