Chronic pain may alter both affect- and value-related behaviors, which represents a potentially treatable aspect of chronic pain experience. Current understanding of how chronic pain influences the function of brain reward systems, however, is limited. Using a monetary incentive delay task and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we measured neural correlates of reward anticipation and outcomes in female participants with the chronic pain condition of fibromyalgia (N = 17) and age-matched, pain-free, female controls (N = 15). We hypothesized that patients would demonstrate lower positive arousal, as well as altered reward anticipation and outcome activity within corticostriatal circuits implicated in reward processing. Patients demonstrated lower arousal ratings as compared with controls, but no group differences were observed for valence, positive arousal, or negative arousal ratings. Group fMRI analyses were conducted to determine predetermined region of interest, nucleus accumbens (NAcc) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), responses to potential gains, potential losses, reward outcomes, and punishment outcomes. Compared with controls, patients demonstrated similar, although slightly reduced, NAcc activity during gain anticipation. Conversely, patients demonstrated dramatically reduced mPFC activity during gain anticipation-possibly related to lower estimated reward probabilities. Further, patients demonstrated normal mPFC activity to reward outcomes, but dramatically heightened mPFC activity to no-loss (nonpunishment) outcomes. In parallel to NAcc and mPFC responses, patients demonstrated slightly reduced activity during reward anticipation in other brain regions, which included the ventral tegmental area, anterior cingulate cortex, and anterior insular cortex. Together, these results implicate altered corticostriatal processing of monetary rewards in chronic pain.

Neuroimaging research has demonstrated definitive involvement of the central nervous system in the development, maintenance, and experience of chronic pain. Structural and functional neuroimaging has helped elucidate central nervous system contributors to chronic pain in humans. Neuroimaging of pain has provided a tool for increasing our understanding of how pharmacologic and psychologic therapies improve chronic pain. To date, findings from neuroimaging pain research have benefitted clinical practice by providing clinicians with an educational framework to discuss the biopsychosocial nature of pain with patients. Future advances in neuroimaging-based therapeutics (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation, real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback) may provide additional benefits for clinical practice. In the future, with standardization and validation, brain imaging could provide objective biomarkers of chronic pain, and guide treatment for personalized pain management. Similarly, brain-based biomarkers may provide an additional predictor of perioperative prognoses.

PURPOSE: A key component to chronic pain management regimens is the use of analgesic medications. Psychological factors, such as mood states, may also affect the use of pain medications for individuals with chronic pain, but few observational studies have examined how these factors may predict pain medication use at the daily level. METHODS: Daily assessments from 104 individuals with back pain were used to examine fluctuations in daily pain intensity, mood, sleep quality, and physical activity as predictors of the likelihood of pain medication (opioid and non-opioid) use and levels of medication use on the same day. RESULTS: Pain intensity and mood ratings significantly predicted whether participants used pain medication on the same day, while only pain intensity predicted whether participants used more medication than usual. Further, current opioid users were more likely to increase the amount of their medication use on days of higher pain. DISCUSSION: This article identifies fluctuations in daily pain intensity and mood as salient predictors of daily pain medication use in individuals with recurrent back pain. The current study is among the first to highlight both pain and mood states as predictors of daily pain medication use in individuals with back pain, though future studies may expand on these findings through the use of higher-resolution daily medication use variables.

PURPOSE: Although many factors have been proposed to trigger symptom exacerbations (flares) in patients with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, few studies have investigated these factors empirically. Therefore, we embedded a case-crossover study in the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain longitudinal study to evaluate a range of patient reported triggers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed exposure to proposed triggers, including diet, physical activities, sedentary behaviors, stress, sexual activities, infection-like symptoms and allergies, by questionnaire a maximum of 3 times when participants reported flares and at 3 randomly selected times. We compared participant preflare to nonflare exposures by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: In our full analytical sample of 292 participants only 2 factors, including recent sexual activity (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.06-1.96) and urinary tract infection symptoms (OR 3.39, 95% CI 2.02-5.68), which may overlap with those of flares, were associated with flare onset. On subanalyses restricted to flares with specific suspected triggers additional positive associations were observed for some factors such as certain dietary factors, abdominal muscle exercises, and vaginal infection-like symptoms and fever, but not for other factors (eg stress). CONCLUSIONS: Except for sexual activity our findings suggest that patient reported triggers may be individual or group specific, or they may not contribute to flares. These findings suggest caution in following rigid, global flare prevention strategies and support additional research to develop evidence-based strategies.

