RESUMEN

Introduction: Chronic pain is common after traumatic brain injury (TBI), frequently limits daily activities, and is associated with negative outcomes such as decreased community participation. Despite the negative impact of chronic pain, few people with TBI receive effective treatment. This paper describes a collaborative care (CC) intervention, TBI Care, adapted specifically to treat chronic pain in people living with TBI, emphasizing expert clinician input, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques, and other non-pharmacological approaches for decreasing pain interference. Methods: 79 participants engaged in the CC intervention from two academic medical rehabilitation clinics with weekly assessments of pain intensity, interference, and medication use. Participant feedback on the intervention was gathered by interview with the care manager (CM) at the last treatment session and/or booster session. Provider feedback was gathered by a confidential survey post intervention. Results: Ninety percent of participants received at least 11 of the target 12 sessions with a care manager (CM), the majority occurring over the phone. Participants endorsed an average of 7 pain locations. All participants received pain education, skills in self-monitoring, goal setting/behavioral activation and relaxation training. Pain interference scores (impact on activity and enjoyment), tracked weekly by the CM, significantly decreased across sessions. 89% of participants received recommendations for CBT skills, 65% received referrals for additional treatments targeting pain interference, and 43% received care coordination. 75% of participants reported 6 or more medications/supplements at both the first and last session, with changes recommended primarily for headache treatment. Feedback from participants and providers was positive. Discussion: TBI Care, a novel patient-centered CC approach, was flexibly delivered, tailored to the needs of those living with TBI and chronic pain, with a high level of participant engagement, and satisfaction among participants and providers. This approach, prioritizing pain self-management strategies and other non-pharmacological approaches, along with optimizing pharmacological treatment, led to significant reductions in self-reported pain interference and intensity during the intervention. Using a CC model in TBI is feasible and successfully improved access to evidence-based treatments for chronic pain as well as outcomes for pain interference and intensity. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03523923.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Our primary outcome was to determine the feasibility of patients with post-traumatic headache (PTH) keeping a daily headache diary and using sumatriptan as directed. Secondary outcomes include determining if sumatriptan is effective in aborting PTH and whether headache resolution is dependent on PTH phenotype. BACKGROUND: PTH is prevalent and persistent after traumatic brain injury, yet there have been few studies evaluating the effects of pharmacological treatments in individuals with PTH. METHODS: This is a single-arm, prospective, non-randomized phase 2 clinical trial registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01854385) and conducted from 2013 to 2017. Data analysis was completed in 2022. Of the 299 participants screened, 40 were enrolled in the study. Participants kept a headache diary documenting headache characteristics and severity. Headache characteristics were used to determine PTH phenotypes of migraine-like, probable migraine-like, or non-migraine-like. Participants reported whether sumatriptan was used for their headache, their response to the medication, if a second dose was taken, and their response to the second dose. RESULTS: A total of 15 participants out of the 40 enrolled (mean [SD] age, 41.9 [14.2] years, and 53% [21/40] male), met the criteria for the use of sumatriptan, and completed all assessments. Average headache diary compliance rate for the final month of the study was 80% (372/465). While sumatriptan was used for only 19% (122/654) of all reported headaches, 72% (88/122) of those headaches resolved within 2 h of taking the medication. Resolution of headaches with sumatriptan was not significantly different among headache phenotypes (migraine-like: 22/38 [58%], probable migraine-like: 24/29 [83%], non-migraine-like: 6/15 [40%]; p = 0.154). CONCLUSIONS: A daily headache diary is feasible for tracking headache symptoms. Preliminary results also suggest that sumatriptan, a migraine-specific medication, may be beneficial for the treatment of PTH of different clinical phenotypes. Future studies, such as a phase 3 clinical trial with a larger sample size, are needed to better understand the efficacy of sumatriptan in the treatment of PTH.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 history in a longitudinal cohort of individuals with complicated mild to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and describe demographic, injury and functional differences based on history of COVID-19 infection. DESIGN: Individuals with complicated mild to severe TBI aged 16 or older at time of injury who were enrolled in the TBI Model Systems longitudinal cohort study, completed a baseline or follow-up interview between October 1, 2021-March 31, 2023, and provided information about COVID-19 history and timing of COVID-19 infection was collected. RESULTS: Of the 3,627 individuals included in the analysis, 29.5% reported a history of COVID-19 infection. Those with reported COVID-19 history tended to be younger, not of a racial/ethnic minority background, and greater functional status at follow up based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended scale compared to those with no reported COVID-19 history (p < 0.05). Among those with COVID-19 history, 61.8% did not receive medical care, 27.6% received medical care but no hospitalization, and 10.5% were hospitalized. Of those hospitalized, 21.4% required ventilator use. CONCLUSION: Incidence of COVID-19 diagnosis and related hospitalization characteristics in persons with complicated mild to severe TBI was similar to national incidence between March 2020-2023. Secondary effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on persons with TBI require investigation.

