Pilot study evaluating a brief mindfulness intervention for those with chronic pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The burden of chronic pain is a major challenge, impacting the quality of life of patients. Intensive programmes of mindfulness-based therapy can help patients to cope with chronic pain but can be time consuming and require a trained specialist to implement. The self-management model of care is now integral to the care of patients with chronic pain; home-based interventions can be very acceptable, making a compelling argument for investigating brief, self-management interventions. The aim of this study is two-fold: to assess the immediate effects of a brief self-help mindfulness intervention for coping with chronic pain and to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of such an intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled pilot study will be conducted to evaluate a brief mindfulness intervention for those with chronic pain. Ninety chronic pain patients who attend hospital outpatient clinics will be recruited and allocated randomly to either the control or treatment group on a 1:1 basis using the computer-generated list of random numbers. The treatment group receives mindfulness audios and the control group receives audios of readings from a non-fiction book, all of which are 15 minutes in length. Immediate effects of the intervention are assessed with brief psychological measures immediately before and after audio use. Mindfulness, mood, health-related quality of life, pain catastrophizing and experience of the intervention are assessed with standardized measures, brief ratings and brief telephone follow-ups, at baseline and after one week and one month. Feasibility is assessed by estimation of effect sizes for outcomes, patient adherence and experience, and appraisal of resource allocation in provision of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess whether a brief mindfulness-based intervention is effective for immediately reducing perceived distress and pain with the side effect of increasing relaxation in chronic pain patients and will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomized controlled trial. Patient recruitment began in January 2015 and is due to be completed in June 2016. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN61538090 Registered 20 April 2015

Identifying neuropathic back and leg pain: a cross-sectional study

Low back pain is a widespread debilitating problem with a lifetime prevalence of 80%, with the underlying pain mechanism unknown in approximately 90% of cases. We used the painDETECT neuropathic pain screening questionnaire to identify likely pain mechanisms in 343 patients with low back pain with or without leg pain in southeastern England referred for physiotherapy. We related the identified possible pain mechanisms nociceptive, unclear, and neuropathic to standardised measures of pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale), disability (Roland Morris Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and quality of life (Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire Version 2). In addition, we investigated any relationship between these possible pain mechanisms and leg pain, passive straight leg raise, and magnetic resonance imaging evidence confirming or eliminating nerve root compression. A total of 59% of participants (n=204) reported likely nociceptive pain, 25% (n=85) unclear, and 16% (n=54) possible neuropathic pain. The possible neuropathic pain group reported significantly higher pain, disability, anxiety, and depression, reduced quality of life and passive straight leg raise compared to the other pain groups (P<.05). A total of 96% of participants with possible neuropathic pain reported pain radiating to the leg (76% below the knee); however, leg pain was still more common in patients with nociceptive pain, suggesting that leg pain is sensitive to, but not specific to, possible neuropathic pain. No relationship was demonstrated between possible neuropathic pain and evidence for or absence of nerve root compression on magnetic resonance imaging scans. These findings suggest possible neuropathic pain is less common in low back pain patients referred through primary care and clarifies the usefulness of clinical tests for identifying possible neuropathic pain. Sixteen percent of participants reported neuropathic pain causing significantly higher pain levels, disability scores, anxiety and depression levels, lesser quality of life, and reduced passive straight leg raise

Corticospinal activation of internal oblique muscles has a strong ipsilateral component and can be lateralised in man

Trunk muscles receive corticospinal innervation ipsilaterally and contralaterally and here we investigate the degree of ipsilateral innervation and any cortical asymmetry in pairs of trunk muscles and proximal and distal limb muscles. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied to left and right motor cortices in turn and bilateral electromyographic (EMG) recordings were made from internal oblique (IO; lower abdominal), deltoid (D; shoulder) and first dorsal interosseus (1DI; hand) muscles during voluntary contraction in ten healthy subjects. We used a 7-cm figure-of-eight stimulating coil located 2 cm lateral and 2 cm anterior to the vertex over either cortex. Incidence of ipsilateral motor evoked potentials (MEPs) was 85% in IO, 40% in D and 35% in 1DI. Mean (+/- S.E.M.) ipsilateral MEP latencies were longer ( P<0.05; paired t-test) than contralateral MEP latencies (contralateral vs. ipsilateral; IO: 16.1+/-0.4 ms vs. 19.0+/-0.5 ms; D: 9.7+/-0.3 ms vs. 15.1+/-1.9 ms; 1DI: 18.3+/-0.6 ms vs. 23.3+/-1.4 ms), suggesting that ipsilateral MEPs were not a result of interhemispheric current spread. Where data were available, we calculated a ratio (ipsilateral MEP areas/contralateral MEP areas) for a given muscle (IO: n=16; D: n=8; 1DI: n=7 ratios). Mean values for these ratios were 0.70+/-0.20 (IO), 0.14+/-0.05 (D) and 0.08+/-0.02 (1DI), revealing stronger ipsilateral drive to IO. Comparisons of the sizes of these ratios revealed a bias towards one cortex or the other (four subjects right; three subjects left). The predominant cortex showed a mean ratio of 1.21+/-0.38 compared with 0.26+/-0.06 in the other cortex ( P<0.05). It appears that the corticospinal control of IO has a strong ipsilateral component relative to the limb muscles and also shows hemispheric asymmetry

Reflex control of ipsilateral and contralateral paraspinal muscles

Homonymous and heteronymous reflex connections of the paraspinal muscles were investigated by the application of a tap to the muscle bellies of the lumbar multifidus and iliocostalis lumborum muscles and observation of surface electromyographic responses in the same muscles on both sides of the trunk. Reflexes were evoked in each of the homonymous muscles with latencies and estimated conduction velocities compatible with being evoked by Ia muscle afferents and having a monosynaptic component. Short latency heteronymous excitatory reflex connections were observed in muscles on the ipsilateral side, whilst reflex responses in the contralateral muscles were inhibitory in response to the same stimulus. The latencies of the crossed responses were on average 9.1 ms longer than the ipsilateral excitatory responses. These results are in contrast to the crossed excitatory responses observed between the abdominal muscles and trapezius muscles on the opposite aspect of the trunk. Such a difference in the reflex pathways between these two groups of trunk muscles compliments the different anatomical arrangement of the muscle groups and suggests a contribution to their commonly observed activation patterns