OBJECTIVE: Perceived injustice (PI) has been identified as an important risk factor for pain-related outcomes. To date, research has shown that pain acceptance and anger are mediators of the association between PI and pain-related outcomes. However, a combined conceptual model that addresses the interrelationships between these variables is currently lacking. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the potential mediating roles of pain acceptance and anger on the association between PI and adverse pain-related outcomes (physical function, pain intensity, opioid use status). MATERIALS AND METHOD: This cross-sectional study used a sample of 354 patients with chronic pain being treated at a tertiary pain treatment center. Participants completed measures of PI, pain acceptance, anger, physical function, pain intensity, and opioid use status. Mediation analyses were used to examine the impact of pain acceptance and anger on the association between PI and pain-related outcomes. RESULTS: Examination of the specific indirect effects revealed that pain acceptance fully mediated the relationship between PI and physical function, as well as the relationship between PI and opioid use status. Pain acceptance emerged as a partial mediator of the relationship between PI and pain intensity. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to provide a combined conceptual model investigating the mediating roles of pain acceptance and anger on the relationship between PI and pain outcomes. On the basis of our findings, low levels of pain acceptance associated with PI may help explain the association between PI and adverse pain outcomes. Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported that chronic pain affects about 100 million U.S. adults, with chronic low back pain (CLBP) cited as the most prevalent type. Pain catastrophizing is a psychological construct shown to predict the development and trajectory of chronic pain and patient response to pain treatments. While effective treatment for pain catastrophizing typically includes eight-session groups of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a single-session targeted treatment class yielded promising results which, if replicated and extended, could prove to efficiently and cost-effectively reduce pain catastrophizing. In this trial, we seek to determine the comparative efficacy of this novel single-session pain catastrophizing class to an eight-session course of pain CBT and a single-session back pain health education class. We will also explore the psychosocial mechanisms and outcomes of pain catastrophizing treatment. METHODS: In this trial we will randomize 231 individuals with CLBP to one of three treatment arms: (1) pain-CBT (eight weekly 2-h group sessions with home exercises and readings); (2) a single 2-h pain catastrophizing class; or (3) a single 2-h back pain health education class (active control). For the primary outcome of pain catastrophizing, the trial is designed as a non-inferiority test between pain-CBT and the single-session pain catastrophizing class, and as a superiority test between the single-session pain catastrophizing class and the health education class. Team researchers masked to treatment assignment will assess outcomes up to six months post treatment. DISCUSSION: If the single-session targeted pain catastrophizing class is found to be an effective treatment for patients with CLBP, this low cost and low burden treatment could dismantle many of the current barriers and burdens of effective pain care. Further, elucidation of the mechanisms of pain catastrophizing treatments will facilitate future research on the topic as well as further development and refinement of treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03167086 . Registered on 22 May 2017.

INTRODUCTION: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), a rare and severe chronic pain condition, often responds poorly to existing treatments. Previous studies demonstrated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) provided short-term pain relief for upper extremity CRPS. METHODS: Building on previous methodologies, we employed a TMS protocol that may lead to significant pain relief for upper and lower extremity CRPS in a nonrandomized open label pilot trial involving 21 participants. We individualized TMS coil positioning over motor cortex of somatic pain location, and administered intermittent theta-burst stimulation followed by 10 Hz high-frequency stimulation using a deeper targeting coil. We assessed response (\$\geq\$30% pain reduction) from a single session (n = 5) and five consecutive daily sessions (n = 12) and compared change in pain from baseline, after one treatment and one-week posttreatment between groups using a mixed ANVOA. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated significant pain reduction after one session and one-week posttreatment; however, no group differences were present. From a single session, 60% of participants responded at Week 1. From five sessions, 58% and 50% of participants responded at Weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Two from each group achieved \textgreater50% pain reduction beyond six to eight weeks. No serious adverse events occurred. Though headache and nausea were the most common side-effects, we urge careful monitoring to prevent seizures with this protocol. CONCLUSIONS: We used a TMS protocol that, for the first time, led to significant pain relief in upper and lower extremity CRPS, and will soon examine our protocol in a larger, controlled trial.

Background: “The ongoing opioid crisis lies at the intersection of two substantial public health challenges-reducing the burden of suffering from pain and containing the rising toll of the harms that can result from the use of opioid medications” [1]. Improved pain education for health care providers is an essential component of the multidimensional response to both still-unmet challenges [2,3]. Despite the importance of licensing examinations in assuring competency in health care providers, there has been no prior appraisal of pain and related content within the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Methods: An expert panel developed a novel methodology for characterizing USMLE questions based on pain core competencies and topical and public health relevance. Results: Under secure conditions, raters used this methodology to score 1,506 questions, with 28.7% (432) identified as including the word “pain.” Of these, 232 questions (15.4% of the 1,506 USMLE questions reviewed) were assessed as being fully or partially related to pain, rather than just mentioning pain but not testing knowledge of its mechanisms and their implications for treatment. The large majority of questions related to pain (88%) focused on assessment rather than safe and effective pain management, or the context of pain. Conclusions: This emphasis on assessment misses other important aspects of safe and effective pain management, including those specific to opioid safety. Our findings inform ways to improve the long-term education of our medical and other graduates, thereby improving the health care of the populations they serve.

