Pain

Obstetric patients whose first language is not English received fewer pain assessments and fewer doses of NSAIDs and oxycodone therapeutic equivalents (OTEs) following cesarean deliveries, according to a retrospective cohort study poster presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The findings “may indicate language as a barrier for equitable pain management in the postpartum period,” concluded Alison Wiles, MD, a resident at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., and colleagues. They recommended “scheduled pain assessment and around the clock nonopioid medication administration” as potential ways to reduce the disparities.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management have been well documented in both inpatient and outpatient settings, [and] similar disparities exist within postpartum pain management,” the researchers note in their background material. They also note that non-Hispanic White communities tend to have a higher incidence of opioid misuse.

The researchers conducted a retrospective study of 327 women who had cesarean deliveries from January to June 2018 at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital. They excluded women who underwent cesarean hysterectomies, received general anesthesia or patient-controlled analgesia, had a history of drug use, or had allergies to opiates. They did not note incidence of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or other gynecologic conditions aside from delivery that could cause pain.

The population included a similar number of non-Hispanic White women (n = 111) and Hispanic women (n = 125). The remaining study participants included 32 non-Hispanic Black women and 59 women who were Asian or had another race/ethnicity. The women’s average age was 31, which was statistically similar across all four race/ethnicity groups. Average body mass index of participants was also similar, ranging from 32 to 34.6 kg/m², across all four demographic groups.

About half of all the women (52%) had a previous cesarean delivery, but rates were significantly different between groups: 31% of non-Hispanic Black women and 58% of Hispanic women had a prior cesarean, compared to 50% of non-Hispanic White, Asian, and other women (P < .05).

Half the women in the study overall (50.5%) had public insurance, but the proportion of those with public insurance differed significantly by racial/ethnic demographics. Less than a quarter of Asian/other women (23%) had public insurance, compared with 78% of Hispanic women, 74% of non-Hispanic White women, and 59% of non-Hispanic Black women (P < .0001).

Most of the women (76%) spoke English as their primary language, which included nearly all the women in each demographic group except Hispanic, in which 58% of the women’s primary language was Spanish or another language (P < .0001).

Hispanic patients received an average of 10 pain assessments after their cesarean, compared with an average of 11 in each of the other demographic groups (P = .02). Similarly, English speakers received an average 11 pain assessments, but those who primarily spoke Spanish or another language received 10 (P = .01).

The differences between English and non-English speakers were reflected in who received pain medication even though pain scores were the same between the two groups. English speakers received an average two doses of NSAIDs in the first 24 hours post partum, compared with one dose for those who spoke a primary language other than English (P = .03). At 24-48 hours post partum, those who spoke English received an average three NSAID doses, compared with two among those whose primary language was Spanish or another language (P = .03).

There was no difference between language groups in doses of OTEs in the first 24 hours post partum, but differences did occur on the second day. Women who primarily spoke English received an average four OTE doses in the 24-48 hours post partum, compared with two doses given to women who spoke a non-English primary language (P = .03).

Differences were less consistent or not significant when looking solely at race/ethnicity. All four groups received an average of two NSAID doses in the first 24 hours post partum, but second-day rates varied. Non-Hispanic White women and Asian/other women received an average three doses from 24 to 48 hours post partum while non-Hispanic Black women received one and Hispanic women received two (P = .0009).

No statistically significant differences in OTE doses occurred across the groups in the first 24 hours, but from 24 to 48 hours, the average two doses received by Hispanic women and 3 doses received by Asian women differed significantly from the average four doses received by non-Hispanic White women and the average five doses received by non-Hispanic Black women (P =.01).

“Non-Hispanic Black patients had higher OTE doses and fewer NSAID doses in the 24- to 48-hour postpartum period despite no differences in severe pain scores,” the authors also reported.

“These findings are surprising given the standardized protocols in place designed to assess and treat pain post partum,” Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview. ” Protocols should minimize bias and promote equitable delivery of care.”

Dr. Garrison said it’s important to find out why these discrepancies exist even when ready access to interpretation services exist in the hospital.

“An important component of health care disparity research is to hear directly from patients themselves about their experiences,” Dr. Garrison said. “Often the patient voice is an overlooked and underappreciated resource. I hope that future iterations of this work include patient perceptions about the adequacy of postpartum care and provide more information about how health care delivery can be tailored to the unique needs of this vulnerable population.”

The authors reported no disclosures. Dr Garrison reported receiving a grant from the State of Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review Committee to Create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer Program.

Obstetric patients whose first language is not English received fewer pain assessments and fewer doses of NSAIDs and oxycodone therapeutic equivalents (OTEs) following cesarean deliveries, according to a retrospective cohort study poster presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The findings “may indicate language as a barrier for equitable pain management in the postpartum period,” concluded Alison Wiles, MD, a resident at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., and colleagues. They recommended “scheduled pain assessment and around the clock nonopioid medication administration” as potential ways to reduce the disparities.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management have been well documented in both inpatient and outpatient settings, [and] similar disparities exist within postpartum pain management,” the researchers note in their background material. They also note that non-Hispanic White communities tend to have a higher incidence of opioid misuse.

The researchers conducted a retrospective study of 327 women who had cesarean deliveries from January to June 2018 at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital. They excluded women who underwent cesarean hysterectomies, received general anesthesia or patient-controlled analgesia, had a history of drug use, or had allergies to opiates. They did not note incidence of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or other gynecologic conditions aside from delivery that could cause pain.

The population included a similar number of non-Hispanic White women (n = 111) and Hispanic women (n = 125). The remaining study participants included 32 non-Hispanic Black women and 59 women who were Asian or had another race/ethnicity. The women’s average age was 31, which was statistically similar across all four race/ethnicity groups. Average body mass index of participants was also similar, ranging from 32 to 34.6 kg/m², across all four demographic groups.

About half of all the women (52%) had a previous cesarean delivery, but rates were significantly different between groups: 31% of non-Hispanic Black women and 58% of Hispanic women had a prior cesarean, compared to 50% of non-Hispanic White, Asian, and other women (P < .05).

Half the women in the study overall (50.5%) had public insurance, but the proportion of those with public insurance differed significantly by racial/ethnic demographics. Less than a quarter of Asian/other women (23%) had public insurance, compared with 78% of Hispanic women, 74% of non-Hispanic White women, and 59% of non-Hispanic Black women (P < .0001).

Most of the women (76%) spoke English as their primary language, which included nearly all the women in each demographic group except Hispanic, in which 58% of the women’s primary language was Spanish or another language (P < .0001).

Hispanic patients received an average of 10 pain assessments after their cesarean, compared with an average of 11 in each of the other demographic groups (P = .02). Similarly, English speakers received an average 11 pain assessments, but those who primarily spoke Spanish or another language received 10 (P = .01).

The differences between English and non-English speakers were reflected in who received pain medication even though pain scores were the same between the two groups. English speakers received an average two doses of NSAIDs in the first 24 hours post partum, compared with one dose for those who spoke a primary language other than English (P = .03). At 24-48 hours post partum, those who spoke English received an average three NSAID doses, compared with two among those whose primary language was Spanish or another language (P = .03).

There was no difference between language groups in doses of OTEs in the first 24 hours post partum, but differences did occur on the second day. Women who primarily spoke English received an average four OTE doses in the 24-48 hours post partum, compared with two doses given to women who spoke a non-English primary language (P = .03).

Differences were less consistent or not significant when looking solely at race/ethnicity. All four groups received an average of two NSAID doses in the first 24 hours post partum, but second-day rates varied. Non-Hispanic White women and Asian/other women received an average three doses from 24 to 48 hours post partum while non-Hispanic Black women received one and Hispanic women received two (P = .0009).

No statistically significant differences in OTE doses occurred across the groups in the first 24 hours, but from 24 to 48 hours, the average two doses received by Hispanic women and 3 doses received by Asian women differed significantly from the average four doses received by non-Hispanic White women and the average five doses received by non-Hispanic Black women (P =.01).

“Non-Hispanic Black patients had higher OTE doses and fewer NSAID doses in the 24- to 48-hour postpartum period despite no differences in severe pain scores,” the authors also reported.

“These findings are surprising given the standardized protocols in place designed to assess and treat pain post partum,” Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview. ” Protocols should minimize bias and promote equitable delivery of care.”

Dr. Garrison said it’s important to find out why these discrepancies exist even when ready access to interpretation services exist in the hospital.

“An important component of health care disparity research is to hear directly from patients themselves about their experiences,” Dr. Garrison said. “Often the patient voice is an overlooked and underappreciated resource. I hope that future iterations of this work include patient perceptions about the adequacy of postpartum care and provide more information about how health care delivery can be tailored to the unique needs of this vulnerable population.”

The authors reported no disclosures. Dr Garrison reported receiving a grant from the State of Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review Committee to Create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer Program.

Obstetric patients whose first language is not English received fewer pain assessments and fewer doses of NSAIDs and oxycodone therapeutic equivalents (OTEs) following cesarean deliveries, according to a retrospective cohort study poster presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The findings “may indicate language as a barrier for equitable pain management in the postpartum period,” concluded Alison Wiles, MD, a resident at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., and colleagues. They recommended “scheduled pain assessment and around the clock nonopioid medication administration” as potential ways to reduce the disparities.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management have been well documented in both inpatient and outpatient settings, [and] similar disparities exist within postpartum pain management,” the researchers note in their background material. They also note that non-Hispanic White communities tend to have a higher incidence of opioid misuse.

The researchers conducted a retrospective study of 327 women who had cesarean deliveries from January to June 2018 at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital. They excluded women who underwent cesarean hysterectomies, received general anesthesia or patient-controlled analgesia, had a history of drug use, or had allergies to opiates. They did not note incidence of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or other gynecologic conditions aside from delivery that could cause pain.

The population included a similar number of non-Hispanic White women (n = 111) and Hispanic women (n = 125). The remaining study participants included 32 non-Hispanic Black women and 59 women who were Asian or had another race/ethnicity. The women’s average age was 31, which was statistically similar across all four race/ethnicity groups. Average body mass index of participants was also similar, ranging from 32 to 34.6 kg/m², across all four demographic groups.

About half of all the women (52%) had a previous cesarean delivery, but rates were significantly different between groups: 31% of non-Hispanic Black women and 58% of Hispanic women had a prior cesarean, compared to 50% of non-Hispanic White, Asian, and other women (P < .05).

Half the women in the study overall (50.5%) had public insurance, but the proportion of those with public insurance differed significantly by racial/ethnic demographics. Less than a quarter of Asian/other women (23%) had public insurance, compared with 78% of Hispanic women, 74% of non-Hispanic White women, and 59% of non-Hispanic Black women (P < .0001).

Most of the women (76%) spoke English as their primary language, which included nearly all the women in each demographic group except Hispanic, in which 58% of the women’s primary language was Spanish or another language (P < .0001).

Hispanic patients received an average of 10 pain assessments after their cesarean, compared with an average of 11 in each of the other demographic groups (P = .02). Similarly, English speakers received an average 11 pain assessments, but those who primarily spoke Spanish or another language received 10 (P = .01).

The differences between English and non-English speakers were reflected in who received pain medication even though pain scores were the same between the two groups. English speakers received an average two doses of NSAIDs in the first 24 hours post partum, compared with one dose for those who spoke a primary language other than English (P = .03). At 24-48 hours post partum, those who spoke English received an average three NSAID doses, compared with two among those whose primary language was Spanish or another language (P = .03).

There was no difference between language groups in doses of OTEs in the first 24 hours post partum, but differences did occur on the second day. Women who primarily spoke English received an average four OTE doses in the 24-48 hours post partum, compared with two doses given to women who spoke a non-English primary language (P = .03).

Differences were less consistent or not significant when looking solely at race/ethnicity. All four groups received an average of two NSAID doses in the first 24 hours post partum, but second-day rates varied. Non-Hispanic White women and Asian/other women received an average three doses from 24 to 48 hours post partum while non-Hispanic Black women received one and Hispanic women received two (P = .0009).

No statistically significant differences in OTE doses occurred across the groups in the first 24 hours, but from 24 to 48 hours, the average two doses received by Hispanic women and 3 doses received by Asian women differed significantly from the average four doses received by non-Hispanic White women and the average five doses received by non-Hispanic Black women (P =.01).

“Non-Hispanic Black patients had higher OTE doses and fewer NSAID doses in the 24- to 48-hour postpartum period despite no differences in severe pain scores,” the authors also reported.

“These findings are surprising given the standardized protocols in place designed to assess and treat pain post partum,” Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview. ” Protocols should minimize bias and promote equitable delivery of care.”

Dr. Garrison said it’s important to find out why these discrepancies exist even when ready access to interpretation services exist in the hospital.

“An important component of health care disparity research is to hear directly from patients themselves about their experiences,” Dr. Garrison said. “Often the patient voice is an overlooked and underappreciated resource. I hope that future iterations of this work include patient perceptions about the adequacy of postpartum care and provide more information about how health care delivery can be tailored to the unique needs of this vulnerable population.”

The authors reported no disclosures. Dr Garrison reported receiving a grant from the State of Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review Committee to Create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer Program.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention (comprising personalized and cocreated treatment plans to promote physical activity) for individuals with chronic widespread pain when delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up.

Design. Single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Participants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) who had participated in a pain management program from 2010–16 at 5 primary health care rehabilitation centers in 5 cities or towns in the western part of Sweden were invited to join the study between March 2018 and April 2019 via letter providing information about the intervention. The letter was followed by a phone call 1-2 weeks later to screen for inclusion and exclusion criteria and interest in participating. Additional participants were invited to participate via a newspaper advertisement in 1 of the 5 cities.

Inclusion criteria were Swedish-speaking persons aged 20–65 years with CWP (defined as having pain in both sides of the body, pain above and below the waist, and axial pain for at least 3 months). Exclusion criteria included having other severe somatic or psychiatric disorders, dominating causes of pain other than CWP, or other severe disease interfering with the ability to be physically active, pregnancy, not having access to a smartphone or a computer, inability to speak or understand Swedish, ongoing physiotherapy treatment, and already exercising regularly. Of 716 people initially assessed for eligibility, 425 completed telephone screening, and 139 were randomized (using block randomization) to either the intervention arm (n = 69) or the active control arm (n = 70). Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation. All participants provided written informed consent.

The 2 groups underwent the same first individual meeting with a physiotherapist to cocreate a health plan with physical activities, and, if needed, stress management, based on each participant’s individual preferences, obstacles, goals, and resources. The difference between the groups was the type of follow-up support. Participants in the intervention group had 1 follow-up meeting with the physiotherapist a week after the initial meeting (to review and adjust the health plan as needed) and thereafter were supported through a digital e-health platform (accessed via the participant’s smartphone or computer) during the 6-month follow-up period. Participants were encouraged to access the platform once a week to answer questions regarding their health, and the extent to which they had been able to manage their health plan during the previous week. In addition, the participant and physiotherapist could communicate via the platform as needed. Participants in the active control group had 1 follow-up phone call with the physiotherapist 1 month after the initial meeting (similarly to review and adjust the health plan as needed), and no further contact or support from the physiotherapist during the 6-month follow-up period.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity during the previous week assessed with a 0–100 subscale from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-pain). Secondary outcome measures included overall health status (via FIQ-total with 10 subscales), global fatigue (via FIQ-fatigue subscale), multidimensional fatigue (via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, a 20-item questionnaire rated on a 1-5 Likert scale), clinical manifestations of stress (via Stress and Crisis Inventory, a 35-item questionnaire rated on a 0-4 Likert scale), self-efficacy (via General Self-Efficacy Scale, a 10-item questionnaire rated on a 1-4 Likert scale), health-related quality of life (via Short Form 36, specifically the Physical Component Summary composite score), leisure-time physical activity (via Leisure Time Physical Activity Instrument), and physical function (via 1-min chair-stand test). Additional demographic data on age, pain localization, pharmacological treatment, tobacco use, country of birth, level of education, family status, economic status, work status, sick-leave, and disability pension were collected via a questionnaire.

Between-group differences for changes in outcomes from baseline to 6-month follow-up were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, and Pearson’s χ² or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Significance level was set at 5% with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. All analyses were made according to intention-to-treat by originally assigned group; missing cases were not included in the analysis.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle income, educated (> 12 years of education) females, with > 60% of participants working at least part-time (between-group differences in baseline data and demographic data not detailed in the article). A total of 29 participants were lost to follow-up. In the intervention group, lost-to-follow up participants were older, performed fewer hours of physical activity, and had lower mental fatigue at baseline, compared with those who were lost to follow-up in the active control group.

In between-group analyses, there were no significant differences in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The only significant difference in secondary outcomes was seen in global fatigue – the active control group improved significantly compared with the intervention group (P = .004).

In the intervention group, 87% of participants used the digital platform. Among these users, 35% contacted the physiotherapist (75% of these communications were health- or study-related issues, 25% were issues with the digital platform), 33% were contacted by the physiotherapist (96% of these communications were about the health plan and physical activity), and 32% never had any contact with the physiotherapist. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up between platform users and non-users (P = .03, mean change [SD] 3.8 [19.66] mm vs –20.5 [6.36] mm, respectively).

Conclusion. No significant differences were found between the groups after 6 months (except for a significant decrease in global fatigue in the active control group compared with the intervention group). Further development of interventions to support persons with CWP to maintain regular physical activity is needed.

Commentary

Chronic widespread pain is a disorder characterized by diffuse body pain persisting for at least 3 months.^1-2 It has been associated with lost work productivity, mental ill health, and reduced quality of life. The development of clinically effective and cost-effective pain management strategies for CWP is challenging given the syndrome complexity and heterogenous symptomology. Thus, multimodal, multidisciplinary management is widely advocated, often a combination of education and self-management, with integration of physical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments.^1-3 Of note, physical exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy are 2 non-pharmacological treatments that hold some promise based on available evidence.

The pervasiveness of technology in nearly all aspects of daily life has corresponded with the development of implementation of a wide range of technology-based interventions for health purposes.⁴ Examples of electronic health or eHealth modalities include internet-based, telephone supported, interactive voice-response, videoconferencing, mobile apps, and virtual reality. While the use of technology in chronic pain management interventions has increased in recent years, the literature is still limited, heterogenous, and provides limited evidence on the efficacy of eHealth/digital interventions, let alone which specific modalities are most effective.^4-9

This study adds to the literature as a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention for individuals with CWP delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up. Results showed no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity and nearly all secondary outcomes between the intervention group (supported by the digital platform) and the active control group (supported by a follow-up phone call). Further, intervention participants who did not use the platform improved significantly more in pain intensity than those who used the platform.

While these results imply that digital support does not contribute to improvements in the outcomes measured, it is important these findings are interpreted with caution given the limitations of the study design as well as limitations with the intervention itself. Importantly, while this study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, the authors indicated that it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. In addition, as the authors note, an intervention aimed at increasing physical activity should ideally include an objective measure of activity and this was lacking in this study. The use of an actigraphy device for example would have provided objective, continuous data on movement and could have helped assess an important outcome measure – whether participants reached their physical activity goals or had increased their overall physical activity. In the analysis, there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons or use of imputation methods to handle missing values. Further, it was unclear whether differences in baseline data were evaluated and taken into consideration in between-group analyses. Lastly, results are only attributable to the eHealth mode used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital/eHealth interventions persons with CWP.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the results of this study failed to demonstrate significant differences between a physical activity-promoting intervention for persons with CWP with digital follow-up vs telephone follow-up, it remains important to consider person-centered principles when offering CWP management support. In this spirit, clinicians should consider a management approach that takes into account the individual’s knowledge, resources, and barriers, and also actively involves the patient in treatment planning to enhance the patient’s self-efficacy to manage their health. In addition, individual preference for a specific (or combination of) eHealth/digital modality should be considered and used to guide a comprehensive management plan, as well as used as a complementary modality to face-to-face care/support.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention (comprising personalized and cocreated treatment plans to promote physical activity) for individuals with chronic widespread pain when delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up.

Design. Single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Participants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) who had participated in a pain management program from 2010–16 at 5 primary health care rehabilitation centers in 5 cities or towns in the western part of Sweden were invited to join the study between March 2018 and April 2019 via letter providing information about the intervention. The letter was followed by a phone call 1-2 weeks later to screen for inclusion and exclusion criteria and interest in participating. Additional participants were invited to participate via a newspaper advertisement in 1 of the 5 cities.

