Explore the vast range of titles available.

Acute low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, with a presumed favorable prognosis; however, once chronic, LBP becomes a disabling and expensive condition. Acute to chronic LBP transition rates vary widely owing to absence of standardized operational definitions, and it is unknown whether a standardized prognostic tool (ie, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back tool [SBT]) can estimate this transition or whether early non-guideline concordant treatment is associated with the transition to chronic LBP. To assess the associations between the transition from acute to chronic LBP with SBT risk strata; demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics; and guideline nonconcordant processes of care. This inception cohort study was conducted alongside a multisite, pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Adult patients with acute LBP stratified by SBT risk were enrolled in 77 primary care practices in 4 regions across the United States between May 2016 and June 2018 and followed up for 6 months, with final follow-up completed by March 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January to March 2020. SBT risk strata and early LBP guideline nonconcordant processes of care (eg, receipt of opioids, imaging, and subspecialty referral). Transition from acute to chronic LBP at 6 months using the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards consensus definition of chronic LBP. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and LBP process of care were obtained via electronic medical records. Overall, 5233 patients with acute LBP (3029 [58%] women; 4353 [83%] White individuals; mean [SD] age 50.6 [16.9] years; 1788 [34%] low risk; 2152 [41%] medium risk; and 1293 [25%] high risk) were included. Overall transition rate to chronic LBP at six months was 32% (1666 patients). In a multivariable model, SBT risk stratum was positively associated with transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.00-2.98; P < .001). Patient and clinical characteristics associated with transition to chronic LBP included obesity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; P < .001); smoking (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89; P < .001); severe and very severe baseline disability (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.48-2.24; P < .001 and aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.60-2.68; P < .001, respectively) and diagnosed depression/anxiety (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28-2.15; P < .001). After controlling for all other variables, patients exposed to 1, 2, or 3 nonconcordant processes of care within the first 21 days were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), 1.88 (95% CI, 1.53-2.32), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.10-4.25) times more likely to develop chronic LBP compared with those with no exposure (P < .001). In this cohort study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial and increased correspondingly with SBT stratum and early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care.

Abstract Background Studies have provided some evidence that pain is a risk factor for postoperative delirium (POD). Therefore, we investigated the relationship between preoperative pain and POD after noncardiac surgery. Methods POD was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and preoperative cognition was assessed with the Mini-Mental State Examination. Plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) was detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay before surgery. Preoperative pain was classified by its duration before surgery as chronic pain (lasting more than 1 month), acute pain (lasting less than 1 month), or no pain (no obvious pain). Multiple linear regression was used to adjust for confounding. Results From October 15, 2018, through August 12, 2019, a total of 67 patients were randomized; 7 were excluded because they were discharged before the seventh postoperative day. The prevalence of POD was significantly higher in the acute pain group (13 of 20; 65%) than in the chronic pain group (5 of 20; 25%) or the no pain group (6 of 20; 30%) (P = 0.019), indicating that delirium is associated with preoperative acute pain. The plasma level of preoperative CRP was also higher in the acute pain group than in the other two groups (mean [interquartile range]: 10.7 [3.3, 29.3] vs 1 [0.5, 3.8]mg/l; P < 0.001), suggesting that elevated preoperative plasma levels of CRP were associated with delirium. Conclusions Preoperative acute pain was associated with POD, and increased plasma levels of CRP provide a marker. In addition, we found that illiteracy and advanced age were risk factors for POD.

