Search Results for: "chronic back pain management"

Background: Increased involvement of pharmacists in patient care may increase access to health care and improve patient outcomes. Purpose: To determine the effectiveness and harms of pharmacist-led chronic disease management for community-dwelling adults. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1995 through February 2016, and reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies. Study Selection: 65 patient populations in 63 studies conducted in the United States of any design reported outcomes of pharmacist-led chronic disease management versus a comparator for community-dwelling adults in the United States. Studies set in retail pharmacies were excluded. Data Extraction: Data extraction done by a single investigator was confirmed by a second investigator; risk of bias was assessed by 2 investigators; and strength of evidence was determined by consensus. Data Synthesis: Pharmacist-led care was associated with similar numbers of office visits, urgent care or emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (moderate-strength evidence) and medication adherence (low-strength evidence) compared with usual care (typically continuing a prestudy visit schedule). Pharmacist-led care increased the number or dose of medications received and improved study-selected glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid goal attainment (moderate-strength evidence). Mortality and clinical events were similar (low-strength evidence). Evidence on patient satisfaction was mixed and insufficient. The reporting of harms was limited. Limitations: Interventions were heterogeneous. Studies were typically short-term and designed to assess physiologic intermediate outcomes rather than clinical events. Reporting of many clinical outcomes of interest was limited, and often they were not the study-defined primary end points. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led chronic disease management was associated with effects similar to those of usual care for resource utilization and may improve physiologic goal attainment. Further research is needed to determine whether increased medication utilization and goal attainment improve clinical outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide: Synopsis of the 2019 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guidelines

Description: In May 2019, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved an update to the 2013 joint clinical practice guideline for assessing and managing patients who are at risk for suicide. This guideline provides health care providers with a framework by which to screen for, evaluate, treat, and manage the individual needs and preferences of VA and DoD patients who may be at risk for suicide. Methods: In January 2018, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened to develop a joint VA/DoD guideline including clinical stakeholders and conforming to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel drafted key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature through April 2018, created algorithms, and advanced 22 recommendations in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Recommendations: This synopsis, which includes 3 clinical practice algorithms, summarizes the key recommendations of the guideline related to screening and evaluation, risk management and treatment, and other management methods. Risk management and treatment recommendations address both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches for patients with suicidal ideation and behavior. Other management methods address lethal means safety (such as restricting access to firearms, poisons, and medications and installing barriers to prevent jumping from lethal heights) and population health strategies.

The Personal Is Political

Benefits and Harms of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Chronic Painful Conditions, Depression, Anxiety, and Insomnia: A Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 168, No 6

Background: Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) is increasingly popular as a treatment, yet its clinical benefit is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the benefits and harms of CES for adult patients with chronic painful conditions, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Data Sources: Several databases from inception to 10 October 2017 without language restrictions and references from experts, prior reviews, and manufacturers. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials of CES versus usual care or sham CES that reported pain, depression, anxiety, or sleep outcomes in any language. Data Extraction: Single-reviewer extraction checked by another; dual independent quality assessment; strength-of-evidence grading by the first author with subsequent group discussion. Data Synthesis: Twenty-eight articles from 26 randomized trials met eligibility criteria. The 2 trials that compared CES with usual care were small, and neither reported a statistically significant benefit in pain or anxiety outcomes for patients with fibromyalgia or anxiety, respectively. Fourteen trials with sham or placebo controls involving patients with painful conditions, such as headache, neuromuscular pain, or musculoskeletal pain, had conflicting results. Four trials done more than 40 years ago and 1 from 2014 provided low-strength evidence of a possible modest benefit compared with sham treatments in patients with anxiety and depression. Trials in patients with insomnia (n = 2), insomnia and anxiety (n = 1), or depression (n = 3) had inconclusive or conflicting results. Low-strength evidence suggested that CES does not cause serious side effects. Limitation: Most trials had small sample sizes and short durations; all had high risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient that CES has clinically important effects on fibromyalgia, headache, neuromusculoskeletal pain, degenerative joint pain, depression, or insomnia; low-strength evidence suggests modest benefit in patients with anxiety and depression. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016023951)

Literacy-Adapted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Versus Education for Chronic Pain at Low-Income Clinics: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 168, No 7

Background: Chronic pain is common and challenging to treat. Although cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is efficacious, its benefit in disadvantaged populations is largely unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of literacy-adapted and simplified group CBT versus group pain education (EDU) versus usual care. Design: Randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01967342) Setting: Community health centers serving low-income patients in Alabama. Patients: Adults (aged 19 to 71 years) with mixed chronic pain. Interventions: CBT and EDU delivered in 10 weekly 90-minute group sessions. Measurements: Self-reported, postintervention pain intensity (primary outcome) and physical function and depression (secondary outcomes). Results: 290 participants were enrolled (70.7% of whom were women, 66.9% minority group members, 72.4% at or below the poverty level, and 35.8% reading below the fifth grade level); 241 (83.1%) participated in posttreatment assessments. Linear mixed models included all randomly assigned participants. Members of the CBT and EDU groups had larger decreases in pain intensity scores between baseline and posttreatment than participants receiving usual care (estimated differences in change scores—CBT: −0.80 [95% CI −1.48 to −0.11]; P = 0.022; EDU: −0.57 [CI, −1.04 to −0.10]; P = 0.018). At 6-month follow-up, treatment gains were not maintained in the CBT group but were still present in the EDU group. With regard to physical function, participants in the CBT and EDU interventions had greater posttreatment improvement than those receiving usual care, and this progress was maintained at 6-month follow-up. Changes in depression (secondary outcome) did not differ between either the CBT or EDU group and the usual care group. Limitations: Participants represented a single health care system. Self-selection bias may have been present. Conclusion: Simplified group CBT and EDU interventions delivered at low-income clinics significantly improved pain and physical function compared with usual care. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Early Referral to Physical Therapy: A Reasonable Choice for Primary Care Patients With Sciatica

Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension in the Primary Care Setting

Description: In January 2020, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the primary care setting. Methods: The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature from 15 December 2013 to 25 March 2019 and developed and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Recommendations: This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in several key areas: the measurement of blood pressure, the definition of hypertension, target treatment goals, and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment of essential and resistant hypertension.

Clinical Information Search