Pain

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, opioids have been a mainstay in the management of pain after total joint arthroplasty. In the past 10 years, however, opioid prescribing has come under increased scrutiny due to a rise in rates of opioid abuse, pill diversion, and opioid-related deaths.^1,2 Opioids are associated with adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting, constipation, apathy, and respiratory depression, all of which influence arthroplasty outcomes and affect the patient experience. Although primary care groups account for nearly half of prescriptions written, orthopedic surgeons have the third highest per capita rate of opioid prescribing of all medical specialties.^3,4 This puts orthopedic surgeons, particularly those who perform routine procedures, in an opportune but challenging position to confront this problem through novel pain management strategies.

Approximately 1 million total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in the US every year, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system performs about 10,000 hip and knee joint replacements.^5,6 There is no standardization of opioid prescribing in the postoperative period following these procedures, and studies have reported a wide variation in prescribing habits even within a single institution for a specific surgery.⁷ Patients who undergo TKA are at particularly high risk of long-term opioid use if they are on continuous opioids at the time of surgery; this is problematic in a VA patient population in which at least 16% of patients are prescribed opioids in a given year.⁸ Furthermore, veterans are twice as likely as nonveterans to die of an accidental overdose.⁹ Despite these risks, opioids remain a cornerstone of postoperative pain management both within and outside of the VA.¹⁰

In 2018, to limit unnecessary prescribing of opioid pain medication, the total joint service at the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS) in Oregon implemented the Minimizing Opioids after Joint Operation (MOJO) postoperative pain protocol. The goal of the protocol was to reduce opioid use following TKA. The objectives were to provide safe, appropriate analgesia while allowing early mobilization and discharge without a concomitant increase in readmissions or emergency department (ED) visits. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to compare the efficacy of the MOJO protocol with our historical experience and report our preliminary results.

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively review the medical records of patients who had undergone TKA surgery during 2018 at VAPHCS. The MOJO protocol was composed of several simultaneous changes. The centerpiece of the new protocol was a drastic decrease in routine prescription of postoperative opioids (Table 1). Other changes included instructing patients to reduce the use of preoperative opioid pain medication 6 weeks before surgery with a goal of no opioid consumption, perform daily sets of preoperative exercises, and attend a preoperative consultation/education session with a nurse coordinator to emphasize early recovery and discharge. In patients with chronic use of opioid pain medication (particularly those for whom the medication had been prescribed for other sources of pain, such as lumbar back pain), the goal was daily opioid use of ≤ 30 morphine equivalent doses (MEDs). During the inpatient stay, we stopped prescribing prophylactic pain medication prior to physical therapy (PT).

We encouraged preoperative optimization of muscle strength by giving instructions for 4 to 8 weeks of daily exercises (Appendix). We introduced perioperative adductor canal blocks (at the discretion of the anesthesia team) and transitioned to surgery without a tourniquet. Patients in both groups received intraoperative antibiotics and IV tranexamic acid (TXA); the MOJO group also received topical TXA.

Further patient care optimization included providing patients with a team-based approach, which consisted of nurse coordinators, physician assistants and nurse practitioners, residents, and the attending surgeon. Our team reviews the planned pain management protocol, perioperative expectations, criteria for discharge, and anticipated surgical outcomes with the patient during their preoperative visits. On postoperative day 1, these members round as a team to encourage patients in their immediate postoperative recovery and rehabilitation. During rounds, the team assesses whether the patient meets the criteria for discharge, adjusting the pain management protocol if necessary.

Results

Forty patients met the inclusion criteria, evenly divided between those undergoing TKA before and after instituting the MOJO protocol (Table 2). A single patient in the MOJO group died and was excluded. A patient who underwent bilateral TKA also was excluded. Both groups reflected the male predominance of the VA patient population. MOJO patients tended to have lower BMIs (34 vs 30, P < .01). All patients indicated for surgery with preoperative opioid use were able to titrate down to their preoperative goal as verified by prescriptions filled at VA pharmacies. Twelve of the patients in the MOJO group received adductor canal blocks.

Results of t tests and χ² tests comparing primary and secondary endpoints are listed in Table 3. Differences between the daily MEDs given in the historical and MOJO groups are shown. There were significant differences between the pre-MOJO and MOJO groups with regard to daily inpatient MEDs (82 mg vs 29 mg, P < .01) and total inpatient MEDs (306 mg vs 32 mg, P < .01). There was less self-reported pain on postoperative day 1 in the MOJO group (5.5 vs 3.9, P < .01), decreased LOS (4.4 days vs 1.2 days, P < .01), a trend toward fewer total ED visits (6 vs 2, P = .24), and fewer discharges to skilled nursing facilities (12 vs 0, P < .01). There were no blood transfusions in either group.

Discussion

Our results demonstrate that a multimodal approach to significantly reduce postoperative opioid use in patients with TKA is possible without increasing readmissions or ED visits for pain control. The patients in the MOJO group had a faster recovery, earlier discharge, and less use of postoperative opioid medication. Our approach to postoperative pain management was divided into 2 main categories: patient optimization and surgical optimization.

Patient Selection

Besides the standard evaluation and optimization of patients’ medical conditions, identifying and optimizing at-risk patients before surgery was a critical component of our protocol. Managing postoperative pain in patients with prior opioid use is an intractable challenge in orthopedic surgery. Patients with a history of chronic pain and preoperative use of opioid medications remain at higher risk of postoperative chronic pain and persistent use of opioid medication despite no obvious surgical complications.⁸ In a sample of > 6,000 veterans who underwent TKA at VA hospitals in 2014, 57% of the patients with daily use of opioids in the 90 days before surgery remained on opioids 1 year after surgery (vs 2 % in patients not on long-term opioids).⁸ This relationship between pre- and postoperative opioid use also was dose dependent.¹²

Furthermore, those with high preoperative use may experience worse outcomes relative to the opioid naive population as measured by arthritis-specific pain indices.¹³ In a well-powered retrospective study of patients who underwent elective orthopedic procedures, preoperative opioid abuse or dependence (determined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis) increased inpatient mortality, aggregate morbidity, surgical site infection, myocardial infarction, and LOS.¹⁴ Preoperative opioid use also has been associated with increased risk of ED visits, readmission, infection, stiffness, and aseptic revision.¹⁵ In patients with TKA in the VA specifically, preoperative opioid use (> 3 months in the prior year) was associated with increased revision rates that were even higher than those for patients with diabetes mellitus.¹⁶

Patient Education

Based on this evidence, we instruct patients to reduce their preoperative opioid dosing to zero (for patients with joint pain) or < 30 MED (for patients using opioids for other reasons). Although preoperative reduction of opioid use has been shown to improve outcomes after TKA, pain subspecialty recommendations for patients with chronic opioid use recommend considering adjunctive therapies, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cognitive behavioral therapy, gabapentin, or ketamine.^17,18 Through patient education our team has been successful in decreasing preoperative opioid use without adding other drugs or modalities.

Patient Optimization

Preoperative patient optimization included 4 to 8 weeks of daily sets of physical activity instructions (prehab) to improve the musculoskeletal function. These instructions are given to patients 4 to 8 weeks before surgery and aim to improve the patient’s balance, mobility, and functional ability (Appendix). Meta-analysis has shown that patients who undergo preoperative PT have a small but statistically significant decrease in postoperative pain at 4 weeks, though this does not persist beyond that period.¹⁹

We did note a lower BMI in patients in the MOJO group. Though this has the potential to be a confounder, a study of BMI in > 4,000 patients who underwent joint replacement surgery has shown that BMI is not associated with differences in postoperative pain.²⁰

Surgeon and Surgical-Related Variables

Patients in the MOJO group had increased use of adductor canal blocks. A 2017 meta-analysis of 12,530 patients comparing analgesic modalities found that peripheral nerve blocks targeting multiple nerves (eg, femoral/sciatic) decreased pain at rest, decreased opioid consumption, and improved range of motion postoperatively.²¹ Also, these were found to be superior to single nerve blocks, periarticular infiltration, and epidural blocks.²¹ However, major nerve and epidural blocks affecting the lower extremity may increase the risk of falls and prolong LOS.^22,23 The preferred peripheral block at VAPHCS is a single shot ultrasound-guided adductor canal block before the induction of general or spinal anesthesia. A randomized controlled trial has demonstrated superiority of this block to the femoral nerve block with regard to postoperative quadriceps strength, conferring the theoretical advantage of decreased fall risk and ability to participate in immediate PT.²⁴ Although we are unable to confirm an association between anesthetic modalities and opioid burden, our clinical impression is that blocks were effective at reducing immediate postoperative pain. However, among MOJO patients there were no differences in patients with and without blocks for either pain (4.2 vs 3.8, P = .69) or opioid consumption (28.8 vs 33.0, P = .72) after surgery, though our study was not powered to detect a difference in this restricted subgroup.

Patients who frequently had reported postoperative thigh pain prompted us to make changes in our surgical technique, performing TKA without use of a tourniquet. Tourniquet use has been associated with an increased risk of thigh pain after TKA by multiple authors.^25,26 Postoperative thigh pain also is pressure dependent.²⁷ In addition, its use may be associated with a slightly increased risk of thromboembolic events and delayed functional recovery.^28,29

Because postoperative hemarthrosis is associated with more pain and reduced joint recovery function, we used topical TXA to reduce postoperative surgical site and joint hematoma. TXA (either oral, IV, or topical) during TKA is used to control postoperative bleeding primarily and decrease the need for transfusion without concomitant increase in thromboembolic events.^30,31 Topical TXA may be more effective than IV, particularly in the immediate postoperative period.³² Although pain typically is not an endpoint in studies of TXA, a prospective study of 48 patients showed evidence that its use may be associated with decreased postoperative pain in the first 24 hours after surgery (though not after).³³ Finally, the use of intra-articular injection has evolved in our clinical practice, but literature is lacking with regard to its efficacy; more studies are needed to determine its effect relative to no injection. We have not seen any benefits to using cryotherapy in our practice; considering the costs for equipment and health care provider time, cryotherapy was not included in our new protocol.