Importance: Guidelines recommend using gabapentin to decrease postoperative pain and opioid use, but significant variation exists in clinical practice. Objective: To determine the effect of perioperative gabapentin on remote postoperative time to pain resolution and opioid cessation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of perioperative gabapentin was conducted at a single-center, tertiary referral teaching hospital. A total of 1805 patients aged 18 to 75 years scheduled for surgery (thoracotomy, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, total hip replacement, total knee replacement, mastectomy, breast lumpectomy, hand surgery, carpal tunnel surgery, knee arthroscopy, shoulder arthroplasty, and shoulder arthroscopy) were screened. Participants were enrolled from May 25, 2010, to July 25, 2014, and followed up for 2 years postoperatively. Intention-to-treat analysis was used in evaluation of the findings. Interventions: Gabapentin, 1200 mg, preoperatively and 600 mg, 3 times a day postoperatively or active placebo (lorazepam, 0.5 mg) preoperatively followed by inactive placebo postoperatively for 72 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to pain resolution (5 consecutive reports of 0 of 10 possible levels of average pain at the surgical site on the numeric rating scale of pain). Secondary outcomes were time to opioid cessation (5 consecutive reports of no opioid use) and the proportion of participants with continued pain or opioid use at 6 months and 1 year. Results: Of 1805 patients screened for enrollment, 1383 were excluded, including 926 who did not meet inclusion criteria and 273 who declined to participate. Overall, 8% of patients randomized were lost to follow-up. A total of 202 patients were randomized to active placebo and 208 patients were randomized to gabapentin in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [11.7] years; 256 (62.4%) women and 154 (37.6%) men). Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. Perioperative gabapentin did not affect time to pain cessation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.33; P = .73) in the intention-to-treat analysis. However, participants receiving gabapentin had a 24% increase in the rate of opioid cessation after surgery (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00-1.54; P = .05). No significant differences were noted in the number of adverse events as well as the rate of medication discontinuation due to sedation or dizziness (placebo, 42 of 202 [20.8%]; gabapentin, 52 of 208 [25.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Perioperative administration of gabapentin had no effect on postoperative pain resolution, but it had a modest effect on promoting opioid cessation after surgery. The routine use of perioperative gabapentin may be warranted to promote opioid cessation and prevent chronic opioid use. Optimal dosing and timing of perioperative gabapentin in the context of specific operations to decrease opioid use should be addressed in further research. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01067144.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most common chronic pain condition and is often resistant to conventional treatments. Acupuncture is a popular alternative for treating CLBP but its mechanisms of action remain poorly understood. Evidence suggests that pain regulatory mechanisms (particularly the ascending and secondarily the descending pain modulatory pathways) and psychological mechanisms (e.g., expectations, pain catastrophizing and self-efficacy) may be involved in the pathogenesis of CLBP and its response to treatments. We will examine these mechanisms in the treatment of CLBP by electroacupuncture (EA). METHODS: We present the aims and methods of a placebo-controlled, participant-blinded and assessor-blinded mechanistic study. Adult patients with CLBP will be randomized to receiving 16 sessions of real (active) or sham (placebo) EA over the course of 8 weeks. The primary pain regulatory measure for which the study was powered is temporal summation (TS), which approximates ascending pain facilitation. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM), representing a descending pain modulatory pathway, will be our secondary pain regulatory measure. The primary psychological measure is expectations of benefit, and the secondary psychological measures are pain catastrophizing and self-efficacy in managing pain. Main clinical outcomes are back pain bothersomeness on a 0-100 visual analog scale (primary), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (secondary), and relevant items from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System (secondary). We hypothesize that compared to sham, real EA will lead to greater reduction in TS after 8 treatment sessions (4 weeks); and that reduction in TS (and secondarily, increase in CPM) after 8 treatment sessions will mediate reduction in back pain bothersomeness from baseline to week 10 (clinical response) to EA. We also hypothesize that the three psychological factors are moderators of clinical response. With 100 treatment completers, the study is designed to have 80% power to detect a medium-sized between-group effect (d = 0.5) on temporal summation. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first appropriately powered, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating mechanisms of EA in the treatment of CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02503475 . Registered on 15 July 15 2015. Retrospectively registered.