OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since we have only included one small and very low-quality trial, with a high risk of bias across several domains, we are unable to conclude whether TENS is harmful or beneficial for managing pain in people with SCD. There is a need for a well-designed, adequately-powered, RCT to evaluate the role of TENS in managing pain in people with SCD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINHAL, CENTRAL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant websites were searched for randomized controlled trials published in the English language involving adults with chronic pain. Studies were included if one of the intervention arms had received pharmacist-led medication review independently or as part of a multidisciplinary intervention. Risk of bias was assessed for all the included studies.
RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 583 unique articles including 5 randomized controlled trials. Compared with control, meta-analysis showed that participants in the intervention group had: a 0.8-point reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.28 to -0.36] and a 0.7-point reduction (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.20) at 6 months; a 4.84 point (95% CI, -7.38 to -2.29) and -3.82 point (95% CI, -6.49 to -1.14) improvement in physical functioning on a 0- to 68-point function subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at 3 and 6 months, respectively; and a significant improvement in patient satisfaction equivalent to a "small to moderate effect."
DISCUSSION: Pharmacist-led medication review reduces pain intensity and improves physical functioning and patient satisfaction. However, the clinical significance of these findings remain uncertain due to small effect size and nature of reported data within clinical trials that limits recommendation of wider clinical role of pharmacist in chronic pain management.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine and evaluate the trajectory of surgical wound pain from day 1 to day 14 after posterior spinal fusion (PSF) surgery in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Information regarding how the postoperative pain improves with time offers invaluable information not only to the patients and parents but also to assist the clinician in managing postoperative pain.
METHODS: AIS patients who were planned for elective PSF surgery from September 2015 to December 2015 were prospectively recruited into this study. All patients underwent a similar pain management regimen with patient-controlled anesthesia (PCA) morphine, acetaminophen, celecoxib, and oxycodone hydrochloride.
RESULTS: A total of 40 patients (36 F:4 M) were recruited. The visual analogue score (VAS) pain score was highest at 12 hours postoperation (6.0 ± 2.3). It reduced to 3.9 ± 2.2 (day 4), 1.9 ± 1.6 (day 7), and 0.7 ± 1.1 (day 14). The total PCA usage in all patients was 12.4 ± 9.9 mg (first 12 hours), 7.1 ± 8.0 mg (12 to 24 hours), 5.6 ± 6.9 (24-36 hours), and 2.1 ± 6.1 mg (36-48 hours). The celecoxib capsules usage was reducing from 215.0 ± 152.8 mg at 24 hours to 55.0 ± 90.4 mg on day 14. The acetaminophen usage was reducing from 2275 ± 1198 mg at 24 hours to 150 ± 483 mg at day 14. Oxycodone hydrochloride capsules consumption rose to the peak of 1.4 ± 2.8 mg on day 4 before gradually reducing to none by day 13.
CONCLUSION: With an adequate postoperation pain regimen, significant pain should subside to a tolerable level by postoperative day 4 and negligible by postoperative day 7. Patient usually can be discharged on postoperative day 4 when the usage of PCA morphine was not required.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
AIM: To investigate the attitudes and perceptions of morphine use in cancer pain in advanced cancer patients and their caregivers and to examine the influence of caregivers' attitudes and perceptions on patients' acceptance of morphine.
DESIGN: Qualitative study involving semi-structured individual interviews transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 18 adult opioid-naïve patients with advanced cancer and 13 caregivers (n = 31) were recruited at a private tertiary hospital via convenience sampling.
RESULTS: Attitudes and perceptions of morphine were influenced by previous experiences. Prevalent themes were similar in both groups, including perceptions that morphine was a strong analgesic that reduced suffering, but associated with end-stage illness and dependence. Most participants were open to future morphine use for comfort and effective pain control. Trust in doctors' recommendations was also an important factor. However, many preferred morphine as a last resort because of concerns about side effects and dependence, and the perception that morphine was only used at the terminal stage. Caregivers' attitudes toward morphine did not affect patients' acceptance of morphine use.
CONCLUSION: Most participants were open to future morphine use despite negative perceptions as they prioritized optimal pain control and reduction of suffering. Focused education programs addressing morphine misperceptions might increase patient and caregiver acceptance of opioid analgesics and improve cancer pain control.
Methods: This cross-sectional observational study involved 465 adults prescribed analgesics for cancer-related pain from 22 sites across Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Pain intensity, pain control satisfaction, and adequacy of analgesics for pain control were documented using questionnaires.
Results: Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. On a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worse pain), patients' mean worst pain intensity over 24 hours was 4.76 (SD 2.47). More physicians (19.0%) than patients (8.0%) reported dissatisfaction with patient's pain control. Concordance of patient-physician satisfaction was low (weighted kappa 0.36; 95% CI 0.03-0.24). Most physicians (71.2%) found analgesics to be adequate for pain control. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction with pain control and physician-assessed analgesic adequacy were significantly different across countries (P < 0.001 for all).
Conclusions: Despite pain-related problems with sleep and quality of life, patients were generally satisfied with their pain control status. Interestingly, physicians were more likely to be dissatisfied with patients' pain control. Enhanced patient-physician communication, physicians' proactivity in managing opioid-induced adverse effects, and accessibility of analgesics have been identified to be crucial for successful cancer pain management. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02664987).