Inclusion criteria were Swedish-speaking persons aged 20–65 years with CWP (defined as having pain in both sides of the body, pain above and below the waist, and axial pain for at least 3 months). Exclusion criteria included having other severe somatic or psychiatric disorders, dominating causes of pain other than CWP, or other severe disease interfering with the ability to be physically active, pregnancy, not having access to a smartphone or a computer, inability to speak or understand Swedish, ongoing physiotherapy treatment, and already exercising regularly. Of 716 people initially assessed for eligibility, 425 completed telephone screening, and 139 were randomized (using block randomization) to either the intervention arm (n = 69) or the active control arm (n = 70). Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation. All participants provided written informed consent.

The 2 groups underwent the same first individual meeting with a physiotherapist to cocreate a health plan with physical activities, and, if needed, stress management, based on each participant’s individual preferences, obstacles, goals, and resources. The difference between the groups was the type of follow-up support. Participants in the intervention group had 1 follow-up meeting with the physiotherapist a week after the initial meeting (to review and adjust the health plan as needed) and thereafter were supported through a digital e-health platform (accessed via the participant’s smartphone or computer) during the 6-month follow-up period. Participants were encouraged to access the platform once a week to answer questions regarding their health, and the extent to which they had been able to manage their health plan during the previous week. In addition, the participant and physiotherapist could communicate via the platform as needed. Participants in the active control group had 1 follow-up phone call with the physiotherapist 1 month after the initial meeting (similarly to review and adjust the health plan as needed), and no further contact or support from the physiotherapist during the 6-month follow-up period.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity during the previous week assessed with a 0–100 subscale from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-pain). Secondary outcome measures included overall health status (via FIQ-total with 10 subscales), global fatigue (via FIQ-fatigue subscale), multidimensional fatigue (via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, a 20-item questionnaire rated on a 1-5 Likert scale), clinical manifestations of stress (via Stress and Crisis Inventory, a 35-item questionnaire rated on a 0-4 Likert scale), self-efficacy (via General Self-Efficacy Scale, a 10-item questionnaire rated on a 1-4 Likert scale), health-related quality of life (via Short Form 36, specifically the Physical Component Summary composite score), leisure-time physical activity (via Leisure Time Physical Activity Instrument), and physical function (via 1-min chair-stand test). Additional demographic data on age, pain localization, pharmacological treatment, tobacco use, country of birth, level of education, family status, economic status, work status, sick-leave, and disability pension were collected via a questionnaire.

Between-group differences for changes in outcomes from baseline to 6-month follow-up were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, and Pearson’s χ² or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Significance level was set at 5% with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. All analyses were made according to intention-to-treat by originally assigned group; missing cases were not included in the analysis.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle income, educated (> 12 years of education) females, with > 60% of participants working at least part-time (between-group differences in baseline data and demographic data not detailed in the article). A total of 29 participants were lost to follow-up. In the intervention group, lost-to-follow up participants were older, performed fewer hours of physical activity, and had lower mental fatigue at baseline, compared with those who were lost to follow-up in the active control group.

In between-group analyses, there were no significant differences in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The only significant difference in secondary outcomes was seen in global fatigue – the active control group improved significantly compared with the intervention group (P = .004).

In the intervention group, 87% of participants used the digital platform. Among these users, 35% contacted the physiotherapist (75% of these communications were health- or study-related issues, 25% were issues with the digital platform), 33% were contacted by the physiotherapist (96% of these communications were about the health plan and physical activity), and 32% never had any contact with the physiotherapist. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up between platform users and non-users (P = .03, mean change [SD] 3.8 [19.66] mm vs –20.5 [6.36] mm, respectively).

Conclusion. No significant differences were found between the groups after 6 months (except for a significant decrease in global fatigue in the active control group compared with the intervention group). Further development of interventions to support persons with CWP to maintain regular physical activity is needed.

Commentary

Chronic widespread pain is a disorder characterized by diffuse body pain persisting for at least 3 months.^1-2 It has been associated with lost work productivity, mental ill health, and reduced quality of life. The development of clinically effective and cost-effective pain management strategies for CWP is challenging given the syndrome complexity and heterogenous symptomology. Thus, multimodal, multidisciplinary management is widely advocated, often a combination of education and self-management, with integration of physical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments.^1-3 Of note, physical exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy are 2 non-pharmacological treatments that hold some promise based on available evidence.

The pervasiveness of technology in nearly all aspects of daily life has corresponded with the development of implementation of a wide range of technology-based interventions for health purposes.⁴ Examples of electronic health or eHealth modalities include internet-based, telephone supported, interactive voice-response, videoconferencing, mobile apps, and virtual reality. While the use of technology in chronic pain management interventions has increased in recent years, the literature is still limited, heterogenous, and provides limited evidence on the efficacy of eHealth/digital interventions, let alone which specific modalities are most effective.^4-9

This study adds to the literature as a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention for individuals with CWP delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up. Results showed no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity and nearly all secondary outcomes between the intervention group (supported by the digital platform) and the active control group (supported by a follow-up phone call). Further, intervention participants who did not use the platform improved significantly more in pain intensity than those who used the platform.

While these results imply that digital support does not contribute to improvements in the outcomes measured, it is important these findings are interpreted with caution given the limitations of the study design as well as limitations with the intervention itself. Importantly, while this study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, the authors indicated that it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. In addition, as the authors note, an intervention aimed at increasing physical activity should ideally include an objective measure of activity and this was lacking in this study. The use of an actigraphy device for example would have provided objective, continuous data on movement and could have helped assess an important outcome measure – whether participants reached their physical activity goals or had increased their overall physical activity. In the analysis, there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons or use of imputation methods to handle missing values. Further, it was unclear whether differences in baseline data were evaluated and taken into consideration in between-group analyses. Lastly, results are only attributable to the eHealth mode used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital/eHealth interventions persons with CWP.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the results of this study failed to demonstrate significant differences between a physical activity-promoting intervention for persons with CWP with digital follow-up vs telephone follow-up, it remains important to consider person-centered principles when offering CWP management support. In this spirit, clinicians should consider a management approach that takes into account the individual’s knowledge, resources, and barriers, and also actively involves the patient in treatment planning to enhance the patient’s self-efficacy to manage their health. In addition, individual preference for a specific (or combination of) eHealth/digital modality should be considered and used to guide a comprehensive management plan, as well as used as a complementary modality to face-to-face care/support.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention (comprising personalized and cocreated treatment plans to promote physical activity) for individuals with chronic widespread pain when delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up.

Design. Single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Participants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) who had participated in a pain management program from 2010–16 at 5 primary health care rehabilitation centers in 5 cities or towns in the western part of Sweden were invited to join the study between March 2018 and April 2019 via letter providing information about the intervention. The letter was followed by a phone call 1-2 weeks later to screen for inclusion and exclusion criteria and interest in participating. Additional participants were invited to participate via a newspaper advertisement in 1 of the 5 cities.

Inclusion criteria were Swedish-speaking persons aged 20–65 years with CWP (defined as having pain in both sides of the body, pain above and below the waist, and axial pain for at least 3 months). Exclusion criteria included having other severe somatic or psychiatric disorders, dominating causes of pain other than CWP, or other severe disease interfering with the ability to be physically active, pregnancy, not having access to a smartphone or a computer, inability to speak or understand Swedish, ongoing physiotherapy treatment, and already exercising regularly. Of 716 people initially assessed for eligibility, 425 completed telephone screening, and 139 were randomized (using block randomization) to either the intervention arm (n = 69) or the active control arm (n = 70). Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation. All participants provided written informed consent.

The 2 groups underwent the same first individual meeting with a physiotherapist to cocreate a health plan with physical activities, and, if needed, stress management, based on each participant’s individual preferences, obstacles, goals, and resources. The difference between the groups was the type of follow-up support. Participants in the intervention group had 1 follow-up meeting with the physiotherapist a week after the initial meeting (to review and adjust the health plan as needed) and thereafter were supported through a digital e-health platform (accessed via the participant’s smartphone or computer) during the 6-month follow-up period. Participants were encouraged to access the platform once a week to answer questions regarding their health, and the extent to which they had been able to manage their health plan during the previous week. In addition, the participant and physiotherapist could communicate via the platform as needed. Participants in the active control group had 1 follow-up phone call with the physiotherapist 1 month after the initial meeting (similarly to review and adjust the health plan as needed), and no further contact or support from the physiotherapist during the 6-month follow-up period.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity during the previous week assessed with a 0–100 subscale from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-pain). Secondary outcome measures included overall health status (via FIQ-total with 10 subscales), global fatigue (via FIQ-fatigue subscale), multidimensional fatigue (via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, a 20-item questionnaire rated on a 1-5 Likert scale), clinical manifestations of stress (via Stress and Crisis Inventory, a 35-item questionnaire rated on a 0-4 Likert scale), self-efficacy (via General Self-Efficacy Scale, a 10-item questionnaire rated on a 1-4 Likert scale), health-related quality of life (via Short Form 36, specifically the Physical Component Summary composite score), leisure-time physical activity (via Leisure Time Physical Activity Instrument), and physical function (via 1-min chair-stand test). Additional demographic data on age, pain localization, pharmacological treatment, tobacco use, country of birth, level of education, family status, economic status, work status, sick-leave, and disability pension were collected via a questionnaire.

Between-group differences for changes in outcomes from baseline to 6-month follow-up were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, and Pearson’s χ² or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Significance level was set at 5% with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. All analyses were made according to intention-to-treat by originally assigned group; missing cases were not included in the analysis.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle income, educated (> 12 years of education) females, with > 60% of participants working at least part-time (between-group differences in baseline data and demographic data not detailed in the article). A total of 29 participants were lost to follow-up. In the intervention group, lost-to-follow up participants were older, performed fewer hours of physical activity, and had lower mental fatigue at baseline, compared with those who were lost to follow-up in the active control group.

In between-group analyses, there were no significant differences in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The only significant difference in secondary outcomes was seen in global fatigue – the active control group improved significantly compared with the intervention group (P = .004).

In the intervention group, 87% of participants used the digital platform. Among these users, 35% contacted the physiotherapist (75% of these communications were health- or study-related issues, 25% were issues with the digital platform), 33% were contacted by the physiotherapist (96% of these communications were about the health plan and physical activity), and 32% never had any contact with the physiotherapist. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up between platform users and non-users (P = .03, mean change [SD] 3.8 [19.66] mm vs –20.5 [6.36] mm, respectively).

Conclusion. No significant differences were found between the groups after 6 months (except for a significant decrease in global fatigue in the active control group compared with the intervention group). Further development of interventions to support persons with CWP to maintain regular physical activity is needed.

Commentary

Chronic widespread pain is a disorder characterized by diffuse body pain persisting for at least 3 months.^1-2 It has been associated with lost work productivity, mental ill health, and reduced quality of life. The development of clinically effective and cost-effective pain management strategies for CWP is challenging given the syndrome complexity and heterogenous symptomology. Thus, multimodal, multidisciplinary management is widely advocated, often a combination of education and self-management, with integration of physical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments.^1-3 Of note, physical exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy are 2 non-pharmacological treatments that hold some promise based on available evidence.

The pervasiveness of technology in nearly all aspects of daily life has corresponded with the development of implementation of a wide range of technology-based interventions for health purposes.⁴ Examples of electronic health or eHealth modalities include internet-based, telephone supported, interactive voice-response, videoconferencing, mobile apps, and virtual reality. While the use of technology in chronic pain management interventions has increased in recent years, the literature is still limited, heterogenous, and provides limited evidence on the efficacy of eHealth/digital interventions, let alone which specific modalities are most effective.^4-9

This study adds to the literature as a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention for individuals with CWP delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up. Results showed no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity and nearly all secondary outcomes between the intervention group (supported by the digital platform) and the active control group (supported by a follow-up phone call). Further, intervention participants who did not use the platform improved significantly more in pain intensity than those who used the platform.

While these results imply that digital support does not contribute to improvements in the outcomes measured, it is important these findings are interpreted with caution given the limitations of the study design as well as limitations with the intervention itself. Importantly, while this study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, the authors indicated that it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. In addition, as the authors note, an intervention aimed at increasing physical activity should ideally include an objective measure of activity and this was lacking in this study. The use of an actigraphy device for example would have provided objective, continuous data on movement and could have helped assess an important outcome measure – whether participants reached their physical activity goals or had increased their overall physical activity. In the analysis, there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons or use of imputation methods to handle missing values. Further, it was unclear whether differences in baseline data were evaluated and taken into consideration in between-group analyses. Lastly, results are only attributable to the eHealth mode used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital/eHealth interventions persons with CWP.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the results of this study failed to demonstrate significant differences between a physical activity-promoting intervention for persons with CWP with digital follow-up vs telephone follow-up, it remains important to consider person-centered principles when offering CWP management support. In this spirit, clinicians should consider a management approach that takes into account the individual’s knowledge, resources, and barriers, and also actively involves the patient in treatment planning to enhance the patient’s self-efficacy to manage their health. In addition, individual preference for a specific (or combination of) eHealth/digital modality should be considered and used to guide a comprehensive management plan, as well as used as a complementary modality to face-to-face care/support.

Recognizing the systemic effects of endometriosis may help doctors better understand the experiences of patients with the disease and guide the approach to diagnosis and treatment, according to the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Beyond lesions in the pelvis, endometriosis may underlie a range of co-occurring conditions, such as generalized inflammation, fatigue, bowel or bladder dysfunction, depression, and anxiety, Hugh S. Taylor, MD, said at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Its systemic manifestations may explain why women with endometriosis tend to have a lower body mass index, compared with women without the disease, Dr. Taylor said.

“Stem cells, microRNAs, and generalized inflammation are some of the mechanisms that mediate these long-range effects on distant organ systems,” he said.

Studies have indicated that lesions in the pelvis do not fully explain the disease, and investigators continue to elucidate how “endometriosis that we see in the pelvis is really just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Taylor, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Pain, including dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia, “can be just as bad with ... stage 1 disease as it can be with stage 4 disease,” he said.

Some patients may not have pain, but have infertility. Other women are asymptomatic, and doctors find endometriosis incidentally.

One common definition of endometriosis – ectopic endometrial glands and stroma predominantly caused by retrograde menstruation – “probably overly simplifies this complex disease,” said Dr. Taylor, who reviewed the current understanding of endometriosis in an article in The Lancet. “The lesions in the pelvis are important. We see them. We treat them. But endometriosis has ... effects throughout the body.”

Dr. Taylor’s research group has shown that stem cells are a potential source of endometriosis. “There are cells from the endometriosis that can be found traveling in the circulation,” but their effects are unclear, he said.

Levels of several microRNAs may be increased or decreased in women with endometriosis, and these altered levels may induce the production of inflammatory cytokines. They also may serve as the basis of a blood test for endometriosis that could be ready for clinical use soon, Dr. Taylor said.

In a mouse model of endometriosis, the disease changes the electrophysiology of the brain and behavior. “We see changes in anxiety induced by endometriosis. We see changes in pain sensitivity induced by endometriosis. And we also see an increase in depression induced by endometriosis in this animal model,” Dr. Taylor said.

Although surgical therapy treats local disease, medical therapy may be needed to treat the systemic manifestations.

During a question-and-answer period after the presentation, Marcelle I. Cedars, MD, asked whether analgesic and hormonal management may be sufficient when a woman has suspected or laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis and pain is the primary complaint.

“Given the understanding of endometriosis, how would you suggest approaching treatment?” asked Dr. Cedars, president elect of the ASRM and director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco.

Analgesic and hormonal therapies remain “the best treatments we have,” Dr. Taylor said. He starts treatment with an oral contraceptive and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication – “not only for pain relief but to tamp some of the inflammation associated with endometriosis,” he said. If an oral contraceptive does not work, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist typically is the next step.

Dr. Taylor has disclosed ties to Dot Lab and AbbVie. Dr. Cedars had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Recognizing the systemic effects of endometriosis may help doctors better understand the experiences of patients with the disease and guide the approach to diagnosis and treatment, according to the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Beyond lesions in the pelvis, endometriosis may underlie a range of co-occurring conditions, such as generalized inflammation, fatigue, bowel or bladder dysfunction, depression, and anxiety, Hugh S. Taylor, MD, said at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Its systemic manifestations may explain why women with endometriosis tend to have a lower body mass index, compared with women without the disease, Dr. Taylor said.

“Stem cells, microRNAs, and generalized inflammation are some of the mechanisms that mediate these long-range effects on distant organ systems,” he said.

Studies have indicated that lesions in the pelvis do not fully explain the disease, and investigators continue to elucidate how “endometriosis that we see in the pelvis is really just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Taylor, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Pain, including dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia, “can be just as bad with ... stage 1 disease as it can be with stage 4 disease,” he said.

Some patients may not have pain, but have infertility. Other women are asymptomatic, and doctors find endometriosis incidentally.

One common definition of endometriosis – ectopic endometrial glands and stroma predominantly caused by retrograde menstruation – “probably overly simplifies this complex disease,” said Dr. Taylor, who reviewed the current understanding of endometriosis in an article in The Lancet. “The lesions in the pelvis are important. We see them. We treat them. But endometriosis has ... effects throughout the body.”

Dr. Taylor’s research group has shown that stem cells are a potential source of endometriosis. “There are cells from the endometriosis that can be found traveling in the circulation,” but their effects are unclear, he said.

Levels of several microRNAs may be increased or decreased in women with endometriosis, and these altered levels may induce the production of inflammatory cytokines. They also may serve as the basis of a blood test for endometriosis that could be ready for clinical use soon, Dr. Taylor said.

In a mouse model of endometriosis, the disease changes the electrophysiology of the brain and behavior. “We see changes in anxiety induced by endometriosis. We see changes in pain sensitivity induced by endometriosis. And we also see an increase in depression induced by endometriosis in this animal model,” Dr. Taylor said.

Although surgical therapy treats local disease, medical therapy may be needed to treat the systemic manifestations.

During a question-and-answer period after the presentation, Marcelle I. Cedars, MD, asked whether analgesic and hormonal management may be sufficient when a woman has suspected or laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis and pain is the primary complaint.

“Given the understanding of endometriosis, how would you suggest approaching treatment?” asked Dr. Cedars, president elect of the ASRM and director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco.

Analgesic and hormonal therapies remain “the best treatments we have,” Dr. Taylor said. He starts treatment with an oral contraceptive and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication – “not only for pain relief but to tamp some of the inflammation associated with endometriosis,” he said. If an oral contraceptive does not work, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist typically is the next step.

Dr. Taylor has disclosed ties to Dot Lab and AbbVie. Dr. Cedars had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Recognizing the systemic effects of endometriosis may help doctors better understand the experiences of patients with the disease and guide the approach to diagnosis and treatment, according to the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Beyond lesions in the pelvis, endometriosis may underlie a range of co-occurring conditions, such as generalized inflammation, fatigue, bowel or bladder dysfunction, depression, and anxiety, Hugh S. Taylor, MD, said at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Its systemic manifestations may explain why women with endometriosis tend to have a lower body mass index, compared with women without the disease, Dr. Taylor said.

“Stem cells, microRNAs, and generalized inflammation are some of the mechanisms that mediate these long-range effects on distant organ systems,” he said.

Studies have indicated that lesions in the pelvis do not fully explain the disease, and investigators continue to elucidate how “endometriosis that we see in the pelvis is really just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Taylor, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Pain, including dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia, “can be just as bad with ... stage 1 disease as it can be with stage 4 disease,” he said.

Some patients may not have pain, but have infertility. Other women are asymptomatic, and doctors find endometriosis incidentally.

One common definition of endometriosis – ectopic endometrial glands and stroma predominantly caused by retrograde menstruation – “probably overly simplifies this complex disease,” said Dr. Taylor, who reviewed the current understanding of endometriosis in an article in The Lancet. “The lesions in the pelvis are important. We see them. We treat them. But endometriosis has ... effects throughout the body.”

Dr. Taylor’s research group has shown that stem cells are a potential source of endometriosis. “There are cells from the endometriosis that can be found traveling in the circulation,” but their effects are unclear, he said.

Levels of several microRNAs may be increased or decreased in women with endometriosis, and these altered levels may induce the production of inflammatory cytokines. They also may serve as the basis of a blood test for endometriosis that could be ready for clinical use soon, Dr. Taylor said.

