Analgesic Management of Pain in Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review

Objective: To identify the prevalence, frequency of use, and effects of analgesic pain management strategies used in elite athletes. Design: Systematic literature review. Data Sources: Six databases: Ovid/Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Empirical studies involving elite athletes and focused on the use or effects of medications used for pain or painful injury. Studies involving recreational sportspeople or those that undertake general exercise were excluded. Main Results: Of 70 articles found, the majority examined the frequency with which elite athletes use pain medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, anesthetics, and opioids. A smaller set of studies assessed the effect of medications on outcomes such as pain, function, and adverse effects. Oral NSAIDs are reported to be the most common medication, being used in some international sporting events by over 50% of athletes. Studies examining the effects of pain medications on elite athletes typically involved small samples and lacked control groups against which treated athletes were compared. Conclusions: Existing empirical research does not provide a sufficient body of evidence to guide athletes and healthcare professionals in making analgesic medication treatment decisions. Based on the relatively robust evidence regarding the widespread use of NSAIDs, clinicians and policymakers should carefully assess their current recommendations for NSAID use and adhere to a more unified consensus-based strategy for multidisciplinary pain management in elite athletes. In the future, we hope to see more rigorous, prospective studies of various pain management strategies in elite athletes, thus enabling a shift from consensus-based recommendations to evidence-based recommendations

An Analysis of Primary Care Clinician Communication About Risk, Benefits, and Goals Related to Chronic Opioid Therapy

Background. Safe opioid prescribing and effective pain care are particularly important issues in the United States, where decades of widespread opioid prescribing have contributed to high rates of opioid use disorder. Because of the importance of clinician-patient communication in effective pain care and recent initiatives to curb rising opioid overdose deaths, this study sought to understand how clinicians and patients communicate about the risks, benefits, and goals of opioid therapy during primary care visits. Methods. We recruited clinicians and patients from six primary care clinics across three health systems in the Midwest United States. We audio-recorded 30 unique patients currently receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain from 12 clinicians. We systematically analyzed transcribed, clinic visits to identify emergent themes. Results. Twenty of the 30 patient participants were females. Several patients had multiple pain diagnoses, with the most common diagnoses being osteoarthritis (n = 10), spondylosis (n = 6), and low back pain (n = 5). We identified five themes: 1) communication about individual-level and population-level risks, 2) communication about policies or clinical guidelines related to opioids, 3) communication about the limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain conditions, 4) communication about nonopioid therapies for chronic pain, and 5) communication about the goal of the opioid tapering. Conclusions. Clinicians discuss opioid-related risks in varying ways during patient visits, which may differentially affect patient experiences. Our findings may inform the development and use of more standardized approaches to discussing opioids during primary care visits

Comparative effectiveness of dual-action versus single-action antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people living with HIV/AIDS

Background Depression is the most common psychiatric comorbidity among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Little is known about the comparative effectiveness between different types of antidepressants used to treat depression in this population. We compared the effectiveness of dual-action and single-action antidepressants in PLWHA for achieving remission from depression. Methods We used data from the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinic Systems to identify 1175 new user dual-action or single-action antidepressant treatment episodes occurring from 2005 to 2014 for PLWHA diagnosed with depression. The primary outcome was remission from depression defined as a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score <5. Mean difference in PHQ-9 depressive symptom severity was a secondary outcome. The main approach was an intent-to-treat (ITT) evaluation complemented with a per protocol (PP) sensitivity analysis. Generalized linear models were fitted to estimate treatment effects. Results In ITT analysis, 32% of the episodes ended in remission for both dual-action and single-action antidepressants. The odds ratio (OR) of remission was 1.02 (95%CI=0.63,1.67). In PP analysis, 40% of dual-action episodes ended in remission compared to 32% in single-action episodes. Dual-action episodes had 1.33 times the odds of remission (95%CI=0.55,3.21), however the result was not statistically significant. Non-significant differences were also observed for depressive symptom severity. Limitations Missing data was common but was addressed with inverse probability weights. Conclusions Results suggest that single-action and dual-action antidepressants are equally effective in PLWHA. Remission was uncommon highlighting the need to identify health service delivery strategies that aid HIV providers in achieving full remission of their patients’ depression

Information Needs and Requirements for Decision Support in Primary Care: An Analysis of Chronic Pain Care