IntroductionManagement of acute chest pain focuses on diagnosis or safe rule-out of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aim to determine the additional value of self-reported computerised history taking (CHT).Methods and analysisProspective cohort study design with self-reported, medical histories collected by a CHT programme (Clinical Expert Operating System, CLEOS) using a tablet. Women and men presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department at Danderyd University Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden) are eligible. CHT will be compared with standard history taking for completeness of data required to calculate ACS risk scores such as History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI). Clinical outcomes will be extracted from hospital electronic health records and national registries. The CLEOS-Chest Pain Danderyd Study project includes (1) a feasibility study of CHT, (2) a validation study of CHT as compared with standard history taking, (3) a paired diagnostic accuracy study using data from CHT and established risk scores, (4) a clinical utility study to evaluate the impact of CHT on the management of chest pain and the use of resources, and (5) data mining, aiming to generate an improved risk score for ACS. Primary outcomes will be analysed after 1000 patients, but to allow for subgroup analysis, the study intends to recruit 2000 or more patients. This ongoing project may lead to new and more effective ways for collecting thorough, accurate medical histories with important implications for clinical practice.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been reviewed and approved by the Stockholm Regional Ethical Committee (now Swedish Ethical Review Authority). Results will be published, regardless of the outcome, in peer-reviewed international scientific journals.Trial registration numberThis study is registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier: NCT03439449).

Abstract Objective. To investigate the influence of various weather parameters on the risk of developing a low back pain (LBP) episode. Design. Case-crossover study. Setting. Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Subjects. 981 participants with a new episode of acute LBP. Methods. Weather parameters were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were derived comparing two exposure variables in the case window—(1) the average of the weather variable for the day prior to pain onset and (2) the change in the weather variable from 2 days prior to 1 day prior to pain onset—with exposures in two control windows (1 week and 1 month before the case window). Results. The weather parameters of precipitation, humidity, wind speed, wind gust, wind direction, and air pressure were not associated with the onset of acute LBP. For one of the four analyses, higher temperature slightly increased the odds of pain onset. Conclusions. Common weather parameters that had been previously linked to musculoskeletal pain, such as precipitation, humidity, wind speed, wind gust, wind direction, and air pressure, do not increase the risk of onset for LBP.

Background: Acute and chronic pains are reported to be highly prevalent in patients under opioid maintenance treatment (OMT). Lack of knowledge concerning the complex relationship between pain, opioid use, and their impact on OMT efficacy can account for the barriers encountered for pain management. Objectives: To assess the impact of acute pain exposure on long-term OMT retention in a cohort of patients under buprenorphine or methadone followed up during 12 months. Study Design: Prospective, multi-center observational cohort clinical study. Setting: Emergency departments, surgery departments, and specialized addiction care centers in an outpatient setting in south-western France (Midi-Pyrénées area), from April 2008 to January 2010. Methods: Patients aged 18 or more under OMT for at least 3 months, and followed up by a physician were recruited. Acute pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) or the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). Exposed patients were those with a pain score greater than 0 at the time of admission on any of the rating scales. The OMT rate after 12 months was compared among exposed and unexposed patients. OMT retention was also investigated after 3 and 6 months follow-up. Results: A total of 151 patients, 81 exposed and 70 unexposed, were recruited; among them, respectively, 26 (32%) and 34 (49%) completed 12-months follow-up. Acute pain exposure appeared to be significantly and negatively associated with retention in treatment (crude OR: 0.44; 95% CI [0.22 – 0.87]; adjusted OR: 0.46; 95% CI [0.23 – 0.93]). Compared to methadone users, patients under buprenorphine were less likely to have their OMT maintained after 12 months (OR 0.37; 95% CI [0.18 – 0.75]; adjusted OR 0.38; 95% CI [0.18 – 0.80]). Limitations: Follow-up rate was 40 % (60/151). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the strong negative impact of acute pain on OMT in a population mainly composed of patients under buprenorphine, as well as differential response depending on the OMT medication. The findings highlight the need to consider the characteristics of pain in the population under OMT and to develop evidence-based guidelines for pain management. Trial registration: The study was registered at www.clinical.trials.gov with the study identifier: NCT00738036. Ethics Committee approval was received on February 11, 2008. Participants’ written consent was not required. Key words: Analgesic drug, methadone, buprenorphine, opioid, opioid maintenance treatment, acute pain, long-term retention, pharmacodependence, pharmacoepidemiology

BACKGROUNDKetamine infusions have been used for decades to treat acute pain, but a recent surge in usage has made the infusions a mainstay of treatment in emergency departments, in the perioperative period in individuals with refractory pain, and in opioid-tolerant patients. The widespread variability in patient selection, treatment parameters, and monitoring indicates a need for the creation of consensus guidelines. METHODSThe development of acute pain ketamine guidelines grew as a corollary from the genesis of chronic pain ketamine guidelines. The charge for the development of acute pain ketamine guidelines was provided by the Boards of Directors of both the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine, who approved the document along with the American Society of Anesthesiologistsʼ Committees on Pain Medicine and Standards and Practice Parameters. The committee chair developed questions based on input from the committee during conference calls, which the committee then refined. Groups of 3 to 5 panel members and the committee chair were responsible for answering individual questions. After preliminary consensus was achieved, the entire committee made further revisions via e-mail and conference calls. RESULTSConsensus guidelines were prepared in the following areasindications, contraindications for acute pain and whether they differ from those for chronic pain, the evidence for the use of ketamine as an adjunct to opioid-based therapy, the evidence supporting patient-controlled ketamine analgesia, the use of nonparenteral forms of ketamine, and the subanesthetic dosage range and whether the evidence supports those dosages for acute pain. The group was able to reach consensus on the answers to all questions. CONCLUSIONSEvidence supports the use of ketamine for acute pain in a variety of contexts, including as a stand-alone treatment, as an adjunct to opioids, and, to a lesser extent, as an intranasal formulation. Contraindications for acute pain are similar to those for chronic pain, partly based on the observation that the dosage ranges are similar. Larger studies evaluating different acute pain conditions are needed to enhance patient selection, determine the effectiveness of nonparenteral ketamine alternatives, define optimal treatment parameters, and develop protocols optimizing safety and access to care.

IntroductionCannabis use is increasing among older adults, but its impact on postoperative pain outcomes remains unclear in this population. We examined the association between cannabis use and postoperative pain levels and opioid doses within 24 hours of surgery.MethodsWe conducted a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study using electronic health records data of 22 476 older surgical patients with at least 24-hour hospital stays at University of Florida Health between 2018 and 2020. Of the original cohort, 2577 patients were eligible for propensity-score matching (1:3 cannabis user: non-user). Cannabis use status was determined via natural language processing of clinical notes within 60 days of surgery and structured data. The primary outcomes were average Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) score and total oral morphine equivalents (OME) within 24 hours of surgery.Results504 patients were included (126 cannabis users and 378 non-users). The median (IQR) age was 69 (65–72) years; 295 (58.53%) were male, and 442 (87.70%) were non-Hispanic white. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Cannabis users had significantly higher average DVPRS scores (median (IQR): 4.68 (2.71–5.96) vs 3.88 (2.33, 5.17); difference=0.80; 95% confidence limit (CL), 0.19 to 1.36; p=0.01) and total OME (median (IQR): 42.50 (15.00–60.00) mg vs 30.00 (7.50–60.00) mg; difference=12.5 mg; 95% CL, 3.80 mg to 21.20 mg; p=0.02) than non-users within 24 hours of surgery.DiscussionThis study showed that cannabis use in older adults was associated with increased postoperative pain levels and opioid doses.

