Multiple Dimensions Of Pain Research Articles

Abstract A028: Exploring age and race/ethnic associations with the multiple dimensions of pain among cancer patients receiving home hospice care

Abstract Aim: Racial disparities in pain are well known, but most hospice studies included few underrepresented minority patients, which limits understanding of pain disparities among cancer patients receiving hospice care. Our study purpose was to explore age and racial/ethnic associations with the sensory, affective, evaluative, and temporal dimensions of cancer pain in the hospice setting. Methods: We analyzed control group data from a stepped-wedge randomized control trial of the PAINRelieveIt app. 150 home hospice patients with a variety of cancers (mean age 68.0±14.6 years, 52% female, 44% White, 37% Black, 19% Hispanic) completed PAINReportIt, an electronic McGill Pain Questionnaire, on an internet-enabled tablet at baseline and 1 week later. We compared racial/ethnic groups for age (ANOVA) and gender (Chi square) differences. We also conducted regression analyses of baseline and posttest sensory pain (current pain intensity [0-10], worst pain intensity [0-10], Pain Rating Index[PRI]-Sensory), affective pain (PRI-Affective [0-14), evaluative pain (PRI-Evaluative), and pain pattern scores, adjusting for age, and comparing Black and Hispanic with White groups. Results: Gender was relatively balanced across the racial/ethnic groups (p=.54). There was significant difference among groups in mean age (p=.01; Black: 64.1±12.1, Hispanic: 66.5±16.6, White: 71.9±14.8). Baseline current and worst pain intensity were moderate and severe respectively across Black (4.7±2.9; 7.1±1.9), Hispanic (5.4±2.6; 7.7±2.1), and White (4.4±2.7; 6.7±2.6) groups (p>.05). Posttest current and worst pain intensity remained moderate and severe across Black (4.6±2.8; 6.5±2.3), Hispanic (4.7±2.4; 6.5±2.2) and White (4.0±2.4 and 5.9±2.4) groups (p>.05). Baseline values were not significantly different across racial/ethnic groups for PRI-Sensory, PRI-Evaluative, and pain pattern. Baseline PRI-Affective scores differed significantly among Black (1.8±2.0), Hispanic (3.8±3.9) and White (3.1±2.6) groups (p=.003). Higher baseline pain values for all variables except current pain were associated with younger age (p≤.02) and the Black group had significantly lower PRI-Affective (p=.001). Posttest, higher current pain and worst pain were associated with younger age (p=.04). Other pain variables were not associated with age or race/ethnicity (p>.05). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer, regardless of race or ethnicity, reported clinically important current and worst pain intensity suggesting the need for better pain control in the hospice setting. Younger patients reported more intense pain than older patients. Younger patients reported more intense pain than older patients. The significantly lower affective contribution to pain among Black patients at baseline represents a novel finding that warrants additional research. Insufficient pain control remained consistent across racial/ethnic groups in usual hospice care. The racial/ethnic disparities commonly observed in pain management was not evident in this sample. Citation Format: Jeronda C. Jenkins, Dottington Fullwood, Yingwei Yao, Diana Wilkie, Miriam O. Ezenwa. Exploring age and race/ethnic associations with the multiple dimensions of pain among cancer patients receiving home hospice care [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A028.

Characterizing pain in long-term survivors of childhood cancer.