Limitations

This is a nonrandomized retrospective single-institution study. Our study population is composed of mostly males with military experience and is not necessarily a representative sample of the general population eligible for joint arthroplasty. Our primary endpoint (reduction of opioid use postoperatively) also was a cornerstone of our intervention. To account for this, we set a very large effect size in our power analysis and evaluated multiple secondary endpoints to determine whether postoperative pain remained well controlled and complications/readmission minimized with our interventions. Because our intervention was multimodal, our study cannot make conclusions about the effect of a particular component of our treatment strategy. We did not measure or compare functional outcomes between both groups, which offers an opportunity for further research.

These limitations are balanced by several strengths. Our cohort was well controlled with respect to the dose and type of drug used. There is staff dedicated to postoperative telephone follow-up after discharge, and veterans are apt to seek care within the VA health care system, which improves case finding for complications and ED visits. No patients were lost to follow-up. Moreover, our drastic reduction in opioid use is promising enough to warrant reporting, while the broader orthopedic literature explores the relative impact of each variable.

Conclusions

The MOJO protocol has been effective for reducing postoperative opioid use after TKA without compromising effective pain management. The drastic reduction in the postoperative use of opioid pain medications and LOS have contributed to a cultural shift within our department, comprehensive team approach, multimodal pain management, and preoperative patient optimization. Further investigations are required to assess the impact of each intervention on observed outcomes. However, the framework and routines are applicable to other institutions and surgical specialties.

Acknowledgments

The authors recognize Derek Bond, MD, for his help in creating the MOJO acronym.

For decades, opioids have been a mainstay in the management of pain after total joint arthroplasty. In the past 10 years, however, opioid prescribing has come under increased scrutiny due to a rise in rates of opioid abuse, pill diversion, and opioid-related deaths.^1,2 Opioids are associated with adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting, constipation, apathy, and respiratory depression, all of which influence arthroplasty outcomes and affect the patient experience. Although primary care groups account for nearly half of prescriptions written, orthopedic surgeons have the third highest per capita rate of opioid prescribing of all medical specialties.^3,4 This puts orthopedic surgeons, particularly those who perform routine procedures, in an opportune but challenging position to confront this problem through novel pain management strategies.

Approximately 1 million total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in the US every year, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system performs about 10,000 hip and knee joint replacements.^5,6 There is no standardization of opioid prescribing in the postoperative period following these procedures, and studies have reported a wide variation in prescribing habits even within a single institution for a specific surgery.⁷ Patients who undergo TKA are at particularly high risk of long-term opioid use if they are on continuous opioids at the time of surgery; this is problematic in a VA patient population in which at least 16% of patients are prescribed opioids in a given year.⁸ Furthermore, veterans are twice as likely as nonveterans to die of an accidental overdose.⁹ Despite these risks, opioids remain a cornerstone of postoperative pain management both within and outside of the VA.¹⁰

In 2018, to limit unnecessary prescribing of opioid pain medication, the total joint service at the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS) in Oregon implemented the Minimizing Opioids after Joint Operation (MOJO) postoperative pain protocol. The goal of the protocol was to reduce opioid use following TKA. The objectives were to provide safe, appropriate analgesia while allowing early mobilization and discharge without a concomitant increase in readmissions or emergency department (ED) visits. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to compare the efficacy of the MOJO protocol with our historical experience and report our preliminary results.

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively review the medical records of patients who had undergone TKA surgery during 2018 at VAPHCS. The MOJO protocol was composed of several simultaneous changes. The centerpiece of the new protocol was a drastic decrease in routine prescription of postoperative opioids (Table 1). Other changes included instructing patients to reduce the use of preoperative opioid pain medication 6 weeks before surgery with a goal of no opioid consumption, perform daily sets of preoperative exercises, and attend a preoperative consultation/education session with a nurse coordinator to emphasize early recovery and discharge. In patients with chronic use of opioid pain medication (particularly those for whom the medication had been prescribed for other sources of pain, such as lumbar back pain), the goal was daily opioid use of ≤ 30 morphine equivalent doses (MEDs). During the inpatient stay, we stopped prescribing prophylactic pain medication prior to physical therapy (PT).

We encouraged preoperative optimization of muscle strength by giving instructions for 4 to 8 weeks of daily exercises (Appendix). We introduced perioperative adductor canal blocks (at the discretion of the anesthesia team) and transitioned to surgery without a tourniquet. Patients in both groups received intraoperative antibiotics and IV tranexamic acid (TXA); the MOJO group also received topical TXA.

Further patient care optimization included providing patients with a team-based approach, which consisted of nurse coordinators, physician assistants and nurse practitioners, residents, and the attending surgeon. Our team reviews the planned pain management protocol, perioperative expectations, criteria for discharge, and anticipated surgical outcomes with the patient during their preoperative visits. On postoperative day 1, these members round as a team to encourage patients in their immediate postoperative recovery and rehabilitation. During rounds, the team assesses whether the patient meets the criteria for discharge, adjusting the pain management protocol if necessary.

Results

Forty patients met the inclusion criteria, evenly divided between those undergoing TKA before and after instituting the MOJO protocol (Table 2). A single patient in the MOJO group died and was excluded. A patient who underwent bilateral TKA also was excluded. Both groups reflected the male predominance of the VA patient population. MOJO patients tended to have lower BMIs (34 vs 30, P < .01). All patients indicated for surgery with preoperative opioid use were able to titrate down to their preoperative goal as verified by prescriptions filled at VA pharmacies. Twelve of the patients in the MOJO group received adductor canal blocks.

Results of t tests and χ² tests comparing primary and secondary endpoints are listed in Table 3. Differences between the daily MEDs given in the historical and MOJO groups are shown. There were significant differences between the pre-MOJO and MOJO groups with regard to daily inpatient MEDs (82 mg vs 29 mg, P < .01) and total inpatient MEDs (306 mg vs 32 mg, P < .01). There was less self-reported pain on postoperative day 1 in the MOJO group (5.5 vs 3.9, P < .01), decreased LOS (4.4 days vs 1.2 days, P < .01), a trend toward fewer total ED visits (6 vs 2, P = .24), and fewer discharges to skilled nursing facilities (12 vs 0, P < .01). There were no blood transfusions in either group.

Discussion

Our results demonstrate that a multimodal approach to significantly reduce postoperative opioid use in patients with TKA is possible without increasing readmissions or ED visits for pain control. The patients in the MOJO group had a faster recovery, earlier discharge, and less use of postoperative opioid medication. Our approach to postoperative pain management was divided into 2 main categories: patient optimization and surgical optimization.

Patient Selection

Besides the standard evaluation and optimization of patients’ medical conditions, identifying and optimizing at-risk patients before surgery was a critical component of our protocol. Managing postoperative pain in patients with prior opioid use is an intractable challenge in orthopedic surgery. Patients with a history of chronic pain and preoperative use of opioid medications remain at higher risk of postoperative chronic pain and persistent use of opioid medication despite no obvious surgical complications.⁸ In a sample of > 6,000 veterans who underwent TKA at VA hospitals in 2014, 57% of the patients with daily use of opioids in the 90 days before surgery remained on opioids 1 year after surgery (vs 2 % in patients not on long-term opioids).⁸ This relationship between pre- and postoperative opioid use also was dose dependent.¹²

Furthermore, those with high preoperative use may experience worse outcomes relative to the opioid naive population as measured by arthritis-specific pain indices.¹³ In a well-powered retrospective study of patients who underwent elective orthopedic procedures, preoperative opioid abuse or dependence (determined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis) increased inpatient mortality, aggregate morbidity, surgical site infection, myocardial infarction, and LOS.¹⁴ Preoperative opioid use also has been associated with increased risk of ED visits, readmission, infection, stiffness, and aseptic revision.¹⁵ In patients with TKA in the VA specifically, preoperative opioid use (> 3 months in the prior year) was associated with increased revision rates that were even higher than those for patients with diabetes mellitus.¹⁶

Patient Education

Based on this evidence, we instruct patients to reduce their preoperative opioid dosing to zero (for patients with joint pain) or < 30 MED (for patients using opioids for other reasons). Although preoperative reduction of opioid use has been shown to improve outcomes after TKA, pain subspecialty recommendations for patients with chronic opioid use recommend considering adjunctive therapies, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cognitive behavioral therapy, gabapentin, or ketamine.^17,18 Through patient education our team has been successful in decreasing preoperative opioid use without adding other drugs or modalities.

Patient Optimization

Preoperative patient optimization included 4 to 8 weeks of daily sets of physical activity instructions (prehab) to improve the musculoskeletal function. These instructions are given to patients 4 to 8 weeks before surgery and aim to improve the patient’s balance, mobility, and functional ability (Appendix). Meta-analysis has shown that patients who undergo preoperative PT have a small but statistically significant decrease in postoperative pain at 4 weeks, though this does not persist beyond that period.¹⁹

We did note a lower BMI in patients in the MOJO group. Though this has the potential to be a confounder, a study of BMI in > 4,000 patients who underwent joint replacement surgery has shown that BMI is not associated with differences in postoperative pain.²⁰

Surgeon and Surgical-Related Variables

Patients in the MOJO group had increased use of adductor canal blocks. A 2017 meta-analysis of 12,530 patients comparing analgesic modalities found that peripheral nerve blocks targeting multiple nerves (eg, femoral/sciatic) decreased pain at rest, decreased opioid consumption, and improved range of motion postoperatively.²¹ Also, these were found to be superior to single nerve blocks, periarticular infiltration, and epidural blocks.²¹ However, major nerve and epidural blocks affecting the lower extremity may increase the risk of falls and prolong LOS.^22,23 The preferred peripheral block at VAPHCS is a single shot ultrasound-guided adductor canal block before the induction of general or spinal anesthesia. A randomized controlled trial has demonstrated superiority of this block to the femoral nerve block with regard to postoperative quadriceps strength, conferring the theoretical advantage of decreased fall risk and ability to participate in immediate PT.²⁴ Although we are unable to confirm an association between anesthetic modalities and opioid burden, our clinical impression is that blocks were effective at reducing immediate postoperative pain. However, among MOJO patients there were no differences in patients with and without blocks for either pain (4.2 vs 3.8, P = .69) or opioid consumption (28.8 vs 33.0, P = .72) after surgery, though our study was not powered to detect a difference in this restricted subgroup.