Decision support system designs often do not align with the information environments in which clinicians work. These work environments may increase Clinicians’ cognitive workload and harm their decision making. The objective of this study was to identify information needs and decision support requirements for assessing, diagnosing, and treating chronic noncancer pain in primary care. We conducted a qualitative study involving 30 interviews with 10 primary care clinicians and a subsequent multidisciplinary systems design workshop. Our analysis identified four key decision requirements, eight clinical information needs, and four decision support design seeds. Our findings indicate that clinicians caring for chronic pain need decision support that aggregates many disparate information elements and helps them navigate and contextualize that information. By attending to the needs identified in this study, decision support designers may improve Clinicians’ efficiency, reduce mental workload, and positively affect patient care quality and outcomes

The Prospective Study of Epigenetic Regulatory Profiles in Sport and Exercise Monitored Through Chromosome Conformation Signatures

The integration of genetic and environmental factors that regulate the gene expression patterns associated with exercise adaptation is mediated by epigenetic mechanisms. The organisation of the human genome within three-dimensional space, known as chromosome conformation, has recently been shown as a dynamic epigenetic regulator of gene expression, facilitating the interaction of distal genomic regions due to tight and regulated packaging of chromosomes in the cell nucleus. Technological advances in the study of chromosome conformation mean a new class of biomarker—the chromosome conformation signature (CCS)—can identify chromosomal interactions across several genomic loci as a collective marker of an epigenomic state. Investigative use of CCSs in biological and medical research shows promise in identifying the likelihood that a disease state is present or absent, as well as an ability to prospectively stratify individuals according to their likely response to medical intervention. The association of CCSs with gene expression patterns suggests that there are likely to be CCSs that respond, or regulate the response, to exercise and related stimuli. The present review provides a contextual background to CCS research and a theoretical framework discussing the potential uses of this novel epigenomic biomarker within sport and exercise science and medicine

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached$8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval UI] 8.7-8.8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12.3 billion was newly committed and$1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3.1 billion (22.4$2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714.4 million (7.7$1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

How opioid prescribing policies influence primary care clinicians' treatment decisions and conversations with patients with chronic pain

Objective: The 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain aimed to assist primary care clinicians in safely and effectively prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Individual states, payers, and health systems issued similar policies imposing various regulations around opioid prescribing for patients with chronic pain. Experts argued that healthcare organizations and clinicians may be misapplying the federal guideline and subsequent opioid prescribing policies, leading to an inadequate pain management. The objective of this study was to understand how primary care clinicians involve opioid prescribing policies in their treatment decisions and in their conversations with patients with chronic pain. Design: We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of data from 64 unique primary care visits and 87 post-visit interviews across 20 clinicians from three healthcare systems in the Midwestern United States. Using a multistep process and thematic analysis, we systematically analyzed data excerpts addressing opioid prescribing policies. Results: Opioid prescribing policies influenced clinicians' treatment decisions to not initiate opioids, prescribe fewer opioids overall (theme #1), and begin tapering and discontinuation of opioids (theme #2) for most patients with chronic pain. Clinical precautions, described in the opioid prescribing policies to monitor use, were directly invoked during visits for patients with chronic pain (theme #3). Conclusions: Opioid prescribing policies have multidimensional influence on clinician treatment decisions for patients with chronic pain. Our findings may inform future studies to explore mechanisms for aligning pressures around opioid prescribing, stemming from various opioid prescribing policies, with the need to deliver individualized pain care

Practice and market factors associated with provider volume of health information exchange

Objective: To assess the practice- and market-level factors associated with the amount of provider health information exchange (HIE) use. Materials and methods: Provider and practice-level data was drawn from the Meaningful Use Stage 2 Public Use Files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Physician Compare National Downloadable File, and the Compendium of US Health Systems, among other sources. We analyzed the relationship between provider HIE use and practice and market factors using multivariable linear regression and compared primary care providers (PCPs) to non-PCPs. Provider volume of HIE use is measured as the percentage of referrals sent with electronic summaries of care (eSCR) reported by eligible providers attesting to the Meaningful Use electronic health record (EHR) incentive program in 2016. Results: Providers used HIE in 49% of referrals; PCPs used HIE in fewer referrals (43%) than non-PCPs (57%). Provider use of products from EHR vendors was negatively related to HIE use, while use of Athenahealth and Greenway Health products were positively related to HIE use. Providers treating, on average, older patients and greater proportions of patients with diabetes used HIE for more referrals. Health system membership, market concentration, and state HIE consent policy were unrelated to provider HIE use. Discussion: HIE use during referrals is low among office-based providers with the capability for exchange, especially PCPs. Practice-level factors were more commonly associated with greater levels of HIE use than market-level factors. Conclusion: This furthers the understanding that market forces, like competition, may be related to HIE adoption decisions but are less important for use once adoption has occurred