Many long-term survivors of childhood cancer (LTSCC), individuals at least 5 years post-diagnosis or 2 years post-treatment, experience late- and long-term effects from their treatments, including pain. Yet, pain is poorly understood among LTSCC. The current study aimed to (1a) describe rates and multiple dimensions of pain; (1b) identify patterns of chronic pain; and (2) test correlates of chronic pain in LTSCC. Survivors (n = 140; 48.6% male, Mage = 17.3 years (range = 8-25)) were recruited from across Canada. Between 2017 and 2019, participants completed the Pain Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Pain Interference, Anxiety, and Depression scales, Child Posttraumatic Stress Scale, the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM-V, and the Cancer Worry Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of LTSCC reported experiencing chronic pain. Exploratory cluster analysis showed 20% of survivors had moderate to severe chronic pain based on measures of pain intensity and interference. The combination of higher posttraumatic stress symptoms, older current age, more pain catastrophizing, and sex (being female) significantly predicted the presence of chronic pain in logistic regression, χ2 (4, N = 107) = 28.10, p < .001. Higher pain catastrophizing (OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.02-1.16), older current age (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.07-1.34), and higher posttraumatic stress (OR = 1.92; 95% CI = 1.01-3.63) were significant predictors of chronic pain. LTSCC should be screened for the presence and magnitude of chronic pain during long-term follow-up visits so appropriate interventions can be offered and implemented. Future research should investigate pain interventions tailored for this population. RELEVANCE: Findings support regular screening for the presence and magnitude of chronic pain in survivors of childhood cancer in long-term follow-up care.

Frequency and severity of pain in hospitalized cancer patients at a tertiary cancer center.

103 Background: Recent regulations in response to the opioid crisis has presented unforeseen challenges in treating cancer patients with pain, such as frequent opioid shortages and clinicians moving away from prescribing opioids. This is especially concerning in cancer hospitals where a significant proportion of patients experience pain. Understanding the current frequency and severity of pain in hospitalized cancer patients are key hospital quality indicators, and will help in directing appropriate pain initiatives and resources. We aimed to determine the frequency, severity and changes in pain severity experienced by hospitalized cancer patients. Methods: The institutional electronic database was used to extrapolate pain scores for all cancer patients discharged over one year. The proportion of hospital-days with pain overall, on admission, and discharge is reported. A severe-pain day was a hospital-day with ≥ 1 severe pain score. A moderate-pain day was a non-severe pain day with ≥ 1 moderate pain score. Results: A total of 17097 unique patients accounted for 30056 hospital-days. Overall, the proportion of severe-, moderate-, mild-, and no pain-days was 29%, 23%, 10%, and 37% respectively. The monthly pain reports (Table) demonstrates no significant difference in pain frequency or severity over time. As compared to the first hospital-day, the proportion of severe pain days on discharge decreased from 33% to 16% (p &lt;0.01) (Medical service 28% to 16%; Pediatrics 12% to 6%, Surgical 45% to 17%). Moderate- to-severe pain days decreased from 54% to 39% (p&lt;0.01). Conclusions: A significant proportion of hospitalized cancer patients experience moderate-to-severe pain. Comprehensive assessment of the multiple dimensions of pain and strategies for early management are needed to reduce the number of moderate and severe pain days in the inpatient setting. [Table: see text]

Altered amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation and regional cerebral blood flow in females with primary dysmenorrhea: a resting-state fMRI and arterial spin labeling study.

Purpose: The current study aimed to explore the central mechanism of primary dysmenorrhea (PD) by investigating the alterations in resting state amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (ALFF) and regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) between PD patients and healthy controls (HCs).Patients and methods: A total of 34 female subjects including 20 PD patients and 14 HCs underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) and arterial spin labeling technique (ASL) MRI during menstrual phase. Subsequently, the differences in ALFF and CBF were compared in the two groups. The visual analog scores for pain (VAS-P) and for anxiety (VAS-A) were applied to assess cramping pain and related symptoms in PD patients. Finally, Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to analyze relationships between the neuroimaging findings and clinical characteristics.Results: Compared to HCs, PD patients had decreased ALFF in the right cerebellum posterior lobe, right middle temporal gyrus, right parahippocampal gyrus, right hippocampus, right brainstem and left parietal lobe. In addition, elevated CBF values were observed in the right inferior frontal gyrus, right precentral gyrus, and right superior temporal gyrus. There was no significant correlation between ALFF, CBF values and clinical characteristics including onset age of dysmenorrhea, VAS-A, and VAS-P in PD patients.Conclusion: The preliminary alterations of ALFF and CBF values in PD patients were observed in different pain-related brain regions, which were involved in multiple dimensions of pain and pain modulation. The combination of rs-fMRI and ASL MRI might provide complementary information for a better understanding of the central mechanism in PD.

