Level Sum Score Research Articles

Pain Exposure Physical Therapy versus conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1—a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To analyze cost-effectiveness of Pain Exposure Physical Therapy compared to conventional treatment alongside a randomized controlled trial (NCT00817128) in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1, where no clinical difference was shown between the two groups in an intention-to-treat analysis. Design: Randomized controlled trial with 9 months follow-up. Setting: Patients were recruited from hospitals and general practitioners in the region around a university hospital. Subjects: A total of 56 patients, 45 (80.4%) female, were randomized. About 4 patients in the intervention and 11 patients in the conventional group switched groups. The mean (SD) age was 44.3 (16.6) years, and in 37 (66.1%) patients, the upper extremity was affected. Interventions: Patients received either Pain Exposure Physical Therapy (maximum of five sessions), or conventional treatment conforming with the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline. Main measures: For the economic evaluation difference between the groups in health-related quality of life (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), and the clinical outcomes Impairment level Sum Score—Restricted Version and Pain Disability was determined based on the intention-to-treat analysis as well as differences in both healthcare-related costs and travel expenses. Cost-effectiveness planes were constructed using bootstrapping to compare effects and costs. Results: No significant effects were found for QALYs (mean difference = −0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.10 to 0.04) and clinical outcomes. A cost minimization analysis showed a significant difference in costs between groups. The conventional treatment was 64% more expensive than the Pain Exposure Physical Therapy. Conclusion: This economic analysis shows that Pain Exposure Physical Therapy compared to conventional treatment is cost-effective.

Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) with conventional treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) in a randomised controlled trial with a...

Improvement of complex regional pain syndrome after plasmapheresis

Complex regional pain syndrome is a severe complication following trauma that is associated with vasomotor, sudomotor and sensory disturbances in an affected limb or region of the body. The exact physiopathology is not fully understood yet. Recently, autoantibody findings suggested an immune-mediated physiopathology of the disease. We here describe two otherwise treatment-resistant patients with complex regional pain syndrome and high-titre beta2 adrenergic receptor autoantibodies, who did respond to plasmapheresis. Both patients showed strong improvement of pain and autonomic symptoms measured by impairment level sum score.

Intravenous Magnesium for Chronic Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1 (CRPS-1)

To assess the effects of intravenous administration of magnesium on complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial was performed. Fifty-six patients with CRPS-1 (International Association for the Study of Pain Orlando criteria) received MgSO(4) 70 mg/kg or placebo (NaCl 0.9%) in 4 hours over 5 consecutive days. Pain (BOX-11 and McGill), the level of impairment (Impairment level Sum Score [ISS]), functional limitations (Radboud Skills Questionnaire, Walking Skills Questionnaire/questionnaire rising and sitting down), participation (Impact on Participation and Autonomy [IPA]), and quality of life (Short Form-36, EuroQol, IPA) were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 weeks. No significant differences were found between MgSO(4) and placebo on the BOX-11 and ISS at different time points during the trial on intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. A significant improvement on the BOX-11 was found after the first week of the trial in both groups (mean 0.7; standard deviation 1.1). For the MgSO(4) group, a clinically relevant and statistically significant improvement on the ISS at 1 week (median 5, interquartile range [IQR] -1 to 8) and a significant improvement on the McGill up to 6 weeks (median 2 words, IQR 0-4.5) were found compared with baseline, which were not found in the placebo group. Significant improvement in perceived job participation was found for the MgSO(4) group at 12 weeks (median improvement 1.44-1.17; P = 0.01). ISS improved significantly more in patients with a low Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score (≤10) in the MgSO(4) group (mean 4.4 vs mean -3.1; P = 0.02). Administration of the physiological competitive N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist magnesium in chronic CRPS provides insufficient benefit over placebo. Future research should focus on patients with acute CRPS and early signs and symptoms of central sensitization.

The treatment of complex regional pain syndrome type I with free radical scavengers: a randomized controlled study

To compare the effects of two free radical scavengers, dimethylsulfoxide 50% (DMSO) and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), for treatment of complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I), a randomized, double-dummy controlled, double-blind trial was conducted. Two outpatient clinics of two university hospitals in The Netherlands participated in the study and 146 patients, were included over a period of 24 months. Patients were randomized into two treatment groups, one was instructed to apply DMSO 50% five times daily to the affected extremity, the second was treated with NAC 600 mg effervescent tablets three times daily, both combined with placebo. Interventions were accompanied by pain medication, occupational therapy for upper extremity CRPS I and physical therapy for lower extremity CRPS I in specific circumstances. Treatment was given for 17 weeks, with a possibility to continue or switch medication after this period, up to 1 year following the onset of treatment. An impairment level sum score was the primary outcome measure. Upper and lower extremity skills and functions, and general health status were also evaluated. Overall, no significant differences were found between NAC and DMSO after 17 and 52 weeks on impairment level and general health status. Significant differences were found for subscores of lower extremity function, in favor of DMSO-treatment. Subgroup analysis showed more favorable results for DMSO for warm CRPS I and significantly better performance of NAC for patients with a cold CRPS I. Results tended to be negatively influenced if the duration of the complaint was longer. Treatment with DMSO and NAC are generally equally effective in treatment of CRPS I. Strong indications exist for differences in effects for subgroups of patients with warm or cold CRPS I: for warm CRPS I, DMSO-treatment appears more favorable, while for cold CRPS I, NAC-treatment appears to be more effective.