In a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, the authors found that when they worked with chronic back pain patients from a psychological position, it seemed to help. ~ Dr. Broussard
Pain Reprocessing Therapy vs Placebo and Usual Care for Chronic Back Pain
Published in Primary Care
Journal Scan / Research · February 28, 2022
JAMA Psychiatry
TAKE-HOME MESSAGE
- This randomized clinical trial with a 1-year follow-up period with longitudinal fMRI and clinical assessment evaluated whether pain reprocessing therapy (PRT) provided substantial and durable pain relief in patients with chronic back pain compared with placebo and usual care. Significant differences in pain were observed among the groups, with mean pain scores of 1.18, 2.84, and 3.13 in the PRT, placebo, and usual care groups, respectively (P < .001). After the treatment, a greater percentage of participants in the PRT group were pain-free than of those in the placebo and usual care groups. Longitudinal fMRI demonstrated a change in the brain activity of participants in the PRT group, indicating a reconceptualization of pain perception.
- This study suggests that psychological treatment focused on changing patients’ perception about pain may produce durable pain relief for patients with chronic back pain.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE
Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability, and treatment is often ineffective. Approximately 85% of cases are primary CBP, for which peripheral etiology cannot be identified, and maintenance factors include fear, avoidance, and beliefs that pain indicates injury.
OBJECTIVE
To test whether a psychological treatment (pain reprocessing therapy [PRT]) aiming to shift patients’ beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain provides substantial and durable pain relief from primary CBP and to investigate treatment mechanisms.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This randomized clinical trial with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and 1-year follow-up assessment was conducted in a university research setting from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Clinical and fMRI data were analyzed from January 2019 to August 2020. The study compared PRT with an open-label placebo treatment and with usual care in a community sample.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants randomized to PRT participated in 1 telehealth session with a physician and 8 psychological treatment sessions over 4 weeks. Treatment aimed to help patients reconceptualize their pain as due to nondangerous brain activity rather than peripheral tissue injury, using a combination of cognitive, somatic, and exposure-based techniques. Participants randomized to placebo received an open-label subcutaneous saline injection in the back; participants randomized to usual care continued their routine, ongoing care.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
One-week mean back pain intensity score (0 to 10) at posttreatment, pain beliefs, and fMRI measures of evoked pain and resting connectivity.
RESULTS
At baseline, 151 adults (54% female; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [15.6] years) reported mean (SD) pain of low to moderate severity (mean [SD] pain intensity, 4.10 [1.26] of 10; mean [SD] disability, 23.34 [10.12] of 100) and mean (SD) pain duration of 10.0 (8.9) years. Large group differences in pain were observed at posttreatment, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.18 (1.24) in the PRT group, 2.84 (1.64) in the placebo group, and 3.13 (1.45) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -1.14 for PRT vs placebo and -1.74 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001). Of 151 total participants, 33 of 50 participants (66%) randomized to PRT were pain-free or nearly pain-free at posttreatment (reporting a pain intensity score of 0 or 1 of 10), compared with 10 of 51 participants (20%) randomized to placebo and 5 of 50 participants (10%) randomized to usual care. Treatment effects were maintained at 1-year follow-up, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.51 (1.59) in the PRT group, 2.79 (1.78) in the placebo group, and 3.00 (1.77) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -0.70 for PRT vs placebo (P = .001) and -1.05 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001) at 1-year follow-up. Longitudinal fMRI showed (1) reduced responses to evoked back pain in the anterior midcingulate and the anterior prefrontal cortex for PRT vs placebo; (2) reduced responses in the anterior insula for PRT vs usual care; (3) increased resting connectivity from the anterior prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula to the primary somatosensory cortex for PRT vs both control groups; and (4) increased connectivity from the anterior midcingulate to the precuneus for PRT vs usual care.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Psychological treatment centered on changing patients’ beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain may provide substantial and durable pain relief for people with CBP.