"Pain Is a Public Health Problem" --What Does That Mean and Why Should We Care?

In recent years AAPM’s Presidents have selected a theme to emphasize during their term of office even as they continue to support the diverse range of activities conducted by this inclusive professional society. AAPM’s immediate Past President Bill McCarberg chose pain control in primary care based upon his decades of experience as a family medicine physician and pain specialist. His predecessor Sean Mackey co-chaired, with Linda Porter of the National Institutes of Health, the panel that produced a comprehensive National Pain Strategy presenting specific plans to advance multiple dimensions of pain. This monumental effort (see below) was a prime focus of his presidency. Earlier Presidents have emphasized patient advocacy, the safe use of opioids, and the needs of veterans returning from combat. I have selected “pain is a public health problem” as the focus of my term; this AAPM President’s Message describes the context and implications of this choice. In May of 1999, shortly before assuming his uniquely successful, ongoing role as inaugural Editor-in-Chief of Pain Medicine , Rollin (“Mac”) Gallagher wrote a visionary essay for a topical issue on chronic pain in Medical Clinics of North America . Titled “Primary Care and Pain Medicine”, this essay bore the subtitle “A community solution to the public health problem of chronic pain”. Drawing upon his own education (he holds a Masters in Public Health as well as an MD), he proposed a model of chronic pain that integrated – as an epidemiologist might – environment, host and causative agents in the progression from injury to chronic disability. Presciently, he called for community-based rehabilitation of the patient with chronic pain based upon a collaboration between primary care provider and pain medicine specialist. This stratified model of care was articulated further in a later white paper by Mac and two other senior leaders …

A study protocol for the profile of pain in older women: assessing the multi dimensional nature of the experience of pain in arthritis

Abstract Background Arthritis is a significant contributor to illness, pain and disability and imposes a considerable burden upon the community. Pain is a cardinal symptom of arthritis and has significant implications on biopsychosocial wellbeing. The multidimensional nature of the experience of pain in arthritis has not been well defined in community-based samples. Aims The two aims of this study are to generate profiles of pain from a community sample of older women and to compare profiles for women with and without arthritis. Methods The sub study is a cross-sectional postal survey of 700 Australian community-based women. The survey includes a range of measures on health, arthritis and pain that will be used to examine the multidimensional nature of the experience of pain in arthritis and generate profiles of pain. Discussion With no core set of measures for the evaluation of arthritis pain, this survey was created from an amalgamation of measures to capture multiple dimensions of pain. Findings from this study will assist in defining the symptom of pain in arthritis and may lead to further research in evidence-based treatment options for people with arthritis.

The Pharmacology of Topical Analgesics

Pain management of patients continues to pose challenges to clinicians. Given the multiple dimensions of pain – whether acute or chronic, mild, moderate, or severe, nociceptive or neuropathic – a multimodal approach may be needed. Fortunately, clinicians have an array of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment choices; however, each modality must be chosen carefully, because some often used oral agents are associated with safety and tolerability issues that restrict their use in certain patients. In particular, orally administered nonsteroidal anti–inflammatory drugs, opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants are known to cause systemic adverse effects in some patients. To address this problem, a number of topical therapies in various therapeutic classes have been developed to reduce systemic exposure and minimize the risks of patients developing adverse events. For example, topical nonsteroidal anti–inflammatory drug formulations produce a site–specific effect (ie, cyclo-oxygenase inhibition) while decreasing the systemic exposure that may lead to undesired effects in patients. Similarly, derivatives of acetylsalicylic acid (ie, salicylates) are used in topical analgesic formulations that do not significantly enter the patient's systemic circulation. Salicylates, along with capsaicin, menthol, and camphor, compose the counterirritant class of topical analgesics, which produce analgesia by activating and then desensitizing epidermal nociceptors. Additionally, patches and creams that contain the local anesthetic lidocaine, alone or co–formulated with other local anesthetics, are also used to manage patients with select acute and chronic pain states. Perhaps the most common topical analgesic modality is the cautious application of cutaneous cold and heat. Such treatments may decrease pain not by reaching the target tissue through systemic distribution, but by acting more directly on the affected tissue. Despite the tolerability benefits associated with avoiding systemic circulation, topically applied analgesics are associated with application–site reactions in patients, such as dryness, erythema, burning, and discoloration. Furthermore, some adverse events that have been observed in patients may be suggestive of some degree of systemic exposure. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of topical treatments for the management of patient pain.