RESUMEN

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a risk factor for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, yet the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms are incompletely understood. This gap in knowledge is in part related to the lack of analytic methods to account for cortical lesions in prior neuroimaging studies. The objective of this study was to develop a lesion detection tool and apply it to an investigation of longitudinal changes in brain structure among individuals with chronic TBI. We identified 24 individuals with chronic moderate-to-severe TBI enrolled in the Late Effects of TBI (LETBI) study who had cortical lesions detected by T1-weighted MRI at two time points. Initial MRI scans were performed more than 1-year post-injury and follow-up scans were performed 3.1 (IQR=1.7) years later. We leveraged FreeSurfer parcellations of T1-weighted MRI volumes and a recently developed super-resolution technique, SynthSR, to identify cortical lesions in this longitudinal dataset. Trained raters received the data in a randomized order and manually corrected the automated lesion segmentation, yielding a final lesion mask for each scan at each timepoint. Lesion volume significantly increased between the two time points with a median volume change of 3.2 (IQR=5.9) mL (p<0.001), and the increases significantly exceeded the possible variance in lesion volume changes due to manual tracing errors (p < 0.001). Lesion volume significantly expanded longitudinally in 23 of 24 subjects, with all FDR corrected p-values ≤ 0.02. Inter-scan duration was not associated with the magnitude of lesion growth. We also demonstrated that the semi-automated tool showed a high level of accuracy compared to "ground truth" manual lesion segmentation. Semi-automated lesion segmentation is feasible in TBI studies and creates opportunities to elucidate mechanisms of post-traumatic neurodegeneration.

RESUMEN

As health care attempts to bridge the gap between evidence and practice, the concept of the learning health system (LHS) is becoming increasingly relevant. LHS integrates evidence with health systems data, driving health care quality and outcomes through updates in policy, practice, and care delivery. In addition, LHS research is becoming critically important as there are several initiatives underway to increase research capacity, expertise, and implementation, including attempts to stimulate increasing numbers of LHS researchers. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians (physiatrists), nurses, therapists (physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, clinical psychologists), and scientists are affiliated with LHSs. As LHS research expands in health care systems, better awareness and understanding of LHSs and LHS research competencies are key for rehabilitation professionals including physiatrists. To address this need, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified 33 core competencies, grouped into eight domains, for training LHS researchers. The domains are: (1) Systems Science; (2) Research Questions and Standards of Scientific Evidence; (3) Research Methods; (4) Informatics; (5) Ethics of Research and Implementation in Health Systems; (6) Improvement and Implementation Science; (7) Engagement, Leadership, and Research Management; and the recently added (8) Health and Healthcare Equity and Justice. The purpose of this commentary is to define LHS and its relevance to physiatrists, present the role of implementation science (IS) in LHSs and application of IS principles to design LHSs, illustrate current LHS research in rehabilitation, and discuss potential solutions to improve awareness and to stimulate interest in LHS research and IS among physiatrists in LHSs.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a serious public health concern due to its high prevalence and potentially debilitating symptoms. Symptoms may include fatigue, dyspnea, cognitive problems, insomnia, anxiety, and depression. There is currently no cure for long COVID, and the average length of recovery and proportion of patients who fully recover are still unknown. Subsequently, there is a critical need to improve function. Research in other chronic conditions suggests that psychosocial self-management interventions reduce symptom severity and interference with functioning. We describe the design of our study to examine the feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and preliminary efficacy of an intervention designed to improve symptom management and coping in adults with long COVID. METHODS: This pilot trial (N = 50) uses a pragmatic, randomized two-group parallel design set within the University of Washington Post-COVID Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic. The self-management intervention is a 6-week, group-based telemedicine intervention that teaches evidence-based strategies to manage common symptoms and improve stress management as well as communication and self-advocacy. The comparator is a wait-list control. Participants complete self-report measures of the primary and secondary outcomes at baseline and post-treatment/wait-list. Primary outcomes include intervention feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. Secondary outcomes include Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures of fatigue, sleep disturbance, cognitive difficulties, self-efficacy, pain interference, depression and anxiety symptoms, and a measure of long COVID symptoms and impression of change. At post-intervention, intervention participants also complete a qualitative interview to inform intervention refinement. Quantitative data will be examined using descriptive and statistical analysis including t-tests and chi-square tests to compare the intervention and wait-list groups on secondary outcomes. Qualitative data will be analyzed using the rigorous and accelerated data reduction technique (RADaR). DISCUSSION: Results of this pilot randomized controlled trial will characterize the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the self-management intervention and inform intervention refinement necessary prior to further testing. Long COVID is a public health concern, and rehabilitation approaches that equip patients to manage symptoms may improve patient function and quality of life and reduce burden on the health care system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05658536. December 16, 2022.

RESUMEN

Importance: Chronic pain after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is prevalent and associated with poor outcomes. By providing multidisciplinary care through expert consultation, a collaborative care (CC) treatment approach may reduce pain interference. Objective: To compare CC with usual care (UC) in decreasing pain interference. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2018 through April 2021 at 2 hospital-based academic rehabilitation medicine clinics in Seattle, Washington. Participants included adults with mild-to-severe TBI (at least 6 months before enrollment) and chronic pain. Data analysis was performed from March 30, 2022, to August 30, 2023. Intervention: The CC intervention (called TBI Care) included up to 12 in-person or telephone visits over 16 weeks with a care manager (CM) who provided person-centered cognitive behavioral treatment. The CM met weekly with members of the expert team to review participants and discuss recommendations to optimize treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain interference on the Brief Pain Inventory at treatment conclusion (4 months after randomization). Secondary outcomes included pain interference at 8 months; pain severity; symptoms of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance; pain-related emergency department visits; community participation; and participant satisfaction. Linear mixed-effects regression was used for analysis. Results: A total of 1379 individuals were screened for eligibility, and 158 were randomized (79 to CC and 79 to UC). The participants were mostly women (92 participants [58%]) with a mean (SD) age of 46.8 (13.2) years and a mean (SD) of 15.3 (3.0) years of education. TBI occurred a mean (SD) of 4.0 (5.9) years (median [IQR], 1.9 [0.8-4.5] years) before enrollment. All TBI severities were included, and of 149 participants for whom TBI severity was known, the majority (97 participants [65%]) had mild TBI. In the CC group, 71 participants (90%) completed at least 11 sessions, and, at 4 months, this group had significantly lower pain interference scores compared with the UC group (mean [SD], 3.46 [2.17] vs 5.03 [2.28]). This difference was maintained at 8 months after randomization, with mean (SD) TBI care pain interference scores of 3.61 (2.22) for CC vs 4.68 (2.51) for UC. At 4 months, there was significantly lower pain severity in the CC group vs UC group (mean [SD] score, 3.63 [1.95] vs 4.90 [1.96]), as well as symptoms of depression (mean [SD] score, 8.07 [5.34] vs 11.31 [6.37]) and anxiety (mean [SD], 6.20 [5.17] vs 9.58 [6.00]). Satisfaction with pain treatment (mean [SD] score, 2.99 [1.23] vs 2.52 [1.25]), clinical care (mean [SD] score, 3.28 [1.00] vs 2.84 [1.26]), and overall health care (mean [SD] score, 3.25 [0.88] vs 2.82 [1.00]) were significantly higher in the CC group vs the UC group; global impression of change was significantly lower in the CC group vs the UC group (mean [SD] score, 2.74 [1.02] vs 3.47 [1.26]) (lower scores denote a better impression of change). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of CC compared with UC for patients with TBI, CC was effective at reducing pain interference and was sustained at 8-month follow-up. Further research is needed to examine the implementation and cost-effectiveness of CC for TBI in other health care settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03523923.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Self-management programs for spinal cord injury (SCI) are a growing adjunct to traditional healthcare services aiding individuals with SCI in learning and managing symptoms and medical care. A benefit of self-management programs is that they can be facilitated by peers, offering a unique lived experience of adjusting to and managing SCI. While a growing body of literature highlights the effectiveness of peer led programs, there is limited understanding of how individuals engage with peer programs or critical components of peer support. The current study seeks to understand how individuals engaged with peers in the context of a self-management program. Methods: Secondary qualitative analysis of online forum posts resultant from a peer led self-management course for SCI. Results: Content analysis revealed several themes of how participants engaged with members of the group, including skill building, resource sharing, and problem solving. A process level theme of emotional connection to others living with similar SCI-related challenges was defined as "bearing witness." Participants commented frequently that groups were the first time they engaged with a community with lived experience, and shared experience was frequently highlighted in the responses from individuals as one of the most unique and important aspects of the intervention. Discussion: Themes identified suggest that bearing witness was a critical component of peer led intervention. While self-management content provided structure for engagement and discussion, participants report that connectedness and shared experience made content more impactful and relevant. Future research should examine if alignment of peer and participant experience increases the impact of interventions and explore if this theme is important for other chronic medical populations.