Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionThe evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant.MethodsThe EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed.ResultsAt 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group.ConclusionThis long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS.Trial registration number NCT02924129.

The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction technology in reducing pain and anxiety among female patients with breast cancer. A randomized control trial design was used with a sample of 80 female patients with breast cancer at a specialized cancer center in Jordan. Participants were randomly assigned into intervention and comparison groups.ResultThe study findings showed that one session of the immersive VR plus morphine made a significant reduction in pain and anxiety self-reported scores, compared with morphine alone, in breast cancer patients.Significance of resultsImmersive VR is an effective distraction intervention for managing pain and anxiety among breast cancer patients. Using immersive VR as an adjuvant intervention is more effective than morphine alone in relieving pain and anxiety; furthermore, VR is a safe intervention more than pharmacological treatment.

BackgroundMedical management of acute pain among hospital inpatients may be enhanced by mind-body interventions.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that a single, scripted session of mindfulness training focused on acceptance of pain or hypnotic suggestion focused on changing pain sensations through imagery would significantly reduce acute pain intensity and unpleasantness compared to a psychoeducation pain coping control. We also hypothesized that mindfulness and suggestion would produce significant improvements in secondary outcomes including relaxation, pleasant body sensations, anxiety, and desire for opioids, compared to the control condition.MethodsThis three-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial conducted at a university-based hospital examined the acute effects of 15-min psychosocial interventions (mindfulness, hypnotic suggestion, psychoeducation) on adult inpatients reporting “intolerable pain” or “inadequate pain control.” Participants (N = 244) were assigned to one of three intervention conditions: mindfulness (n = 86), suggestion (n = 73), or psychoeducation (n = 85).Key ResultsParticipants in the mind-body interventions reported significantly lower baseline-adjusted pain intensity post-intervention than those assigned to psychoeducation (p < 0.001, percentage pain reduction: mindfulness = 23%, suggestion = 29%, education = 9%), and lower baseline-adjusted pain unpleasantness (p < 0.001). Intervention conditions differed significantly with regard to relaxation (p < 0.001), pleasurable body sensations (p = 0.001), and desire for opioids (p = 0.015), but all three interventions were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety (p < 0.001).ConclusionsBrief, single-session mind-body interventions delivered by hospital social workers led to clinically significant improvements in pain and related outcomes, suggesting that such interventions may be useful adjuncts to medical pain management.Trial registrationTrial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; registration ID number: NCT02590029URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02590029

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of three months of antibiotic treatment compared with placebo in patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and vertebral endplate changes (Modic changes).DesignDouble blind, parallel group, placebo controlled, multicentre trial.SettingHospital outpatient clinics at six hospitals in Norway.Participants180 patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and type 1 (n=118) or type 2 (n=62) Modic changes enrolled from June 2015 to September 2017.InterventionsPatients were randomised to three months of oral treatment with either 750 mg amoxicillin or placebo three times daily. The allocation sequence was concealed by using a computer generated number on the prescription.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score (range 0-24) at one year follow-up in the intention to treat population. The minimal clinically important between group difference in mean RMDQ score was predefined as 4.ResultsIn the primary analysis of the total cohort at one year, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the amoxicillin group and the placebo group was −1.6 (95% confidence interval −3.1 to 0.0, P=0.04). In the secondary analysis, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the groups was −2.3 (−4.2 to−0.4, P=0.02) for patients with type 1 Modic changes and −0.1 (−2.7 to 2.6, P=0.95) for patients with type 2 Modic changes. Fifty patients (56%) in the amoxicillin group experienced at least one drug related adverse event compared with 31 (34%) in the placebo group.ConclusionsIn this study on patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes at the level of a previous disc herniation, three months of treatment with amoxicillin did not provide a clinically important benefit compared with placebo. Secondary analyses and sensitivity analyses supported this finding. Therefore, our results do not support the use of antibiotic treatment for chronic low back pain and Modic changes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412.