A Comparison of Two Pain Assessment Tools, the Adolescent Pediatric Pain Tool and PAINReportIt and Use of the Composite Pain Index in Sickle Cell Disease

AbstractAbstract 2648 Introduction:Pain is a common acute and chronic complication of sickle cell disease (SCD) in pediatric patients. However there are very few pain assessment tools that can assess patients for the multidimensional components of pain. The Adolescent Pediatric Pain Tool (APPT) is a validated, self-administered paper and pencil pain assessment tool validated in children and adolescents. The McGill Pain questionnaire (MPQ) is a pain assessment tool validated in adolescents and adults. PAINReportIt (PR) is a self-administered, computerized version of the MPQ. The APPT and PR can each be administered in a single outpatient clinic visit. The Composite Pain Index (CPI), a multidimensional representation of pain, can be calculated with both the APPT and PR. It is calculated by summing the individual standardized-scores for each of the four pain dimensions: (1) number of sites, (2) intensity, (3) total pain rating index, and (4) the pain pattern score. The use of these tools can present pain as the all-important 5th vital sign and may assist providers in the treatment of the multiple components of pain in pediatric SCD. The aim of this study was to compare the use of two pain assessment tools, the APPT and PR in pediatric SCD patients with respect to the composite pain index and the multiple dimensions of pain. Patients/Methods:Patients with the following genotypes were eligible for this study: Hb SS, Hb SC, Hb Sb0-thalassemia, and Hb Sb+-thalassemia. Patients who were 14 years and older were eligible to complete both tools on a single, outpatient visit to a comprehensive SCD clinic. The number of pain sites, intensity and the CPI were analyzed with descriptive, correlation, and independent t-test statistics. Results:57 patients completed both pain tools. The mean age was 17.5 +/− 2.6 years (mean +/− SD). There were 29 females (51%) and 28 males (49%). 84% of the patients had Hb SS; 14% had Hb SC and 2% had Hb Sb0-thalassemia. Pain was described in every body segment, with the most frequent sites including the: back, legs, chest, and abdomen. Pain intensity was moderate for the average subject (mean pain intensity score out of 10 was 3.7 +/− 2.6 for PR and 4.3 +/− 3.2 with the APPT, r=.46, p<.01). The mean CPI was 201.1 +/− 26.9 with PR and 200 +/− 30.5 with the APPT (mean +/− SD). There was a strong correlation with the CPI between PR and the APPT (r=.73, p<.01). Mean PR CPI scores were not significantly different for females (206.5 +/− 29.7) and males (195.6 +/− 22.9). Mean APPT CPI scores were significantly different (p=.01) for females (206.3 +/− 35) than males (193.5 +/− 24.1). There were no differences in mean APPT CPI scores by genotype or age groups. Conclusion:Pain in SCD patients is a common complication with significant morbidity. In this study we found on a single, outpatient comprehensive sickle cell clinic visit that patients had pain in every body segment and had pain in multiple body sites. Patients in this study had moderate pain during a routine outpatient clinic visit. The Composite Pain Index is a multidimensional representation of pain that can be determined with both the APPT and PR. This study demonstrates that both the APPT and PR produced similar CPI scores in pediatric and adult SCD patients. The gender differences in CPI scores produced by the APPT in comparison to PR is likely due to the APPT having only one pain intensity score (pain now) to contribute to the CPI whereas PR has 3 pain intensity scores (pain now, least and worst pain in previous 24 hours). The significance of this study is that the CPI may be an important outcome variable to allow researchers and clinicians to compare the complexities of the chronic pain that pediatric and adult patients with SCD experience. Disclosures:Labotka:HemaQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding.

