Medical pain management is in crisis; from the pervasiveness of pain to inadequate pain treatment, from the escalation of prescription opioids to an epidemic in addiction, diversion and overdose deaths. The rising costs of pain care and managing adverse effects of that care have prompted action from state and federal agencies including the DOD, VHA, NIH, FDA and CDC. There is pressure for pain medicine to shift away from reliance on opioids, ineffective procedures and surgeries toward comprehensive pain management that includes evidence-based nonpharmacologic options. This White Paper details the historical context and magnitude of the current pain problem including individual, social and economic impacts as well as the challenges of pain management for patients and a healthcare workforce engaging prevalent strategies not entirely based in current evidence. Detailed here is the evidence-base for nonpharmacologic therapies effective in postsurgical pain with opioid sparing, acute non-surgical pain, cancer pain and chronic pain. Therapies reviewed include acupuncture therapy, massage therapy, osteopathic and chiropractic manipulation, meditative movement therapies Tai chi and yoga, mind body behavioral interventions, dietary components and self-care/self-efficacy strategies. Transforming the system of pain care to a responsive comprehensive model necessitates that options for treatment and collaborative care must be evidence-based and include effective nonpharmacologic strategies that have the advantage of reduced risks of adverse events and addiction liability. The evidence demands a call to action to increase awareness of effective nonpharmacologic treatments for pain, to train healthcare practitioners and administrators in the evidence base of effective nonpharmacologic practice, to advocate for policy initiatives that remedy system and reimbursement barriers to evidence-informed comprehensive pain care, and to promote ongoing research and dissemination of the role of effective nonpharmacologic treatments in pain, focused on the short- and long-term therapeutic and economic impact of comprehensive care practices.

IntroductionDespite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health.MethodsDesign: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1–2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions.ResultsPhase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening.ConclusionAn empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.

No abstract

Background A crisis in pain management persists as does the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths, addiction, and diversion. Pain medicine is meeting these challenges by returning to its origins: the Bonica model of multidisciplinary pain care. The 2018 Academic Consortium White Paper detailed the historical context and magnitude of the pain crisis, and the evidence-base for nonpharmacologic strategies. Over 50% of chronic opioid use begins in the acute pain care setting. Acupuncture may be able to reduce this risk. Objective This paper updates the evidence-base of acupuncture therapy for acute pain with a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: post-surgical/peri-operative pain with opioid sparing, acute non-surgical/trauma pain including acute pain in the emergency department (ED). Methods To update reviews cited in the 2018 White Paper, electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for ‘acupuncture’ and ‘acupuncture therapy’ and ‘acute pain’, ‘surgery’, ‘peri-operative’, ‘trauma’, ‘emergency department’, ‘urgent care’, ‘review(s)’, ‘systematic review’, ‘meta-analysis’ with additional manual review of titles, links, and reference lists. Results There are 22 systematic reviews, 17 with meta-analyses of acupuncture in acute pain settings, and a review for acute pain in the intensive care unit (ICU). There are additional studies of acupuncture in acute pain settings. Conclusion The majority of reviews find acupuncture therapy to be an efficacious strategy for acute pain with potential to avoid and/or reduce opioid reliance. Future multi-center trials are needed to clarify the dosage and generalizability of acupuncture for acute pain in the ED. With an extremely low risk profile, acupuncture therapy is an important strategy in comprehensive acute pain care.

Objective Auricular acupuncture (AA) and extended auricular therapy (AT) are a part of acupuncture practice shown to benefit patients with pain, anxiety, and other conditions, with cost-effective access enhanced when given in a group setting. Yet there are safety concerns and risks, perhaps unnecessary risks, that attend embedded, indwelling needles applied to the ear as a means of extended AT. Methods Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for “auriculotherapy,” “auricular acupuncture” or “auricular acupressure,” “safety,” “adverse events,” “chondritis,” and “perichondritis,” with additional manual review of titles, links, and reference lists. Individual auricular therapy adverse event (AE) case reports were included, as well as systematic reviews and or meta-analyses if they evaluated AEs associated with AT. Results Nineteen auricular AE case reports and nine safety reviews of or including auriculotherapy were included. Ten systematic reviews of AT with eight specific reviews of auricular acupressure (AP) were also included. Conclusions The primary AE risks is infection, perichondritis, and chondritis stemming from embedded or indwelling needles or potential inadvertent needlesticks from contaminated roaming sharps. Extended AP i.e., application of spheres, preferably seeds (natural, nontoxic botanical Vaccaria seeds) provides clinical benefit without the risks associated with embedded needles. More research is needed to establish if embedded needles at the ear are even necessary or have any advantage over in-session auricular acupuncture for immediate pain relief followed by ear acupressure.