In a mouse model of endometriosis, the disease changes the electrophysiology of the brain and behavior. “We see changes in anxiety induced by endometriosis. We see changes in pain sensitivity induced by endometriosis. And we also see an increase in depression induced by endometriosis in this animal model,” Dr. Taylor said.

Although surgical therapy treats local disease, medical therapy may be needed to treat the systemic manifestations.

During a question-and-answer period after the presentation, Marcelle I. Cedars, MD, asked whether analgesic and hormonal management may be sufficient when a woman has suspected or laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis and pain is the primary complaint.

“Given the understanding of endometriosis, how would you suggest approaching treatment?” asked Dr. Cedars, president elect of the ASRM and director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco.

Analgesic and hormonal therapies remain “the best treatments we have,” Dr. Taylor said. He starts treatment with an oral contraceptive and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication – “not only for pain relief but to tamp some of the inflammation associated with endometriosis,” he said. If an oral contraceptive does not work, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist typically is the next step.

Dr. Taylor has disclosed ties to Dot Lab and AbbVie. Dr. Cedars had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

Approximately 60 million people in the United States run for exercise at least once a calendar year, with approximately 11 million of them running > 100 days a year.^1,2 Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise, whose benefits include a decrease in the risk of all-cause early mortality, cancer, and diabetes; an improved lipid profile; and better mental health.³

However, running is also the cause of a significant percentage of exercise-associated injuries: More than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.⁴ Given the high incidence of running-related injury, an important component of primary care is accurately diagnosing and managing such injuries and counseling patients about how to prevent them.

This article reviews risk factors for running-related injury and summarizes evidence-based recommendations for prevention.

CASE

During a health maintenance examination, Clara K, a 47-year-old woman who is obese (body mass index [BMI], 34) and has bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA), inquires about establishing a weight-loss strategy. Ms. K is interested in starting an exercise regimen involving running but is worried about provoking a flare of OA pain.

Risk factors for running injuries

Several risk factors—some modifiable, others nonmodifiable—are associated with running-related injury (TABLE 1^4-16). In addition, research suggests that other variables once thought to be risk factors, such as running surface and the Q-angle (described later), are not associated with running-related injury.

Modifiable risk factors

Changes in a training regimen or type of training. Many runners escalate training regimens as their fitness improves. Increasing mileage and changing the type of training (such as introducing hills or interval training) are independent risk factors for sustaining injury.⁵

Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise; however, more than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.

The traditional recommendation has been for a runner to slowly increase or modify training with a 10% weekly increase in mileage or intensity.¹⁷ However, a randomized controlled trial failed to show a lower incidence of injury among amateur runners who adopted a graded exercise program.¹⁸ Regardless: It is still prudent to recommend a gradual increase in activity, such as taking ≥ 1 day off between running workouts or starting with a walking or jogging program, especially when there is a history of injury.¹⁹

Continue to: Excessive mileage

Excessive mileage. Many runners aspire to complete high-mileage runs. There is low-quality evidence demonstrating that high-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of running-related injury.⁵ Injuries that occur with higher mileage are more often those of the hip and hamstring.⁵ A study noted that running ≤ 25 miles a week was protective against calf injury.⁶

Overall, there is little evidence to show that high-mileage running is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. However, this is still a risk factor that you should address with patients who have a running program—especially novices and those who ramp up mileage quickly.

Type of surface. Access to running surfaces—concrete, pavement, trails, treadmills, and athletic tracks—varies by time of day and season. Softer surfaces include treadmill, tracks, and trails; harder surfaces include asphalt and concrete.

There are limited data linking running surface with risk of injury.⁷ A study did not find an association between peak impact force based on running surface⁸; the authors hypothesized that runners compensate for a harder surface by making kinematic adjustments to minimize impact. With no strong evidence to link running-related injury to a particular running surface, patients should not be restricted to a softer running surface unless they notice a difference in comfort, because it is likely that they can compensate for a harder surface by adapting their gait.

Patients can therefore be counseled to run locally on sidewalks and neighborhood streets—if safe to do so—instead of obtaining a gym membership or driving to run on a trail. Such reassurance can increase a patient’s access to running and reduce barriers to exercise.

Continue to: BMI

BMI. Elevated BMI increases joint contact forces, which might increase risk of pain and injury.²⁰ Results of studies investigating the link between BMI and running injury are mixed; some report that, in regard to bone stress injury, overweight BMI (> 25) is a risk factor for male runners and underweight BMI (< 18.5) is a risk factor for female runners.^4,6 An observational study concluded that, among half-marathon and marathon runners, there was no significant increase in race-related injury, based on BMI.⁹ However, another study showed a higher rate of running-related injury in novice runners who had a higher BMI.¹⁰ A prospective cohort study found that runners with a higher BMI reported increased knee stiffness, which can place a runner at higher risk of overuse injury.⁴

Although these results conflict, there is consistency in the finding that obese novice runners are likely at increased risk of running-related injury; it is reasonable, therefore, for you to discuss strategies to reduce the risk of other modifiable factors, especially among obese novice runners. Patients with a higher BMI should not be discouraged from running, because exercise in combination with healthy eating habits is essential to decrease the myriad adverse health outcomes associated with obesity.

Female runners with a lower BMI, especially in the presence of other components of the female athlete triad (inadequate nutrition, amenorrhea, and low bone density), should be counseled about their increased risk of bone stress injury.²¹ Notably, a study of female US Navy recruits randomized to receive a trial of dietary supplementation of vitamin D plus calcium, or placebo, showed a 21% lower incidence of bone stress injury in the active-treatment group.²² To mitigate risk of injury associated with low BMI and the female athlete triad, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach of nutrition intervention, dietary optimization of vitamin D and calcium, and, possibly, activity modification should be implemented when appropriate.

Running gait. A study using 2-dimensional gait analysis to visualize biomechanical running patterns in injured and noninjured runners found that, in regard to mechanical variables, running-related injury was most strongly associated with contralateral pelvic drop.²³ Gait retraining can be employed to help decrease contralateral pelvic drop.²⁴ In addition, pelvic drop is often a result of weak gluteal muscles, and can be improved by doing strengthening exercises at home or with physical therapy.

Longer stride is also associated with running-related injury.²⁵ A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.^25,26 These improvements were maintained at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, and required only 1 gait retraining session.

Continue to: Get analysis is not feasible...

Gait analysis is not feasible in most primary care clinics. Instead, patients who run and (1) in whom pain persists despite more traditional treatments and (2) who have had recurring injury should be referred to a gait lab for analysis, usually by a physical therapist.

Nonmodifiable risk factors

Arch height. A high arch (pes cavus) is associated with increased risk of running-related injury, including bone stress injury, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, and patellofemoral pain syndrome.⁵ The mechanism of injury is thought to be increased forefoot loading forces.¹

A review article showed that patients with pes cavus have reduced pain when using an orthosis, although there is no associated decrease in the risk of injury.⁵ To the contrary, a prospective study concluded that arch height was unrelated to increased risk of running-related injury.⁷

A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.

Evidence regarding flat feet (pes planus) and risk of injury is also mixed. Some studies show that pes planus is not associated with increased risk of injury in athletes.¹² A cross-sectional study in older patients showed those with pes planus morphology had a higher rate of knee pain and wearing away of medial compartment cartilage.¹³ Because this study comprised only older adults, it is not generalizable to runners—nor can conclusions be drawn about causation, given the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Although a foot orthosis can correct mechanical differences caused by pes planus morphology, there is not enough evidence to conclude that correction results in a lower rate of injury. In sum, data are mixed with regard to arch height as a risk factor for running-related injury.

Continue to: Patients with...

Patients with pes planus or pes cavus should not be discouraged from running, however. If they experience pain with running, they might benefit from a trial of arch support inserts; or consider referral to an orthotist for evaluation for a custom orthosis.

Sex. Based on a prospective cohort study, female runners have a slightly higher rate of running injury than male counterparts.⁴ Similarly, a study showed that female military members generally had a higher incidence of stress fractures than male military members—specifically, femoral shaft and neck stress fractures.¹⁴ Runners who fall in the spectrum of the female athlete triad, as described earlier, are particularly vulnerable to bone stress injury. It is reasonable, therefore, to review risk factors for injury with female runners (as it is with all runners), especially those who have sustained a prior running-related injury.

Increased Q-angle (an obsolete risk factor). The Q-angle is approximated by drawing a line from the anterior superior iliac spine to the patella and a second line from the patella to the tibial tubercle. In males, a normal Q-angle is 14°; in females, 17° (SD = 4.5°). The Q-angle can be obtained by goniometric or radiographic measurement.

An increased Q-angle had been considered an intrinsic risk factor for running injury but has not been shown to be associated with increased risk of running-related injury or patellofemoral pain syndrome.^27,28 Because the Q-angle is not a clinically relevant tool in assessing risk of injury, do not routinely measure it or include it in risk-factor counseling.

OA. Based on a systematic review of observational studies, data are inconclusive with regard to whether running contributes to, or is protective against, knee OA.¹⁵ In a large cohort study, running (1) was protective against development of hip OA and (2) decreased the risk of requiring hip replacement.²⁹ This finding was supported by animal-model research that concluded that it is inactivity that results in thinning of articular cartilage.²⁹ In addition, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials concluded that knee joint-loading exercises are not harmful to articular cartilage (this is low-quality evidence, however).¹⁶

Continue to: Given that there...

Given that there are no high-quality studies suggesting that running contributes to or exacerbates OA, patients with OA can be counseled to start or continue running as tolerated because the health benefit of running likely outweighs risk. Patients with pre-existing moderate-to-severe OA might report knee and hip pain that is already exacerbated by certain activities; if a high-impact activity, such as running, makes that pain worse, exercise counseling that you provide can be tailored to include lower-impact alternatives, such as swimming, cycling, or an elliptical workout.

CASE

In response to Ms. K’s interest in beginning an exercise regimen that includes running, you perform a complete routine pre-participation evaluation and appropriate cardiac screening. You discuss risk factors for running injury, focusing on modifiable risk factors.

High-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of injury, most often of the hip and hamstring.

Ms. K is perimenopausal but reports a history of regular menstrual cycles. She eats a relatively well-balanced diet. You advise that her BMI should not restrict her from incorporating running into her fitness regimen. Also, you reassure her that she should not restrict running based on a diagnosis of OA; instead, you advise her to monitor her symptoms and reconsider her program if running makes her knee pain worse.

At this point, Ms. K is ready to run. She tells you that, based on your guidance, she feels more comfortable and safe starting a running program.

Preventing injury

After reviewing risk factors for running-­related injury with patients, encourage other evidence-based methods of reducing that risk.

Continue to: Shoes

The running shoe industry offers a variety of running shoes, from minimalist shoes to cushioned stability shoes that vary based on the amount of cushioning, level of motion control, and amount of heel-to-toe drop. With so many options, new runners might wonder which shoes can reduce their risk of injury and how they should select a pair.

Stability. A characteristic of running shoes promoted by the industry is their stability: ie, their motion control. Stability shoes are marketed to runners who overpronate and therefore limit motion to prevent overpronation. The benefit of stability shoes, or stability insoles, is unclear.³⁰ A randomized controlled trial showed that, in runners who overpronate, motion-control shoes reduced their risk of injury.³¹ However, another study assessed whether shoes that had been “prescribed” based on foot morphology and stride reduced the risk of injury (compared to neutral, cushioned shoes) and found no change in the incidence of soft-tissue injury.³² Given no strong evidence to suggest otherwise, runners can be advised to buy shoes based on comfort rather than on foot morphology or running stride.

Heel-to-toe drop. Another component of shoe variability is heel-to-toe drop (the height difference between heel and forefoot). A study suggests that moderate-to-high (8-12 mm) heel-to-toe drop is associated with a reduced risk of running injury.³³ Barefoot running shoes, which, typically, have no heel-to-toe drop, are associated with increased risk of injury—specifically, foot stress fracture (especially in runners who are even moderately overweight).^34,35

Shoe age and shoe wear can be modified to reduce injury. There is evidence that running shoes lose approximately 50% of cushioning after 300 to 500 miles of use.³⁶ Another study found that rotating running shoes—ideally, different types or brands—can lead to fewer running-related injuries.³⁷

In general, patients can be counseled to use shoes that feel comfortable, as long as they replace them regularly (TABLE 2). Runners can also consider alternating pairs of different running shoes between runs. Overweight runners should avoid minimally cushioned and low heel-to-toe drop running shoes.

Continue to: Cross-training

Cross-training exercises for runners include cycling, an elliptical workout, swimming, and weightlifting. Incorporating cross-­training can be protective against running injury because cross-training requires different movement patterns, prevents overuse, and equalizes muscle imbalances that occur with running.⁷ In addition, replacing running with a cross-training activity can decrease weekly running time and mileage, which can further reduce risk of running-related injury.⁷ Runners—especially higher-mileage runners—should be encouraged to incorporate cross-training into their workout regimen to decrease their risk of injury.

There is no reason to counsel runners to run on a softer running surface, unless they find that doing so is more comfortable.

Stretching. The authors of a Cochrane review concluded that there is no significant reduction in injury associated with hamstring or gastrocnemius stretching.³² A small randomized, controlled, crossover study concluded that participants subjectively felt their performance was better when warm-ups included stretching.³⁸ This perceived improvement in performance was similar between groups who completed dynamic or static stretching. However, no difference was noted in flexibility or objective performance between groups who stretched or did not stretch before activity.

Although there is no supporting evidence that stretching reduces the risk of injury, stretching is a low-risk intervention. Because stretching might provide subjective benefit to runners, you need not discourage patients from including this activity in their running program.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kartik Sidhar, MD, 15370 Huff Way, Brookfield, WI, 53005; [email protected]

Approximately 60 million people in the United States run for exercise at least once a calendar year, with approximately 11 million of them running > 100 days a year.^1,2 Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise, whose benefits include a decrease in the risk of all-cause early mortality, cancer, and diabetes; an improved lipid profile; and better mental health.³

However, running is also the cause of a significant percentage of exercise-associated injuries: More than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.⁴ Given the high incidence of running-related injury, an important component of primary care is accurately diagnosing and managing such injuries and counseling patients about how to prevent them.

This article reviews risk factors for running-related injury and summarizes evidence-based recommendations for prevention.

CASE

During a health maintenance examination, Clara K, a 47-year-old woman who is obese (body mass index [BMI], 34) and has bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA), inquires about establishing a weight-loss strategy. Ms. K is interested in starting an exercise regimen involving running but is worried about provoking a flare of OA pain.

Risk factors for running injuries

Several risk factors—some modifiable, others nonmodifiable—are associated with running-related injury (TABLE 1^4-16). In addition, research suggests that other variables once thought to be risk factors, such as running surface and the Q-angle (described later), are not associated with running-related injury.

Modifiable risk factors

Changes in a training regimen or type of training. Many runners escalate training regimens as their fitness improves. Increasing mileage and changing the type of training (such as introducing hills or interval training) are independent risk factors for sustaining injury.⁵

Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise; however, more than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.

The traditional recommendation has been for a runner to slowly increase or modify training with a 10% weekly increase in mileage or intensity.¹⁷ However, a randomized controlled trial failed to show a lower incidence of injury among amateur runners who adopted a graded exercise program.¹⁸ Regardless: It is still prudent to recommend a gradual increase in activity, such as taking ≥ 1 day off between running workouts or starting with a walking or jogging program, especially when there is a history of injury.¹⁹

Continue to: Excessive mileage

Excessive mileage. Many runners aspire to complete high-mileage runs. There is low-quality evidence demonstrating that high-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of running-related injury.⁵ Injuries that occur with higher mileage are more often those of the hip and hamstring.⁵ A study noted that running ≤ 25 miles a week was protective against calf injury.⁶

Overall, there is little evidence to show that high-mileage running is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. However, this is still a risk factor that you should address with patients who have a running program—especially novices and those who ramp up mileage quickly.

Type of surface. Access to running surfaces—concrete, pavement, trails, treadmills, and athletic tracks—varies by time of day and season. Softer surfaces include treadmill, tracks, and trails; harder surfaces include asphalt and concrete.

There are limited data linking running surface with risk of injury.⁷ A study did not find an association between peak impact force based on running surface⁸; the authors hypothesized that runners compensate for a harder surface by making kinematic adjustments to minimize impact. With no strong evidence to link running-related injury to a particular running surface, patients should not be restricted to a softer running surface unless they notice a difference in comfort, because it is likely that they can compensate for a harder surface by adapting their gait.

Patients can therefore be counseled to run locally on sidewalks and neighborhood streets—if safe to do so—instead of obtaining a gym membership or driving to run on a trail. Such reassurance can increase a patient’s access to running and reduce barriers to exercise.

Continue to: BMI

BMI. Elevated BMI increases joint contact forces, which might increase risk of pain and injury.²⁰ Results of studies investigating the link between BMI and running injury are mixed; some report that, in regard to bone stress injury, overweight BMI (> 25) is a risk factor for male runners and underweight BMI (< 18.5) is a risk factor for female runners.^4,6 An observational study concluded that, among half-marathon and marathon runners, there was no significant increase in race-related injury, based on BMI.⁹ However, another study showed a higher rate of running-related injury in novice runners who had a higher BMI.¹⁰ A prospective cohort study found that runners with a higher BMI reported increased knee stiffness, which can place a runner at higher risk of overuse injury.⁴

Although these results conflict, there is consistency in the finding that obese novice runners are likely at increased risk of running-related injury; it is reasonable, therefore, for you to discuss strategies to reduce the risk of other modifiable factors, especially among obese novice runners. Patients with a higher BMI should not be discouraged from running, because exercise in combination with healthy eating habits is essential to decrease the myriad adverse health outcomes associated with obesity.

Female runners with a lower BMI, especially in the presence of other components of the female athlete triad (inadequate nutrition, amenorrhea, and low bone density), should be counseled about their increased risk of bone stress injury.²¹ Notably, a study of female US Navy recruits randomized to receive a trial of dietary supplementation of vitamin D plus calcium, or placebo, showed a 21% lower incidence of bone stress injury in the active-treatment group.²² To mitigate risk of injury associated with low BMI and the female athlete triad, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach of nutrition intervention, dietary optimization of vitamin D and calcium, and, possibly, activity modification should be implemented when appropriate.

Running gait. A study using 2-dimensional gait analysis to visualize biomechanical running patterns in injured and noninjured runners found that, in regard to mechanical variables, running-related injury was most strongly associated with contralateral pelvic drop.²³ Gait retraining can be employed to help decrease contralateral pelvic drop.²⁴ In addition, pelvic drop is often a result of weak gluteal muscles, and can be improved by doing strengthening exercises at home or with physical therapy.

Longer stride is also associated with running-related injury.²⁵ A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.^25,26 These improvements were maintained at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, and required only 1 gait retraining session.

Continue to: Get analysis is not feasible...

Gait analysis is not feasible in most primary care clinics. Instead, patients who run and (1) in whom pain persists despite more traditional treatments and (2) who have had recurring injury should be referred to a gait lab for analysis, usually by a physical therapist.

Nonmodifiable risk factors

Arch height. A high arch (pes cavus) is associated with increased risk of running-related injury, including bone stress injury, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, and patellofemoral pain syndrome.⁵ The mechanism of injury is thought to be increased forefoot loading forces.¹

A review article showed that patients with pes cavus have reduced pain when using an orthosis, although there is no associated decrease in the risk of injury.⁵ To the contrary, a prospective study concluded that arch height was unrelated to increased risk of running-related injury.⁷

A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.

Evidence regarding flat feet (pes planus) and risk of injury is also mixed. Some studies show that pes planus is not associated with increased risk of injury in athletes.¹² A cross-sectional study in older patients showed those with pes planus morphology had a higher rate of knee pain and wearing away of medial compartment cartilage.¹³ Because this study comprised only older adults, it is not generalizable to runners—nor can conclusions be drawn about causation, given the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Although a foot orthosis can correct mechanical differences caused by pes planus morphology, there is not enough evidence to conclude that correction results in a lower rate of injury. In sum, data are mixed with regard to arch height as a risk factor for running-related injury.

Continue to: Patients with...

Patients with pes planus or pes cavus should not be discouraged from running, however. If they experience pain with running, they might benefit from a trial of arch support inserts; or consider referral to an orthotist for evaluation for a custom orthosis.