Background Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is often categorised as acute, subacute or chronic by focusing on the duration of the current episode. However, more than twenty years ago this concept was challenged by a recognition that LBP is often an episodic condition. This episodic nature also means that the course of LBP is not well described by an overall population mean. Therefore, studies have investigated if specific LBP trajectories could be identified which better reflect individuals’ course patterns. Following a pioneering study into LBP trajectories published by Dunn et al. in 2006, a number of subsequent studies have also identified LBP trajectories and it is timely to provide an overview of their findings and discuss how insights into these trajectories may be helpful for improving our understanding of LBP and its clinical management. Discussion LBP trajectories in adults have been identified by data driven approaches in ten cohorts, and these have consistently demonstrated that different trajectory patterns exist. Despite some differences between studies, common trajectories have been identified across settings and countries, which have associations with a number of patient characteristics from different health domains. One study has demonstrated that in many people such trajectories are stable over several years. LBP trajectories seem to be recognisable by patients, and appealing to clinicians, and we discuss their potential usefulness as prognostic factors, effect moderators, and as a tool to support communication with patients. Conclusions Investigations of trajectories underpin the notion that differentiation between acute and chronic LBP is overly simplistic, and we believe it is time to shift from this paradigm to one that focuses on trajectories over time. We suggest that trajectory patterns may represent practical phenotypes of LBP that could improve the clinical dialogue with patients, and might have a potential for supporting clinical decision making, but their usefulness is still underexplored.

Background and objectivesPain catastrophizing is associated with acute pain after total knee arthroplasty. However, the association between pain catastrophizing and acute pain after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains unclear.MethodsWe investigated the incidence of predicted high-pain and low-pain responders, based on a preoperative Pain Catastrophizing Scale score >20 or ≤20, respectively, and the acute postoperative pain course in both groups. Patients undergoing UKA were consecutively included in this prospective observational cohort study. Pain at rest and during walking (5 m walk test) was evaluated preoperatively, at 24 hours postoperatively, and on days 2–7 using a pain diary.Results125 patients were included, with 101 completing the pain diary. The incidence of predicted high-pain responders was 31% (95% CI 23% to 40%). The incidence of moderate to severe pain during walking at 24 hours postoperatively was 69% (95% CI 52% to 83%) in predicted high-pain responders and 66% (95% CI 55% to 76%) in predicted low-pain responders; OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.5 to 3.1). The incidence of moderate to severe pain at rest 24 hours postoperatively was 49% (95% CI 32% to 65%) in predicted high-pain responders and 28% (95% CI 19% to 39%) in predicted low-pain responders; OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 6.1; p=0.03). Pain catastrophizing was not associated with increased cumulated pain during walking on days 2–7.ConclusionsThe incidence of predicted high-pain responders in UKA was slightly lower than reported in total knee arthroplasty. Additionally, preoperative pain catastrophizing was not associated with acute postoperative pain during walking.

Acute pain is classified as pain that lasts less than three to six months. Globally, pain is the third most common health problem with more than a quarter of patients reporting to the Emergency Department (ED) with pain-related chief complaints. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of acute pain and assess the pain management practices in the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital Emergency Department (KATH ED). Using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the characteristics of acute pain among 378 patients presenting to KATH ED were measured. Additionally, the waiting time for the first pain treatment was calculated for each patient. Pain scores (pre- and post-treatment) were also taken to further inform patients' satisfaction. Out of 378 patients, 76% [95% CI: 71.3-80.2] reported to the ED with severe pain, 21% [95% CI: 16.9-25.4] reported with moderate pain, and 3% [95% CI: 1.5-5.1] reported with mild pain. The average waiting time for the initial assessment of pain was 83.97 minutes while the average waiting time for the administration of analgesia was 184.07 minutes. Having completed primary (AOR, 5.36; 95% CI, 1.03-27.97), JHS (AOR, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.19-28.35), SHS (AOR, 7.24; 95% CI, 1.38-38.01) and tertiary (AOR, 9.42; 95% CI, 1.60-55.62) were predictive of Door‑to‑Analgesia (DTA) time ≤ 90 minutes. Nearly three quarters of the study participants had maximum satisfaction with the pain management services in the ED. The study revealed that documentation of pain severity scores of patients presenting with acute pain at KATH ED was encouraging, however, most patients did not receive timely pain relief. The average waiting time for the initial assessment of pain as well as the administration of analgesia was extremely prolonged. Despite this, three out of every four of the study participants had maximum satisfaction for the overall pain treatment services in the ED. These findings suggest that pain management practices at KATH ED need improvement.