A randomized trial comparing endoscopic stenting to a sham procedure for chronic pancreatitis

A number of studies support the use of endoscopically placed pancreatic duct (PD) stents to decrease pain in chronic pancreatitis (CP). Nevertheless, flaws in study design have prevented experts from reaching a consensus. (1) Evaluate the efficacy of PD stenting to ameliorate abdominal pain in patients with CP and ductal strictures; (2) evaluate the placebo response rate from sham endoscopic therapy; (3) compare pain medication usage, healthcare utilization, psychological distress, and quality of life before and after endoscopic stenting; (4) prospectively evaluate the durability of the response. Patients with typical abdominal pain, imaging confirmation of CP and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) confirmation of PD stricture will complete questionnaires to assess quality of life, psychological distress, pain intensity/unpleasantness, pain medication usage, and healthcare utilization. Enrolled patients will be randomized to ERCP with sphincterotomy and PD stenting versus sham procedure. Pain level and medication usage will be assessed weekly with telephone interviews. At 6-8 weeks, patients treated with stents will undergo stent removal; those randomized to the sham procedure without significant improvement (<50% reduction in pain score) will cross over to the treatment group; and those randomized to sham procedure who experienced improvement (>50% reduction) will be followed clinically. Patients will be followed in clinic or by phone biannually (up to 3 years). The primary endpoint is improvement in abdominal pain. The secondary endpoints are reduction in narcotic use, healthcare utilization, and work days missed; return to employment; improvement in quality of life and weight gain. Proposed study. Strict inclusion criteria may limit enrollment. The proposed study represents the first trial of endoscopic stenting for symptomatic CP and ductal strictures with a credible sham procedure, assessment of multiple dimensions of pain, and psychosocial factors.

(711): Oral pain experience and salivary and plasma expression in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation oncology patients: A pilot study

Stomatitis-related oropharyngeal pain contributes to morbidity in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients. We report results of a pilot study for a stomatitis intervention trial including effectiveness of opioids to manage oropharyngeal pain, and laboratory techniques to measure concentrations in plasma and salivary cell pellets. Multiple dimensions of pain were assessed pre- and 9 days post conditioning chemotherapy (CT) regimens using the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale and Painometer.” Plasma concentrations were measured (N = 23) using ELISA (ELISA; R&D Systems, Inc., Minneapolis, MN).

Ethnic Similarities and Differences in the Chronic Pain Experience: A Comparison of African American, Hispanic, and White Patients

Ethnic differences in the perception, experience, and impact of pain have received growing attention in recent years. Although studies comparing pain among African Americans, Hispanics, and whites have yielded mixed findings, increasing evidence suggests an enhancement of the pain experience for African American and Hispanic patients. Mechanisms proposed to account for this effect include systematic differences in psychological distress and in pain-coping strategies, or differential relationships between these factors and pain. However, few studies have evaluated all of these variables, or matched ethnic groups precisely on potential confounds. The present study compares African American, Hispanic, and white chronic pain patients across multiple dimensions of pain, emotional distress, pain-related disability, and pain coping after matching patients on a variety of potentially confounding variables. Results indicated no significant ethnic differences on measures of pain, depression, psychopathology, or pain-related disability. While most coping variables did not differ by ethnicity, substantive group differences were evident on the praying and hoping subscale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, with African Americans and Hispanics reporting higher scores relative to whites on items relating to prayer. Inter-relationships among pain, coping, and distress were generally quite similar across ethnic groups, although active coping showed some variation in its relationship with pain-related outcomes. Catastrophizing was generally associated with greater pain and distress, and use of prayer/hope as a coping strategy was associated with greater disability across ethnic groups. These results suggest that ethnic differences in pain, pain-related sequelae, and affective factors may be small when ethnic groups are closely matched on confounding variables. Moreover, interventions designed to facilitate adaptive coping are likely to be effective across ethnic groups.