Sex. Based on a prospective cohort study, female runners have a slightly higher rate of running injury than male counterparts.⁴ Similarly, a study showed that female military members generally had a higher incidence of stress fractures than male military members—specifically, femoral shaft and neck stress fractures.¹⁴ Runners who fall in the spectrum of the female athlete triad, as described earlier, are particularly vulnerable to bone stress injury. It is reasonable, therefore, to review risk factors for injury with female runners (as it is with all runners), especially those who have sustained a prior running-related injury.

Increased Q-angle (an obsolete risk factor). The Q-angle is approximated by drawing a line from the anterior superior iliac spine to the patella and a second line from the patella to the tibial tubercle. In males, a normal Q-angle is 14°; in females, 17° (SD = 4.5°). The Q-angle can be obtained by goniometric or radiographic measurement.

An increased Q-angle had been considered an intrinsic risk factor for running injury but has not been shown to be associated with increased risk of running-related injury or patellofemoral pain syndrome.^27,28 Because the Q-angle is not a clinically relevant tool in assessing risk of injury, do not routinely measure it or include it in risk-factor counseling.

OA. Based on a systematic review of observational studies, data are inconclusive with regard to whether running contributes to, or is protective against, knee OA.¹⁵ In a large cohort study, running (1) was protective against development of hip OA and (2) decreased the risk of requiring hip replacement.²⁹ This finding was supported by animal-model research that concluded that it is inactivity that results in thinning of articular cartilage.²⁹ In addition, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials concluded that knee joint-loading exercises are not harmful to articular cartilage (this is low-quality evidence, however).¹⁶

Continue to: Given that there...

Given that there are no high-quality studies suggesting that running contributes to or exacerbates OA, patients with OA can be counseled to start or continue running as tolerated because the health benefit of running likely outweighs risk. Patients with pre-existing moderate-to-severe OA might report knee and hip pain that is already exacerbated by certain activities; if a high-impact activity, such as running, makes that pain worse, exercise counseling that you provide can be tailored to include lower-impact alternatives, such as swimming, cycling, or an elliptical workout.

CASE

In response to Ms. K’s interest in beginning an exercise regimen that includes running, you perform a complete routine pre-participation evaluation and appropriate cardiac screening. You discuss risk factors for running injury, focusing on modifiable risk factors.

High-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of injury, most often of the hip and hamstring.

Ms. K is perimenopausal but reports a history of regular menstrual cycles. She eats a relatively well-balanced diet. You advise that her BMI should not restrict her from incorporating running into her fitness regimen. Also, you reassure her that she should not restrict running based on a diagnosis of OA; instead, you advise her to monitor her symptoms and reconsider her program if running makes her knee pain worse.

At this point, Ms. K is ready to run. She tells you that, based on your guidance, she feels more comfortable and safe starting a running program.

Preventing injury

After reviewing risk factors for running-­related injury with patients, encourage other evidence-based methods of reducing that risk.

Continue to: Shoes

The running shoe industry offers a variety of running shoes, from minimalist shoes to cushioned stability shoes that vary based on the amount of cushioning, level of motion control, and amount of heel-to-toe drop. With so many options, new runners might wonder which shoes can reduce their risk of injury and how they should select a pair.

Stability. A characteristic of running shoes promoted by the industry is their stability: ie, their motion control. Stability shoes are marketed to runners who overpronate and therefore limit motion to prevent overpronation. The benefit of stability shoes, or stability insoles, is unclear.³⁰ A randomized controlled trial showed that, in runners who overpronate, motion-control shoes reduced their risk of injury.³¹ However, another study assessed whether shoes that had been “prescribed” based on foot morphology and stride reduced the risk of injury (compared to neutral, cushioned shoes) and found no change in the incidence of soft-tissue injury.³² Given no strong evidence to suggest otherwise, runners can be advised to buy shoes based on comfort rather than on foot morphology or running stride.

Heel-to-toe drop. Another component of shoe variability is heel-to-toe drop (the height difference between heel and forefoot). A study suggests that moderate-to-high (8-12 mm) heel-to-toe drop is associated with a reduced risk of running injury.³³ Barefoot running shoes, which, typically, have no heel-to-toe drop, are associated with increased risk of injury—specifically, foot stress fracture (especially in runners who are even moderately overweight).^34,35

Shoe age and shoe wear can be modified to reduce injury. There is evidence that running shoes lose approximately 50% of cushioning after 300 to 500 miles of use.³⁶ Another study found that rotating running shoes—ideally, different types or brands—can lead to fewer running-related injuries.³⁷

In general, patients can be counseled to use shoes that feel comfortable, as long as they replace them regularly (TABLE 2). Runners can also consider alternating pairs of different running shoes between runs. Overweight runners should avoid minimally cushioned and low heel-to-toe drop running shoes.

Continue to: Cross-training

Cross-training exercises for runners include cycling, an elliptical workout, swimming, and weightlifting. Incorporating cross-­training can be protective against running injury because cross-training requires different movement patterns, prevents overuse, and equalizes muscle imbalances that occur with running.⁷ In addition, replacing running with a cross-training activity can decrease weekly running time and mileage, which can further reduce risk of running-related injury.⁷ Runners—especially higher-mileage runners—should be encouraged to incorporate cross-training into their workout regimen to decrease their risk of injury.

There is no reason to counsel runners to run on a softer running surface, unless they find that doing so is more comfortable.

Stretching. The authors of a Cochrane review concluded that there is no significant reduction in injury associated with hamstring or gastrocnemius stretching.³² A small randomized, controlled, crossover study concluded that participants subjectively felt their performance was better when warm-ups included stretching.³⁸ This perceived improvement in performance was similar between groups who completed dynamic or static stretching. However, no difference was noted in flexibility or objective performance between groups who stretched or did not stretch before activity.

Although there is no supporting evidence that stretching reduces the risk of injury, stretching is a low-risk intervention. Because stretching might provide subjective benefit to runners, you need not discourage patients from including this activity in their running program.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kartik Sidhar, MD, 15370 Huff Way, Brookfield, WI, 53005; [email protected]

Approximately 60 million people in the United States run for exercise at least once a calendar year, with approximately 11 million of them running > 100 days a year.^1,2 Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise, whose benefits include a decrease in the risk of all-cause early mortality, cancer, and diabetes; an improved lipid profile; and better mental health.³

However, running is also the cause of a significant percentage of exercise-associated injuries: More than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.⁴ Given the high incidence of running-related injury, an important component of primary care is accurately diagnosing and managing such injuries and counseling patients about how to prevent them.

This article reviews risk factors for running-related injury and summarizes evidence-based recommendations for prevention.

CASE

During a health maintenance examination, Clara K, a 47-year-old woman who is obese (body mass index [BMI], 34) and has bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA), inquires about establishing a weight-loss strategy. Ms. K is interested in starting an exercise regimen involving running but is worried about provoking a flare of OA pain.

Risk factors for running injuries

Several risk factors—some modifiable, others nonmodifiable—are associated with running-related injury (TABLE 1^4-16). In addition, research suggests that other variables once thought to be risk factors, such as running surface and the Q-angle (described later), are not associated with running-related injury.

Modifiable risk factors

Changes in a training regimen or type of training. Many runners escalate training regimens as their fitness improves. Increasing mileage and changing the type of training (such as introducing hills or interval training) are independent risk factors for sustaining injury.⁵

Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise; however, more than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.

The traditional recommendation has been for a runner to slowly increase or modify training with a 10% weekly increase in mileage or intensity.¹⁷ However, a randomized controlled trial failed to show a lower incidence of injury among amateur runners who adopted a graded exercise program.¹⁸ Regardless: It is still prudent to recommend a gradual increase in activity, such as taking ≥ 1 day off between running workouts or starting with a walking or jogging program, especially when there is a history of injury.¹⁹

Continue to: Excessive mileage

Excessive mileage. Many runners aspire to complete high-mileage runs. There is low-quality evidence demonstrating that high-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of running-related injury.⁵ Injuries that occur with higher mileage are more often those of the hip and hamstring.⁵ A study noted that running ≤ 25 miles a week was protective against calf injury.⁶

Overall, there is little evidence to show that high-mileage running is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. However, this is still a risk factor that you should address with patients who have a running program—especially novices and those who ramp up mileage quickly.

Type of surface. Access to running surfaces—concrete, pavement, trails, treadmills, and athletic tracks—varies by time of day and season. Softer surfaces include treadmill, tracks, and trails; harder surfaces include asphalt and concrete.

There are limited data linking running surface with risk of injury.⁷ A study did not find an association between peak impact force based on running surface⁸; the authors hypothesized that runners compensate for a harder surface by making kinematic adjustments to minimize impact. With no strong evidence to link running-related injury to a particular running surface, patients should not be restricted to a softer running surface unless they notice a difference in comfort, because it is likely that they can compensate for a harder surface by adapting their gait.

Patients can therefore be counseled to run locally on sidewalks and neighborhood streets—if safe to do so—instead of obtaining a gym membership or driving to run on a trail. Such reassurance can increase a patient’s access to running and reduce barriers to exercise.

Continue to: BMI

BMI. Elevated BMI increases joint contact forces, which might increase risk of pain and injury.²⁰ Results of studies investigating the link between BMI and running injury are mixed; some report that, in regard to bone stress injury, overweight BMI (> 25) is a risk factor for male runners and underweight BMI (< 18.5) is a risk factor for female runners.^4,6 An observational study concluded that, among half-marathon and marathon runners, there was no significant increase in race-related injury, based on BMI.⁹ However, another study showed a higher rate of running-related injury in novice runners who had a higher BMI.¹⁰ A prospective cohort study found that runners with a higher BMI reported increased knee stiffness, which can place a runner at higher risk of overuse injury.⁴

Although these results conflict, there is consistency in the finding that obese novice runners are likely at increased risk of running-related injury; it is reasonable, therefore, for you to discuss strategies to reduce the risk of other modifiable factors, especially among obese novice runners. Patients with a higher BMI should not be discouraged from running, because exercise in combination with healthy eating habits is essential to decrease the myriad adverse health outcomes associated with obesity.

Female runners with a lower BMI, especially in the presence of other components of the female athlete triad (inadequate nutrition, amenorrhea, and low bone density), should be counseled about their increased risk of bone stress injury.²¹ Notably, a study of female US Navy recruits randomized to receive a trial of dietary supplementation of vitamin D plus calcium, or placebo, showed a 21% lower incidence of bone stress injury in the active-treatment group.²² To mitigate risk of injury associated with low BMI and the female athlete triad, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach of nutrition intervention, dietary optimization of vitamin D and calcium, and, possibly, activity modification should be implemented when appropriate.

Running gait. A study using 2-dimensional gait analysis to visualize biomechanical running patterns in injured and noninjured runners found that, in regard to mechanical variables, running-related injury was most strongly associated with contralateral pelvic drop.²³ Gait retraining can be employed to help decrease contralateral pelvic drop.²⁴ In addition, pelvic drop is often a result of weak gluteal muscles, and can be improved by doing strengthening exercises at home or with physical therapy.

Longer stride is also associated with running-related injury.²⁵ A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.^25,26 These improvements were maintained at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, and required only 1 gait retraining session.

Continue to: Get analysis is not feasible...

Gait analysis is not feasible in most primary care clinics. Instead, patients who run and (1) in whom pain persists despite more traditional treatments and (2) who have had recurring injury should be referred to a gait lab for analysis, usually by a physical therapist.

Nonmodifiable risk factors

Arch height. A high arch (pes cavus) is associated with increased risk of running-related injury, including bone stress injury, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, and patellofemoral pain syndrome.⁵ The mechanism of injury is thought to be increased forefoot loading forces.¹

A review article showed that patients with pes cavus have reduced pain when using an orthosis, although there is no associated decrease in the risk of injury.⁵ To the contrary, a prospective study concluded that arch height was unrelated to increased risk of running-related injury.⁷

A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.

Evidence regarding flat feet (pes planus) and risk of injury is also mixed. Some studies show that pes planus is not associated with increased risk of injury in athletes.¹² A cross-sectional study in older patients showed those with pes planus morphology had a higher rate of knee pain and wearing away of medial compartment cartilage.¹³ Because this study comprised only older adults, it is not generalizable to runners—nor can conclusions be drawn about causation, given the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Although a foot orthosis can correct mechanical differences caused by pes planus morphology, there is not enough evidence to conclude that correction results in a lower rate of injury. In sum, data are mixed with regard to arch height as a risk factor for running-related injury.

Continue to: Patients with...

Patients with pes planus or pes cavus should not be discouraged from running, however. If they experience pain with running, they might benefit from a trial of arch support inserts; or consider referral to an orthotist for evaluation for a custom orthosis.

Sex. Based on a prospective cohort study, female runners have a slightly higher rate of running injury than male counterparts.⁴ Similarly, a study showed that female military members generally had a higher incidence of stress fractures than male military members—specifically, femoral shaft and neck stress fractures.¹⁴ Runners who fall in the spectrum of the female athlete triad, as described earlier, are particularly vulnerable to bone stress injury. It is reasonable, therefore, to review risk factors for injury with female runners (as it is with all runners), especially those who have sustained a prior running-related injury.

Increased Q-angle (an obsolete risk factor). The Q-angle is approximated by drawing a line from the anterior superior iliac spine to the patella and a second line from the patella to the tibial tubercle. In males, a normal Q-angle is 14°; in females, 17° (SD = 4.5°). The Q-angle can be obtained by goniometric or radiographic measurement.

An increased Q-angle had been considered an intrinsic risk factor for running injury but has not been shown to be associated with increased risk of running-related injury or patellofemoral pain syndrome.^27,28 Because the Q-angle is not a clinically relevant tool in assessing risk of injury, do not routinely measure it or include it in risk-factor counseling.

OA. Based on a systematic review of observational studies, data are inconclusive with regard to whether running contributes to, or is protective against, knee OA.¹⁵ In a large cohort study, running (1) was protective against development of hip OA and (2) decreased the risk of requiring hip replacement.²⁹ This finding was supported by animal-model research that concluded that it is inactivity that results in thinning of articular cartilage.²⁹ In addition, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials concluded that knee joint-loading exercises are not harmful to articular cartilage (this is low-quality evidence, however).¹⁶

Continue to: Given that there...

Given that there are no high-quality studies suggesting that running contributes to or exacerbates OA, patients with OA can be counseled to start or continue running as tolerated because the health benefit of running likely outweighs risk. Patients with pre-existing moderate-to-severe OA might report knee and hip pain that is already exacerbated by certain activities; if a high-impact activity, such as running, makes that pain worse, exercise counseling that you provide can be tailored to include lower-impact alternatives, such as swimming, cycling, or an elliptical workout.

CASE

In response to Ms. K’s interest in beginning an exercise regimen that includes running, you perform a complete routine pre-participation evaluation and appropriate cardiac screening. You discuss risk factors for running injury, focusing on modifiable risk factors.

High-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of injury, most often of the hip and hamstring.

Ms. K is perimenopausal but reports a history of regular menstrual cycles. She eats a relatively well-balanced diet. You advise that her BMI should not restrict her from incorporating running into her fitness regimen. Also, you reassure her that she should not restrict running based on a diagnosis of OA; instead, you advise her to monitor her symptoms and reconsider her program if running makes her knee pain worse.

At this point, Ms. K is ready to run. She tells you that, based on your guidance, she feels more comfortable and safe starting a running program.

Preventing injury

After reviewing risk factors for running-­related injury with patients, encourage other evidence-based methods of reducing that risk.

Continue to: Shoes

The running shoe industry offers a variety of running shoes, from minimalist shoes to cushioned stability shoes that vary based on the amount of cushioning, level of motion control, and amount of heel-to-toe drop. With so many options, new runners might wonder which shoes can reduce their risk of injury and how they should select a pair.

Stability. A characteristic of running shoes promoted by the industry is their stability: ie, their motion control. Stability shoes are marketed to runners who overpronate and therefore limit motion to prevent overpronation. The benefit of stability shoes, or stability insoles, is unclear.³⁰ A randomized controlled trial showed that, in runners who overpronate, motion-control shoes reduced their risk of injury.³¹ However, another study assessed whether shoes that had been “prescribed” based on foot morphology and stride reduced the risk of injury (compared to neutral, cushioned shoes) and found no change in the incidence of soft-tissue injury.³² Given no strong evidence to suggest otherwise, runners can be advised to buy shoes based on comfort rather than on foot morphology or running stride.

Heel-to-toe drop. Another component of shoe variability is heel-to-toe drop (the height difference between heel and forefoot). A study suggests that moderate-to-high (8-12 mm) heel-to-toe drop is associated with a reduced risk of running injury.³³ Barefoot running shoes, which, typically, have no heel-to-toe drop, are associated with increased risk of injury—specifically, foot stress fracture (especially in runners who are even moderately overweight).^34,35

Shoe age and shoe wear can be modified to reduce injury. There is evidence that running shoes lose approximately 50% of cushioning after 300 to 500 miles of use.³⁶ Another study found that rotating running shoes—ideally, different types or brands—can lead to fewer running-related injuries.³⁷

In general, patients can be counseled to use shoes that feel comfortable, as long as they replace them regularly (TABLE 2). Runners can also consider alternating pairs of different running shoes between runs. Overweight runners should avoid minimally cushioned and low heel-to-toe drop running shoes.

Continue to: Cross-training

Cross-training exercises for runners include cycling, an elliptical workout, swimming, and weightlifting. Incorporating cross-­training can be protective against running injury because cross-training requires different movement patterns, prevents overuse, and equalizes muscle imbalances that occur with running.⁷ In addition, replacing running with a cross-training activity can decrease weekly running time and mileage, which can further reduce risk of running-related injury.⁷ Runners—especially higher-mileage runners—should be encouraged to incorporate cross-training into their workout regimen to decrease their risk of injury.

There is no reason to counsel runners to run on a softer running surface, unless they find that doing so is more comfortable.

Stretching. The authors of a Cochrane review concluded that there is no significant reduction in injury associated with hamstring or gastrocnemius stretching.³² A small randomized, controlled, crossover study concluded that participants subjectively felt their performance was better when warm-ups included stretching.³⁸ This perceived improvement in performance was similar between groups who completed dynamic or static stretching. However, no difference was noted in flexibility or objective performance between groups who stretched or did not stretch before activity.

Although there is no supporting evidence that stretching reduces the risk of injury, stretching is a low-risk intervention. Because stretching might provide subjective benefit to runners, you need not discourage patients from including this activity in their running program.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kartik Sidhar, MD, 15370 Huff Way, Brookfield, WI, 53005; [email protected]

Vocational rehabilitation (VR) interventions are offered through Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) as part of clinical care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to improve employment and quality of life outcomes for veterans with life-altering disabilities.^1–5 CWT vocational services range from assessment, vocational counseling, and treatment plan development to job placement, coaching, and follow-along support.¹ However, many veterans receive care in community-based clinics that are not staffed with a VR specialist (VRS) to provide these services.^6–8 Telehealth may increase patient access to VR, especially for rural veterans and those with travel barriers, but it is not known whether veterans and VRS would find this to be a satisfactory service delivery method.^8,9 This paper examines veteran and VRS provider perspectives on VR provided by telehealth (VRtele) as part of a VHA clinical demonstration project. To our knowledge, this is the first report of using real-time, clinic-based VRtele.

Methods

The Rural Veterans Supported Employment Telerehabilitation Initiative (RVSETI) was conducted as a field-initiated demonstration project at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) in Florida between 2014 and 2016: James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital & Clinics (Tampa) and Malcom Randall VAMC (Gainesville). This retrospective evaluation of its first year did not require institutional review board approval as it was determined to be a quality improvement project by the local research service.

The patient population for the project was veterans with disabilities who were referred by clinical consults to the CWT service, a recovery-oriented vocational program. During the project years, veterans were offered the option of receiving VR services, such as supported employment, community-based employment services, or vocational assistance, through VRtele rather than traditional face-to-face meetings. The specific interventions delivered included patient orientation, interview assessment, treatment plan development, referral activities, vocational counseling, assessment of workplace for accommodation needs, vocational case management, and other employment supports. VR staff participating in the project included 2 VR supervisors, 1 supported employment mentor trainer, and 5 VRSs.

Each clinic was set up for VRtele, and codes were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to ensure proper documentation. Participating VRSs completed teleconferencing training, including a skills assessment using the equipment for real-time, high-quality video streaming over an encrypted network to provide services in a patient’s home or other remote locations. VRS staff provided veterans with instructions on using a VA-provided tablet or their own device and assisted them with establishing connectivity with the network. Video equipment included speakers, camera, and headphones connected to the desktop computer or laptop of the VRS. A patient’s first VRtelesession was conducted in person at the VAMC to assure veterans were able to use the technology and to identify and resolve any problems.

