Associations of long-term clinical recovery and improved quality of life across ICD-11 chronic pain categories in a real-world registry study

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Nadine Farnes, Lars-Petter Granan, Henrik B. Jacobsen, Audun Stubhaug, Sara M. Vambheim
{"title":"Associations of long-term clinical recovery and improved quality of life across ICD-11 chronic pain categories in a real-world registry study","authors":"Nadine Farnes,&nbsp;Lars-Petter Granan,&nbsp;Henrik B. Jacobsen,&nbsp;Audun Stubhaug,&nbsp;Sara M. Vambheim","doi":"10.1002/ejp.2250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>There is little knowledge of what factors are needed for successful chronic pain management. We aim to identify psychosocial and treatment predictors of clinical recovery and improved quality of life (QOL) at 12-month follow-up across three chronic pain groups, based on the International Classification of Diseases-11: neuropathic pain, secondary non-neuropathic pain, and primary pain. Furthermore, we investigate baseline differences across diagnostic groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The sample included baseline and 12-month follow-up data from 1056 chronic pain patients from the Oslo University Hospital's Pain Registry. Logistic regression models investigated longitudinal associations between psychosocial and treatment characteristics, and the outcome measures clinical recovery and improved QOL. Characteristics were compared across the diagnostic groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Increased odds of clinical recovery and improved QOL were seen in patients receiving invasive treatment (OR = 8.04, 95% CI = 3.50–19.40; OR = 5.47, 95% CI = 2.42–12.86), while decreased odds of clinical recovery were seen for secondary non-neuropathic pain patients with pain-related disability (0.05, 95% CI = 0.01–0.29). In comparing baseline characteristics, neuropathic pain patients had lower QOL, and more severe insomnia compared to the other groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Invasive treatment modalities were strongly associated with clinical recovery and improved QOL. Although this could be due to patient selection, it does warrant further examination as an intervention alternative for chronic pain. Intervention efficacy, risk factors and predictors of clinical recovery across diagnostic groups should be further investigated through longitudinal RCTs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance</h3>\n \n <p>This observational study indicates a potential advantage in sustained recovery for pre-selected individuals with chronic pain who undergo invasive treatments. The relationship between sustained recovery and psychosocial factors differs across neuropathic, secondary non-neuropathic, and primary pain patients. This suggests that employing ICD-11 for classifying patients into mechanistically distinct pain groups could inform the evaluation and management of chronic pain. Furthermore, factors previously identified as negative indicators for long-term outcomes in chronic pain cohorts were not clinically significant in this study.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejp.2250","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.2250","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is little knowledge of what factors are needed for successful chronic pain management. We aim to identify psychosocial and treatment predictors of clinical recovery and improved quality of life (QOL) at 12-month follow-up across three chronic pain groups, based on the International Classification of Diseases-11: neuropathic pain, secondary non-neuropathic pain, and primary pain. Furthermore, we investigate baseline differences across diagnostic groups.

Methods

The sample included baseline and 12-month follow-up data from 1056 chronic pain patients from the Oslo University Hospital's Pain Registry. Logistic regression models investigated longitudinal associations between psychosocial and treatment characteristics, and the outcome measures clinical recovery and improved QOL. Characteristics were compared across the diagnostic groups.

Results

Increased odds of clinical recovery and improved QOL were seen in patients receiving invasive treatment (OR = 8.04, 95% CI = 3.50–19.40; OR = 5.47, 95% CI = 2.42–12.86), while decreased odds of clinical recovery were seen for secondary non-neuropathic pain patients with pain-related disability (0.05, 95% CI = 0.01–0.29). In comparing baseline characteristics, neuropathic pain patients had lower QOL, and more severe insomnia compared to the other groups.

Conclusion

Invasive treatment modalities were strongly associated with clinical recovery and improved QOL. Although this could be due to patient selection, it does warrant further examination as an intervention alternative for chronic pain. Intervention efficacy, risk factors and predictors of clinical recovery across diagnostic groups should be further investigated through longitudinal RCTs.

Significance

This observational study indicates a potential advantage in sustained recovery for pre-selected individuals with chronic pain who undergo invasive treatments. The relationship between sustained recovery and psychosocial factors differs across neuropathic, secondary non-neuropathic, and primary pain patients. This suggests that employing ICD-11 for classifying patients into mechanistically distinct pain groups could inform the evaluation and management of chronic pain. Furthermore, factors previously identified as negative indicators for long-term outcomes in chronic pain cohorts were not clinically significant in this study.

在一项真实世界登记研究中,ICD-11 各慢性疼痛类别的长期临床康复与生活质量改善之间的关联。
背景:人们对成功控制慢性疼痛需要哪些因素知之甚少。我们的目的是根据国际疾病分类-11(神经病理性疼痛、继发性非神经病理性疼痛和原发性疼痛),确定三个慢性疼痛组在随访 12 个月时临床康复和生活质量(QOL)改善的社会心理和治疗预测因素。此外,我们还调查了各诊断组的基线差异:样本包括奥斯陆大学医院疼痛登记处的 1056 名慢性疼痛患者的基线数据和 12 个月的随访数据。逻辑回归模型研究了心理社会和治疗特征与临床康复和质量生活改善结果之间的纵向联系。对不同诊断组的特征进行了比较:接受侵入性治疗的患者临床康复和质量生活改善的几率增加(OR = 8.04,95% CI = 3.50-19.40;OR = 5.47,95% CI = 2.42-12.86),而患有疼痛相关残疾的继发性非神经病理性疼痛患者临床康复的几率降低(0.05,95% CI = 0.01-0.29)。在比较基线特征时,神经病理性疼痛患者的QOL较低,与其他组别相比,失眠更为严重:结论:侵入性治疗方式与临床康复和改善 QOL 密切相关。尽管这可能是由于患者选择的原因,但作为慢性疼痛干预的一种替代方法,确实值得进一步研究。应通过纵向 RCT 进一步研究不同诊断组的干预效果、风险因素和临床康复的预测因素:这项观察性研究表明,接受侵入性治疗的预选慢性疼痛患者在持续康复方面具有潜在优势。神经病理性、继发性非神经病理性和原发性疼痛患者的持续康复与社会心理因素之间的关系各不相同。这表明,利用 ICD-11 将患者分为不同的疼痛组别,可以为慢性疼痛的评估和管理提供参考。此外,以前在慢性疼痛组群中被确定为长期结果负面指标的因素在本研究中并不具有临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Pain
European Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered. Regular sections in the journal are as follows: • Editorials and Commentaries • Position Papers and Guidelines • Reviews • Original Articles • Letters • Bookshelf The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis. Research articles are published under the following subject headings: • Neurobiology • Neurology • Experimental Pharmacology • Clinical Pharmacology • Psychology • Behavioural Therapy • Epidemiology • Cancer Pain • Acute Pain • Clinical Trials.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信