High-Impact Chronic Pain Incidence Among U.S. Adults: A Brief Report Focused on Socioeconomic Factors.

A descriptive analysis of secondary data. The aim of this study was to estimate health care costs and opioid use for those with high-impact chronic spinal (back and neck) pain. The US National Pain Strategy introduced a focus on high-impact chronic pain-that is, chronic pain associated with work, social, and self-care restrictions. Chronic neck and low-back pain are common, costly, and associated with long-term opioid use. Although chronic pain is not homogenous, most estimates of its costs are averages that ignore severity (impact). We used 2003 to 2015 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) data to identify individuals with chronic spinal pain, their health care expenditures, and use of opioids. We developed prediction models to identify those with high- versus moderate- and low-impact chronic spinal pain based on the variables available in MEPS. We found that overall and spine-related health care costs, and the use and dosage of opioids increased significantly with chronic pain impact levels. Overall and spine-related annual per person health care costs for those with high-impact chronic pain ($14,661 SE: $814; and $5979 SE: $471, respectively) were more than double that of those with low-impact, but still clinically significant, chronic pain ($6371 SE: $557; and $2300 SE: $328). Those with high-impact chronic spinal pain also use spine-related opioids at a rate almost four times that of those with low-impact pain (48.4% vs. 12.4%), and on average use over five times the morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in mg (15.3 SE: 1.4 vs. 2.7 SE: 0.6). Opioid use and dosing increased significantly across years, but the increase in inflation-adjusted health care costs was not statistically significant. Although most studies of chronic spinal pain do not differentiate participants by the impact of their chronic pain, these estimates highlight the importance of identifying chronic pain levels and focusing on those with high-impact chronic pain. 3.

Lower socioeconomic position (SEP) is associated with increased risk of developing chronic pain, experiencing more severe pain, and suffering greater pain-related disability. However, SEP is a multidimensional construct; there is a dearth of research on which SEP features are most strongly associated with high-impact chronic pain, the relative importance of SEP predictive features compared to established chronic pain correlates, and whether the relative importance of SEP predictive features differs by race and sex. This study used 3 machine learning algorithms to address these questions among adults in the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. Gradient boosting decision trees achieved the highest accuracy and discriminatory power for high-impact chronic pain. Results suggest that distinct SEP dimensions, including material resources (eg, ratio of family income to poverty threshold) and employment (ie, working in the past week, number of working adults in the family), are highly relevant predictors of high-impact chronic pain. Subgroup analyses compared the relative importance of predictive features of high-impact chronic pain in non-Hispanic Black vs White adults and men vs women. Whereas the relative importance of body mass index and owning/renting a residence was higher for non-Hispanic Black adults, the relative importance of working adults in the family and housing stability was higher for non-Hispanic White adults. Anxiety symptom severity, body mass index, and cigarette smoking had higher relevance for women, while housing stability and frequency of anxiety and depression had higher relevance for men. Results highlight the potential for machine learning algorithms to advance health equity research.

High impact chronic pain (HICP) is a recently proposed concept for treatment stratifying patients with chronic pain and monitoring their progress. The goal is to reduce the impact of chronic pain on the individual, their family, and society. The US National Pain Strategy defined HICP as the chronic pain associated with substantial restrictions on participation in work, social, and self-care activities for at least 6 months. To understand the meaning and characteristics of HICP from the younger (<65 years old) and older adults (≥65 years old) with chronic pain, our study examined patients' perceived pain impact between the two age groups. We also characterize the degree of pain impact, assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI), between adults and older adults with HICP. We recruited patients at a tertiary pain clinic. The survey included open-ended questions about pain impact, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised to identify patients' meeting criteria for HICP, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 8-item PI short form (v.8a). A total of 55 younger adults (65.5% women, 72.7% HICP, mean age = 55.0 with SD of 16.2) and 28 older adults (53.6% women, 64.3% HICP, mean age = 72.6 with SD of 5.4) with chronic pain participated in this study. In response to an open-ended question in which participants were asked to list out the areas of major impact pain, those with HICP in the younger group most commonly listed work, social activity, and basic physical activity (e.g., walking and standing); for those in the older group, basic physical activity, instrumental activity of daily living (e.g., housework, grocery shopping), and participating in social or fun activity for older adults with HICP were the most common. A 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted using age (younger adults vs. older adults) and HICP classification (HICP vs. No HICP). A statistically significant difference was found in the PROMIS-PI T-scores by HICP status (HICP: M = 58.4, SD = 6.3; No HICP: M = 67.8, SD = 6.3), but not by age groups with HICP. In conclusion, perceived pain impacts were qualitatively, but not quantitatively different between younger and older adults with HICP. We discuss limitations and offer recommendations for future research.

Exercise as a Treatment for Chronic Pain

BackgroundFat and lean mass have important implications for health and physical functioning. Studies have reported associations between low socioeconomic position (SEP) and high body mass index (BMI) in adulthood, but...

Chronic pain is a major health problem worldwide but the limited knowledge of its underlying pathophysiology impairs the opportunities for diagnostics and treatment. Biomarkers of chronic pain are greatly needed to understand the disease and develop new targets for interventions and drug treatments, and potentially introduce more precise diagnostic procedures. Much evidence points to a neuroimmune pathology for many chronic pain conditions and that important neuroimmune biomarkers exist in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with chronic pain. Systematic collection of CSF in large cohorts of chronic pain patients and healthy volunteers has proven difficult, however. We established the Danish Pain Research Biobank (DANPAIN-Biobank) with the aim of studying potential neuroimmune and glia-related biomarkers of chronic pain. In this paper, we describe the methods and the study population of the DANPAIN-Biobank. In this cross-sectional study, we included (I) participants with high-impact (HI) chronic pain from a tertiary, interdisciplinary pain center; (II) participants with osteoarthritic pain scheduled for arthroplasty surgery of the hip or knee at a regional hospital; and (III) pain-free volunteers. All participants completed a questionnaire assessing pain, functional impairment, anxiety, depression, and insomnia before samples of blood and CSF were extracted. Quantitative sensory tests were performed on participants with HI chronic pain and pain-free volunteers, and postoperative outcome scores were available on participants with osteoarthritic pain. Of the 352 participants included, 201 had HI chronic pain (of which 71% had chronic widespread pain), 81 had chronic osteoarthritic pain, and 70 were pain-free volunteers. Samples were handled uniformly, and CSF samples were frozen within 30 minutes. We describe the content of the DANPAIN-Biobank, which is unique in terms of the number of participants (including pain-free volunteers), extensive clinical data, and uniformity in sample handling. We believe it presents a promising new platform for the study of neuroimmune and glia-related biomarkers of chronic pain.

Socioeconomic Position, Ethnicity, and Outcomes in Heart Transplant Recipients

The Problem of Pain in the United States: A Population-Based Characterization of Biopsychosocial Correlates of High Impact Chronic Pain Using the National Health Interview Survey

Exploring the prevalence and construct validity of high-impact chronic pain across chronic low-back pain study samples

BackgroundMuscle weakness is a key criterion for important age-related conditions including sarcopenia and frailty. Research suggests lower childhood socioeconomic position (SEP) contributes to muscle weakness in later life but there...

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) skills training interventions are recommended first-line nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic pain, yet they are not widely accessible. To examine effectiveness of remote, scalable CBT-based chronic pain (CBT-CP) treatments (telehealth and self-completed online) for individuals with high-impact chronic pain, compared with usual care. This comparative effectiveness, 3-group, phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled 2331 eligible patients with high-impact chronic musculoskeletal pain from 4 geographically diverse health care systems in the US from January 2021 through February 2023. Follow-up concluded in April 2024. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to 1 of 2 remote, 8-session, CBT-based skills training treatments: health coach-led via telephone/videoconferencing (health coach; n = 778) or online self-completed program (painTRAINER; n = 776); or to usual care plus a resource guide (n = 777). The primary outcome was attaining or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in pain severity score (≥30% decrease; score range, 0-10) on the 11-item Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form from baseline to 3 months; 6 and 12 months from baseline were secondary time points. Secondary outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months included pain intensity, pain-related interference, PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) social role and physical functioning; and patient global impression of change. Among 2331 eligible randomized individuals (mean age, 58.8 [SD, 14.3] years; 1712 [74%] women; 1030 [44%] rural/medically underserved), 2210 (94.8%) completed the trial. At 3 months, the adjusted percentage of participants achieving 30% or greater decrease in pain severity score was 32.0 (95% CI, 29.3-35.0) in the health coach group, 26.6 (95% CI, 23.4-30.2) in the painTRAINER group, and 20.8 (95% CI, 18.0-24.0) in the usual care group. Both intervention groups were significantly more likely to attain an MCID in pain severity compared with control (health coach vs usual care: relative risk [RR], 1.54 [95% CI, 1.30-1.82]; painTRAINER vs usual care: RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.55]), and the health coach program was more effective than the online self-completed painTRAINER program (health coach vs painTRAINER: RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.03-1.40]). Statistically significant benefits were observed for both intervention groups vs usual care at 6 and 12 months after randomization for the pain severity outcomes and for other secondary pain and functioning outcomes. Remote, scalable CBT-CP treatments (delivered either via telehealth or self-completed modules online) resulted in modest improvements in pain and related functional/quality-of-life outcomes compared with usual care among individuals with high-impact chronic pain. These lower-resource CBT-CP treatments could improve availability of evidence-based nonpharmacologic pain treatments within health care systems. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04523714.

High-impact chronic pain (HICP) involves substantial interference in functioning, affects 8.5% of the population, and leads to higher health care costs relative to low-impact chronic pain (LICP). Behavioral interventions such as virtual reality (VR) offer scalable and accessible treatment, but testing is needed to ensure durable effectiveness in HICP. We conducted a secondary analysis of the largest real-world dataset for a therapeutic skill-based VR vs a sham VR control to test treatment efficacy in HICP vs LICP. Relative to LICP, we found significantly larger (and clinically meaningful; ie, ≥2 points) pain interference and pain intensity reductions for HICP at end of treatment and 1 year posttreatment. End-of-treatment reduction in pain interference reclassified 70% (114/163) of participants with HICP as LICP, and this improvement held at 1 year posttreatment (104/155, 67%). This study examined the effectiveness of a 56-session skill-based VR therapy in HICP at 2 years posttreatment and compared the effects with those on LICP. We conducted a secondary analysis of the skill-based VR sample (536/1067, 50.2%) at 2 years posttreatment from a randomized controlled trial involving an in-home chronic low back pain sample that was recruited and tested online and was diverse (female: 411/536, 77%; non-White individuals: 166/536, 31%; high school or lower educational level: 102/536, 19%; mean age 50.8 years) and had clinically severe pain at baseline (intensity=6.6; interference=6.2; 42% with severe or complete disability). Focusing on the skill-based VR participants (536/1067, 50.2%) and using a validated approach, we classified participants at baseline as either HICP (baseline Brief Pain Inventory pain interference score>7) or LICP (baseline Brief Pain Inventory pain interference score<7). Clinical effectiveness was examined using a general linear model at 2 years posttreatment relative to baseline with the primary outcomes of pain interference and pain intensity. Participants with HICP (192/536, 35.8%) reported superior reductions in pain interference, pain intensity, sleep disturbance, and physical disability (P<.001 in all cases) at 2 years posttreatment compared to participants with LICP (344/536, 64.2%). Participants with HICP had clinically meaningful (≥2-point) reductions in pain interference (mean 3.1, 95% CI 2.66-3.54; effect size=1.12) and pain intensity (mean 2.6, 95% CI 2.18-3.02; effect size=1.01) at 2 years posttreatment. Importantly, reduced pain interference scores at 2 years posttreatment reclassified 71.1% (106/149) of the participants with HICP as LICP. No serious adverse events or side effects were reported. Patients with HICP experience severe pain that drives high health care use. The skill-based VR therapy demonstrated durable reductions in pain and related outcomes 2 years posttreatment, with the largest benefits observed in the HICP subgroup. These results suggest that a skill-based, VR-delivered therapy produces durable effects in patients with HICP, a population that is frequently overmedicalized and undertreated with behavioral interventions. These findings suggest that home-based VR-delivered therapy offers a scalable treatment option for this underserved population.