Regular paracetamol is the recommended first-line analgesic for acute low-back pain; however, no high-quality evidence supports this recommendation. We aimed to assess the efficacy of paracetamol taken regularly or as-needed to improve time to recovery from pain, compared with placebo, in patients with low-back pain. We did a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, placebo controlled trial across 235 primary care centres in Sydney, Australia, from Nov 11, 2009, to March 5, 2013. We randomly allocated patients with acute low-back pain in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive up to 4 weeks of regular doses of paracetamol (three times per day; equivalent to 3990 mg paracetamol per day), as-needed doses of paracetamol (taken when needed for pain relief; maximum 4000 mg paracetamol per day), or placebo. Randomisation was done according to a centralised randomisation schedule prepared by a researcher who was not involved in patient recruitment or data collection. Patients and staff at all sites were masked to treatment allocation. All participants received best-evidence advice and were followed up for 3 months. The primary outcome was time until recovery from low-back pain, with recovery defined as a pain score of 0 or 1 (on a 0–10 pain scale) sustained for 7 consecutive days. All data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTN 12609000966291. 550 participants were assigned to the regular group (550 analysed), 549 were assigned to the as-needed group (546 analysed), and 553 were assigned to the placebo group (547 analysed). Median time to recovery was 17 days (95% CI 14–19) in the regular group, 17 days (15–20) in the as-needed group, and 16 days (14–20) in the placebo group (regular vs placebo hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·87–1·14; as-needed vs placebo 1·05, 0·92–1·19; regular vs as-needed 1·05, 0·92–1·20). We recorded no difference between treatment groups for time to recovery (adjusted p=0·79). Adherence to regular tablets (median tablets consumed per participant per day of maximum 6; 4·0 [IQR 1·6–5·7] in the regular group, 3·9 [1·5–5·6] in the as-needed group, and 4·0 [1·5–5·7] in the placebo group), and number of participants reporting adverse events (99 [18·5%] in the regular group, 99 [18·7%] in the as-needed group, and 98 [18·5%] in the placebo group) were similar between groups. Our findings suggest that regular or as-needed dosing with paracetamol does not affect recovery time compared with placebo in low-back pain, and question the universal endorsement of paracetamol in this patient group. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and GlaxoSmithKline Australia.

Introduction Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by persistent widespread pain, increased pain sensitivity and tenderness. Muscle strength in women with FM is reduced compared to healthy women. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of a progressive resistance exercise program on muscle strength, health status, and current pain intensity in women with FM. Methods A total of 130 women with FM (age 22–64 years, symptom duration 0–35 years) were included in this assessor-blinded randomized controlled multi-center trial examining the effects of progressive resistance group exercise compared with an active control group. A person-centred model of exercise was used to support the participants’ self-confidence for management of exercise because of known risks of activity-induced pain in FM. The intervention was performed twice a week for 15 weeks and was supervised by experienced physiotherapists. Primary outcome measure was isometric knee-extension force (Steve Strong®), secondary outcome measures were health status (FIQ total score), current pain intensity (VAS), 6MWT, isometric elbow-flexion force, hand-grip force, health related quality of life, pain disability, pain acceptance, fear avoidance beliefs, and patient global impression of change (PGIC). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and immediately after the intervention. Long-term follow up comprised the self-reported questionnaires only and was conducted after 13–18 months. Between-group and within-group differences were calculated using non-parametric statistics. Results Significant improvements were found for isometric knee-extension force ( p = 0.010), health status ( p = 0.038), current pain intensity ( p = 0.033), 6MWT ( p = 0.003), isometric elbow flexion force ( p = 0.02), pain disability ( p = 0.005), and pain acceptance ( p = 0.043) in the resistance exercise group ( n = 56) when compared to the control group ( n = 49). PGIC differed significantly ( p = 0.001) in favor of the resistance exercise group at post-treatment examinations. No significant differences between the resistance exercise group and the active control group were found regarding change in self-reported questionnaires from baseline to 13–18 months. Conclusions Person-centered progressive resistance exercise was found to be a feasible mode of exercise for women with FM, improving muscle strength, health status, and current pain intensity when assessed immediately after the intervention. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT01226784 , Oct 21, 2010.

