Pilot study of eDOL, a new mHealth application and web platform for medical follow-up of chronic pain patients (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICOLAS KERCKHOVE ◽  
Noémie Delage ◽  
Sébastien Cambier ◽  
Nathalie Cantagrel ◽  
Eric Serra ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND The pharmacopoeia of analgesics is old, their effectiveness is limited, with undesirable effects and little progress has been made in recent years. Thus, innovation is limited despite prolific basic research. Better characterization of patients could help to identify the predictors of successful treatments through research programs, and therefore enable physicians to carry out better decision-making in the initial choice of treatment and in the follow-up of their patients. Nevertheless, the current assessment of chronic pain patients provides only fragmentary data on their painful daily experiences. Thus, it is essential to modify the temporality in which patients’ sensations are assessed, with real-life monitoring of different parameters, i.e. subjective and objective markers of chronic pain. Consequently, recent studies have highlighted the urgent need to develop self-management and chronic pain management programs through e-health programs, and enhance their therapeutic value. OBJECTIVE We hypothesize that regular patient self-monitoring using an mHealth application would lead physicians to obtain deeper knowledge and a new vision of chronic pain patients, while for patients it would play a positive therapeutic role, as they become active in their own management and benefit from online advice. Such an assessment would not only contribute to better patient characterization and help in the choice of the most appropriate treatment, but could also improve adherence to treatment. To address this issue, we evaluated the feasibility and acceptability, by patients and physicians, of a new mHealth application called eDOL. METHODS An observational study assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the eDOL tool was conducted. Patients completed several questionnaires via eDOL over a period of 2 weeks, and then repeatedly over a period of 3 months. Physicians saw their patients at a follow-up visit that took place at least 3-months after the inclusion visit. The primary endpoint, a composite criterion reflecting the acceptability of eDOL and the feasibility of its use, was assessed using satisfaction questionnaires for both patients and physicians after the completion of study. RESULTS One hundred and thirty-three patients were included of whom 105 were analyzable. Our results showed a rate of adherence of approximately 60% of patients after 3 months of using eDOL, a median acceptability score around 7/10 for both patients and physicians, a high rate of completion of the baseline questionnaires / meters, and a low rate for follow-up questionnaires / meters and forms. We were also able to characterize subgroups of patients and determine a profile of those who adhered to eDOL. CONCLUSIONS This work demonstrates that eDOL is highly feasible and acceptable for both chronic pain patients and their physicians. It also shows that such a tool can integrate many parameters to ensure the detailed characterization of patients for future research works and pain management. CLINICALTRIAL NCT03931694

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ringqvist ◽  
Dragioti ◽  
Björk ◽  
Larsson ◽  
Gerdle

Few studies have investigated the real-life outcomes of interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation programs (IMMRP) for chronic pain. This study has four aims: investigate effect sizes (ES); analyse correlation patterns of outcome changes; define a multivariate outcome measure; and investigate whether the clinical self-reported presentation pre-IMMRP predicts the multivariate outcome. To this end, this study analysed chronic pain patients in specialist care included in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation for 22 outcomes (pain, psychological distress, participation, and health) on three occasions: pre-IMMRP, post-IMMRP, and 12-month follow-up. Moderate stable ES were demonstrated for pain intensity, interference in daily life, vitality, and health; most other outcomes showed small ES. Using a Multivariate Improvement Score (MIS), we identified three clusters. Cluster 1 had marked positive MIS and was associated with the overall worst situation pre-IMMRP. However, the pre-IMMRP situation could only predict 8% of the variation in MIS. Specialist care IMPRPs showed moderate ES for pain, interference, vitality, and health. Outcomes were best for patients with the worst clinical presentation pre-IMMRP. It was not possible to predict who would clinically benefit most from IMMRP.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 3199-3204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chrysanthi Batistaki ◽  
Eleni Chrona ◽  
Andreas Kostroglou ◽  
Georgia Kostopanagiotou ◽  
Maria Gazouli

Abstract Objective To assess CYP2D6 genotype prevalence in chronic pain patients treated with tramadol or codeine. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting General hospital, pain management unit. Subjects Patients with chronic pain, treated with codeine or tramadol. Methods Patients’ pain was assessed at baseline (numeric rating scale [NRS]; 0–10). Prescription of codeine or tramadol was selected randomly. The assessment of patients’ response to the drug in terms of pain relief and adverse effects was performed after 24 hours. Reduction of pain intensity of >50% or an NRS <4 was considered a positive response. Patients’ blood samples were collected during the first visit. Genotyping for the common variants CYP2D6 *2, *3, *4, *5, *6, *9, *10, *14, and *17 was performed, and alleles not carrying any polymorphic allele were classified as CYP2D6*1 (wild-type [wt]). Results Seventy-six consecutive patients were studied (20 males, 56 females), aged 21–85 years. Thirty-four received tramadol and 42 codeine. The main genotypes of CYP2D6 identified were the wt/wt (35.5%), the *4/wt (17.1%), and the *6/wt (10.5%). Adverse effects were common, especially in carriers of *9/*9, *5/*5, *5/*4, and *10/*10, as well as in variants including the 4 allele (*4/*1 [38.4%] and *4/*4 [42.8%]). Conclusions Genotyping can facilitate personalized pain management with opioids, as specific alleles are related to decreased efficacy and adverse effects.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. E183-S204
Author(s):  
Christopher Gharibo

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of “elective” interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures. Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. Objectives: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. Methods: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. Results: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included emergent, urgent, and elective procedures. Examples of emergent and urgent procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, urgent procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. Limitations: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Key words: Coronavirus, COVID-19, interventional pain management, COVID risk factors, elective surgeries, interventional techniques, chronic pain, immunosuppression


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document