CAM therapies among primary care patients using opioid therapy for chronic pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is an increasingly common therapy used to treat chronic pain syndromes. However; there is limited information on the utilization and efficacy of CAM therapy in primary care patients receiving long-term opioid therapy.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A survey of CAM therapy was conducted with a systematic sample of 908 primary care patients receiving opioids as a primary treatment method for chronic pain. Subjects completed a questionnaire designed to assess utilization, efficacy and costs of CAM therapies in this population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients were treated for a variety of pain problems including low back pain (38.4%), headaches (9.9%), and knee pain (6.5%); the average duration of pain was 16 years. The median morphine equivalent opioid dose was 41 mg/day, and the mean dose was 92 mg/day. Forty-four percent of the sample reported CAM therapy use in the past 12 months. Therapies utilized included massage therapy (27.3%, n = 248), chiropractic treatment (17.8%, n = 162), acupuncture (7.6%, n = 69), yoga (6.1%, n = 55), herbs and supplements (6.8%, n = 62), and prolotherapy (5.9%, n = 54). CAM utilization was significantly related to age female gender, pain severity income pain diagnosis of neck and upper back pain, and illicit drug use. Medical insurance covered chiropractic treatment (81.8%) and prolotherapy (87.7%), whereas patients primarily paid for other CAM therapies. Over half the sample reported that one or more of the CAM therapies were helpful.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study suggests CAM therapy is widely used by patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. Whether opioids can be reduced by introducing such therapies remains to be studied.</p

Response of Knee Ligaments to Prolotherapy in a Rat Injury Model

Background Prolotherapy is an alternative therapy for chronic musculoskeletal injury including joint laxity. The commonly used injectant, D-glucose (dextrose), is hypothesized to improve ligament mechanics and decrease pain through an inflammatory mechanism. No study has investigated the mechanical effects of prolotherapy on stretch-injured ligaments. Hypotheses Dextrose injections will enlarge cross-sectional area, decrease laxity, strengthen, and stiffen stretch-injured medial collateral ligaments (MCLs) compared with controls. Dextrose prolotherapy will increase collagen fibril diameter and density of stretch-injured MCLs. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Twenty-four rats were bilaterally MCL stretch-injured, and the induced laxity was measured. After 2 weeks, 32 MCLs Were injected twice, 1 week apart, with either dextrose or saline control; 16 MCLs received no injection. Seven uninjured rats (14 MCLs) were additional controls. Two weeks after the second injection, ligament laxity, mechanical properties (n = 8), and collagen fibril diameter and density (n = 3) were assessed. Results The injury model created consistent ligament laxity ( P < .05) that was not altered by dextrose injections. Cross-sectional area of dextrose-injected MCLs was increased 30% and 90% compared with saline and uninjured controls, respectively ( P < .05). Collagen fibril diameter and density were decreased in injured ligaments compared with uninjured controls ( P < .05), but collagen fibril characteristics were not different between injured groups. Conclusion Dextrose injections increased the cross-sectional area of MCLs compared with saline-injected and uninjured controls. Dextrose injections did not alter other measured properties in this model. Clinical Relevance Our results suggest that clinical improvement from prolotherapy may not result from direct effects on ligament biomechanics