Objective. To assess benefits of mindfulness meditation and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based intervention for opioid-treated chronic low back pain (CLBP). Design. 26-week parallel-arm pilot randomized controlled trial (Intervention and Usual Care versus Usual Care alone). Setting. Outpatient. Subjects. Adults with CLBP, prescribed ≥30 mg/day of morphine-equivalent dose (MED) for at least 3 months. Methods. The intervention comprised eight weekly group sessions (meditation and CLBP-specific CBT components) and 30 minutes/day, 6 days/week of at-home practice. Outcome measures were collected at baseline, 8, and 26 weeks: primary-pain severity (Brief Pain Inventory) and function/disability (Oswestry Disability Index); secondary-pain acceptance, opioid dose, pain sensitivity to thermal stimuli, and serum pain-sensitive biomarkers (Interferon-γ; Tumor Necrosis Factor-α; Interleukins 1ß and 6; C-reactive Protein). Results. Thirty-five (21 experimental, 14 control) participants were enrolled and completed the study. They were 51.8 ± 9.7 years old, 80% female, with severe CLBP-related disability (66.7 ± 11.4), moderate pain severity (5.8 ± 1.4), and taking 148.3 ± 129.2 mg/day of MED. Results of the intention-to-treat analysis showed that, compared with controls, the meditation-CBT group reduced pain severity ratings during the study (P = 0.045), with between-group difference in score change reaching 1 point at 26 weeks (95% Confidence Interval: 0.2,1.9; Cohen’s d = 0.86), and decreased pain sensitivity to thermal stimuli (P < 0.05), without adverse events. Exploratory analyses suggested a relationship between the extent of meditation practice and the magnitude of intervention benefits. Conclusions. Meditation-CBT intervention reduced pain severity and sensitivity to experimental thermal pain stimuli in patients with opioid-treated CLBP.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESThis study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to a control and to other nerve stimulation therapies (NSTs) for the treatment of chronic back pain. METHODSCitations were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2014 using the following keywordsnerve stimulation therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, back pain, chronic pain. Control treatments included sham, placebo, or medication only. Other NSTs included electroacupuncture, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and percutaneous neuromodulation therapy. RESULTSTwelve randomized controlled trials including 700 patients were included in the analysis. The efficacy of TENS was similar to that of control treatment for providing pain relief (standardized difference in means [SDM] = −0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.58 to 0.18; P = 0.293). Other types of NSTs were more effective than TENS in providing pain relief (SDM = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.15–1.57; P = 0.017). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was more effective than control treatment in improving functional disability only in patients with follow-up of less than 6 weeks (SDM = −1.24; 95% CI, −1.83 to −0.65; P < 0.001). There was no difference in functional disability outcomes between TENS and other NSTs. CONCLUSIONSThese results suggest that TENS does not improve symptoms of lower back pain, but may offer short-term improvement of functional disability.

BackgroundThe population undergoing cardiac surgery confronts challenges from uncontrolled post-sternotomy pain, with possible adverse effects on outcome. While the parasternal block can improve analgesia, its coverage may be insufficient to cover epigastric area. In this non-blinded randomized controlled study, we evaluated the analgesic and respiratory effect of adding a rectus sheath block to a parasternal block.Methods58 patients undergoing cardiac surgery via median sternotomy were randomly assigned to receive parasternal block with rectus sheath block (experimental) or parasternal block with epigastric exit sites of chest drains receiving surgical infiltration of local anesthetic (control). The primary outcome of this study was pain at rest at extubation. We also assessed pain scores at rest and during respiratory exercises, opiate consumption and respiratory performance during the first 24 hours after extubation.ResultsThe median (IQR) maximum pain scores (on a 0–10 Numeric Rate Scale (NRS)) at extubation were 4 (4, 4) in the rectus sheath group and 5 (4, 5) in the control group (difference 1, p value=0.03). Rectus sheath block reduced opioid utilization by 2 mg over 24 hours (IC 95% 0.0 to 2.0; p<0.01), reduced NRS scores at other time points, and improved respiratory performance at 6, 12, and 24 hours after extubation.ConclusionThe addition of a rectus sheath block with a parasternal block improves analgesia for cardiac surgery requiring chest drains emerging in the epigastric area.Trial registration number NCT05764616.

BackgroundWe report the results from the first large, postmarket, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for the treatment of chronic peripheral pain with a micro-implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG).MethodsSubjects meeting eligibility were randomised (2:1) to either the active arm receiving PNS and conventional medical management (CMM) or the control arm receiving CMM alone. Treatments were limited to the following areas: lower back, shoulder, knee and foot/ankle.ResultsAt 6 months, the active arm achieved an 88% responder rate with a 70% average reduction in pain. At the 3-month primary endpoint, the active arm achieved an 84% responder rate with an average pain reduction of 67% compared with the control arm, which achieved a 3% responder rate with an average pain reduction of 6%. Both responder rate and pain reduction in the active arm were significantly better than in the control arm (p<0.001). A majority of patient-reported outcomes also reached statistical significance. There have been no reports of pocket pain and no serious adverse device effects. 81% of subjects found the external wearable component of the PNS system to be comfortable.ConclusionsThis study successfully reached its primary endpoint—the active arm achieved a statistically significant superior responder rate as compared with the control arm at 3 months. These RCT results demonstrated that PNS, with this micro-IPG, is efficacious and safe. This ongoing study will follow subjects for 3 years, the results of which will be reported as they become available.