Patients who frequently had reported postoperative thigh pain prompted us to make changes in our surgical technique, performing TKA without use of a tourniquet. Tourniquet use has been associated with an increased risk of thigh pain after TKA by multiple authors.^25,26 Postoperative thigh pain also is pressure dependent.²⁷ In addition, its use may be associated with a slightly increased risk of thromboembolic events and delayed functional recovery.^28,29

Because postoperative hemarthrosis is associated with more pain and reduced joint recovery function, we used topical TXA to reduce postoperative surgical site and joint hematoma. TXA (either oral, IV, or topical) during TKA is used to control postoperative bleeding primarily and decrease the need for transfusion without concomitant increase in thromboembolic events.^30,31 Topical TXA may be more effective than IV, particularly in the immediate postoperative period.³² Although pain typically is not an endpoint in studies of TXA, a prospective study of 48 patients showed evidence that its use may be associated with decreased postoperative pain in the first 24 hours after surgery (though not after).³³ Finally, the use of intra-articular injection has evolved in our clinical practice, but literature is lacking with regard to its efficacy; more studies are needed to determine its effect relative to no injection. We have not seen any benefits to using cryotherapy in our practice; considering the costs for equipment and health care provider time, cryotherapy was not included in our new protocol.

Limitations

This is a nonrandomized retrospective single-institution study. Our study population is composed of mostly males with military experience and is not necessarily a representative sample of the general population eligible for joint arthroplasty. Our primary endpoint (reduction of opioid use postoperatively) also was a cornerstone of our intervention. To account for this, we set a very large effect size in our power analysis and evaluated multiple secondary endpoints to determine whether postoperative pain remained well controlled and complications/readmission minimized with our interventions. Because our intervention was multimodal, our study cannot make conclusions about the effect of a particular component of our treatment strategy. We did not measure or compare functional outcomes between both groups, which offers an opportunity for further research.

These limitations are balanced by several strengths. Our cohort was well controlled with respect to the dose and type of drug used. There is staff dedicated to postoperative telephone follow-up after discharge, and veterans are apt to seek care within the VA health care system, which improves case finding for complications and ED visits. No patients were lost to follow-up. Moreover, our drastic reduction in opioid use is promising enough to warrant reporting, while the broader orthopedic literature explores the relative impact of each variable.

Conclusions

The MOJO protocol has been effective for reducing postoperative opioid use after TKA without compromising effective pain management. The drastic reduction in the postoperative use of opioid pain medications and LOS have contributed to a cultural shift within our department, comprehensive team approach, multimodal pain management, and preoperative patient optimization. Further investigations are required to assess the impact of each intervention on observed outcomes. However, the framework and routines are applicable to other institutions and surgical specialties.

Acknowledgments

The authors recognize Derek Bond, MD, for his help in creating the MOJO acronym.

For decades, opioids have been a mainstay in the management of pain after total joint arthroplasty. In the past 10 years, however, opioid prescribing has come under increased scrutiny due to a rise in rates of opioid abuse, pill diversion, and opioid-related deaths.^1,2 Opioids are associated with adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting, constipation, apathy, and respiratory depression, all of which influence arthroplasty outcomes and affect the patient experience. Although primary care groups account for nearly half of prescriptions written, orthopedic surgeons have the third highest per capita rate of opioid prescribing of all medical specialties.^3,4 This puts orthopedic surgeons, particularly those who perform routine procedures, in an opportune but challenging position to confront this problem through novel pain management strategies.

Approximately 1 million total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in the US every year, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system performs about 10,000 hip and knee joint replacements.^5,6 There is no standardization of opioid prescribing in the postoperative period following these procedures, and studies have reported a wide variation in prescribing habits even within a single institution for a specific surgery.⁷ Patients who undergo TKA are at particularly high risk of long-term opioid use if they are on continuous opioids at the time of surgery; this is problematic in a VA patient population in which at least 16% of patients are prescribed opioids in a given year.⁸ Furthermore, veterans are twice as likely as nonveterans to die of an accidental overdose.⁹ Despite these risks, opioids remain a cornerstone of postoperative pain management both within and outside of the VA.¹⁰

In 2018, to limit unnecessary prescribing of opioid pain medication, the total joint service at the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS) in Oregon implemented the Minimizing Opioids after Joint Operation (MOJO) postoperative pain protocol. The goal of the protocol was to reduce opioid use following TKA. The objectives were to provide safe, appropriate analgesia while allowing early mobilization and discharge without a concomitant increase in readmissions or emergency department (ED) visits. The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to compare the efficacy of the MOJO protocol with our historical experience and report our preliminary results.

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively review the medical records of patients who had undergone TKA surgery during 2018 at VAPHCS. The MOJO protocol was composed of several simultaneous changes. The centerpiece of the new protocol was a drastic decrease in routine prescription of postoperative opioids (Table 1). Other changes included instructing patients to reduce the use of preoperative opioid pain medication 6 weeks before surgery with a goal of no opioid consumption, perform daily sets of preoperative exercises, and attend a preoperative consultation/education session with a nurse coordinator to emphasize early recovery and discharge. In patients with chronic use of opioid pain medication (particularly those for whom the medication had been prescribed for other sources of pain, such as lumbar back pain), the goal was daily opioid use of ≤ 30 morphine equivalent doses (MEDs). During the inpatient stay, we stopped prescribing prophylactic pain medication prior to physical therapy (PT).

We encouraged preoperative optimization of muscle strength by giving instructions for 4 to 8 weeks of daily exercises (Appendix). We introduced perioperative adductor canal blocks (at the discretion of the anesthesia team) and transitioned to surgery without a tourniquet. Patients in both groups received intraoperative antibiotics and IV tranexamic acid (TXA); the MOJO group also received topical TXA.

Further patient care optimization included providing patients with a team-based approach, which consisted of nurse coordinators, physician assistants and nurse practitioners, residents, and the attending surgeon. Our team reviews the planned pain management protocol, perioperative expectations, criteria for discharge, and anticipated surgical outcomes with the patient during their preoperative visits. On postoperative day 1, these members round as a team to encourage patients in their immediate postoperative recovery and rehabilitation. During rounds, the team assesses whether the patient meets the criteria for discharge, adjusting the pain management protocol if necessary.

Results

Forty patients met the inclusion criteria, evenly divided between those undergoing TKA before and after instituting the MOJO protocol (Table 2). A single patient in the MOJO group died and was excluded. A patient who underwent bilateral TKA also was excluded. Both groups reflected the male predominance of the VA patient population. MOJO patients tended to have lower BMIs (34 vs 30, P < .01). All patients indicated for surgery with preoperative opioid use were able to titrate down to their preoperative goal as verified by prescriptions filled at VA pharmacies. Twelve of the patients in the MOJO group received adductor canal blocks.

Results of t tests and χ² tests comparing primary and secondary endpoints are listed in Table 3. Differences between the daily MEDs given in the historical and MOJO groups are shown. There were significant differences between the pre-MOJO and MOJO groups with regard to daily inpatient MEDs (82 mg vs 29 mg, P < .01) and total inpatient MEDs (306 mg vs 32 mg, P < .01). There was less self-reported pain on postoperative day 1 in the MOJO group (5.5 vs 3.9, P < .01), decreased LOS (4.4 days vs 1.2 days, P < .01), a trend toward fewer total ED visits (6 vs 2, P = .24), and fewer discharges to skilled nursing facilities (12 vs 0, P < .01). There were no blood transfusions in either group.

Discussion

Our results demonstrate that a multimodal approach to significantly reduce postoperative opioid use in patients with TKA is possible without increasing readmissions or ED visits for pain control. The patients in the MOJO group had a faster recovery, earlier discharge, and less use of postoperative opioid medication. Our approach to postoperative pain management was divided into 2 main categories: patient optimization and surgical optimization.

Patient Selection

Besides the standard evaluation and optimization of patients’ medical conditions, identifying and optimizing at-risk patients before surgery was a critical component of our protocol. Managing postoperative pain in patients with prior opioid use is an intractable challenge in orthopedic surgery. Patients with a history of chronic pain and preoperative use of opioid medications remain at higher risk of postoperative chronic pain and persistent use of opioid medication despite no obvious surgical complications.⁸ In a sample of > 6,000 veterans who underwent TKA at VA hospitals in 2014, 57% of the patients with daily use of opioids in the 90 days before surgery remained on opioids 1 year after surgery (vs 2 % in patients not on long-term opioids).⁸ This relationship between pre- and postoperative opioid use also was dose dependent.¹²

Furthermore, those with high preoperative use may experience worse outcomes relative to the opioid naive population as measured by arthritis-specific pain indices.¹³ In a well-powered retrospective study of patients who underwent elective orthopedic procedures, preoperative opioid abuse or dependence (determined by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis) increased inpatient mortality, aggregate morbidity, surgical site infection, myocardial infarction, and LOS.¹⁴ Preoperative opioid use also has been associated with increased risk of ED visits, readmission, infection, stiffness, and aseptic revision.¹⁵ In patients with TKA in the VA specifically, preoperative opioid use (> 3 months in the prior year) was associated with increased revision rates that were even higher than those for patients with diabetes mellitus.¹⁶

Patient Education

Based on this evidence, we instruct patients to reduce their preoperative opioid dosing to zero (for patients with joint pain) or < 30 MED (for patients using opioids for other reasons). Although preoperative reduction of opioid use has been shown to improve outcomes after TKA, pain subspecialty recommendations for patients with chronic opioid use recommend considering adjunctive therapies, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cognitive behavioral therapy, gabapentin, or ketamine.^17,18 Through patient education our team has been successful in decreasing preoperative opioid use without adding other drugs or modalities.

Patient Optimization

Preoperative patient optimization included 4 to 8 weeks of daily sets of physical activity instructions (prehab) to improve the musculoskeletal function. These instructions are given to patients 4 to 8 weeks before surgery and aim to improve the patient’s balance, mobility, and functional ability (Appendix). Meta-analysis has shown that patients who undergo preoperative PT have a small but statistically significant decrease in postoperative pain at 4 weeks, though this does not persist beyond that period.¹⁹

We did note a lower BMI in patients in the MOJO group. Though this has the potential to be a confounder, a study of BMI in > 4,000 patients who underwent joint replacement surgery has shown that BMI is not associated with differences in postoperative pain.²⁰

Surgeon and Surgical-Related Variables

Patients in the MOJO group had increased use of adductor canal blocks. A 2017 meta-analysis of 12,530 patients comparing analgesic modalities found that peripheral nerve blocks targeting multiple nerves (eg, femoral/sciatic) decreased pain at rest, decreased opioid consumption, and improved range of motion postoperatively.²¹ Also, these were found to be superior to single nerve blocks, periarticular infiltration, and epidural blocks.²¹ However, major nerve and epidural blocks affecting the lower extremity may increase the risk of falls and prolong LOS.^22,23 The preferred peripheral block at VAPHCS is a single shot ultrasound-guided adductor canal block before the induction of general or spinal anesthesia. A randomized controlled trial has demonstrated superiority of this block to the femoral nerve block with regard to postoperative quadriceps strength, conferring the theoretical advantage of decreased fall risk and ability to participate in immediate PT.²⁴ Although we are unable to confirm an association between anesthetic modalities and opioid burden, our clinical impression is that blocks were effective at reducing immediate postoperative pain. However, among MOJO patients there were no differences in patients with and without blocks for either pain (4.2 vs 3.8, P = .69) or opioid consumption (28.8 vs 33.0, P = .72) after surgery, though our study was not powered to detect a difference in this restricted subgroup.

Patients who frequently had reported postoperative thigh pain prompted us to make changes in our surgical technique, performing TKA without use of a tourniquet. Tourniquet use has been associated with an increased risk of thigh pain after TKA by multiple authors.^25,26 Postoperative thigh pain also is pressure dependent.²⁷ In addition, its use may be associated with a slightly increased risk of thromboembolic events and delayed functional recovery.^28,29

Because postoperative hemarthrosis is associated with more pain and reduced joint recovery function, we used topical TXA to reduce postoperative surgical site and joint hematoma. TXA (either oral, IV, or topical) during TKA is used to control postoperative bleeding primarily and decrease the need for transfusion without concomitant increase in thromboembolic events.^30,31 Topical TXA may be more effective than IV, particularly in the immediate postoperative period.³² Although pain typically is not an endpoint in studies of TXA, a prospective study of 48 patients showed evidence that its use may be associated with decreased postoperative pain in the first 24 hours after surgery (though not after).³³ Finally, the use of intra-articular injection has evolved in our clinical practice, but literature is lacking with regard to its efficacy; more studies are needed to determine its effect relative to no injection. We have not seen any benefits to using cryotherapy in our practice; considering the costs for equipment and health care provider time, cryotherapy was not included in our new protocol.

Limitations

This is a nonrandomized retrospective single-institution study. Our study population is composed of mostly males with military experience and is not necessarily a representative sample of the general population eligible for joint arthroplasty. Our primary endpoint (reduction of opioid use postoperatively) also was a cornerstone of our intervention. To account for this, we set a very large effect size in our power analysis and evaluated multiple secondary endpoints to determine whether postoperative pain remained well controlled and complications/readmission minimized with our interventions. Because our intervention was multimodal, our study cannot make conclusions about the effect of a particular component of our treatment strategy. We did not measure or compare functional outcomes between both groups, which offers an opportunity for further research.

These limitations are balanced by several strengths. Our cohort was well controlled with respect to the dose and type of drug used. There is staff dedicated to postoperative telephone follow-up after discharge, and veterans are apt to seek care within the VA health care system, which improves case finding for complications and ED visits. No patients were lost to follow-up. Moreover, our drastic reduction in opioid use is promising enough to warrant reporting, while the broader orthopedic literature explores the relative impact of each variable.

Conclusions

The MOJO protocol has been effective for reducing postoperative opioid use after TKA without compromising effective pain management. The drastic reduction in the postoperative use of opioid pain medications and LOS have contributed to a cultural shift within our department, comprehensive team approach, multimodal pain management, and preoperative patient optimization. Further investigations are required to assess the impact of each intervention on observed outcomes. However, the framework and routines are applicable to other institutions and surgical specialties.

Acknowledgments

The authors recognize Derek Bond, MD, for his help in creating the MOJO acronym.

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 34-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented as a new patient to our family medicine clinic with 2 weeks of intermittent lower abdominal and pelvic pain. She was sexually active with 1 partner and denied abnormal vaginal discharge or bleeding. She mentioned she’d had an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) placed a few weeks ago. The patient was afebrile, and her pelvic examination was unremarkable.

Physical examination showed mild tenderness to palpation over the lower abdomen without rebound tenderness or guarding. A complete metabolic panel revealed no significant abnormalities, and her human chorionic gonadotropin levels were normal.

Findings from the physical exam and her clinical history prompted the need for imaging. An abdominal radiograph (FIGURE 1) and noncontrast computed tomography (FIGURES 2A and 2B) were subsequently ordered.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The abdominal radiograph revealed a nonobstructive bowel gas pattern with an IUD overlaying the central lower abdomen and pelvis at the L5-S1 level (FIGURE 1). Computed tomography (CT) of her abdomen and pelvis showed that the IUD was outside the endometrial cavity (FIGURES 2A and 2B). There was no evidence of pneumoperitoneum or bowel perforation. Based on the work-up and imaging, the patient’s pain was due to intra-abdominal IUD malpositioning.

Diagnostic criteria for IUD malpositioning include device migration into 1 of several locations, such as the lower uterine segment or cervix. IUD malpositioning can involve the rotation or protrusion of the device into or through the myometrium. On imaging, a well-positioned IUD should have a straight stem contained within the endometrial cavity, with the arms of the IUD extending laterally at the uterine fundus.

For our patient, an abdominal radiograph showed that her IUD was superiorly displaced outside the expected region of the endometrial cavity. CT helped to confirm this.

Complications with IUDs are few

Using an IUD is an increasingly popular method of contraception because it is effective and generally well tolerated, with minimal adverse effects or complications. In a multicenter retrospective chart review of 2138 patients who had IUDs, Aoun et al found that serious complications included pelvic inflammatory disease (2%), IUD expulsion (6%), and pregnancy (1%).¹ In a retrospective cohort study examining complications among 90,489 women with IUDs, Berenson et al found ectopic pregnancy and uterine perforation affected < 1%.²

A less serious complication is IUD malpositioning. Although it does seem to occur more often than other, more serious complications, the exact incidence is unknown. In a retrospective case-control study, Braaten et al reported the rate for IUD malpositioning was 10.4% among 182 women.³ Malpositioned IUDs may be more likely to occur in those with suspected adenomyosis.³ In a study by de Kroon et al, the estimated prevalence rate for an abnormal IUD position ranged from 4% to 7.7% among 195 patients.⁴

Continue to: The clinical presentation of IUD migration

Identification of a malpositioned IUD is needed to avoid the possible increased risk for uterine perforation, IUD expulsion, or pregnancy.⁵

IUDs that have perforated the uterus float freely in the pelvis or abdomen and can result in injury to adjacent structures as well as peritonitis, fistulas, and hemorrhage.^5-7 In addition, adhesion formation over the IUD can lead to intestinal obstruction, infertility, and chronic pain.⁶

Common symptoms of IUD malpositioning include abdominal or pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding, although many patients may be asymptomatic.⁸ In a retrospective study of 167 patients with IUDs who underwent pelvic ultrasound, 28 patients were found to have an IUD in an abnormal position.⁸ Rates of bleeding and pain were higher in patients with malpositioned IUDs (35.7% and 39.3%, respectively) than in those with a normally positioned IUD (15.1% and 19.4%, respectively).⁸

The differential Dx includes endometriosis and fibroids

IUD malpositioning can be distinguished from other diagnoses that cause pelvic pain and have similar presentations—including endometriosis, ectopic pregnancy, and fibroids—through imaging study findings, clinical history, and presentation.

Other conditions that may need to be ruled out include pelvic inflammatory disease, acute appendicitis, and ovarian cysts.⁹ A thorough history and physical examination can help rule out these conditions by organ system, and laboratory and imaging studies can help to confirm the diagnosis.

Continue to: Which imaging tool to use, and when

Assessment of intrauterine contraception placement requires evaluation of the uterine cavity; gynecologic examination alone is not sufficient to fully evaluate for IUD position. Certain imaging studies are particularly helpful for revealing possible IUD migration.

Ultrasound—a widely available, radiation-free modality—is the first-line imaging tool for evaluation of an IUD’s position.¹⁰ In addition, ultrasound can provide effective evaluation of other pelvic structures, which is helpful in identifying or eliminating other causes of pain or abnormal bleeding.

Conventional radiography. If the IUD is not visualized on ultrasound, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends radiography to determine if the IUD has been expelled or has migrated to an extra-uterine position.⁶

CT may be best suited for the evaluation of more severe complications of IUD malpositioning, including visceral perforation, abscess formation, or bowel obstruction. CT should be considered if the patient’s clinical presentation is suspicious for a more serious intra-abdominal pathology.

Management depends on the IUD’s position

For patients whose IUD has an uncertain position or nonvisualized intravaginal strings, ACOG’s first-line recommendations include ruling out pregnancy, using an alternative method for contraception, and ordering pelvic ultrasonography.⁶ ACOG recommendations for the management of IUD malpositioning depend on the device’s location and the patient’s symptomatology.

Continue to: Management of low-lying IUDs

Management of low-lying IUDs is complex. An IUD that is malpositioned in the cervix is considered partially expelled and should be completely removed.⁶ For asymptomatic patients with an IUD located in the lower uterine segment and above the internal cervical os, there should be strong consideration given to leaving the IUD in place because removal is associated with higher rates of pregnancy given the low rates of initiation of effective contraception following removal.⁶

For asymptomatic patients with an IUD in the lower uterine segment and above the internal cervical os, consider leaving the IUD in place.

IUD malpositioning in the peritoneal cavity requires surgical intervention. Although ACOG’s first-line recommendation is laparoscopic intervention, laparotomy can be considered if laparoscopy does not result in the removal of the IUD or the patient has more severe complications (sepsis or bowel perforation).⁶ At the time of IUD removal, the clinician should also discuss and/or prescribe interim contraception.

Treatment for our patient included uncomplicated laparoscopic surgical removal of the intra-abdominal IUD. The patient’s symptoms went away following the procedure, and she was subsequently switched to an oral contraceptive.

A 34-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented as a new patient to our family medicine clinic with 2 weeks of intermittent lower abdominal and pelvic pain. She was sexually active with 1 partner and denied abnormal vaginal discharge or bleeding. She mentioned she’d had an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) placed a few weeks ago. The patient was afebrile, and her pelvic examination was unremarkable.

Physical examination showed mild tenderness to palpation over the lower abdomen without rebound tenderness or guarding. A complete metabolic panel revealed no significant abnormalities, and her human chorionic gonadotropin levels were normal.

Findings from the physical exam and her clinical history prompted the need for imaging. An abdominal radiograph (FIGURE 1) and noncontrast computed tomography (FIGURES 2A and 2B) were subsequently ordered.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The abdominal radiograph revealed a nonobstructive bowel gas pattern with an IUD overlaying the central lower abdomen and pelvis at the L5-S1 level (FIGURE 1). Computed tomography (CT) of her abdomen and pelvis showed that the IUD was outside the endometrial cavity (FIGURES 2A and 2B). There was no evidence of pneumoperitoneum or bowel perforation. Based on the work-up and imaging, the patient’s pain was due to intra-abdominal IUD malpositioning.

Diagnostic criteria for IUD malpositioning include device migration into 1 of several locations, such as the lower uterine segment or cervix. IUD malpositioning can involve the rotation or protrusion of the device into or through the myometrium. On imaging, a well-positioned IUD should have a straight stem contained within the endometrial cavity, with the arms of the IUD extending laterally at the uterine fundus.

For our patient, an abdominal radiograph showed that her IUD was superiorly displaced outside the expected region of the endometrial cavity. CT helped to confirm this.

Complications with IUDs are few

Using an IUD is an increasingly popular method of contraception because it is effective and generally well tolerated, with minimal adverse effects or complications. In a multicenter retrospective chart review of 2138 patients who had IUDs, Aoun et al found that serious complications included pelvic inflammatory disease (2%), IUD expulsion (6%), and pregnancy (1%).¹ In a retrospective cohort study examining complications among 90,489 women with IUDs, Berenson et al found ectopic pregnancy and uterine perforation affected < 1%.²

A less serious complication is IUD malpositioning. Although it does seem to occur more often than other, more serious complications, the exact incidence is unknown. In a retrospective case-control study, Braaten et al reported the rate for IUD malpositioning was 10.4% among 182 women.³ Malpositioned IUDs may be more likely to occur in those with suspected adenomyosis.³ In a study by de Kroon et al, the estimated prevalence rate for an abnormal IUD position ranged from 4% to 7.7% among 195 patients.⁴

Continue to: The clinical presentation of IUD migration

Identification of a malpositioned IUD is needed to avoid the possible increased risk for uterine perforation, IUD expulsion, or pregnancy.⁵

IUDs that have perforated the uterus float freely in the pelvis or abdomen and can result in injury to adjacent structures as well as peritonitis, fistulas, and hemorrhage.^5-7 In addition, adhesion formation over the IUD can lead to intestinal obstruction, infertility, and chronic pain.⁶

Common symptoms of IUD malpositioning include abdominal or pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding, although many patients may be asymptomatic.⁸ In a retrospective study of 167 patients with IUDs who underwent pelvic ultrasound, 28 patients were found to have an IUD in an abnormal position.⁸ Rates of bleeding and pain were higher in patients with malpositioned IUDs (35.7% and 39.3%, respectively) than in those with a normally positioned IUD (15.1% and 19.4%, respectively).⁸

The differential Dx includes endometriosis and fibroids

IUD malpositioning can be distinguished from other diagnoses that cause pelvic pain and have similar presentations—including endometriosis, ectopic pregnancy, and fibroids—through imaging study findings, clinical history, and presentation.

Other conditions that may need to be ruled out include pelvic inflammatory disease, acute appendicitis, and ovarian cysts.⁹ A thorough history and physical examination can help rule out these conditions by organ system, and laboratory and imaging studies can help to confirm the diagnosis.

Continue to: Which imaging tool to use, and when

Assessment of intrauterine contraception placement requires evaluation of the uterine cavity; gynecologic examination alone is not sufficient to fully evaluate for IUD position. Certain imaging studies are particularly helpful for revealing possible IUD migration.

Ultrasound—a widely available, radiation-free modality—is the first-line imaging tool for evaluation of an IUD’s position.¹⁰ In addition, ultrasound can provide effective evaluation of other pelvic structures, which is helpful in identifying or eliminating other causes of pain or abnormal bleeding.

Conventional radiography. If the IUD is not visualized on ultrasound, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends radiography to determine if the IUD has been expelled or has migrated to an extra-uterine position.⁶

CT may be best suited for the evaluation of more severe complications of IUD malpositioning, including visceral perforation, abscess formation, or bowel obstruction. CT should be considered if the patient’s clinical presentation is suspicious for a more serious intra-abdominal pathology.

Management depends on the IUD’s position

For patients whose IUD has an uncertain position or nonvisualized intravaginal strings, ACOG’s first-line recommendations include ruling out pregnancy, using an alternative method for contraception, and ordering pelvic ultrasonography.⁶ ACOG recommendations for the management of IUD malpositioning depend on the device’s location and the patient’s symptomatology.

Continue to: Management of low-lying IUDs

Management of low-lying IUDs is complex. An IUD that is malpositioned in the cervix is considered partially expelled and should be completely removed.⁶ For asymptomatic patients with an IUD located in the lower uterine segment and above the internal cervical os, there should be strong consideration given to leaving the IUD in place because removal is associated with higher rates of pregnancy given the low rates of initiation of effective contraception following removal.⁶

For asymptomatic patients with an IUD in the lower uterine segment and above the internal cervical os, consider leaving the IUD in place.

IUD malpositioning in the peritoneal cavity requires surgical intervention. Although ACOG’s first-line recommendation is laparoscopic intervention, laparotomy can be considered if laparoscopy does not result in the removal of the IUD or the patient has more severe complications (sepsis or bowel perforation).⁶ At the time of IUD removal, the clinician should also discuss and/or prescribe interim contraception.

Treatment for our patient included uncomplicated laparoscopic surgical removal of the intra-abdominal IUD. The patient’s symptoms went away following the procedure, and she was subsequently switched to an oral contraceptive.

A 34-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented as a new patient to our family medicine clinic with 2 weeks of intermittent lower abdominal and pelvic pain. She was sexually active with 1 partner and denied abnormal vaginal discharge or bleeding. She mentioned she’d had an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) placed a few weeks ago. The patient was afebrile, and her pelvic examination was unremarkable.

Physical examination showed mild tenderness to palpation over the lower abdomen without rebound tenderness or guarding. A complete metabolic panel revealed no significant abnormalities, and her human chorionic gonadotropin levels were normal.

Findings from the physical exam and her clinical history prompted the need for imaging. An abdominal radiograph (FIGURE 1) and noncontrast computed tomography (FIGURES 2A and 2B) were subsequently ordered.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The abdominal radiograph revealed a nonobstructive bowel gas pattern with an IUD overlaying the central lower abdomen and pelvis at the L5-S1 level (FIGURE 1). Computed tomography (CT) of her abdomen and pelvis showed that the IUD was outside the endometrial cavity (FIGURES 2A and 2B). There was no evidence of pneumoperitoneum or bowel perforation. Based on the work-up and imaging, the patient’s pain was due to intra-abdominal IUD malpositioning.

Diagnostic criteria for IUD malpositioning include device migration into 1 of several locations, such as the lower uterine segment or cervix. IUD malpositioning can involve the rotation or protrusion of the device into or through the myometrium. On imaging, a well-positioned IUD should have a straight stem contained within the endometrial cavity, with the arms of the IUD extending laterally at the uterine fundus.

For our patient, an abdominal radiograph showed that her IUD was superiorly displaced outside the expected region of the endometrial cavity. CT helped to confirm this.

Complications with IUDs are few

Using an IUD is an increasingly popular method of contraception because it is effective and generally well tolerated, with minimal adverse effects or complications. In a multicenter retrospective chart review of 2138 patients who had IUDs, Aoun et al found that serious complications included pelvic inflammatory disease (2%), IUD expulsion (6%), and pregnancy (1%).¹ In a retrospective cohort study examining complications among 90,489 women with IUDs, Berenson et al found ectopic pregnancy and uterine perforation affected < 1%.²

A less serious complication is IUD malpositioning. Although it does seem to occur more often than other, more serious complications, the exact incidence is unknown. In a retrospective case-control study, Braaten et al reported the rate for IUD malpositioning was 10.4% among 182 women.³ Malpositioned IUDs may be more likely to occur in those with suspected adenomyosis.³ In a study by de Kroon et al, the estimated prevalence rate for an abnormal IUD position ranged from 4% to 7.7% among 195 patients.⁴

Continue to: The clinical presentation of IUD migration

Identification of a malpositioned IUD is needed to avoid the possible increased risk for uterine perforation, IUD expulsion, or pregnancy.⁵

IUDs that have perforated the uterus float freely in the pelvis or abdomen and can result in injury to adjacent structures as well as peritonitis, fistulas, and hemorrhage.^5-7 In addition, adhesion formation over the IUD can lead to intestinal obstruction, infertility, and chronic pain.⁶

Common symptoms of IUD malpositioning include abdominal or pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding, although many patients may be asymptomatic.⁸ In a retrospective study of 167 patients with IUDs who underwent pelvic ultrasound, 28 patients were found to have an IUD in an abnormal position.⁸ Rates of bleeding and pain were higher in patients with malpositioned IUDs (35.7% and 39.3%, respectively) than in those with a normally positioned IUD (15.1% and 19.4%, respectively).⁸

The differential Dx includes endometriosis and fibroids

IUD malpositioning can be distinguished from other diagnoses that cause pelvic pain and have similar presentations—including endometriosis, ectopic pregnancy, and fibroids—through imaging study findings, clinical history, and presentation.

Other conditions that may need to be ruled out include pelvic inflammatory disease, acute appendicitis, and ovarian cysts.⁹ A thorough history and physical examination can help rule out these conditions by organ system, and laboratory and imaging studies can help to confirm the diagnosis.

Continue to: Which imaging tool to use, and when

Assessment of intrauterine contraception placement requires evaluation of the uterine cavity; gynecologic examination alone is not sufficient to fully evaluate for IUD position. Certain imaging studies are particularly helpful for revealing possible IUD migration.

Ultrasound—a widely available, radiation-free modality—is the first-line imaging tool for evaluation of an IUD’s position.¹⁰ In addition, ultrasound can provide effective evaluation of other pelvic structures, which is helpful in identifying or eliminating other causes of pain or abnormal bleeding.

Conventional radiography. If the IUD is not visualized on ultrasound, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends radiography to determine if the IUD has been expelled or has migrated to an extra-uterine position.⁶

CT may be best suited for the evaluation of more severe complications of IUD malpositioning, including visceral perforation, abscess formation, or bowel obstruction. CT should be considered if the patient’s clinical presentation is suspicious for a more serious intra-abdominal pathology.

Management depends on the IUD’s position

For patients whose IUD has an uncertain position or nonvisualized intravaginal strings, ACOG’s first-line recommendations include ruling out pregnancy, using an alternative method for contraception, and ordering pelvic ultrasonography.⁶ ACOG recommendations for the management of IUD malpositioning depend on the device’s location and the patient’s symptomatology.

Continue to: Management of low-lying IUDs

Management of low-lying IUDs is complex. An IUD that is malpositioned in the cervix is considered partially expelled and should be completely removed.⁶ For asymptomatic patients with an IUD located in the lower uterine segment and above the internal cervical os, there should be strong consideration given to leaving the IUD in place because removal is associated with higher rates of pregnancy given the low rates of initiation of effective contraception following removal.⁶

For asymptomatic patients with an IUD in the lower uterine segment and above the internal cervical os, consider leaving the IUD in place.

IUD malpositioning in the peritoneal cavity requires surgical intervention. Although ACOG’s first-line recommendation is laparoscopic intervention, laparotomy can be considered if laparoscopy does not result in the removal of the IUD or the patient has more severe complications (sepsis or bowel perforation).⁶ At the time of IUD removal, the clinician should also discuss and/or prescribe interim contraception.

Treatment for our patient included uncomplicated laparoscopic surgical removal of the intra-abdominal IUD. The patient’s symptoms went away following the procedure, and she was subsequently switched to an oral contraceptive.

THE CASE

A 60-year-old man with a past medical history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dyslipidemia presented to his family physician for evaluation of chronic cough. Five years prior, the patient had developed a high fever and respiratory symptoms, including a cough, and was believed to have had severe otitis media. He was treated with multiple courses of antibiotics and corticosteroids for persistent otitis media. Although the condition eventually resolved, his cough continued.

The persistent cough prompted the patient to consult a succession of specialists. First, he saw a gastroenterologist; following an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, he was prescribed pantoprazole. Despite the proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, the cough remained. Next, he had multiple visits with an otolaryngologist but that yielded no specific diagnosis for the cough. He also saw an allergist-immunologist, who identified a ragweed allergy, gave him a diagnosis of cough-variant asthma, and prescribed antihistamines and mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate dihydrate. Neither was helpful.

After 5 years of frustration, the patient complained to his family physician that he still had a cough and “a tickle” in his throat that was worsened by speaking and drinking cold beverages. He denied fever, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, or any other associated symptoms.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The failed treatment attempts with antihistamines, corticosteroids, bronchodilators, and PPI therapy excluded multiple etiologies for the cough. The throat discomfort and feeling of a “tickle” prompted us to consider a nerve-related disorder on the differential. The diagnosis of laryngeal sensory neuropathy (LSN) was considered.

DISCUSSION

LSN is a relatively uncommon cause of chronic refractory cough that can also manifest with throat discomfort, dysphagia, and dysphonia.¹ It is thought to result from some type of insult to the recurrent laryngeal nerve or superior laryngeal nerve via viral infections, metabolic changes, or mechanical trauma, leading to a change in the firing threshold.² The hypothesis of nerve damage is supported by the increased incidence of LSN in patients with goiters and those with type 2 diabetes.^3,4 When there is a decrease in the laryngeal sensory threshold, dysfunctional laryngeal behavior results, leading to symptoms such as persistent cough and throat clearing.

Diagnosis. LSN is often diagnosed clinically, after GERD, allergies, asthma, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor intake, and psychogenic disorders have been ruled out.¹ Our patient had a prior diagnosis or investigation of nearly all of these conditions. Other clues pointing to an LSN diagnosis include a cough lasting 8 weeks or more, recurrent sensory disturbances (such as a tickle) of instantaneous onset before each cough episode, triggers that can include talking or a change in air temperature, daily coughing episodes numbering in the 10s to 100s, and a nonproductive cough.^5,6

The throat discomfort and feeling of a “tickle” prompted us to consider a nerve-related disorder on the differential.

Beyond clinical clues, laryngeal electromyography, which evaluates the neuromuscular system in the larynx by recording action potentials generated in the laryngeal muscles during contraction, can be used for diagnosis.⁴ Videostroboscopy, which allows for an enlarged and slow motion view of the vocal cords, can also be used.

Continue to: Treatment

Treatment. To both confirm the diagnosis and treat the patient in a rapid, practical fashion, a trial of a neuromodulating agent such as pregabalin or gabapentin can be employed.^6-9 A study identifying 28 LSN patients found symptomatic relief in 68% of patients taking gabapentin 100 to 900 mg/d.² In another study, 12 LSN patients given pregabalin found relief after a 1-month regimen.¹ Another study of 12 patients showed amitriptyline hydrochloride and gabapentin provided a positive response in 2 months, and the addition of reflux precautions and acid-­suppression therapy was helpful.⁹ Finally, a group of 32 patients trialed on 3 different medications (amitriptyline, desipramine, and gabapentin) found similar efficacy among the 3.⁶

Another option. Aside from medications, botulinum toxin type A has been shown in a case series to directly decrease laryngeal hypertonicity and possibly reduce neurogenic inflammation and neuropeptide-mediated cough.¹⁰ Another study found that 18 patients with neurogenic cough who received superior laryngeal nerve blocks had cough severity index scores decrease from an average of 26.8 pretreatment to 14.6 posttreatment (P < .0001).¹¹

Our patient agreed to a trial of gabapentin 300 mg once a day, with titration up to a maximum of 900 mg tid. When the patient returned to the clinic 4 months later, he reported that when he reached 300 mg bid, the cough completely resolved.

THE TAKEAWAY

A persistent cough with minimal identifiable triggers is a huge disruption to a patient’s life; having to visit multiple specialists before receiving a diagnosis compounds that. In our patient’s case, the process took 5 years, which underscores how important it is that LSN be considered in the differential diagnosis. Since this is generally a diagnosis of exclusion, it is important to take a careful history of a patient with a chronic cough. If LSN seems likely, trialing a patient on neuromodulating medication is the next best step, with dose titration if necessary.

CORRESPONDENCE
Selena R. Pasadyn, 675 West 130th Street, Hinckley, OH, 44233; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 60-year-old man with a past medical history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dyslipidemia presented to his family physician for evaluation of chronic cough. Five years prior, the patient had developed a high fever and respiratory symptoms, including a cough, and was believed to have had severe otitis media. He was treated with multiple courses of antibiotics and corticosteroids for persistent otitis media. Although the condition eventually resolved, his cough continued.

The persistent cough prompted the patient to consult a succession of specialists. First, he saw a gastroenterologist; following an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, he was prescribed pantoprazole. Despite the proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, the cough remained. Next, he had multiple visits with an otolaryngologist but that yielded no specific diagnosis for the cough. He also saw an allergist-immunologist, who identified a ragweed allergy, gave him a diagnosis of cough-variant asthma, and prescribed antihistamines and mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate dihydrate. Neither was helpful.

After 5 years of frustration, the patient complained to his family physician that he still had a cough and “a tickle” in his throat that was worsened by speaking and drinking cold beverages. He denied fever, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, or any other associated symptoms.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The failed treatment attempts with antihistamines, corticosteroids, bronchodilators, and PPI therapy excluded multiple etiologies for the cough. The throat discomfort and feeling of a “tickle” prompted us to consider a nerve-related disorder on the differential. The diagnosis of laryngeal sensory neuropathy (LSN) was considered.

DISCUSSION

LSN is a relatively uncommon cause of chronic refractory cough that can also manifest with throat discomfort, dysphagia, and dysphonia.¹ It is thought to result from some type of insult to the recurrent laryngeal nerve or superior laryngeal nerve via viral infections, metabolic changes, or mechanical trauma, leading to a change in the firing threshold.² The hypothesis of nerve damage is supported by the increased incidence of LSN in patients with goiters and those with type 2 diabetes.^3,4 When there is a decrease in the laryngeal sensory threshold, dysfunctional laryngeal behavior results, leading to symptoms such as persistent cough and throat clearing.

Diagnosis. LSN is often diagnosed clinically, after GERD, allergies, asthma, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor intake, and psychogenic disorders have been ruled out.¹ Our patient had a prior diagnosis or investigation of nearly all of these conditions. Other clues pointing to an LSN diagnosis include a cough lasting 8 weeks or more, recurrent sensory disturbances (such as a tickle) of instantaneous onset before each cough episode, triggers that can include talking or a change in air temperature, daily coughing episodes numbering in the 10s to 100s, and a nonproductive cough.^5,6

The throat discomfort and feeling of a “tickle” prompted us to consider a nerve-related disorder on the differential.

Beyond clinical clues, laryngeal electromyography, which evaluates the neuromuscular system in the larynx by recording action potentials generated in the laryngeal muscles during contraction, can be used for diagnosis.⁴ Videostroboscopy, which allows for an enlarged and slow motion view of the vocal cords, can also be used.

Continue to: Treatment

Treatment. To both confirm the diagnosis and treat the patient in a rapid, practical fashion, a trial of a neuromodulating agent such as pregabalin or gabapentin can be employed.^6-9 A study identifying 28 LSN patients found symptomatic relief in 68% of patients taking gabapentin 100 to 900 mg/d.² In another study, 12 LSN patients given pregabalin found relief after a 1-month regimen.¹ Another study of 12 patients showed amitriptyline hydrochloride and gabapentin provided a positive response in 2 months, and the addition of reflux precautions and acid-­suppression therapy was helpful.⁹ Finally, a group of 32 patients trialed on 3 different medications (amitriptyline, desipramine, and gabapentin) found similar efficacy among the 3.⁶

Another option. Aside from medications, botulinum toxin type A has been shown in a case series to directly decrease laryngeal hypertonicity and possibly reduce neurogenic inflammation and neuropeptide-mediated cough.¹⁰ Another study found that 18 patients with neurogenic cough who received superior laryngeal nerve blocks had cough severity index scores decrease from an average of 26.8 pretreatment to 14.6 posttreatment (P < .0001).¹¹

Our patient agreed to a trial of gabapentin 300 mg once a day, with titration up to a maximum of 900 mg tid. When the patient returned to the clinic 4 months later, he reported that when he reached 300 mg bid, the cough completely resolved.

THE TAKEAWAY

A persistent cough with minimal identifiable triggers is a huge disruption to a patient’s life; having to visit multiple specialists before receiving a diagnosis compounds that. In our patient’s case, the process took 5 years, which underscores how important it is that LSN be considered in the differential diagnosis. Since this is generally a diagnosis of exclusion, it is important to take a careful history of a patient with a chronic cough. If LSN seems likely, trialing a patient on neuromodulating medication is the next best step, with dose titration if necessary.

CORRESPONDENCE
Selena R. Pasadyn, 675 West 130th Street, Hinckley, OH, 44233; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 60-year-old man with a past medical history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dyslipidemia presented to his family physician for evaluation of chronic cough. Five years prior, the patient had developed a high fever and respiratory symptoms, including a cough, and was believed to have had severe otitis media. He was treated with multiple courses of antibiotics and corticosteroids for persistent otitis media. Although the condition eventually resolved, his cough continued.

The persistent cough prompted the patient to consult a succession of specialists. First, he saw a gastroenterologist; following an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, he was prescribed pantoprazole. Despite the proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, the cough remained. Next, he had multiple visits with an otolaryngologist but that yielded no specific diagnosis for the cough. He also saw an allergist-immunologist, who identified a ragweed allergy, gave him a diagnosis of cough-variant asthma, and prescribed antihistamines and mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate dihydrate. Neither was helpful.

After 5 years of frustration, the patient complained to his family physician that he still had a cough and “a tickle” in his throat that was worsened by speaking and drinking cold beverages. He denied fever, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, or any other associated symptoms.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The failed treatment attempts with antihistamines, corticosteroids, bronchodilators, and PPI therapy excluded multiple etiologies for the cough. The throat discomfort and feeling of a “tickle” prompted us to consider a nerve-related disorder on the differential. The diagnosis of laryngeal sensory neuropathy (LSN) was considered.

DISCUSSION

LSN is a relatively uncommon cause of chronic refractory cough that can also manifest with throat discomfort, dysphagia, and dysphonia.¹ It is thought to result from some type of insult to the recurrent laryngeal nerve or superior laryngeal nerve via viral infections, metabolic changes, or mechanical trauma, leading to a change in the firing threshold.² The hypothesis of nerve damage is supported by the increased incidence of LSN in patients with goiters and those with type 2 diabetes.^3,4 When there is a decrease in the laryngeal sensory threshold, dysfunctional laryngeal behavior results, leading to symptoms such as persistent cough and throat clearing.

Diagnosis. LSN is often diagnosed clinically, after GERD, allergies, asthma, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor intake, and psychogenic disorders have been ruled out.¹ Our patient had a prior diagnosis or investigation of nearly all of these conditions. Other clues pointing to an LSN diagnosis include a cough lasting 8 weeks or more, recurrent sensory disturbances (such as a tickle) of instantaneous onset before each cough episode, triggers that can include talking or a change in air temperature, daily coughing episodes numbering in the 10s to 100s, and a nonproductive cough.^5,6

The throat discomfort and feeling of a “tickle” prompted us to consider a nerve-related disorder on the differential.

Beyond clinical clues, laryngeal electromyography, which evaluates the neuromuscular system in the larynx by recording action potentials generated in the laryngeal muscles during contraction, can be used for diagnosis.⁴ Videostroboscopy, which allows for an enlarged and slow motion view of the vocal cords, can also be used.

Continue to: Treatment

Treatment. To both confirm the diagnosis and treat the patient in a rapid, practical fashion, a trial of a neuromodulating agent such as pregabalin or gabapentin can be employed.^6-9 A study identifying 28 LSN patients found symptomatic relief in 68% of patients taking gabapentin 100 to 900 mg/d.² In another study, 12 LSN patients given pregabalin found relief after a 1-month regimen.¹ Another study of 12 patients showed amitriptyline hydrochloride and gabapentin provided a positive response in 2 months, and the addition of reflux precautions and acid-­suppression therapy was helpful.⁹ Finally, a group of 32 patients trialed on 3 different medications (amitriptyline, desipramine, and gabapentin) found similar efficacy among the 3.⁶

Another option. Aside from medications, botulinum toxin type A has been shown in a case series to directly decrease laryngeal hypertonicity and possibly reduce neurogenic inflammation and neuropeptide-mediated cough.¹⁰ Another study found that 18 patients with neurogenic cough who received superior laryngeal nerve blocks had cough severity index scores decrease from an average of 26.8 pretreatment to 14.6 posttreatment (P < .0001).¹¹

Our patient agreed to a trial of gabapentin 300 mg once a day, with titration up to a maximum of 900 mg tid. When the patient returned to the clinic 4 months later, he reported that when he reached 300 mg bid, the cough completely resolved.

THE TAKEAWAY

A persistent cough with minimal identifiable triggers is a huge disruption to a patient’s life; having to visit multiple specialists before receiving a diagnosis compounds that. In our patient’s case, the process took 5 years, which underscores how important it is that LSN be considered in the differential diagnosis. Since this is generally a diagnosis of exclusion, it is important to take a careful history of a patient with a chronic cough. If LSN seems likely, trialing a patient on neuromodulating medication is the next best step, with dose titration if necessary.

CORRESPONDENCE
Selena R. Pasadyn, 675 West 130th Street, Hinckley, OH, 44233; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 20-year-old man presented to our clinic with a 3-day history of nonradiating chest pain located at the center of his chest. Past medical history included idiopathic neonatal giant-cell hepatitis and subsequent liver transplant at 1 month of age; he had been followed by the transplant team without rejection or infection and was in otherwise good health prior to the chest pain.

On the day of symptom onset, he was walking inside his house and fell to his knees with a chest pain described as “a punch” to the center of the chest that lasted for a few seconds. He was able to continue his daily activities without limitation despite a constant, squeezing, centrally located chest pain. The pain worsened with cough and exertion.

A few hours later, he went to an urgent care center for evaluation. There, he reported, his chest radiograph and electrocardiogram (EKG) results were normal and he was given a diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain. Over the next 3 days, his chest pain persisted but did not worsen. He was taking 500 mg of naproxen every 8 hours with no improvement. No other acute or chronic medications were being taken. He had no significant family history. A review of systems was otherwise negative.

On physical exam, his vital statistics included a height of 6’4”; weight, 261 lb; body mass index, 31.8; temperature, 98.7 °F; blood pressure, 134/77 mm Hg; heart rate, 92 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and oxygen saturation, 96%. Throughout the exam, he demonstrated no acute distress, appeared well, and was talkative; however, he reported having a “constant, squeezing” chest pain that did not worsen with palpation of the chest. The rest of his physical exam was unremarkable.

Although he reported that his EKG and chest radiograph were normal 3 days prior, repeat chest radiograph and EKG were ordered due to his unexplained, active chest pain and the lack of immediate access to the prior results.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The chest radiograph (FIGURE 1A) showed a “mildly ectatic ascending thoracic aorta” that had increased since a chest radiograph from 6 years prior (FIGURE 1B) and “was concerning for an aneurysm.” Computed tomography (CT) angiography (FIGURE 2) then confirmed a 7-cm aneurysm of the ascending aorta, with findings suggestive of a retrograde ascending aortic dissection.

DISCUSSION

The average age of a patient with acute aortic dissection (AAD) is 63 years; only 7% occur in people younger than 40.¹ AAD is often accompanied by a predisposing risk factor such as a connective tissue disease, bicuspid aortic valve, longstanding hypertension, trauma, or larger aortic dimensions.^2,3 Younger patients are more likely to have predisposing risk factors of Marfan syndrome, prior aortic surgery, or a bicuspid aortic valve.³

Continue to: A literature review did not reveal...

A literature review did not reveal any known correlation between the patient’s history of giant-cell hepatitis or antirejection therapy with thoracic aortic dissection. Furthermore, liver transplant is not known to be a specific risk factor for AAD in pediatric patients or outside the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, there were no known predisposing risk factors for AAD in our patient.

The most common clinical feature of AAD is chest pain, which occurs in 75% of patients.¹ Other clinical symptoms include hypertension and diaphoresis.^2,4 However, classic clinical findings are not always displayed, making the diagnosis difficult.^2,4 The classical description of “tearing pain” is seen in only 51% of patients, and 5% to 15% of patients present without any pain.¹

Commonly missed or misdiagnosed. The diagnosis of AAD has been missed during the initial exam in 38% of patients.⁴ As seen in our case, symptoms may be initially diagnosed as musculoskeletal chest pain. Based on symptoms, AAD can be incorrectly diagnosed as an acute myocardial infarction or vascular embolization.^2,4

Every hour after symptom onset, the mortality rate of untreated AAD increases 1% to 2%,with no difference based on age.^3,4 Different reports have shown mortality rates between 7% and 30%.⁴

Effective imaging is crucial to the diagnosis and treatment of AAD, given the occurrence of atypical presentation, missed diagnosis, and high mortality rate.⁴ A chest radiograph will show a widened mediastinum, but the preferred diagnostic tests are a CT or transthoracic echocardiogram.^2,4 Once the diagnosis of AAD is confirmed, an aortic angiogram is the preferred test to determine the extent of the dissection prior to surgical treatment.²

Continue to: Classification dictates treatment

Classification dictates treatment. AAD is classified based on where the dissection of the aorta occurs. If the dissection involves the ascending aorta, it is classified as a type A AAD and should immediately be treated with emergent surgery in order to prevent complications including myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and aortic rupture.^2,4,5 If the dissection is limited to the descending aorta, it is classified as a type B AAD and can be medically managed by controlling pain and lowering blood pressure; if symptoms persist, surgical management may be required.² After hospital discharge, AAD patients are followed closely with medical therapy, serial imaging, and reoperation if necessary.⁴

Our patient underwent emergent surgery for aortic root/ascending aortic replacement with a mechanical valve. He tolerated the procedure well. Surgical tissue pathology of the aortic segment showed a wall of elastic vessel with medial degeneration and dissection, and the tissue pathology of the aorta leaflets showed valvular tissue with myxoid degeneration.