This study evaluated whether food insecurity (US Adult Food Security Survey) was associated with chronic pain (≥ 3 months) and high-impact chronic pain (i.e. pain that limits work and life) among US adults. Cross-sectional analysis. Nationally representative sample of non-institutionalised adults in the USA. 79 686 adults from the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Marginal, low and very low food security were associated with increased prevalence odds of chronic pain (OR: 1·58 (95 % CI 1·44, 1·72), 2·28 (95 % CI 2·06, 2·52) and 3·37 (95 % CI 3·01, 3·78), respectively) and high-impact chronic pain (OR: 1·28 (95 % CI 1·14, 1·42), 1·55 (95 % CI 1·37, 1·75) and 1·90 (95 % CI 1·65, 2·18), respectively) in a dose-response fashion (P-trend < 0·0001 for both), adjusted for sociodemographic, socio-economic and clinically relevant factors. Participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and age modified the association between food insecurity and chronic pain. These findings illustrate the impact of socio-economic factors on chronic pain and suggest that food insecurity may be a social determinant of chronic pain. Further research is needed to better understand the complex relationship between food insecurity and chronic pain and to identify targets for interventions. Moreover, the consideration of food insecurity in the clinical assessment of pain and pain-related conditions among socio-economically disadvantaged adults may be warranted.

Chronic Pain and High Impact Chronic Pain in Children and Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study

12085 Background: The majority of the 17 million individuals living with a cancer diagnosis in the United States have experienced pain, either from the disease itself or from its treatment. Pain negatively impacts psychosocial quality of life and is associated with poorer overall outcome. However, the impact of pain on daily living differ among cancer survivors, and there is a paucity of research on chronic pain, especially high-impact chronic pain (HICP) in this growing population. We estimated the prevalence of chronic pain, and HICP among cancer survivors, and described the association between depression and these outcomes. Methods: This study used data from the 2015-2017 National Health Interview Survey. Outcomes of interest were chronic pain, defined as pain on most days or every day in the past six months, and HICP, defined as chronic pain that limited life or work activities on most days or every day during the past six months. Weighted, adjusted multivariable logistic regressions estimated association between depression and chronic pain and HICP among cancer survivors, while controlling for age, gender, marital status, education, employment, health insurance, smoking status, number of doctor’s visit, general health, and comorbidities. Results: Among 49,326 survey respondents, 11.7% (n = 5,335) had a cancer diagnosis. An estimated 43.6% of cancer survivors reported chronic pain; and 19.2% reported HICP. We found an association between depression and both chronic pain and HICP in unadjusted analyses. In the adjusted models, cancer survivors depressed within the last month had more than double the odds of reporting both chronic pain (aOR = 2.32; 95% CI 1.75, 3.07) and HICP (aOR = 2.12; 95% CI 1.50, 3.01). Other factors associated with both chronic pain and HICP among cancer survivors included being a current smoker (aORchronic pain = 1.63; 95% CI 1.14, 2.34; aORHICP = 1.83; 95% CI 1.18, 2.84) and being unemployed (aORchronic pain = 1.44; 95% CI 1.10,1.90; aORHICP = 3.10; 95% CI: 2.00−4.81). Cancer survivors with ≥2 comorbidities also had 55% increased odds of reporting chronic pain (aOR = 1.55; 95% CI 1.17,2.04) compared with those without comorbidities. Conclusions: Over 40% of cancer survivors may have a history of chronic pain, and survivors reporting being depressed are significantly more likely to report both chronic pain and HICP. The association between depression and pain in cancer survivors calls for personalized management of chronic pain, especially in cancer survivors with a history of depression.