Demographic data, primary diagnosis, VR usage data, and zip codes of participating veterans were extracted from the EHR. Veterans completed a 2-part satisfaction survey administered 90 days after enrollment and at discharge. Part 1 was composed of 15 items, most with a 5-point Likert scale (higher ratings indicated greater satisfaction), on various aspects of the VRtele experience, such as audio and video quality and wait times.¹⁰ Part 2 addressed VR services and the VRS and consisted of 8 Likert scale items with the option to add a comment for each and 2 open-ended items that asked the participant to list what they liked best and least about VRtele.

Semistructured, in-person 30- to 60-minute interviews were conducted with VRSs at the initiation of VRteleand audio-recorded with permission. An interview guide consisting of 14 questions was used to obtain data on caseload, VRtele set up, use of teleconferencing equipment, and veteran access to VR services.

After ≥ 2 months of VRtele use, researchers observed a session with each participant to obtain qualitative data from all participants on their VRtele experience. Using an observation form with open notes, data were collected on the use of the videoconferencing technology, the quality of the VRtele session, and reactions of veterans and their VRS. Following the observation session, both the VRS and the participating veteran were interviewed separately using a 9-question interview form to obtain data on the use of the technology in general and for VR. Interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the VRS and veteran and transcribed for analysis.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used for EHR data and satisfaction surveys. For qualitative analysis, each transcript was read in full by 2 researchers to get an overview of the data, and a rapid analysis approach was used to identify central themes focused on how technology was used and the experiences of the participants.^11,12 Relevant text for each topic was tabulated, and a summary table was created that highlighted overlapping ideas discussed by the interviewees as well as differences.

Results

Of the 22 veterans who participated in the project, 11 completed satisfaction surveys and 4 participated in qualitative interviews. The rural and nonrural groups did not differ demographically or by diagnosis, which was predominantly mental health related. Only 1 veteran in each group owned a tablet; the majority of both groups required VA-issued devices: 80% (n = 8) rural and 91.7% (n = 11) nonrural. The number of VRtele sessions for the groups also was similar, 53 for rural and 60 for nonrural, as was the mean (SD) number of sessions per veteran: 5.3 (SD, 3.2) rural and 5.0 (SD, 2.5) urban. Overall, 63 miles per session were saved, mostly for rural veterans, and the number of mean (SD) miles saved per veteran was greater for rural than nonrural veterans: 379.2 (243.0) and 256.1 (275.9), respectively. One veteran who moved to a different state during the program continued VRtele at the new location. In a qualitative sampling of 5 VRtele sessions, all the VRSs used office desktop computers.

Level of satisfaction with aspects of VRtele related to the technology rated was consistently > 4 on the Likert scale. The lowest mean (SD) ratings were 4.2 (1.0) for audio quality and 4.4 (0.5) for video quality, and the highest rating was given for equipment operation explanation and privacy was respected, 4.9 (0.3) for both. All questions related to satisfaction with services were also rated high: The mean (SD) lowest ratings were 4.3 (1.0) given to both vocational needs 4.3 (1.0) and tasks effectively helped achieve goals 4.3 (0.7). The highest mean (SD) ratings were 4.6 (0.5) given to VR program service explained and 4.7 (0.5) for appointment timeliness.

Qualitative Results

At first, some VRSs thought the teleconferencing system might be difficult or awkward to use, but they found it easier to set up than expected and seamless to use. VRS staff reported being surprised at how well it worked despite some issues that occurred with loading the software. Once loaded, however, the connection worked well, one VRS noting that following step-by-step instructions solved the problem. Some VRSs indicated they did not invite all the veterans on their caseload to participate in VRtele due to concerns with the patient’s familiarity with technology, but one VRS stated, “I haven’t had anybody that failed to do a [session] that I couldn’t get them up and running within a few minutes.”

When working in the community, VRSs reported using laptops for VRtele but found that these devices were unreliable due to lack of internet access and were slow to start; several VRSs thought tablets would have been more helpful. Some veterans reported technical glitches, lack of comfort with technology, or a problem with sound due to a tablet’s protective case blocking the speakers. To solve the sound issue, a veteran used headphones. This veteran also explained that the log-on process required a new password every time, so he would keep a pen and paper ready to write it down. Because signing in and setting up takes a little time, this veteran and his VRS agreed to start connecting 5 minutes before their meeting time to allow for that set- up time.

Initially, some VRSs expressed concern that transitioning to VRtele would affect the quality of interactions with the veterans. However, VRSs also identified strengths of VRtele, including flexibility, saved time, and increased interaction. One VRS discussed a veteran’s adaptation by saying, “I think he feels even more involved in his plan [and] enjoys the increased interaction.” Veterans reported enjoying using tablets and identified the main strength of VRtele as being able to talk face-to-face with the VRS. Echoing the VRSs, veterans reported teleconferencing saved time by avoiding travel and enabled spontaneous meetings. One of the veterans summed up the benefits of using VRtele: “I’d rather just connect. It’s going to take us 40 to 50 minutes [to meet in person] when we can just connect right here and it takes 15 to 20. We don’t have to go through the driving.… So this right here, doing it ahead of time and having the appointment, it’s a lot easier.”

In their interviews, VRSs talked about enjoying VRtele. A VRS explained: “It makes it a lot easier. It makes me feel less guilty. This way [veterans] don’t have to use their gas money, use their time. I know [the veteran] had something else he needed to do today.” Thus, both veterans and VRSs were satisfied with their VRtele experiences.

Discussion

This first report on the perspective of providers and veterans using VRtele suggests that it is a viable option for service delivery and that is highly satisfactory for serving veterans with disabilities, many of whom live in rural areas or have travel barriers. These findings are consistent with data on telerehabilitation for veterans with cognitive, physical, and mental disabilities.^13-22 Further, the data support the notion of using VRtele to facilitate long-term VR follow-up for persons with disabilities, as illustrated by successful continuation of vocational services after a veteran moved out of state.²³

Similar to other reports, our experience highlighted 2 factors that affect successful VRtele: (1) Troubleshooting technology barriers for both VR providers and clients; and (2) supportive leadership to facilitate implementation.^24-26These areas have been improved with recent telehealth VHA initiatives and upgrades. After the conclusion of this project evaluation, the program was expanded, and local facilities may now receive mentored support to implement similar programs.²⁷ This ongoing telerehabilitation program uses the recently upgraded VHA telehealth platform that enables encrypted sessions to be provided to any mobile or online device, and veterans simply click on a link to connect rather than waiting for a session-specific password.²⁸ By using virtual medical rooms accessed by cameras on tablets, smartphones, or computers, veterans and VR providers now have an easier time scheduling and attending online appointments.²⁹ Improved access to VRtele is important as VHA began providing the majority of appointments via video telemedicine in Spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The accelerated use of telehealth due to the COVID crisis makes these findings highly relevant to the current practice environment.

Changes to technology and increased usage of VA Video Connect may indicate that the barriers identified from the earlier process described here have been diminished or eliminated. More evaluation is needed to assess whether system upgrades have increased ease of use and access for veterans with disabilities.

Conclusions

Encouragingly, this clinical demonstration project showed that both providers and clients recognize the benefits of VRtele. Patient satisfaction and decreased travel costs were clear advantages to using VRtele for this small group of veterans who had barriers to care due to travel or disability barriers. As this program evaluation was limited by a small sample, absence of a comparison group, and lack of outcome data (eg, employment rates, hours, wages, retention), future research is needed on implementation and outcomes of VRtele.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Lynn Dirk, MAMC, for substantial editorial assistance. This material was based on work supported by Rural Veterans Supported Employment TeleRehabilitation Initiative (RVSETI), funded by the VA Office of Rural Health (Project # N08-FY14Q3-S2-P01222) and by support of the VA Health Services Research and Development Service. This work was presented in part at the 114th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association at Denver, Colorado, November 21, 2015; a field-based Health Services Research and Development Service meeting, US Department of Veterans Affairs at Washington, DC, September 12, 2016; and the 2016 Annual Conference of the American Congress for Rehabilitation Medicine at Chicago, Illinois, October-November 2016.

Vocational rehabilitation (VR) interventions are offered through Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) as part of clinical care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to improve employment and quality of life outcomes for veterans with life-altering disabilities.^1–5 CWT vocational services range from assessment, vocational counseling, and treatment plan development to job placement, coaching, and follow-along support.¹ However, many veterans receive care in community-based clinics that are not staffed with a VR specialist (VRS) to provide these services.^6–8 Telehealth may increase patient access to VR, especially for rural veterans and those with travel barriers, but it is not known whether veterans and VRS would find this to be a satisfactory service delivery method.^8,9 This paper examines veteran and VRS provider perspectives on VR provided by telehealth (VRtele) as part of a VHA clinical demonstration project. To our knowledge, this is the first report of using real-time, clinic-based VRtele.

Methods

The Rural Veterans Supported Employment Telerehabilitation Initiative (RVSETI) was conducted as a field-initiated demonstration project at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) in Florida between 2014 and 2016: James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital & Clinics (Tampa) and Malcom Randall VAMC (Gainesville). This retrospective evaluation of its first year did not require institutional review board approval as it was determined to be a quality improvement project by the local research service.

The patient population for the project was veterans with disabilities who were referred by clinical consults to the CWT service, a recovery-oriented vocational program. During the project years, veterans were offered the option of receiving VR services, such as supported employment, community-based employment services, or vocational assistance, through VRtele rather than traditional face-to-face meetings. The specific interventions delivered included patient orientation, interview assessment, treatment plan development, referral activities, vocational counseling, assessment of workplace for accommodation needs, vocational case management, and other employment supports. VR staff participating in the project included 2 VR supervisors, 1 supported employment mentor trainer, and 5 VRSs.

Each clinic was set up for VRtele, and codes were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to ensure proper documentation. Participating VRSs completed teleconferencing training, including a skills assessment using the equipment for real-time, high-quality video streaming over an encrypted network to provide services in a patient’s home or other remote locations. VRS staff provided veterans with instructions on using a VA-provided tablet or their own device and assisted them with establishing connectivity with the network. Video equipment included speakers, camera, and headphones connected to the desktop computer or laptop of the VRS. A patient’s first VRtelesession was conducted in person at the VAMC to assure veterans were able to use the technology and to identify and resolve any problems.

Demographic data, primary diagnosis, VR usage data, and zip codes of participating veterans were extracted from the EHR. Veterans completed a 2-part satisfaction survey administered 90 days after enrollment and at discharge. Part 1 was composed of 15 items, most with a 5-point Likert scale (higher ratings indicated greater satisfaction), on various aspects of the VRtele experience, such as audio and video quality and wait times.¹⁰ Part 2 addressed VR services and the VRS and consisted of 8 Likert scale items with the option to add a comment for each and 2 open-ended items that asked the participant to list what they liked best and least about VRtele.

Semistructured, in-person 30- to 60-minute interviews were conducted with VRSs at the initiation of VRteleand audio-recorded with permission. An interview guide consisting of 14 questions was used to obtain data on caseload, VRtele set up, use of teleconferencing equipment, and veteran access to VR services.

After ≥ 2 months of VRtele use, researchers observed a session with each participant to obtain qualitative data from all participants on their VRtele experience. Using an observation form with open notes, data were collected on the use of the videoconferencing technology, the quality of the VRtele session, and reactions of veterans and their VRS. Following the observation session, both the VRS and the participating veteran were interviewed separately using a 9-question interview form to obtain data on the use of the technology in general and for VR. Interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the VRS and veteran and transcribed for analysis.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used for EHR data and satisfaction surveys. For qualitative analysis, each transcript was read in full by 2 researchers to get an overview of the data, and a rapid analysis approach was used to identify central themes focused on how technology was used and the experiences of the participants.^11,12 Relevant text for each topic was tabulated, and a summary table was created that highlighted overlapping ideas discussed by the interviewees as well as differences.

Results

Of the 22 veterans who participated in the project, 11 completed satisfaction surveys and 4 participated in qualitative interviews. The rural and nonrural groups did not differ demographically or by diagnosis, which was predominantly mental health related. Only 1 veteran in each group owned a tablet; the majority of both groups required VA-issued devices: 80% (n = 8) rural and 91.7% (n = 11) nonrural. The number of VRtele sessions for the groups also was similar, 53 for rural and 60 for nonrural, as was the mean (SD) number of sessions per veteran: 5.3 (SD, 3.2) rural and 5.0 (SD, 2.5) urban. Overall, 63 miles per session were saved, mostly for rural veterans, and the number of mean (SD) miles saved per veteran was greater for rural than nonrural veterans: 379.2 (243.0) and 256.1 (275.9), respectively. One veteran who moved to a different state during the program continued VRtele at the new location. In a qualitative sampling of 5 VRtele sessions, all the VRSs used office desktop computers.

Level of satisfaction with aspects of VRtele related to the technology rated was consistently > 4 on the Likert scale. The lowest mean (SD) ratings were 4.2 (1.0) for audio quality and 4.4 (0.5) for video quality, and the highest rating was given for equipment operation explanation and privacy was respected, 4.9 (0.3) for both. All questions related to satisfaction with services were also rated high: The mean (SD) lowest ratings were 4.3 (1.0) given to both vocational needs 4.3 (1.0) and tasks effectively helped achieve goals 4.3 (0.7). The highest mean (SD) ratings were 4.6 (0.5) given to VR program service explained and 4.7 (0.5) for appointment timeliness.

Qualitative Results

At first, some VRSs thought the teleconferencing system might be difficult or awkward to use, but they found it easier to set up than expected and seamless to use. VRS staff reported being surprised at how well it worked despite some issues that occurred with loading the software. Once loaded, however, the connection worked well, one VRS noting that following step-by-step instructions solved the problem. Some VRSs indicated they did not invite all the veterans on their caseload to participate in VRtele due to concerns with the patient’s familiarity with technology, but one VRS stated, “I haven’t had anybody that failed to do a [session] that I couldn’t get them up and running within a few minutes.”

When working in the community, VRSs reported using laptops for VRtele but found that these devices were unreliable due to lack of internet access and were slow to start; several VRSs thought tablets would have been more helpful. Some veterans reported technical glitches, lack of comfort with technology, or a problem with sound due to a tablet’s protective case blocking the speakers. To solve the sound issue, a veteran used headphones. This veteran also explained that the log-on process required a new password every time, so he would keep a pen and paper ready to write it down. Because signing in and setting up takes a little time, this veteran and his VRS agreed to start connecting 5 minutes before their meeting time to allow for that set- up time.

Initially, some VRSs expressed concern that transitioning to VRtele would affect the quality of interactions with the veterans. However, VRSs also identified strengths of VRtele, including flexibility, saved time, and increased interaction. One VRS discussed a veteran’s adaptation by saying, “I think he feels even more involved in his plan [and] enjoys the increased interaction.” Veterans reported enjoying using tablets and identified the main strength of VRtele as being able to talk face-to-face with the VRS. Echoing the VRSs, veterans reported teleconferencing saved time by avoiding travel and enabled spontaneous meetings. One of the veterans summed up the benefits of using VRtele: “I’d rather just connect. It’s going to take us 40 to 50 minutes [to meet in person] when we can just connect right here and it takes 15 to 20. We don’t have to go through the driving.… So this right here, doing it ahead of time and having the appointment, it’s a lot easier.”

In their interviews, VRSs talked about enjoying VRtele. A VRS explained: “It makes it a lot easier. It makes me feel less guilty. This way [veterans] don’t have to use their gas money, use their time. I know [the veteran] had something else he needed to do today.” Thus, both veterans and VRSs were satisfied with their VRtele experiences.

Discussion

This first report on the perspective of providers and veterans using VRtele suggests that it is a viable option for service delivery and that is highly satisfactory for serving veterans with disabilities, many of whom live in rural areas or have travel barriers. These findings are consistent with data on telerehabilitation for veterans with cognitive, physical, and mental disabilities.^13-22 Further, the data support the notion of using VRtele to facilitate long-term VR follow-up for persons with disabilities, as illustrated by successful continuation of vocational services after a veteran moved out of state.²³

Similar to other reports, our experience highlighted 2 factors that affect successful VRtele: (1) Troubleshooting technology barriers for both VR providers and clients; and (2) supportive leadership to facilitate implementation.^24-26These areas have been improved with recent telehealth VHA initiatives and upgrades. After the conclusion of this project evaluation, the program was expanded, and local facilities may now receive mentored support to implement similar programs.²⁷ This ongoing telerehabilitation program uses the recently upgraded VHA telehealth platform that enables encrypted sessions to be provided to any mobile or online device, and veterans simply click on a link to connect rather than waiting for a session-specific password.²⁸ By using virtual medical rooms accessed by cameras on tablets, smartphones, or computers, veterans and VR providers now have an easier time scheduling and attending online appointments.²⁹ Improved access to VRtele is important as VHA began providing the majority of appointments via video telemedicine in Spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The accelerated use of telehealth due to the COVID crisis makes these findings highly relevant to the current practice environment.

Changes to technology and increased usage of VA Video Connect may indicate that the barriers identified from the earlier process described here have been diminished or eliminated. More evaluation is needed to assess whether system upgrades have increased ease of use and access for veterans with disabilities.

Conclusions

Encouragingly, this clinical demonstration project showed that both providers and clients recognize the benefits of VRtele. Patient satisfaction and decreased travel costs were clear advantages to using VRtele for this small group of veterans who had barriers to care due to travel or disability barriers. As this program evaluation was limited by a small sample, absence of a comparison group, and lack of outcome data (eg, employment rates, hours, wages, retention), future research is needed on implementation and outcomes of VRtele.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Lynn Dirk, MAMC, for substantial editorial assistance. This material was based on work supported by Rural Veterans Supported Employment TeleRehabilitation Initiative (RVSETI), funded by the VA Office of Rural Health (Project # N08-FY14Q3-S2-P01222) and by support of the VA Health Services Research and Development Service. This work was presented in part at the 114th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association at Denver, Colorado, November 21, 2015; a field-based Health Services Research and Development Service meeting, US Department of Veterans Affairs at Washington, DC, September 12, 2016; and the 2016 Annual Conference of the American Congress for Rehabilitation Medicine at Chicago, Illinois, October-November 2016.

Vocational rehabilitation (VR) interventions are offered through Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) as part of clinical care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to improve employment and quality of life outcomes for veterans with life-altering disabilities.^1–5 CWT vocational services range from assessment, vocational counseling, and treatment plan development to job placement, coaching, and follow-along support.¹ However, many veterans receive care in community-based clinics that are not staffed with a VR specialist (VRS) to provide these services.^6–8 Telehealth may increase patient access to VR, especially for rural veterans and those with travel barriers, but it is not known whether veterans and VRS would find this to be a satisfactory service delivery method.^8,9 This paper examines veteran and VRS provider perspectives on VR provided by telehealth (VRtele) as part of a VHA clinical demonstration project. To our knowledge, this is the first report of using real-time, clinic-based VRtele.

Methods

The Rural Veterans Supported Employment Telerehabilitation Initiative (RVSETI) was conducted as a field-initiated demonstration project at 2 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) in Florida between 2014 and 2016: James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital & Clinics (Tampa) and Malcom Randall VAMC (Gainesville). This retrospective evaluation of its first year did not require institutional review board approval as it was determined to be a quality improvement project by the local research service.

The patient population for the project was veterans with disabilities who were referred by clinical consults to the CWT service, a recovery-oriented vocational program. During the project years, veterans were offered the option of receiving VR services, such as supported employment, community-based employment services, or vocational assistance, through VRtele rather than traditional face-to-face meetings. The specific interventions delivered included patient orientation, interview assessment, treatment plan development, referral activities, vocational counseling, assessment of workplace for accommodation needs, vocational case management, and other employment supports. VR staff participating in the project included 2 VR supervisors, 1 supported employment mentor trainer, and 5 VRSs.

Each clinic was set up for VRtele, and codes were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to ensure proper documentation. Participating VRSs completed teleconferencing training, including a skills assessment using the equipment for real-time, high-quality video streaming over an encrypted network to provide services in a patient’s home or other remote locations. VRS staff provided veterans with instructions on using a VA-provided tablet or their own device and assisted them with establishing connectivity with the network. Video equipment included speakers, camera, and headphones connected to the desktop computer or laptop of the VRS. A patient’s first VRtelesession was conducted in person at the VAMC to assure veterans were able to use the technology and to identify and resolve any problems.

