The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Clinical observations suggest that many patients with chronic pain have difficulty forgiving persons they perceive as having unjustly offended them in some way. By using a sample of 61 patients with chronic low back pain, this study sought to determine the reliability and variability of forgiveness assessments in patients and to examine the relationship of forgiveness to pain, anger, and psychological distress. Standardized measures were used to assess patients' current levels of forgiveness, forgiveness self-efficacy, pain, anger, and psychological distress. Results showed that forgiveness-related constructs can be reliably assessed in patients with persistent pain, and that patients vary considerably along dimensions of forgiveness. Furthermore, correlational analyses showed that patients who had higher scores on forgiveness-related variables reported lower levels of pain, anger, and psychological distress. Additional analyses indicated that state anger largely mediated the association between forgiveness and psychological distress, as well as some of the associations between forgiveness and pain. These findings indicate that forgiveness can be reliably assessed in patients with persistent pain, and that a relationship appears to exist between forgiveness and important aspects of living with persistent pain. ⋯ This preliminary study suggests there is a relationship between forgiveness and pain, anger, and psychological distress in patients with chronic low back pain. Patients who report an inability to forgive others might be experiencing higher pain and psychological distress that are mediated by relatively higher levels of state anger.
-
Clinical Trial
Assessment of pain quality in chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain clinical trials with the Neuropathic Pain Scale.
Although a number of measures of pain qualities exist, little research has examined the potential for these measures to identify the unique effects of pain treatments on different pain qualities. We examined the utility of the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) for assessing changes in pain qualities after open label lidocaine patch 5% in 3 samples of patients: patients with peripheral neuropathic pain, low back pain, and osteoarthritis. With one exception ("cold" pain in subjects with low back pain), each of the NPS items showed significant change after open label lidocaine patch. In addition, significantly larger changes were observed for the NPS items reflecting global pain intensity and pain unpleasantness and for items assessing sharp and deep pain than for items assessing cold, sensitive, and itchy pain. The pattern of changes in pain qualities did not differ across the 3 diagnostic groups, but it did differ from the patterns of changes in pain qualities associated with other analgesic treatments. The results support the potential utility of the NPS for assessing the patterns of changes in pain qualities that can be observed after pain treatment. ⋯ Pain clinical trials that include measures of pain qualities, such as the NPS, might identify distinct patterns of treatment effects on those pain qualities. This research might be used to help clinicians target analgesics to match the specific qualities associated with a patient's pain and to better understand the mechanisms of analgesic effects in drug development programs.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Efficacy and safety of oxymorphone extended release in chronic low back pain: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study.
This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial was conducted to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone extended release (ER) with placebo and oxycodone controlled release (CR) in ambulatory patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain requiring opioid therapy. Patients (N = 213) aged 18 to 75 years were randomized to receive oxymorphone ER (10 to 110 mg) or oxycodone CR (20 to 220 mg) every 12 hours during a 7- to 14-day dose-titration phase. Patients achieving effective analgesia at a stable opioid dose entered an 18-day double-blind treatment phase and either continued opioid therapy or received placebo. With stable dosing throughout the treatment phase, oxymorphone ER (79.4 mg/day) and oxycodone CR (155 mg/day) were superior to placebo for change from baseline in pain intensity as measured on a visual analog scale; the LS mean differences were -18.21 and 18.55 (95% CI, -25.83 to -10.58 and -26.12 to -10.98, respectively; P = .0001). Use of rescue medication was 20 mg per day. Adverse events for the active drugs were similar; the most frequent were constipation and sedation. Oxymorphone ER and oxycodone CR were generally safe and effective for controlling low back pain. Oxymorphone ER was equianalgesic to oxycodone CR at half the milligram daily dosage, with comparable safety. ⋯ Definitive studies of long-acting opioids in patients with chronic low back pain are lacking. We report the results of a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluating the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone ER and oxycodone CR in opioid-experienced patients with chronic low back pain.
-
Review Case Reports
Ethical challenges in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain: negotiating through the cloud of doubt.
After successful cancer pain initiatives, efforts have been recently made to liberalize the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain. However, the goals for this treatment and its place among other available treatments are still unclear. Cancer pain treatment is aimed at patient comfort and is validated by objective disease severity. For chronic nonmalignant pain, however, comfort alone is not an adequate treatment goal, and pain is not usually proportional to objective disease severity. Therefore, confusion about treatment goals and doubts about the reality of nonmalignant pain entangle therapeutic efforts. We present a case history to demonstrate that this lack of proportionality fosters fears about malingering, exaggeration, and psychogenic pain among providers. Doubt concerning the reality of patients' unrelieved chronic nonmalignant pain has allowed concerns about addiction to dominate discussions of treatment. We propose alternate patient-centered principles to guide efforts to relieve chronic nonmalignant pain, including accept all patient pain reports as valid but negotiate treatment goals early in care, avoid harming patients, and incorporate chronic opioids as one part of the treatment plan if they improve the patient's overall health-related quality of life. Although an outright ban on opioid use in chronic nonmalignant pain is no longer ethically acceptable, ensuring that opioids provide overall benefit to patients requires significant time and skill. Patients with chronic nonmalignant pain should be assessed and treated for concurrent psychiatric disorders, but those with disorders are entitled to equivalent efforts at pain relief. The essential question is not whether chronic nonmalignant pain is real or proportional to objective disease severity, but how it should be managed so that the patient's overall quality of life is optimized. ⋯ The management of chronic nonmalignant pain is moving from specialty settings into primary care. Primary care providers need an ethical framework within which to adopt the principles of palliative care to this population.
-
Multidisciplinary treatment programs for chronic pain typically emphasize the importance of decreasing maladaptive and encouraging adaptive coping responses. The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI), developed to assess coping strategies targeted for change in multidisciplinary pain treatment, is a 64-item instrument that contains 8 subscales: Guarding, Resting, Asking for Assistance, Relaxation, Task Persistence, Exercising/Stretching, Coping Self-Statements, and Seeking Social Support. A previous validation study with 210 patients in a Canadian academic hospital setting supported an 8-factor structure for the CPCI. The current study was undertaken to validate the CPCI among 564 veterans with a more extended history of chronic pain. Patients completed the study questionnaires before multidisciplinary treatment. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the 64-item CPCI. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed with depression, pain interference, general activity level, disability, and pain severity as the criterion variables and the 8 CPCI factors as the predictor variables, controlling for pain severity and demographic variables. The confirmatory factor analysis results strongly supported an 8-factor model, and the regression analyses supported the predictive validity of the CPCI scales, as indicated by their association with measures of patient adjustment to chronic pain. ⋯ This article validated the 8-factor structure of the CPCI by using a confirmatory factor analysis and a series of linear regressions. The results support the applicability and utility of the CPCI in a heterogeneous population of veterans with severe chronic pain treated in a tertiary teaching hospital. The CPCI provides an important clinical and research tool for the assessment of behavioral pain coping strategies that might have an impact on patient outcomes.