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain patient and caregiver satisfaction with an individualized case management intervention to improve transition from inpatient rehabilitation care to the community after traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Participants from 6 National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research-funded TBI Model Systems sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adult, English-speaking patients with TBI who had moderate-to-severe TBI and were discharged from a TBI Model Systems site and who were in the intervention arm of the Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Improving the Transition Experience pragmatic clinical trial, as well as their caregivers. DESIGN: A survey of participants in the intervention arm, which included an individualized case management program administered by a TBI Care Manager (TCM) who facilitated resource connection, education, and support. MAIN MEASURES: Satisfaction with intervention was measured through Likert-scaled and open-ended questions. The survey was administered verbally through telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for categorical variables, and content analysis was conducted for open-ended responses. RESULTS: Patient and caregiver participants were satisfied with the intervention and highlighted the benefits of the interpersonal and practical support provided by the TCM. Participants identified the need for a more intensive intervention and clear expectations of the TCM role, as well as gaps in available medical and rehabilitation services in the community, as areas for improvement. CONCLUSION: Patients with TBI and their caregivers reported satisfaction with the individualized case management program in supporting their transition from inpatient rehabilitation to the community. Further research is needed to understand the impact on outcomes.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences in participation, life satisfaction, and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) endorsing current, past, or no chronic pain. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Three thousand eight hundred four TBI Model Systems participants 1 to 30 years of age postinjury classified into 1 of 3 groups based on their pain experience: current pain, past pain, no pain completed a Pain Survey at their usual follow-up appointment which on average was approximately 8 years postinjury. DESIGN: Multisite, cross-sectional observational cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sociodemographic and injury characteristics and psychosocial outcomes (ie, satisfaction with life, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], sleep quality, community participation). RESULTS: Persons with current chronic pain demonstrated higher scores on measures of PTSD, anxiety, and depression, and the lower scores on measures of sleep quality, community participation and satisfaction with life. Those with resolved past pain had mean scores for these outcomes that were all between the current and no chronic pain groups, but always closest to the no pain group. After adjusting for sociodemographic and function in multivariate analysis, having current chronic pain was associated with more negative psychosocial outcomes. The largest effect sizes (ES; in absolute value) were observed for the PTSD, depression, anxiety, and sleep quality measures (ES = 0.52-0.81) when comparing current pain to past or no pain, smaller ES were observed for life satisfaction (ES = 0.22-0.37) and out and about participation (ES = 0.16-0.18). When comparing past and no pain groups, adjusted ES were generally small for life satisfaction, PTSD, depression, anxiety, and sleep quality (ES = 0.10-0.23) and minimal for participation outcomes (ES = 0.02-0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain is prevalent among individuals with TBI and is associated with poorer psychosocial outcomes, especially for PTSD, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. The results from this study highlight the presence of modifiable comorbidities among those with chronic pain and TBI. Persons who experience persistent pain following TBI may be at greater risk for worse psychosocial outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To identify facilitators and barriers to reaching and utilizing chronic pain treatments for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) organized around an Access to Care framework, which includes dimensions of access to healthcare as a function of supply (ie, provider/system) and demand (ie, patient) factors for a specified patient population. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians (n = 63) with experience treating persons with TBI were interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study. MAIN MEASURES: Semistructured open-ended interview of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access to Care framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the core domains (reaching care, utilizing care) and relevant subdimensions from the supply (affordability of providing care, quality, coordination/continuity, adequacy) and demand (ability to pay, adherence, empowerment, caregiver support) perspective. RESULTS: Themes from provider interviews focused on healthcare reaching and healthcare utilization resulted in 19 facilitators and 9 barriers reaching saturation. The most themes fell under the utilization core domain, with themes identified that impact the technical and interpersonal quality of care and care coordination/continuity. Accessibility and availability of specialty care and use of interdisciplinary team that permitted matching patients to treatments were leading thematic facilitators. The leading thematic barrier identified primarily by medical providers was cognitive disability, which is likely directly linked with other leading barriers including high rates of noncompliance and poor follow-up in health care. Medical and behavioral health complexity was also a leading barrier to care and potentially interrelated to other themes identified. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning for this complex population to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatment. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of individuals with TBI/caregivers to inform interventions to improve access to chronic pain treatment for persons with TBI.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to illustrate the process of stakeholder-engaged intervention mapping approach to identify implementation strategies to overcome data-driven prioritized barriers to receiving chronic pain services for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years' experience treating persons with TBI, interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021 provided data for identification of barriers. TBI, chronic pain, and qualitative research subject matter experts (SMEs) participated in the mapping approach. DESIGN: Participatory-based research design, using descriptive and intervention mapping approaches. RESULTS: Four barriers to accessing chronic pain treatment by persons with TBI which emerged from provider interviews were prioritized for intervention mapping: cognitive deficits of patients (67%); patient comorbidities (63%); mental health and/or substance abuse issues (59%); and patient participation (62%). SMEs used prioritized barriers to develop 4 primary objectives and implementation strategies designed to: (1) engage consumers to validate and identify strategies; (2) tailor pain treatment and delivery to overcome barriers; (3) develop and disseminate guidelines and best practices when delivering care to persons with TBI to support spread; and (4) increase awareness, skills, and readiness of workforce to deliver pain treatment to persons with TBI. SMEs used an evidence-based approach to develop a mapping matrix of the prioritized barriers, implementation objectives, and aligned implementation strategies to impact change. CONCLUSION: Implementation science is needed to facilitate knowledge translation into practice for this complex population to overcome barriers to care. Implementation strategies to address barriers to accessing chronic pain care for individuals with TBI were chosen through a participatory approach to engaging SMEs to support these rehabilitation implementation efforts. Future work includes gathering input from individuals with TBI and chronic pain and to move the intervention (implementation) mapping matrix forward to inform future implementation research, policy, and practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Identify determinants to chronic pain healthcare for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) informed by an Access to Care Framework. Findings related to the Access Framework's core domains of identifying a need, perceptions of the need, and seeking healthcare are reported. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years of experience treating persons with TBI interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study. MAIN MEASURES: Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access Framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the domains of identifying healthcare needs, perceptions of needs, and factors related to healthcare seeking from the supply and demand perspective. RESULTS: For the overall sample, 14 facilitators and 6 barriers were endorsed by more than 20% of the provider cohort. Top facilitators included on-site availability of needed resources and treatments (94%), adequate time and provider capability to ensure patient comprehension of diagnosis and treatment plans (83%), and establishing patient motivation and buy-in with the treatment plan (75%). Barriers most endorsed included policies impacting access (46%), wait times for services (41%), and patient uncertainty regarding telehealth commonly due to cognitive and physical challenges (37%). Unique determinants are reported across civilian versus Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems and different provider types. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatments for persons with TBI. Results will inform future interventions at the systems, patient, and policy levels of healthcare that can be tailored to healthcare settings (VA, Civilian) and types of providers (rehabilitation therapists, psychologists, and medical). Evidence-informed interventions may help minimize healthcare disparities experienced by persons with TBI and facilitate access to high-quality, evidence-informed chronic pain care.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of chronic pain after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and identify characteristics that differ from those without chronic pain. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3804 TBI Model Systems (TBIMS) participants who completed the Pain Survey at TBIMS follow-up. DESIGN: A multisite, cross-sectional observational cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional outcomes, pain experience, and treatment. RESULTS: 46% reported current chronic pain, 14% reported past (post-injury) chronic pain, and 40% reported no chronic pain. Bivariate differences in sociodemographic and injury characteristics between the 3 pain groups were generally small in effect size, reflecting little clinical difference. However, medium effect sizes were seen for all functional outcomes, such that individuals with current chronic pain had worse functional outcomes compared with individuals in the past pain or no pain groups. Treatment utilization rates were higher for individuals with current chronic pain compared with past pain, with medical treatments being most frequently utilized. Individuals with past pain perceived more improvement with treatment than did those with current chronic pain as represented by a large effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain affects approximately 60% of those living with TBI. The implications of chronic pain for functional outcomes support inclusion of pain metrics in prognostic models and observational studies in this population. Future research is needed to proactively identify those at risk for the development of chronic pain and determine the efficacy and access to pain treatment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Although headache (HA) is a common sequela of traumatic brain injury (TBI), early predictors of chronic HA after moderate to severe TBI are not well established, and the relationship chronic HA has with psychosocial functioning is understudied. Thus, we sought to (1) determine demographic and injury predictors of chronic HA 1 or more years after moderate to severe TBI and (2) examine associations between chronic HA and psychosocial outcomes. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the TBI Model System (TBIMS) with moderate to severe TBI who consented for additional chronic pain questionnaires at the time of TBIMS follow-up. DESIGN: Multisite, observational cohort study using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression for prediction modeling and independent t tests for psychosocial associations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Chronic HA after TBI at year 1 or 2 postinjury and more remotely (5 or more years). RESULTS: The LASSO model for chronic HA at 1 to 2 years achieved acceptable predictability (cross-validated area under the curve [AUC] = 0.70). At 5 or more years, predictability was nearly acceptable (cross-validated AUC = 0.68), but much more complex, with more than twice as many variables contributing. Injury characteristics had stronger predictive value at postinjury years 1 to 2 versus 5 or more years, especially sustained intracranial pressure elevation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.8) and skull fragments on head computed tomography (CT) (OR = 2.5). Additional TBI(s) was a risk factor at both time frames, as were multiple socioeconomic characteristics, including lower education level, younger age, female gender, and Black race. Lower education level was a particularly strong predictor at 5 or more years (OR up to 3.5). Emotional and participation outcomes were broadly poorer among persons with chronic HA after moderate to severe TBI. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with moderate to severe TBI, chronic HA is associated with significant psychosocial burden. The identified risk factors will enable targeted clinical screening and monitoring strategies to enhance clinical care pathways that could lead to better outcomes. They may also be useful as stratification or covariates in future clinical trial research on treatments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between extreme pain phenotypes (interference and improvement) and psychosocial outcomes among those with chronic pain after traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1762 TBI Model Systems (TBIMS) participants 1 to 30 years postinjury reporting chronic pain. DESIGN: Multisite, cross-sectional, observational cohort study. PRIMARY MEASURES: Life satisfaction, posttraumatic stress, depression and anxiety symptoms, sleep and participation, the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference scale, and the Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: Persons in the extreme high interference phenotype (vs extreme low interference phenotype) and/or extreme no change phenotype (vs extreme improvement phenotype) had poorer psychosocial outcomes, with extreme pain interference phenotypes having a larger effect on outcomes than extreme perceived improvement phenotypes. After controlling for covariates, large effect sizes (ES) related to pain interference were observed for posttraumatic stress symptoms (ES = -1.14), sleep quality (ES = -1.10), depression (ES = -1.08), anxiety (ES = -0.82), and life satisfaction (ES = 0.76); effect sizes for participation outcomes, although significant, were relatively small (ES = 0.21-0.36). Effect sizes related to perceived improvement were small for life satisfaction (ES = 0.20) and participation (ES = 0.16-0.21) outcomes. Pain intensity was identified as a meaningful confounding factor of the relationships between extreme phenotypes and posttraumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of extreme phenotypes provides important insights into the experience of individuals living with chronic pain and TBI. Results suggest that the relationships among a variety of characteristics of the person, their experience with pain, and treatment of pain are complex. Further research is needed to better understand these complex relationships and how differences in pain interference and perceived improvement from treatment can assist in assessment and treatment of chronic pain after TBI.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To define and characterize extreme phenotypes based on pain interference for persons with chronic pain following traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Eighteen Traumatic Brain Injury Model System (TBIMS) Centers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1762 TBIMS participants 1 to 30 years post-injury reporting chronic pain at their most recent follow-up interview. PRIMARY MEASURES: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference scale, sociodemographic, injury, functional outcome, pain, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly male (73%), White (75%), middle-aged (mean 46 years), and who were injured in motor vehicle accidents (53%) or falls (20%). Extreme phenotypes were identified based on upper and lower 25th percentiles to create low-interference ( n = 441) and high-interference ( n = 431) extreme phenotypes. Bivariate comparisons found several sociodemographic, injury, function, pain, and treatment differences between extreme phenotype groups, including significant differences ( P < .001) on all measures of concurrent function with those in the low-interference extreme phenotype experiencing better function than those in the high-interference extreme phenotype. Lasso regression combined with logistic regression identified multivariable predictors of low- versus high-interference extreme phenotypes. Reductions in the odds of low- versus high-interference phenotypes were significantly associated with higher pain intensity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33), having neuropathic pain (OR = 0.40), migraine headache (OR = 0.41), leg/feet pain (OR = 0.34), or hip pain (OR = 0.46), and more pain catastrophizing (OR = 0.81). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that for those who experience current chronic pain, there is high variability in the experience and impact of pain. Future research is needed to better understand how pain experience impacts individuals with chronic pain and TBI given that pain characteristics were the primary distinguishing factors between phenotypes. The use of extreme phenotypes for pain interference may be useful to better stratify samples to determine efficacy of pain treatment for individuals with TBI.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To define and characterize extreme phenotypes based on perceived improvement in pain for persons with chronic pain following traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Eighteen Traumatic Brain Injury Model System (TBIMS) Centers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1762 TBIMS participants 1 to 30 years post-injury reporting chronic pain at their most recent follow-up interview. PRIMARY MEASURES: The Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) related to pain treatment. Sociodemographic, injury, functional outcome, pain, and pain treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Participants were mostly male (73%), White (75%), middle-aged (mean 46 years), injured in motor vehicle accidents (53%), or falls (20%). Extreme phenotypes were created for an extreme improvement phenotype ( n = 512, 29.8%) defined as "moderately better" or above on the PGIC and an extreme no-change group ( n = 290, 16.9%) defined as no change or worse. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression combined with logistic regression identified multivariable predictors of improvement versus no-change extreme phenotypes. Higher odds of extreme improvement phenotype were significantly associated with being female (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85), married versus single (OR = 2.02), better motor function (OR = 1.03), lower pain intensity (OR = 0.78), and less frequent pain, especially chest pain (OR = 0.36). Several pain treatments were associated with higher odds of being in the extreme improvement versus no-change phenotypes including pain medication (OR = 1.85), physical therapy (OR = 1.51), yoga (OR = 1.61), home exercise program (OR = 1.07), and massage (OR = 1.69). CONCLUSION: Investigation of extreme phenotypes based on perceived improvement with pain treatment highlights the ability to identify characteristics of individuals based on pain treatment responsiveness. A better understanding of the biopsychosocial characteristics of those who respond and do not respond to pain treatments received may help inform better surveillance, monitoring, and treatment. With further research, the identification of risk factors (such as pain intensity and frequency) for treatment response/nonresponse may provide indicators to prompt changes in care for individuals with chronic pain after TBI.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We examined whether females with a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and intimate partner violence (IPV) have greater exposure to lifetime trauma relative to females with TBI but no IPV history. Further, we assessed the effects of lifetime trauma on psychological outcomes after TBI. Female participants (n = 70; age M [standard deviation-SD] = 50.5 [15.2] years) with TBI (time since injury median [interquartile range -IQR] = 10.2 [5.3-17.8] years) completed a structured assessment of lifetime history of TBI, including an IPV module to query head injuries from physical violence by an intimate partner. We characterized lifetime trauma exposure with the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) questionnaire and Survey of Exposure to Community Violence (CV). We evaluated psychological functioning with self-report questionnaires of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety symptoms. Compared with those with no IPV history (n = 51), participants reporting IPV-related head injuries (n = 19; 27.1%) reported more ACEs (M[SD] IPV: 4.5[2.9]; No IPV: 1.6[1.8], p < 0.001, d = 1.08) and greater CV (IPV: 17.5[8.4]; No IPV: 7.6[6.1], p < .0001, d = 1.26). Within the full sample, ACEs (ß = 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04-0.39) and CV (ß = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01-0.13) predicted worse PTSD symptoms, while IPV alone did not. Exposure to all three sources of trauma (ACEs, CV, and IPV) was associated with worse PTSD symptoms relative to fewer traumas. The results highlight the scope of traumatic exposures among TBI survivors and the importance of considering IPV and other lifetime trauma exposure in assessing and managing TBI. Trauma-informed interventions that are modified for TBI-related impairment may offer improved outcomes in managing psychological symptoms.

Asunto(s)