Demographic data, primary diagnosis, VR usage data, and zip codes of participating veterans were extracted from the EHR. Veterans completed a 2-part satisfaction survey administered 90 days after enrollment and at discharge. Part 1 was composed of 15 items, most with a 5-point Likert scale (higher ratings indicated greater satisfaction), on various aspects of the VRtele experience, such as audio and video quality and wait times.¹⁰ Part 2 addressed VR services and the VRS and consisted of 8 Likert scale items with the option to add a comment for each and 2 open-ended items that asked the participant to list what they liked best and least about VRtele.

Semistructured, in-person 30- to 60-minute interviews were conducted with VRSs at the initiation of VRteleand audio-recorded with permission. An interview guide consisting of 14 questions was used to obtain data on caseload, VRtele set up, use of teleconferencing equipment, and veteran access to VR services.

After ≥ 2 months of VRtele use, researchers observed a session with each participant to obtain qualitative data from all participants on their VRtele experience. Using an observation form with open notes, data were collected on the use of the videoconferencing technology, the quality of the VRtele session, and reactions of veterans and their VRS. Following the observation session, both the VRS and the participating veteran were interviewed separately using a 9-question interview form to obtain data on the use of the technology in general and for VR. Interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the VRS and veteran and transcribed for analysis.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used for EHR data and satisfaction surveys. For qualitative analysis, each transcript was read in full by 2 researchers to get an overview of the data, and a rapid analysis approach was used to identify central themes focused on how technology was used and the experiences of the participants.^11,12 Relevant text for each topic was tabulated, and a summary table was created that highlighted overlapping ideas discussed by the interviewees as well as differences.

Results

Of the 22 veterans who participated in the project, 11 completed satisfaction surveys and 4 participated in qualitative interviews. The rural and nonrural groups did not differ demographically or by diagnosis, which was predominantly mental health related. Only 1 veteran in each group owned a tablet; the majority of both groups required VA-issued devices: 80% (n = 8) rural and 91.7% (n = 11) nonrural. The number of VRtele sessions for the groups also was similar, 53 for rural and 60 for nonrural, as was the mean (SD) number of sessions per veteran: 5.3 (SD, 3.2) rural and 5.0 (SD, 2.5) urban. Overall, 63 miles per session were saved, mostly for rural veterans, and the number of mean (SD) miles saved per veteran was greater for rural than nonrural veterans: 379.2 (243.0) and 256.1 (275.9), respectively. One veteran who moved to a different state during the program continued VRtele at the new location. In a qualitative sampling of 5 VRtele sessions, all the VRSs used office desktop computers.

Level of satisfaction with aspects of VRtele related to the technology rated was consistently > 4 on the Likert scale. The lowest mean (SD) ratings were 4.2 (1.0) for audio quality and 4.4 (0.5) for video quality, and the highest rating was given for equipment operation explanation and privacy was respected, 4.9 (0.3) for both. All questions related to satisfaction with services were also rated high: The mean (SD) lowest ratings were 4.3 (1.0) given to both vocational needs 4.3 (1.0) and tasks effectively helped achieve goals 4.3 (0.7). The highest mean (SD) ratings were 4.6 (0.5) given to VR program service explained and 4.7 (0.5) for appointment timeliness.

Qualitative Results

At first, some VRSs thought the teleconferencing system might be difficult or awkward to use, but they found it easier to set up than expected and seamless to use. VRS staff reported being surprised at how well it worked despite some issues that occurred with loading the software. Once loaded, however, the connection worked well, one VRS noting that following step-by-step instructions solved the problem. Some VRSs indicated they did not invite all the veterans on their caseload to participate in VRtele due to concerns with the patient’s familiarity with technology, but one VRS stated, “I haven’t had anybody that failed to do a [session] that I couldn’t get them up and running within a few minutes.”

When working in the community, VRSs reported using laptops for VRtele but found that these devices were unreliable due to lack of internet access and were slow to start; several VRSs thought tablets would have been more helpful. Some veterans reported technical glitches, lack of comfort with technology, or a problem with sound due to a tablet’s protective case blocking the speakers. To solve the sound issue, a veteran used headphones. This veteran also explained that the log-on process required a new password every time, so he would keep a pen and paper ready to write it down. Because signing in and setting up takes a little time, this veteran and his VRS agreed to start connecting 5 minutes before their meeting time to allow for that set- up time.

Initially, some VRSs expressed concern that transitioning to VRtele would affect the quality of interactions with the veterans. However, VRSs also identified strengths of VRtele, including flexibility, saved time, and increased interaction. One VRS discussed a veteran’s adaptation by saying, “I think he feels even more involved in his plan [and] enjoys the increased interaction.” Veterans reported enjoying using tablets and identified the main strength of VRtele as being able to talk face-to-face with the VRS. Echoing the VRSs, veterans reported teleconferencing saved time by avoiding travel and enabled spontaneous meetings. One of the veterans summed up the benefits of using VRtele: “I’d rather just connect. It’s going to take us 40 to 50 minutes [to meet in person] when we can just connect right here and it takes 15 to 20. We don’t have to go through the driving.… So this right here, doing it ahead of time and having the appointment, it’s a lot easier.”

In their interviews, VRSs talked about enjoying VRtele. A VRS explained: “It makes it a lot easier. It makes me feel less guilty. This way [veterans] don’t have to use their gas money, use their time. I know [the veteran] had something else he needed to do today.” Thus, both veterans and VRSs were satisfied with their VRtele experiences.

Discussion

This first report on the perspective of providers and veterans using VRtele suggests that it is a viable option for service delivery and that is highly satisfactory for serving veterans with disabilities, many of whom live in rural areas or have travel barriers. These findings are consistent with data on telerehabilitation for veterans with cognitive, physical, and mental disabilities.^13-22 Further, the data support the notion of using VRtele to facilitate long-term VR follow-up for persons with disabilities, as illustrated by successful continuation of vocational services after a veteran moved out of state.²³

Similar to other reports, our experience highlighted 2 factors that affect successful VRtele: (1) Troubleshooting technology barriers for both VR providers and clients; and (2) supportive leadership to facilitate implementation.^24-26These areas have been improved with recent telehealth VHA initiatives and upgrades. After the conclusion of this project evaluation, the program was expanded, and local facilities may now receive mentored support to implement similar programs.²⁷ This ongoing telerehabilitation program uses the recently upgraded VHA telehealth platform that enables encrypted sessions to be provided to any mobile or online device, and veterans simply click on a link to connect rather than waiting for a session-specific password.²⁸ By using virtual medical rooms accessed by cameras on tablets, smartphones, or computers, veterans and VR providers now have an easier time scheduling and attending online appointments.²⁹ Improved access to VRtele is important as VHA began providing the majority of appointments via video telemedicine in Spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The accelerated use of telehealth due to the COVID crisis makes these findings highly relevant to the current practice environment.

Changes to technology and increased usage of VA Video Connect may indicate that the barriers identified from the earlier process described here have been diminished or eliminated. More evaluation is needed to assess whether system upgrades have increased ease of use and access for veterans with disabilities.

Conclusions

Encouragingly, this clinical demonstration project showed that both providers and clients recognize the benefits of VRtele. Patient satisfaction and decreased travel costs were clear advantages to using VRtele for this small group of veterans who had barriers to care due to travel or disability barriers. As this program evaluation was limited by a small sample, absence of a comparison group, and lack of outcome data (eg, employment rates, hours, wages, retention), future research is needed on implementation and outcomes of VRtele.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Lynn Dirk, MAMC, for substantial editorial assistance. This material was based on work supported by Rural Veterans Supported Employment TeleRehabilitation Initiative (RVSETI), funded by the VA Office of Rural Health (Project # N08-FY14Q3-S2-P01222) and by support of the VA Health Services Research and Development Service. This work was presented in part at the 114th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association at Denver, Colorado, November 21, 2015; a field-based Health Services Research and Development Service meeting, US Department of Veterans Affairs at Washington, DC, September 12, 2016; and the 2016 Annual Conference of the American Congress for Rehabilitation Medicine at Chicago, Illinois, October-November 2016.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, an emphasis on better pain management led health care professionals (HCPs) to increase prescribing of opioids to better manage patient’s pain. In 1991, 76 million prescriptions were written for opioids in the United States, and by 2011, the number had nearly tripled to 219 million.¹ Overdose rates increased as well, nearly tripling from 1999 to 2014.² Of the 52,404 US deaths from drug overdoses in the in 2015, 63% involved an opioid.²

Opioid Safety Initiative

In response to the growing opioid epidemic, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) created the Opioid Safety Initiative in 2014.³ This comprehensive, multifaceted initiative was designed to improve the care and safety of veterans managed with opioid therapy and promote rational opioid prescribing and monitoring. In 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for opioid prescriptions, and the following year the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) updated the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain (VA/DoD guidelines).^4,5 After the release of these guidelines, the use of opioid tapers expanded. However, due to public outcry of forced opioid tapering in 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its opioid labeling requirements to provide clearer guidance on opioid tapers for tolerant patients.^6,7

As a result, HCPs began to develop various strategies to balance the safety and efficacy of opioid use in patients with chronic pain. The West Palm Beach VA Medical Center (WPBVAMC) in Florida has a Pain Clinic that includes 2 pain management clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) with specialized training in pain management, who are uniquely qualified to assess and evaluate medication therapy in complex pain patient cases. These CPSs were involved in the face-to-face management of patients requiring specialized pain care and participated in a pain pharmacy electronic consult (eConsult) service to document pain management consultative recommendations for patients appropriate for management at the primary care level. This formalized process increased specialty pain care access for veterans whose pain was managed by primary care providers (PCPs).

The pain pharmacy eConsult service was initiated at the WPBVAMC in June 2013 to assist PCPs in the management of outpatients with chronic pain. The eConsult service includes evaluation of a patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) by CPSs. The eConsult service also provided PCPs with the option to engage a pharmacist who could provide recommendations for opioid dosing conversion, opioid tapering, pain pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation, without the necessity for an additional patient visit.

Subsequent to the release of the 2016 CDC (and later the 2017 VA/DoD) guidelines recommending reducing morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) levels, the WPBVAMC had a large increase in pain eConsult requests for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy. A 3.4-fold increase in requests occurred in March, April, and May vs the following 9 months, and a nearly 4-fold increase in requests for opioid tapers during the same period. However, the impact of the completed eConsults was unclear. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPS services for opioid tapering and opioid pharmacotherapy by quantifying the number of recommendations accepted/implemented by PCPs. The secondary objectives included evaluating harms associated with the recommendations (eg, increase in visits to the emergency department [ED], hospitalizations, suicide attempts, or PCP visits) and provider satisfaction.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess data of patients from the WPBVAMC and its associated community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). The project was approved by the WPBVAMC Scientific Advisory Committee as part of the facility’s performance improvement efforts.

Included patients had a pain pharmacy eConsult placed between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. EHRs were reviewed and only eConsults for opioid pharmacotherapy recommendation or opioid tapers were evaluated. eConsults were excluded if the request was discontinued, completed by a HCP other than the pain CPS, or placed for an opioid dose conversion, nonopioid pharmacotherapy, or drug screen interpretation.

Data for analyses were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and were securely saved and accessible to relevant researchers. Patient protected health information used during patient care remained confidential.

Demographic data were collected, including age, gender, race, pertinent medical comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea), and mental health comorbidities. Pain scores were collected at baseline and 6-months postconsult. Pain medications used by patients were noted at baseline and 6 months postconsult, including concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use, MEDD, and other pain medication. The duration of time needed by pain CPS to complete each eConsult and total time from eConsult entered to HCP implementation of the initial recommendation was collected. The number of actionable recommendations (eg, changes in drug therapy, urine drug screens [UDSs], and referrals to other services also were recorded and reviewed 6 months postconsult to determine the number and percentage of recommendations implemented by the HCP. The EHR was examined to determine adverse events (AEs) (eg, any documentation of suicide attempt, calls to the Veterans Crisis Line, or death 6 month postconsult). Collected data also included new eConsults, the reason for opioid tapering either by HCP or patient, and assessment of economic harms (count of the number of visits to ED, hospitalizations, or unscheduled PCP visits with uncontrolled pain as chief reason within 6 months postconsult). Last, PCPs were sent a survey to assess their satisfaction with the pain eConsult service.

Results

Of 517 eConsults received from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, 285 (55.1%) met inclusion criteria (Figure). Using a random number generator, 100 eConsults were further reviewed for outcomes of interest.

In this cohort, the mean age was 61 years, 87% were male, and 80% were White individuals. Most patients (83%) had ≥ 1 mental health comorbidity, and 53% had ≥ 2, with depressive symptoms, tobacco use, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder the most common diagnoses (Table 1). Eighty-seven percent of eConsults were for opioid tapers and the remaining 13% were for opioid pharmacotherapy.

The median pain score at time of consult was 6 on a 10-point scale, with no change at 6 months postconsult. However, 41% of patients overall had a median 3.3-point drop in pain score, 17% had no change in pain score, and 42% had a median 2.6-point increase in pain score.

Electronic Consults

Table 2 describes the reasons eConsults were requested. The most common reason was to taper the dose to be in compliance with the CDC 2016 guideline recommendation of MEDD < 90 mg, which was later increased to 100 mg by the VA/DoD guideline.

On average, eConsults were completed within a mean of 11.5 days of the PCP request, including nights and weekends. The CPS spent a mean 66.8 minutes to complete each eConsult. Once the eConsult was completed, PCPs took a mean of 9 days to initiate the primary recommendation. This 9-day average does not include 11 eConsults with no accepted recommendations and 11 eConsults for which the PCP implemented the primary recommendation before the CPS completed the consult, most likely due to a phone call or direct contact with the CPS at the time the eConsult was ordered.

A mean 3.5 actionable recommendations were made by the CPS and a mean 1.6 recommendations were implemented within 6 months by the PCP. At least 1 recommendation was accepted/implemented for 89% of patients, with a mean 55% recommendations that were accepted/implemented. Eleven percent of the eConsult final recommendations were not accepted by PCPs and clear documentation of the reasons were not provided.

In the 6 months postconsult, 11 patients (7 men and 4 women) experienced 32 AEs (Table 3). Eight patients had 15 ED visits, with 3 of the visits resulting in hospitalizations, 8 patients had 9 unscheduled PCP visits, 1 patient reported suicidal ideation and 2 patients made a total of 4 calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. There were also 2 deaths; however, both were due to end-stage disease (cirrhosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and not believed to be related to eConsult recommendations.

Eight patients had a history of substance use disorders (SUDs) and 8 had a history of a mood disorder or psychosis. One patient had both SUD and a mood/psychosis-related mental health disorder, including a reported suicidal attempt/ideation at an ED visit and a subsequent hospitalization. A similar number of AEs occurred in patients with decreases in MEDD of 0 to 24% compared with those that received more aggressive tapers of 75 to 100% (Table 4).

Primary Care Providers

Nine patients were reconsulted, with only 1 secondary to the PCP not implementing recommendations from the initial consult. No factors were found that correlated with likelihood of a patient being reconsulted.

Surveys on PCP satisfaction with the eConsult service were completed by 29 of the 55 PCPs. PCP feedback was generally positive with nearly 90% of PCPs planning to use the service in the future as well as recommending use to other providers.

Discussion

Most (89%) PCPs accepted at least 1 recommendation from the completed eConsult, and MEDDs decreased by 60%, likely reducing the patient’s risk of overdose or other AEs from opioids. There also was a slight reduction in patient’s mean pain scores; however, 41% had a decrease and 42% had an increase in pain scores. There was no clear relationship when pain scores were compared with MEDDs, likely giving credence to the idea that pain scores are largely subjective and an unreliable surrogate marker for assessing effectiveness of analgesic regimens.

Eleven patients experienced AEs, including 1 patient for whom the recommendations were not implemented by the PCP. Eight of the 11 had multiple AEs. One interesting finding was that 7 of the 11 patients with an AE tested positive for unexpected substances on routine UDS or were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, only 3 of the 7 had an active SUD diagnosis. With 25% of the AEs coming from patients with a history of SUD, it is important that any history of SUD be documented in the EHR. Maintaining this documentation can be especially difficult if patients switch VA medical centers or receive services outside the VA. Thorough and accurate history and chart review should ideally be completed before prescribing opioids.

Guidelines

While the PCPs were following VA/DoD and CDC recommendations for opioid tapering to < 100 or 90 mg MEDD, respectively, there is weak evidence in these guidelines to support specific MEDD cutoffs. The CDC guidelines even state, “a single dosage threshold for safe opioid use could not be identified.”⁵ One of the largest issues when using MEDD as a cutoff is the lack of agreement on its calculation. In 2014, Nuckols and colleagues al conducted a study to compare the existing guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. While 13 guidelines were considered eligible, most recommendations were supported only by observational data or expert recommendations, and there was no consensus on what constitutes a “morphine equivalent.”⁸ Currently there is no universally accepted opioid-conversion method, resulting in a substantial problem when calculating a MEDD.⁹ A survey of 8 online opioid dose conversion tools found a -55% to +242% variation.¹⁰ As Fudin and colleagues concluded in response to the large variations found in these various analyses, the studies “unequivocally disqualify the validity of embracing MEDD to assess risk in any meaningful statistical way.”¹¹ Pharmacogenetics, drug tolerance, drug-drug interactions, body surface area, and organ function are patient- specific factors that are not taken into consideration when relying solely on a MEDD calculation. Tapering to lowest functional dose rather than a specific number or cutoff may be a more effective way to treat patients, and providers should use the guidelines as recommendations and not a hardline mandate.

At 6 months, 6 patients were receiving no pain medications from the VA, and 24 of the patients were tapered from their opiate to discontinuation. It is unclear whether patients are no longer taking opioids or switched their care to non-VA providers to receive medications, including opioids, privately. This is difficult to verify, though a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) could be used to assess patient adherence. As many of the patients that were tapered due to identification of aberrant behaviors, lack of continuity of care across health care systems may result in future patient harm.

The results of this analysis highlight the importance of checking PDMP databases and routine UDSs when prescribing opioids—there can be serious safety concerns if patients are taking other prescribed or illicit medications. However, care must be taken; there were 2 instances of patients’ chronic opioid prescriptions discontinued by their VA provider after a review of the PDMP showed they had received non-VA opioids. In both cases, the quantity and doses received were small (counts of ≤ 12) and were received more than 6 months prior to the check of the PDMP. While this constitutes a breach of the Informed Consent for long-term opioid use, if there are no other concerning behaviors, it may be more prudent to review the informed consent with the patient and discuss why the behavior is a breach to ensure that patients and PCPs continue to work as a team to manage chronic pain.

Limitations

The study population was one limitation of this project. While data suggest that chronic pain affects women more than men, this study’s population was only 13% female. Thirty percent of the women in this study had an AE compared with only 8% of the men. Additional limitations included use of problem list for comorbidities, as lists may be inaccurate or outdated, and limiting the monitoring of AE to only 6 months. As some tapers were not initiated immediately and some taper schedules can last several months to years; therefor, outcomes may have been higher if patients were followed longer. Many of the patients with AEs had increased ED visits or unscheduled primary care visits as the tapers went on and their pain worsened, but the visits were outside the 6-month time frame for data collection. An additional weakness of this review included assessing a pain score, but not functional status, which may be a better predictor of the effectiveness of a patient’s pain management regimen. This assessment is needed in future studies for more reliable data. Finally, PCP survey results also should be viewed with caution. The current survey had only 29 respondents, and the 2014 survey had only 10 respondents and did not include CBOC providers.

Conclusion

A pain eConsult service managed by CPSs specializing in pain management can assist patients and PCPs with opioid therapy recommendations in a safe and timely manner, reducing risk of overdose secondary to high dose opioid therapy and with limited harm to patients.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. The volume of TKAs is projected to substantially increase over the next 30 years.¹ Adequate pain control after TKA is critically important to achieve early mobilization, shorten the length of hospital stay, and reduce postoperative complications. The evolution and inclusion of multimodal pain-management protocols have had a major impact on the clinical outcomes for TKA patients.^2,3

Pain-management protocols typically use several modalities to control pain throughout the perioperative period. Multimodal opioid and nonopioid oral medications are administered during the pre- and postoperative periods and often involve a combination of acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.⁴ Peripheral nerve blocks and central neuraxial blockades are widely used and have been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain as well as overall opioid consumption.^5,6 Finally, intraoperative periarticular injections have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption as well as improve patient satisfaction scores.^7-9 These strategies are routinely used in TKA with the goal of minimizing overall opioid consumption and adverse events, reducing perioperative complications, and improving patient satisfaction.

Periarticular injections during surgery are an integral part of the multimodal pain-management protocols, though no consensus has been reached on proper injection formulation or technique. Liposomal bupivacaine is a local anesthetic depot formulation approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for surgical patients. The reported results have been discrepant regarding the efficacy of using liposomal bupivacaine injection in patients with TKA. Several studies have reported no added benefit of liposomal bupivacaine in contrast to a mixture of local anesthetics.^10,11 Other studies have demonstrated superior pain relief.¹² Many factors may contribute to the discrepant data, such as injection techniques, infiltration volume, and the assessment tools used to measure efficacy and safety.¹³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care to a large patient population. Many of the patients in that system have high-risk profiles, including medical comorbidities; exposure to chronic pain and opioid use; and psychological and central nervous system injuries, including posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Hadlandsmyth and colleagues reported increased risk of prolonged opioid use in VA patients after TKA surgery.¹⁴ They found that 20% of the patients were still on long-term opioids more than 90 days after TKA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the implementation of a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol at a regional VA medical center. We hypothesize that the addition of liposomal bupivacaine in a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol would reduce the length of hospital stay and opioid consumption without any deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes.

Methods

A postoperative recovery protocol was implemented in 2013 at VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas, and many of the patients continued to have issues with satisfactory pain control, prolonged length of stay, and extended opioid consumption postoperatively. A multimodal pain-management protocol and multidisciplinary perioperative case-management protocol were implemented in 2016 to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TKA surgery. The senior surgeon (JM) organized a multidisciplinary team of health care providers to identify and implement potential solutions. This task force met weekly and consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, orthopedic physician assistants, a nurse coordinator, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist, as well as operating room, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and surgical ward nurses. In addition, the staff from the home health agencies and social services attended the weekly meetings.

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone unilateral TKA from 2013 to 2018 at VANTHCS. This was a consecutive, unselected cohort. All patients were under the care of a single surgeon using identical implant systems and identical surgical techniques. This study was approved by the institutional review board at VANTHCS. Patients were divided into 2 distinct and consecutive cohorts. The standard of care (SOC) group included all patients from 2013 to 2016. The ERAS group included all patients after the institution of the standardized protocol until the end of the study period.

Data on patient demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification, and preoperative functional status were extracted. Anesthesia techniques included either general endotracheal anesthesia or subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care. The quantity of the opioids given during surgery, in the PACU, during the inpatient stay, as discharge prescriptions, and as refills of the narcotic prescriptions up to 3 months postsurgery were recorded. All opioids were converted into morphine equivalent dosages (MED) in order to be properly analyzed using the statistical methodologies described in the statistical section.¹⁵ The VHA is a closed health care delivery system; therefore, all of the prescriptions ordered by surgery providers were recorded in the electronic health record.

ERAS Protocol

The SOC cohort was predominantly managed with general endotracheal anesthesia. The ERAS group was predominantly managed with subarachnoid blocks (Table 1). For the ERAS protocol preoperatively, the patients were administered oral gabapentin 300 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, and oxycodone 20 mg, and IV ondansetron 4 mg. Intraoperatively, minimal opioids were used. In the PACU, the patients received dilaudid 0.25 mg IV as needed every 15 minutes for up to 1 mg/h. The nursing staff was trained to use the visual analog pain scale scores to titrate the medication. During the inpatient stay, patients received 1 g IV acetaminophen every 6 hours for 3 doses. The patients thereafter received oral acetaminophen as needed. Other medications in the multimodal pain-management protocol included gabapentin 300 mg twice daily, meloxicam 15 mg daily, and oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed. Rescue medication for insufficient pain relief was dilaudid 0.25 mg IV every 15 minutes for visual analog pain scale > 8. On discharge, the patients received a prescription of 30 tablets of hydrocodone 10 mg.

Periarticular Injections

Intraoperatively, all patients in the SOC and ERAS groups received periarticular injections. The liposomal bupivacaine injection was added to the standard injection mixture for the ERAS group. For the SOC group, the total volume of 100 ml was divided into 10 separate 10 cc syringes, and for the ERAS group, the total volume of 140 ml was divided into 14 separate 10 cc syringes. The SOC group injections were performed with an 18-gauge needle and the periarticular soft tissues grossly infiltrated. The ERAS group injections were done with more attention to anatomical detail. Injection sites for the ERAS group included the posterior joint capsule, the medial compartment, the lateral compartment, the tibial fat pad, the quadriceps and the patellar tendon, the femoral and tibial periosteum circumferentially, and the anterior joint capsule. Each needle-stick in the ERAS group delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee.

Outcome Variable

The primary outcome measure was total oral MED intraoperatively, in the PACU, during the hospital inpatient stay, in the hospital discharge prescription, and during the 3-month period after hospital discharge. Incidence of nausea and vomiting during the inpatient stay and any narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery were secondary binary outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

Demographic data and the clinical characteristics for the entire group were described using the sample mean and SD for continuous variables and the frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Differences between the 2 cohorts were analyzed using a 2-independent-sample t test and Fisher exact test.

The estimation of the total oral MED throughout all phases of care was done using a separate Poisson model due to the data being not normally distributed. A log-linear regression model was used to evaluate the main effect of ERAS vs the SOC cohort on the total oral MED used. Finally, a separate multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting and narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery between the cohorts. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was estimated from the logistic model. Age, sex, body mass index, preoperative functional independence score, narcotic use within 3 months prior to surgery, anesthesia type used (subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care vs general endotracheal anesthesia), and postoperative complications (yes/no) were included as covariates in each model. The length of hospital stay and the above-mentioned factors were also included as covariates in the model estimating the total oral MED during the hospital stay, on hospital discharge, during the 3-month period after hospital discharge, and at 6 months following hospital discharge.

Results

Two hundred forty-nine patients had 296 elective unilateral TKAs in this study from 2013 through 2018. Thirty-one patients had both unilateral TKAs under the SOC protocol; 5 patients had both unilateral TKAs under the ERAS protocol. Eleven of the patients who eventually had both knees replaced had 1 operation under each protocol The SOC group included 196 TKAs and the ERAS group included 100 TKAs. Of the 196 SOC patients, 94% were male. The mean age was 68.2 years (range, 48-86). The length of hospital stay ranged from 36.6 to 664.3 hours. Of the 100 ERAS patients, 96% were male (Table 2). The mean age was 66.7 years (range, 48-85). The length of hospital stay ranged from 12.5 to 45 hours.

Perioperative Opioid Use

Of the SOC patients, 99.0% received narcotics intraoperatively (range, 0-198 mg MED), and 74.5% received narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-141 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the SOC patients ranged from 10 to 2,946 mg. Of the ERAS patients, 86% received no narcotics during surgery (range, 0-110 mg MED), and 98% received no narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-65 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the ERAS patients ranged from 10 to 240 mg.

The MED used was significantly lower for the ERAS patients than it was for the SOC patients during surgery (10.5 mg vs 57.4 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002) and in the PACU (1.3 mg vs 13.6 mg, P = .0002, FDR = .0004), during the inpatient stay (66.7 mg vs 169.5 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002), and on hospital discharge (419.3 mg vs 776.7 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002). However, there was no significant difference in the total MED prescriptions filled between patients on the ERAS protocol vs those who received SOC during the 3-month period after hospital discharge (858.3 mg vs 1126.1 mg, P = .29, FDR = .29)(Table 3).

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery has been associated with long-term opioid use and misuse. Orthopedic surgeons are frequently among the highest prescribers of narcotics. According to Volkow and colleagues, orthopedic surgeons were the fourth largest prescribers of opioids in 2009, behind primary care physicians, internists, and dentists.¹⁷ The opioid crisis in the United States is well recognized. In 2017, > 70,000 deaths occurred due to drug overdoses, with 68% involving a prescription or illicit opioid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated a total economic burden of $78.5 billion per year as a direct result of misused prescribed opioids.¹⁸ This includes the cost of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and the impact on the criminal justice system.

The current opioid crisis places further emphasis on opioid-reducing or sparing techniques in patients undergoing TKA. The use of liposomal bupivacaine for intraoperative periarticular injection is debated in the literature regarding its efficacy and whether it should be included in multimodal protocols. Researchers have argued that liposomal bupivacaine is not superior to regular bupivacaine and because of its increased cost is not justified.^19,20 A meta-analysis from Zhao and colleagues showed no difference in pain control and functional recovery when comparing liposomal bupivacaine and control.²¹ In a randomized clinical trial, Schroer and colleagues matched liposomal bupivacaine against regular bupivacaine and found no difference in pain scores and similar narcotic use during hospitalization.²²

Studies evaluating liposomal bupivacaine have demonstrated postoperative benefits in pain relief and potential opioid consumption.²³ In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, Barrington and colleagues noted improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours after surgery with liposomal bupivacaine as a periarticular injection vs ropivacaine, though results were similar when compared with intrathecal morphine.²⁴ Snyder and colleagues reported higher patient satisfaction in pain control and overall experience as well as decreased MED consumption in the PACU and on postoperative days 0 to 2 when using liposomal bupivacaine vs a multidrug cocktail for periarticular injection.²⁵

The PILLAR trial, an industry-sponsored study, was designed to compare the effects of local infiltration anesthesia with and without liposomal bupivacaine with emphasis on a meticulous standardized infiltration technique. In our study, we used a similar technique with an expanded volume of injection solution to 140 ml that was delivered throughout the knee in a series of 14 syringes. Each needle-stick delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee. Infiltration technique has varied among the literature focused on periarticular injections.

In our experience, a standard infiltration technique is critical to the effective delivery of liposomal bupivacaine throughout all compartments of the knee and to obtaining reproducible pain control. The importance of injection technique cannot be overemphasized, and variations can be seen in studies published to date.²⁶ Well-designed trials are needed to address this key component.

There have been limited data focused on the veteran population regarding postoperative pain-management strategies and recovery pathways either with or without liposomal bupivacaine. In a retrospective review, Sakamoto and colleagues found VA patients undergoing TKA had reduced opioid use in the first 24 hours after primary TKA with the use of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine.²⁷ The VA population has been shown to be at high risk for opioid misuse. The prevalence of comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in the VA population also places them at risk for polypharmacy of central nervous system–acting medications.²⁸ This emphasizes the importance of multimodal strategies, which can limit or eliminate narcotics in the perioperative period. The implementation of our ERAS protocol reduced opioid use during intraoperative, PACU, and inpatient hospital stay.

While the financial implications of our recovery protocol were not a primary focus of this study, there are many notable benefits on the overall inpatient cost to the VHA. According to the Health Economics Resource Center, the average daily cost of stay while under VA care for an inpatient surgical bed increased from $4,831 in 2013 to $6,220 in 2018.²⁹ Our reduction in length of stay between our cohorts is 44.5 hours, which translates to a substantial financial savings per patient after protocol implementation. A more detailed look at the financial aspect of our protocol would need to be performed to evaluate the financial impact of other aspects of our protocol, such as the elimination of patient-controlled anesthesia and the reduction in total narcotics prescribed in the postoperative global period.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include its retrospective study design. With the VHA patient population, it may be subject to selection bias, as the population is mostly older and predominantly male compared with that of the general population. This could potentially influence the efficacy of our protocol on a population of patients with more women. In a recent study by Perruccio and colleagues, sex was found to moderate the effects of comorbidities, low back pain, and depressive symptoms on postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA.³⁰

With regard to outpatient narcotic prescriptions, although we cannot fully know whether these filled prescriptions were used for pain control, it is a reasonable assumption that patients who are dealing with continued postoperative or chronic pain issues will fill these prescriptions or seek refills. It is important to note that the data on prescriptions and refills in the 3-month postoperative period include all narcotic prescriptions filled by any VHA prescriber and are not specifically limited to our orthopedic team. For outpatient narcotic use, we were not able to access accurate pill counts for any discharge prescriptions or subsequent refills that were given throughout the VA system. We were able to report on total prescriptions filled in the first 3 months following TKA.

We calculated total oral MEDs to better understand the amount of narcotics being distributed throughout our population of patients. We believe this provides important information about the overall narcotic burden in the veteran population. There was no significant difference between the SOC and ERAS groups regarding oral MED prescribed in the 3-month postoperative period; however, at the 6-month follow-up visit, only 16% of patients in the ERAS group were taking any type of narcotic vs 37.2% in the SOC group (P = .0002).

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol implemented at VANTHCS was effective in reducing length of stay and opioid burden throughout all phases of surgical care in our patients undergoing primary TKA. Patient and nursing education seem to be critical components to the implementation of a successful multimodal pain protocol. Reducing the narcotic burden has valuable financial and medical benefits in this at-risk population.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. The volume of TKAs is projected to substantially increase over the next 30 years.¹ Adequate pain control after TKA is critically important to achieve early mobilization, shorten the length of hospital stay, and reduce postoperative complications. The evolution and inclusion of multimodal pain-management protocols have had a major impact on the clinical outcomes for TKA patients.^2,3

Pain-management protocols typically use several modalities to control pain throughout the perioperative period. Multimodal opioid and nonopioid oral medications are administered during the pre- and postoperative periods and often involve a combination of acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.⁴ Peripheral nerve blocks and central neuraxial blockades are widely used and have been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain as well as overall opioid consumption.^5,6 Finally, intraoperative periarticular injections have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption as well as improve patient satisfaction scores.^7-9 These strategies are routinely used in TKA with the goal of minimizing overall opioid consumption and adverse events, reducing perioperative complications, and improving patient satisfaction.

Periarticular injections during surgery are an integral part of the multimodal pain-management protocols, though no consensus has been reached on proper injection formulation or technique. Liposomal bupivacaine is a local anesthetic depot formulation approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for surgical patients. The reported results have been discrepant regarding the efficacy of using liposomal bupivacaine injection in patients with TKA. Several studies have reported no added benefit of liposomal bupivacaine in contrast to a mixture of local anesthetics.^10,11 Other studies have demonstrated superior pain relief.¹² Many factors may contribute to the discrepant data, such as injection techniques, infiltration volume, and the assessment tools used to measure efficacy and safety.¹³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care to a large patient population. Many of the patients in that system have high-risk profiles, including medical comorbidities; exposure to chronic pain and opioid use; and psychological and central nervous system injuries, including posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Hadlandsmyth and colleagues reported increased risk of prolonged opioid use in VA patients after TKA surgery.¹⁴ They found that 20% of the patients were still on long-term opioids more than 90 days after TKA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the implementation of a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol at a regional VA medical center. We hypothesize that the addition of liposomal bupivacaine in a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol would reduce the length of hospital stay and opioid consumption without any deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes.

Methods

A postoperative recovery protocol was implemented in 2013 at VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas, and many of the patients continued to have issues with satisfactory pain control, prolonged length of stay, and extended opioid consumption postoperatively. A multimodal pain-management protocol and multidisciplinary perioperative case-management protocol were implemented in 2016 to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TKA surgery. The senior surgeon (JM) organized a multidisciplinary team of health care providers to identify and implement potential solutions. This task force met weekly and consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, orthopedic physician assistants, a nurse coordinator, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist, as well as operating room, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and surgical ward nurses. In addition, the staff from the home health agencies and social services attended the weekly meetings.

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone unilateral TKA from 2013 to 2018 at VANTHCS. This was a consecutive, unselected cohort. All patients were under the care of a single surgeon using identical implant systems and identical surgical techniques. This study was approved by the institutional review board at VANTHCS. Patients were divided into 2 distinct and consecutive cohorts. The standard of care (SOC) group included all patients from 2013 to 2016. The ERAS group included all patients after the institution of the standardized protocol until the end of the study period.

Data on patient demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification, and preoperative functional status were extracted. Anesthesia techniques included either general endotracheal anesthesia or subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care. The quantity of the opioids given during surgery, in the PACU, during the inpatient stay, as discharge prescriptions, and as refills of the narcotic prescriptions up to 3 months postsurgery were recorded. All opioids were converted into morphine equivalent dosages (MED) in order to be properly analyzed using the statistical methodologies described in the statistical section.¹⁵ The VHA is a closed health care delivery system; therefore, all of the prescriptions ordered by surgery providers were recorded in the electronic health record.

ERAS Protocol

The SOC cohort was predominantly managed with general endotracheal anesthesia. The ERAS group was predominantly managed with subarachnoid blocks (Table 1). For the ERAS protocol preoperatively, the patients were administered oral gabapentin 300 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, and oxycodone 20 mg, and IV ondansetron 4 mg. Intraoperatively, minimal opioids were used. In the PACU, the patients received dilaudid 0.25 mg IV as needed every 15 minutes for up to 1 mg/h. The nursing staff was trained to use the visual analog pain scale scores to titrate the medication. During the inpatient stay, patients received 1 g IV acetaminophen every 6 hours for 3 doses. The patients thereafter received oral acetaminophen as needed. Other medications in the multimodal pain-management protocol included gabapentin 300 mg twice daily, meloxicam 15 mg daily, and oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed. Rescue medication for insufficient pain relief was dilaudid 0.25 mg IV every 15 minutes for visual analog pain scale > 8. On discharge, the patients received a prescription of 30 tablets of hydrocodone 10 mg.

Periarticular Injections

Intraoperatively, all patients in the SOC and ERAS groups received periarticular injections. The liposomal bupivacaine injection was added to the standard injection mixture for the ERAS group. For the SOC group, the total volume of 100 ml was divided into 10 separate 10 cc syringes, and for the ERAS group, the total volume of 140 ml was divided into 14 separate 10 cc syringes. The SOC group injections were performed with an 18-gauge needle and the periarticular soft tissues grossly infiltrated. The ERAS group injections were done with more attention to anatomical detail. Injection sites for the ERAS group included the posterior joint capsule, the medial compartment, the lateral compartment, the tibial fat pad, the quadriceps and the patellar tendon, the femoral and tibial periosteum circumferentially, and the anterior joint capsule. Each needle-stick in the ERAS group delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee.

Outcome Variable

The primary outcome measure was total oral MED intraoperatively, in the PACU, during the hospital inpatient stay, in the hospital discharge prescription, and during the 3-month period after hospital discharge. Incidence of nausea and vomiting during the inpatient stay and any narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery were secondary binary outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

Demographic data and the clinical characteristics for the entire group were described using the sample mean and SD for continuous variables and the frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Differences between the 2 cohorts were analyzed using a 2-independent-sample t test and Fisher exact test.

The estimation of the total oral MED throughout all phases of care was done using a separate Poisson model due to the data being not normally distributed. A log-linear regression model was used to evaluate the main effect of ERAS vs the SOC cohort on the total oral MED used. Finally, a separate multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting and narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery between the cohorts. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was estimated from the logistic model. Age, sex, body mass index, preoperative functional independence score, narcotic use within 3 months prior to surgery, anesthesia type used (subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care vs general endotracheal anesthesia), and postoperative complications (yes/no) were included as covariates in each model. The length of hospital stay and the above-mentioned factors were also included as covariates in the model estimating the total oral MED during the hospital stay, on hospital discharge, during the 3-month period after hospital discharge, and at 6 months following hospital discharge.

Results

Two hundred forty-nine patients had 296 elective unilateral TKAs in this study from 2013 through 2018. Thirty-one patients had both unilateral TKAs under the SOC protocol; 5 patients had both unilateral TKAs under the ERAS protocol. Eleven of the patients who eventually had both knees replaced had 1 operation under each protocol The SOC group included 196 TKAs and the ERAS group included 100 TKAs. Of the 196 SOC patients, 94% were male. The mean age was 68.2 years (range, 48-86). The length of hospital stay ranged from 36.6 to 664.3 hours. Of the 100 ERAS patients, 96% were male (Table 2). The mean age was 66.7 years (range, 48-85). The length of hospital stay ranged from 12.5 to 45 hours.

Perioperative Opioid Use

Of the SOC patients, 99.0% received narcotics intraoperatively (range, 0-198 mg MED), and 74.5% received narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-141 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the SOC patients ranged from 10 to 2,946 mg. Of the ERAS patients, 86% received no narcotics during surgery (range, 0-110 mg MED), and 98% received no narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-65 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the ERAS patients ranged from 10 to 240 mg.

The MED used was significantly lower for the ERAS patients than it was for the SOC patients during surgery (10.5 mg vs 57.4 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002) and in the PACU (1.3 mg vs 13.6 mg, P = .0002, FDR = .0004), during the inpatient stay (66.7 mg vs 169.5 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002), and on hospital discharge (419.3 mg vs 776.7 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002). However, there was no significant difference in the total MED prescriptions filled between patients on the ERAS protocol vs those who received SOC during the 3-month period after hospital discharge (858.3 mg vs 1126.1 mg, P = .29, FDR = .29)(Table 3).

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery has been associated with long-term opioid use and misuse. Orthopedic surgeons are frequently among the highest prescribers of narcotics. According to Volkow and colleagues, orthopedic surgeons were the fourth largest prescribers of opioids in 2009, behind primary care physicians, internists, and dentists.¹⁷ The opioid crisis in the United States is well recognized. In 2017, > 70,000 deaths occurred due to drug overdoses, with 68% involving a prescription or illicit opioid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated a total economic burden of $78.5 billion per year as a direct result of misused prescribed opioids.¹⁸ This includes the cost of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and the impact on the criminal justice system.

The current opioid crisis places further emphasis on opioid-reducing or sparing techniques in patients undergoing TKA. The use of liposomal bupivacaine for intraoperative periarticular injection is debated in the literature regarding its efficacy and whether it should be included in multimodal protocols. Researchers have argued that liposomal bupivacaine is not superior to regular bupivacaine and because of its increased cost is not justified.^19,20 A meta-analysis from Zhao and colleagues showed no difference in pain control and functional recovery when comparing liposomal bupivacaine and control.²¹ In a randomized clinical trial, Schroer and colleagues matched liposomal bupivacaine against regular bupivacaine and found no difference in pain scores and similar narcotic use during hospitalization.²²

Studies evaluating liposomal bupivacaine have demonstrated postoperative benefits in pain relief and potential opioid consumption.²³ In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, Barrington and colleagues noted improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours after surgery with liposomal bupivacaine as a periarticular injection vs ropivacaine, though results were similar when compared with intrathecal morphine.²⁴ Snyder and colleagues reported higher patient satisfaction in pain control and overall experience as well as decreased MED consumption in the PACU and on postoperative days 0 to 2 when using liposomal bupivacaine vs a multidrug cocktail for periarticular injection.²⁵

The PILLAR trial, an industry-sponsored study, was designed to compare the effects of local infiltration anesthesia with and without liposomal bupivacaine with emphasis on a meticulous standardized infiltration technique. In our study, we used a similar technique with an expanded volume of injection solution to 140 ml that was delivered throughout the knee in a series of 14 syringes. Each needle-stick delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee. Infiltration technique has varied among the literature focused on periarticular injections.

In our experience, a standard infiltration technique is critical to the effective delivery of liposomal bupivacaine throughout all compartments of the knee and to obtaining reproducible pain control. The importance of injection technique cannot be overemphasized, and variations can be seen in studies published to date.²⁶ Well-designed trials are needed to address this key component.

There have been limited data focused on the veteran population regarding postoperative pain-management strategies and recovery pathways either with or without liposomal bupivacaine. In a retrospective review, Sakamoto and colleagues found VA patients undergoing TKA had reduced opioid use in the first 24 hours after primary TKA with the use of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine.²⁷ The VA population has been shown to be at high risk for opioid misuse. The prevalence of comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in the VA population also places them at risk for polypharmacy of central nervous system–acting medications.²⁸ This emphasizes the importance of multimodal strategies, which can limit or eliminate narcotics in the perioperative period. The implementation of our ERAS protocol reduced opioid use during intraoperative, PACU, and inpatient hospital stay.

While the financial implications of our recovery protocol were not a primary focus of this study, there are many notable benefits on the overall inpatient cost to the VHA. According to the Health Economics Resource Center, the average daily cost of stay while under VA care for an inpatient surgical bed increased from $4,831 in 2013 to $6,220 in 2018.²⁹ Our reduction in length of stay between our cohorts is 44.5 hours, which translates to a substantial financial savings per patient after protocol implementation. A more detailed look at the financial aspect of our protocol would need to be performed to evaluate the financial impact of other aspects of our protocol, such as the elimination of patient-controlled anesthesia and the reduction in total narcotics prescribed in the postoperative global period.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include its retrospective study design. With the VHA patient population, it may be subject to selection bias, as the population is mostly older and predominantly male compared with that of the general population. This could potentially influence the efficacy of our protocol on a population of patients with more women. In a recent study by Perruccio and colleagues, sex was found to moderate the effects of comorbidities, low back pain, and depressive symptoms on postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA.³⁰

With regard to outpatient narcotic prescriptions, although we cannot fully know whether these filled prescriptions were used for pain control, it is a reasonable assumption that patients who are dealing with continued postoperative or chronic pain issues will fill these prescriptions or seek refills. It is important to note that the data on prescriptions and refills in the 3-month postoperative period include all narcotic prescriptions filled by any VHA prescriber and are not specifically limited to our orthopedic team. For outpatient narcotic use, we were not able to access accurate pill counts for any discharge prescriptions or subsequent refills that were given throughout the VA system. We were able to report on total prescriptions filled in the first 3 months following TKA.

We calculated total oral MEDs to better understand the amount of narcotics being distributed throughout our population of patients. We believe this provides important information about the overall narcotic burden in the veteran population. There was no significant difference between the SOC and ERAS groups regarding oral MED prescribed in the 3-month postoperative period; however, at the 6-month follow-up visit, only 16% of patients in the ERAS group were taking any type of narcotic vs 37.2% in the SOC group (P = .0002).

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol implemented at VANTHCS was effective in reducing length of stay and opioid burden throughout all phases of surgical care in our patients undergoing primary TKA. Patient and nursing education seem to be critical components to the implementation of a successful multimodal pain protocol. Reducing the narcotic burden has valuable financial and medical benefits in this at-risk population.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States. The volume of TKAs is projected to substantially increase over the next 30 years.¹ Adequate pain control after TKA is critically important to achieve early mobilization, shorten the length of hospital stay, and reduce postoperative complications. The evolution and inclusion of multimodal pain-management protocols have had a major impact on the clinical outcomes for TKA patients.^2,3

Pain-management protocols typically use several modalities to control pain throughout the perioperative period. Multimodal opioid and nonopioid oral medications are administered during the pre- and postoperative periods and often involve a combination of acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.⁴ Peripheral nerve blocks and central neuraxial blockades are widely used and have been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain as well as overall opioid consumption.^5,6 Finally, intraoperative periarticular injections have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption as well as improve patient satisfaction scores.^7-9 These strategies are routinely used in TKA with the goal of minimizing overall opioid consumption and adverse events, reducing perioperative complications, and improving patient satisfaction.

Periarticular injections during surgery are an integral part of the multimodal pain-management protocols, though no consensus has been reached on proper injection formulation or technique. Liposomal bupivacaine is a local anesthetic depot formulation approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for surgical patients. The reported results have been discrepant regarding the efficacy of using liposomal bupivacaine injection in patients with TKA. Several studies have reported no added benefit of liposomal bupivacaine in contrast to a mixture of local anesthetics.^10,11 Other studies have demonstrated superior pain relief.¹² Many factors may contribute to the discrepant data, such as injection techniques, infiltration volume, and the assessment tools used to measure efficacy and safety.¹³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care to a large patient population. Many of the patients in that system have high-risk profiles, including medical comorbidities; exposure to chronic pain and opioid use; and psychological and central nervous system injuries, including posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Hadlandsmyth and colleagues reported increased risk of prolonged opioid use in VA patients after TKA surgery.¹⁴ They found that 20% of the patients were still on long-term opioids more than 90 days after TKA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the implementation of a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol at a regional VA medical center. We hypothesize that the addition of liposomal bupivacaine in a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol would reduce the length of hospital stay and opioid consumption without any deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes.

Methods

A postoperative recovery protocol was implemented in 2013 at VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas, and many of the patients continued to have issues with satisfactory pain control, prolonged length of stay, and extended opioid consumption postoperatively. A multimodal pain-management protocol and multidisciplinary perioperative case-management protocol were implemented in 2016 to further improve the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing TKA surgery. The senior surgeon (JM) organized a multidisciplinary team of health care providers to identify and implement potential solutions. This task force met weekly and consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, orthopedic physician assistants, a nurse coordinator, a physical therapist, and an occupational therapist, as well as operating room, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and surgical ward nurses. In addition, the staff from the home health agencies and social services attended the weekly meetings.

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who had undergone unilateral TKA from 2013 to 2018 at VANTHCS. This was a consecutive, unselected cohort. All patients were under the care of a single surgeon using identical implant systems and identical surgical techniques. This study was approved by the institutional review board at VANTHCS. Patients were divided into 2 distinct and consecutive cohorts. The standard of care (SOC) group included all patients from 2013 to 2016. The ERAS group included all patients after the institution of the standardized protocol until the end of the study period.

Data on patient demographics, the American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification, and preoperative functional status were extracted. Anesthesia techniques included either general endotracheal anesthesia or subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care. The quantity of the opioids given during surgery, in the PACU, during the inpatient stay, as discharge prescriptions, and as refills of the narcotic prescriptions up to 3 months postsurgery were recorded. All opioids were converted into morphine equivalent dosages (MED) in order to be properly analyzed using the statistical methodologies described in the statistical section.¹⁵ The VHA is a closed health care delivery system; therefore, all of the prescriptions ordered by surgery providers were recorded in the electronic health record.

ERAS Protocol

The SOC cohort was predominantly managed with general endotracheal anesthesia. The ERAS group was predominantly managed with subarachnoid blocks (Table 1). For the ERAS protocol preoperatively, the patients were administered oral gabapentin 300 mg, acetaminophen 650 mg, and oxycodone 20 mg, and IV ondansetron 4 mg. Intraoperatively, minimal opioids were used. In the PACU, the patients received dilaudid 0.25 mg IV as needed every 15 minutes for up to 1 mg/h. The nursing staff was trained to use the visual analog pain scale scores to titrate the medication. During the inpatient stay, patients received 1 g IV acetaminophen every 6 hours for 3 doses. The patients thereafter received oral acetaminophen as needed. Other medications in the multimodal pain-management protocol included gabapentin 300 mg twice daily, meloxicam 15 mg daily, and oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed. Rescue medication for insufficient pain relief was dilaudid 0.25 mg IV every 15 minutes for visual analog pain scale > 8. On discharge, the patients received a prescription of 30 tablets of hydrocodone 10 mg.

Periarticular Injections

Intraoperatively, all patients in the SOC and ERAS groups received periarticular injections. The liposomal bupivacaine injection was added to the standard injection mixture for the ERAS group. For the SOC group, the total volume of 100 ml was divided into 10 separate 10 cc syringes, and for the ERAS group, the total volume of 140 ml was divided into 14 separate 10 cc syringes. The SOC group injections were performed with an 18-gauge needle and the periarticular soft tissues grossly infiltrated. The ERAS group injections were done with more attention to anatomical detail. Injection sites for the ERAS group included the posterior joint capsule, the medial compartment, the lateral compartment, the tibial fat pad, the quadriceps and the patellar tendon, the femoral and tibial periosteum circumferentially, and the anterior joint capsule. Each needle-stick in the ERAS group delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee.

Outcome Variable

The primary outcome measure was total oral MED intraoperatively, in the PACU, during the hospital inpatient stay, in the hospital discharge prescription, and during the 3-month period after hospital discharge. Incidence of nausea and vomiting during the inpatient stay and any narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery were secondary binary outcomes.

Statistical Analysis

Demographic data and the clinical characteristics for the entire group were described using the sample mean and SD for continuous variables and the frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Differences between the 2 cohorts were analyzed using a 2-independent-sample t test and Fisher exact test.

The estimation of the total oral MED throughout all phases of care was done using a separate Poisson model due to the data being not normally distributed. A log-linear regression model was used to evaluate the main effect of ERAS vs the SOC cohort on the total oral MED used. Finally, a separate multiple logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting and narcotic use at 6 months postsurgery between the cohorts. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was estimated from the logistic model. Age, sex, body mass index, preoperative functional independence score, narcotic use within 3 months prior to surgery, anesthesia type used (subarachnoid block with monitored anesthesia care vs general endotracheal anesthesia), and postoperative complications (yes/no) were included as covariates in each model. The length of hospital stay and the above-mentioned factors were also included as covariates in the model estimating the total oral MED during the hospital stay, on hospital discharge, during the 3-month period after hospital discharge, and at 6 months following hospital discharge.

Results

Two hundred forty-nine patients had 296 elective unilateral TKAs in this study from 2013 through 2018. Thirty-one patients had both unilateral TKAs under the SOC protocol; 5 patients had both unilateral TKAs under the ERAS protocol. Eleven of the patients who eventually had both knees replaced had 1 operation under each protocol The SOC group included 196 TKAs and the ERAS group included 100 TKAs. Of the 196 SOC patients, 94% were male. The mean age was 68.2 years (range, 48-86). The length of hospital stay ranged from 36.6 to 664.3 hours. Of the 100 ERAS patients, 96% were male (Table 2). The mean age was 66.7 years (range, 48-85). The length of hospital stay ranged from 12.5 to 45 hours.

Perioperative Opioid Use

Of the SOC patients, 99.0% received narcotics intraoperatively (range, 0-198 mg MED), and 74.5% received narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-141 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the SOC patients ranged from 10 to 2,946 mg. Of the ERAS patients, 86% received no narcotics during surgery (range, 0-110 mg MED), and 98% received no narcotics during PACU recovery (range, 0-65 mg MED). The total oral MED during the hospital stay for the ERAS patients ranged from 10 to 240 mg.

The MED used was significantly lower for the ERAS patients than it was for the SOC patients during surgery (10.5 mg vs 57.4 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002) and in the PACU (1.3 mg vs 13.6 mg, P = .0002, FDR = .0004), during the inpatient stay (66.7 mg vs 169.5 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002), and on hospital discharge (419.3 mg vs 776.7 mg, P = .0001, FDR = .0002). However, there was no significant difference in the total MED prescriptions filled between patients on the ERAS protocol vs those who received SOC during the 3-month period after hospital discharge (858.3 mg vs 1126.1 mg, P = .29, FDR = .29)(Table 3).

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery has been associated with long-term opioid use and misuse. Orthopedic surgeons are frequently among the highest prescribers of narcotics. According to Volkow and colleagues, orthopedic surgeons were the fourth largest prescribers of opioids in 2009, behind primary care physicians, internists, and dentists.¹⁷ The opioid crisis in the United States is well recognized. In 2017, > 70,000 deaths occurred due to drug overdoses, with 68% involving a prescription or illicit opioid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated a total economic burden of $78.5 billion per year as a direct result of misused prescribed opioids.¹⁸ This includes the cost of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and the impact on the criminal justice system.

The current opioid crisis places further emphasis on opioid-reducing or sparing techniques in patients undergoing TKA. The use of liposomal bupivacaine for intraoperative periarticular injection is debated in the literature regarding its efficacy and whether it should be included in multimodal protocols. Researchers have argued that liposomal bupivacaine is not superior to regular bupivacaine and because of its increased cost is not justified.^19,20 A meta-analysis from Zhao and colleagues showed no difference in pain control and functional recovery when comparing liposomal bupivacaine and control.²¹ In a randomized clinical trial, Schroer and colleagues matched liposomal bupivacaine against regular bupivacaine and found no difference in pain scores and similar narcotic use during hospitalization.²²

Studies evaluating liposomal bupivacaine have demonstrated postoperative benefits in pain relief and potential opioid consumption.²³ In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, Barrington and colleagues noted improved pain control at 6 and 12 hours after surgery with liposomal bupivacaine as a periarticular injection vs ropivacaine, though results were similar when compared with intrathecal morphine.²⁴ Snyder and colleagues reported higher patient satisfaction in pain control and overall experience as well as decreased MED consumption in the PACU and on postoperative days 0 to 2 when using liposomal bupivacaine vs a multidrug cocktail for periarticular injection.²⁵

The PILLAR trial, an industry-sponsored study, was designed to compare the effects of local infiltration anesthesia with and without liposomal bupivacaine with emphasis on a meticulous standardized infiltration technique. In our study, we used a similar technique with an expanded volume of injection solution to 140 ml that was delivered throughout the knee in a series of 14 syringes. Each needle-stick delivered 1 to 1.5 ml through a 22-gauge needle to each compartment of the knee. Infiltration technique has varied among the literature focused on periarticular injections.

In our experience, a standard infiltration technique is critical to the effective delivery of liposomal bupivacaine throughout all compartments of the knee and to obtaining reproducible pain control. The importance of injection technique cannot be overemphasized, and variations can be seen in studies published to date.²⁶ Well-designed trials are needed to address this key component.

There have been limited data focused on the veteran population regarding postoperative pain-management strategies and recovery pathways either with or without liposomal bupivacaine. In a retrospective review, Sakamoto and colleagues found VA patients undergoing TKA had reduced opioid use in the first 24 hours after primary TKA with the use of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine.²⁷ The VA population has been shown to be at high risk for opioid misuse. The prevalence of comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in the VA population also places them at risk for polypharmacy of central nervous system–acting medications.²⁸ This emphasizes the importance of multimodal strategies, which can limit or eliminate narcotics in the perioperative period. The implementation of our ERAS protocol reduced opioid use during intraoperative, PACU, and inpatient hospital stay.

While the financial implications of our recovery protocol were not a primary focus of this study, there are many notable benefits on the overall inpatient cost to the VHA. According to the Health Economics Resource Center, the average daily cost of stay while under VA care for an inpatient surgical bed increased from $4,831 in 2013 to $6,220 in 2018.²⁹ Our reduction in length of stay between our cohorts is 44.5 hours, which translates to a substantial financial savings per patient after protocol implementation. A more detailed look at the financial aspect of our protocol would need to be performed to evaluate the financial impact of other aspects of our protocol, such as the elimination of patient-controlled anesthesia and the reduction in total narcotics prescribed in the postoperative global period.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include its retrospective study design. With the VHA patient population, it may be subject to selection bias, as the population is mostly older and predominantly male compared with that of the general population. This could potentially influence the efficacy of our protocol on a population of patients with more women. In a recent study by Perruccio and colleagues, sex was found to moderate the effects of comorbidities, low back pain, and depressive symptoms on postoperative pain in patients undergoing TKA.³⁰

With regard to outpatient narcotic prescriptions, although we cannot fully know whether these filled prescriptions were used for pain control, it is a reasonable assumption that patients who are dealing with continued postoperative or chronic pain issues will fill these prescriptions or seek refills. It is important to note that the data on prescriptions and refills in the 3-month postoperative period include all narcotic prescriptions filled by any VHA prescriber and are not specifically limited to our orthopedic team. For outpatient narcotic use, we were not able to access accurate pill counts for any discharge prescriptions or subsequent refills that were given throughout the VA system. We were able to report on total prescriptions filled in the first 3 months following TKA.

We calculated total oral MEDs to better understand the amount of narcotics being distributed throughout our population of patients. We believe this provides important information about the overall narcotic burden in the veteran population. There was no significant difference between the SOC and ERAS groups regarding oral MED prescribed in the 3-month postoperative period; however, at the 6-month follow-up visit, only 16% of patients in the ERAS group were taking any type of narcotic vs 37.2% in the SOC group (P = .0002).

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary ERAS protocol implemented at VANTHCS was effective in reducing length of stay and opioid burden throughout all phases of surgical care in our patients undergoing primary TKA. Patient and nursing education seem to be critical components to the implementation of a successful multimodal pain protocol. Reducing the narcotic burden has valuable financial and medical benefits in this at-risk population.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to boost a patient’s placebo experience or blunt the nocebo experience, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.

The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”


 

Testing the hypothesis

The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.

The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).

All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.

Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.

The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.

“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
 

Proof of concept

Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”

Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.

“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”

Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to boost a patient’s placebo experience or blunt the nocebo experience, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.

The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”


 

Testing the hypothesis

The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.

The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).

All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.

Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.

The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.

“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
 

Proof of concept

Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”

Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.

“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”

Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to boost a patient’s placebo experience or blunt the nocebo experience, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.

The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”


 

Testing the hypothesis

The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.

The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).

All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.

Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.

The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.

“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
 

Proof of concept

Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”

Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.

“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”

Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.