THE TAKEAWAY

It is critical to keep AAD in the differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with acute onset of chest pain, as AAD often has an atypical presentation and can easily be misdiagnosed. Effective imaging is crucial to diagnosis, and immediate treatment is essential to patient survival.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rachel A. Reedy, PA, University of Florida, Department of General Pediatrics, 7046 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 20-year-old man presented to our clinic with a 3-day history of nonradiating chest pain located at the center of his chest. Past medical history included idiopathic neonatal giant-cell hepatitis and subsequent liver transplant at 1 month of age; he had been followed by the transplant team without rejection or infection and was in otherwise good health prior to the chest pain.

On the day of symptom onset, he was walking inside his house and fell to his knees with a chest pain described as “a punch” to the center of the chest that lasted for a few seconds. He was able to continue his daily activities without limitation despite a constant, squeezing, centrally located chest pain. The pain worsened with cough and exertion.

A few hours later, he went to an urgent care center for evaluation. There, he reported, his chest radiograph and electrocardiogram (EKG) results were normal and he was given a diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain. Over the next 3 days, his chest pain persisted but did not worsen. He was taking 500 mg of naproxen every 8 hours with no improvement. No other acute or chronic medications were being taken. He had no significant family history. A review of systems was otherwise negative.

On physical exam, his vital statistics included a height of 6’4”; weight, 261 lb; body mass index, 31.8; temperature, 98.7 °F; blood pressure, 134/77 mm Hg; heart rate, 92 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and oxygen saturation, 96%. Throughout the exam, he demonstrated no acute distress, appeared well, and was talkative; however, he reported having a “constant, squeezing” chest pain that did not worsen with palpation of the chest. The rest of his physical exam was unremarkable.

Although he reported that his EKG and chest radiograph were normal 3 days prior, repeat chest radiograph and EKG were ordered due to his unexplained, active chest pain and the lack of immediate access to the prior results.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The chest radiograph (FIGURE 1A) showed a “mildly ectatic ascending thoracic aorta” that had increased since a chest radiograph from 6 years prior (FIGURE 1B) and “was concerning for an aneurysm.” Computed tomography (CT) angiography (FIGURE 2) then confirmed a 7-cm aneurysm of the ascending aorta, with findings suggestive of a retrograde ascending aortic dissection.

DISCUSSION

The average age of a patient with acute aortic dissection (AAD) is 63 years; only 7% occur in people younger than 40.¹ AAD is often accompanied by a predisposing risk factor such as a connective tissue disease, bicuspid aortic valve, longstanding hypertension, trauma, or larger aortic dimensions.^2,3 Younger patients are more likely to have predisposing risk factors of Marfan syndrome, prior aortic surgery, or a bicuspid aortic valve.³

Continue to: A literature review did not reveal...

A literature review did not reveal any known correlation between the patient’s history of giant-cell hepatitis or antirejection therapy with thoracic aortic dissection. Furthermore, liver transplant is not known to be a specific risk factor for AAD in pediatric patients or outside the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, there were no known predisposing risk factors for AAD in our patient.

The most common clinical feature of AAD is chest pain, which occurs in 75% of patients.¹ Other clinical symptoms include hypertension and diaphoresis.^2,4 However, classic clinical findings are not always displayed, making the diagnosis difficult.^2,4 The classical description of “tearing pain” is seen in only 51% of patients, and 5% to 15% of patients present without any pain.¹

Commonly missed or misdiagnosed. The diagnosis of AAD has been missed during the initial exam in 38% of patients.⁴ As seen in our case, symptoms may be initially diagnosed as musculoskeletal chest pain. Based on symptoms, AAD can be incorrectly diagnosed as an acute myocardial infarction or vascular embolization.^2,4

Every hour after symptom onset, the mortality rate of untreated AAD increases 1% to 2%,with no difference based on age.^3,4 Different reports have shown mortality rates between 7% and 30%.⁴

Effective imaging is crucial to the diagnosis and treatment of AAD, given the occurrence of atypical presentation, missed diagnosis, and high mortality rate.⁴ A chest radiograph will show a widened mediastinum, but the preferred diagnostic tests are a CT or transthoracic echocardiogram.^2,4 Once the diagnosis of AAD is confirmed, an aortic angiogram is the preferred test to determine the extent of the dissection prior to surgical treatment.²

Continue to: Classification dictates treatment

Classification dictates treatment. AAD is classified based on where the dissection of the aorta occurs. If the dissection involves the ascending aorta, it is classified as a type A AAD and should immediately be treated with emergent surgery in order to prevent complications including myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and aortic rupture.^2,4,5 If the dissection is limited to the descending aorta, it is classified as a type B AAD and can be medically managed by controlling pain and lowering blood pressure; if symptoms persist, surgical management may be required.² After hospital discharge, AAD patients are followed closely with medical therapy, serial imaging, and reoperation if necessary.⁴

Our patient underwent emergent surgery for aortic root/ascending aortic replacement with a mechanical valve. He tolerated the procedure well. Surgical tissue pathology of the aortic segment showed a wall of elastic vessel with medial degeneration and dissection, and the tissue pathology of the aorta leaflets showed valvular tissue with myxoid degeneration.

THE TAKEAWAY

It is critical to keep AAD in the differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with acute onset of chest pain, as AAD often has an atypical presentation and can easily be misdiagnosed. Effective imaging is crucial to diagnosis, and immediate treatment is essential to patient survival.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rachel A. Reedy, PA, University of Florida, Department of General Pediatrics, 7046 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 20-year-old man presented to our clinic with a 3-day history of nonradiating chest pain located at the center of his chest. Past medical history included idiopathic neonatal giant-cell hepatitis and subsequent liver transplant at 1 month of age; he had been followed by the transplant team without rejection or infection and was in otherwise good health prior to the chest pain.

On the day of symptom onset, he was walking inside his house and fell to his knees with a chest pain described as “a punch” to the center of the chest that lasted for a few seconds. He was able to continue his daily activities without limitation despite a constant, squeezing, centrally located chest pain. The pain worsened with cough and exertion.

A few hours later, he went to an urgent care center for evaluation. There, he reported, his chest radiograph and electrocardiogram (EKG) results were normal and he was given a diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain. Over the next 3 days, his chest pain persisted but did not worsen. He was taking 500 mg of naproxen every 8 hours with no improvement. No other acute or chronic medications were being taken. He had no significant family history. A review of systems was otherwise negative.

On physical exam, his vital statistics included a height of 6’4”; weight, 261 lb; body mass index, 31.8; temperature, 98.7 °F; blood pressure, 134/77 mm Hg; heart rate, 92 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and oxygen saturation, 96%. Throughout the exam, he demonstrated no acute distress, appeared well, and was talkative; however, he reported having a “constant, squeezing” chest pain that did not worsen with palpation of the chest. The rest of his physical exam was unremarkable.

Although he reported that his EKG and chest radiograph were normal 3 days prior, repeat chest radiograph and EKG were ordered due to his unexplained, active chest pain and the lack of immediate access to the prior results.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The chest radiograph (FIGURE 1A) showed a “mildly ectatic ascending thoracic aorta” that had increased since a chest radiograph from 6 years prior (FIGURE 1B) and “was concerning for an aneurysm.” Computed tomography (CT) angiography (FIGURE 2) then confirmed a 7-cm aneurysm of the ascending aorta, with findings suggestive of a retrograde ascending aortic dissection.

DISCUSSION

The average age of a patient with acute aortic dissection (AAD) is 63 years; only 7% occur in people younger than 40.¹ AAD is often accompanied by a predisposing risk factor such as a connective tissue disease, bicuspid aortic valve, longstanding hypertension, trauma, or larger aortic dimensions.^2,3 Younger patients are more likely to have predisposing risk factors of Marfan syndrome, prior aortic surgery, or a bicuspid aortic valve.³

Continue to: A literature review did not reveal...

A literature review did not reveal any known correlation between the patient’s history of giant-cell hepatitis or antirejection therapy with thoracic aortic dissection. Furthermore, liver transplant is not known to be a specific risk factor for AAD in pediatric patients or outside the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, there were no known predisposing risk factors for AAD in our patient.

The most common clinical feature of AAD is chest pain, which occurs in 75% of patients.¹ Other clinical symptoms include hypertension and diaphoresis.^2,4 However, classic clinical findings are not always displayed, making the diagnosis difficult.^2,4 The classical description of “tearing pain” is seen in only 51% of patients, and 5% to 15% of patients present without any pain.¹

Commonly missed or misdiagnosed. The diagnosis of AAD has been missed during the initial exam in 38% of patients.⁴ As seen in our case, symptoms may be initially diagnosed as musculoskeletal chest pain. Based on symptoms, AAD can be incorrectly diagnosed as an acute myocardial infarction or vascular embolization.^2,4

Every hour after symptom onset, the mortality rate of untreated AAD increases 1% to 2%,with no difference based on age.^3,4 Different reports have shown mortality rates between 7% and 30%.⁴

Effective imaging is crucial to the diagnosis and treatment of AAD, given the occurrence of atypical presentation, missed diagnosis, and high mortality rate.⁴ A chest radiograph will show a widened mediastinum, but the preferred diagnostic tests are a CT or transthoracic echocardiogram.^2,4 Once the diagnosis of AAD is confirmed, an aortic angiogram is the preferred test to determine the extent of the dissection prior to surgical treatment.²

Continue to: Classification dictates treatment

Classification dictates treatment. AAD is classified based on where the dissection of the aorta occurs. If the dissection involves the ascending aorta, it is classified as a type A AAD and should immediately be treated with emergent surgery in order to prevent complications including myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and aortic rupture.^2,4,5 If the dissection is limited to the descending aorta, it is classified as a type B AAD and can be medically managed by controlling pain and lowering blood pressure; if symptoms persist, surgical management may be required.² After hospital discharge, AAD patients are followed closely with medical therapy, serial imaging, and reoperation if necessary.⁴

Our patient underwent emergent surgery for aortic root/ascending aortic replacement with a mechanical valve. He tolerated the procedure well. Surgical tissue pathology of the aortic segment showed a wall of elastic vessel with medial degeneration and dissection, and the tissue pathology of the aorta leaflets showed valvular tissue with myxoid degeneration.

THE TAKEAWAY

It is critical to keep AAD in the differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with acute onset of chest pain, as AAD often has an atypical presentation and can easily be misdiagnosed. Effective imaging is crucial to diagnosis, and immediate treatment is essential to patient survival.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rachel A. Reedy, PA, University of Florida, Department of General Pediatrics, 7046 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608; [email protected]

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].