Occurrence of cancer pain.

Occurrence of cancer pain is highly variable and incompletely understood. Surveys are not population-based, are characterized by small heterogeneous samples, and provide sketchy data on etiology of pain, pain syndromes, and clinical or demographic factors. Moreover, the multiple dimensions of pain have not been thoroughly elucidated. Cancer-related pain is caused by the following: 1) direct tumor involvement, 2) diagnostic/therapeutic procedures, and 3) side effects or toxicities of treatment. Individuals may have more than one type of cancer-related pain simultaneously. Occurrence rates range from 14% to 100%, and between 33 and 50% of patients experience pain at some point in the cancer trajectory. Rates are higher (e.g., 70%-100%) in palliative care or pain management settings. Few researchers have focused solely on specific causes of pain in specific patient populations, and only a few included groups at higher risk for pain, such as the elderly or underserved. In general, researchers have not followed pain over time to determine its course, severity, effects on quality of life and functional status, and other related factors. Future researchers should aim to acquire specific information on occurrence of pain in a variety of cancer diagnoses, settings, and groups of people. Longitudinal designs, in-depth exploration of dimensions of pain, and delineation of specific issues in groups such as the elderly, children, and vulnerable populations are essential. Addressing these critical areas will improve our understanding of the occurrence and effects of pain and enhance our ability to provide appropriate interventions, thereby increasing patients' quality of life.

Differential effects of hypnotic suggestion on multiple dimensions of pain

Within the framework of multidimensional pain assessment, this study extended an earlier finding that hypnotic analgesia and relaxation suggestions have different effects on pain reduction by evaluating these strategies in subjects undergoing a cold pressor protocol. Thirty-two highly susceptible subjects were randomly assigned to an analgesia or a relaxation suggestion treatment group. Six pain reports were taken at 10-sec intervals for each experimental condition. The baseline measures served as covariatees. A 2 × 2 × 2 × 6 repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed a significant group (analgesia, relaxation) by pain dimension (intensity, unpleasantness), by condition (suggestion alone; hypnotic induction plus suggestion) interaction. Analysis of the simple-simple mass effects, holding both group and condition constant, revealed that application of hypnotic analgesia reduced report of pain intensity significantly more than report of pain unpleasantness. Conversely, hypnotic relaxation reduced pain unpleasantness more than intensity. The clinical implications of the study are discussed.

Dimensions of procedural pain and its analgesic management in critically ill surgical patients

Many critically ill patients undergo endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal procedures, yet little documentation of associated pain exists. Therefore, a study was conducted to (1) compare the magnitude and dimensions of pain associated with endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal in intubated and nonintubated patients and (2) correlate preprocedural analgesic administration and pain magnitude. Multiple dimensions of pain (ie, intensity, extent, sensation, and affect) were measured after postoperative cardiovascular surgery patients underwent endotracheal suctioning (N = 45) or chest tube removal (N = 35). Preprocedural analgesics and intubation status during pain assessments were noted. Patients reported lower pain intensity with endotracheal suctioning (mean, 4.9 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale) than with chest tube removal (mean, 6.6). Pain extent, sensation, and affect scores were relatively low for endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal. Similar words such as "tender," "sharp," and "heavy" were used to describe both procedures; however, more patients described their response to chest tube removal as "fearful." Intubated patients had different pain experiences than extubated patients. Patients received little analgesic premedication, and correlations were low and nonsignificant between amount of medication received and pain magnitude. Patients were able to communicate extensive information about procedural pain, even when intubated. Endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal were both painful; yet, there was little preparatory analgesic management of the pain. Research is needed to investigate a variety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain related to endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal.