scholarly journals Utilization of Magnesium for the Treatment of Chronic Pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Urits ◽  
Jai Won Jung ◽  
Ariunzaya Amgalan ◽  
Luc Fortier ◽  
Anthony Anya ◽  
...  

Context: The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines chronic pain as pain that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months. Chronic pain has a significant global disease burden with profound effects on health, quality of life, and socioeconomic costs. Evidence Acquisition: Narrative review. Results: There are several treatment options, including pharmacological therapy, physical rehabilitation, psychological therapies, and surgical interventions, for chronic pain management. Magnesium has been FDA-approved for several indications including hypomagnesemia, arrhythmia, prevention of seizures in eclampsia/preeclampsia, and constipation. Magnesium has been used for numerous off-label uses, notably for acute and chronic pain management. The mechanism of magnesium in pain management is primarily through its action as a voltage-gated antagonist of NMDA receptors, which are involved in pain transduction. Conclusions: This narrative review will focus on the current evidence and data surrounding the utilization of magnesium as a treatment option for chronic pain.

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shafik Boyaji ◽  
Justin Merkow ◽  
R. Noel M. Elman ◽  
Alan D. Kaye ◽  
R. Jason Yong ◽  
...  

Anaesthesia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Chuan ◽  
J. J. Zhou ◽  
R. M. Hou ◽  
C. J. Stevens ◽  
A. Bogdanovych

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 (08/09) ◽  
pp. e94-e107
Author(s):  
Lisa Dorscht ◽  
Christoph Schön ◽  
Christa Geiss ◽  
Elmar Gräßel ◽  
Carolin Donath

Abstract Background Different treatment options are offered for patients suffering from chronic pain, which differ in intensity and costs: 1) monodisciplinary treatment, mostly in outpatient care and 2) interdisciplinary treatment with the option of participating in pain management programs as outpatients or inpatients. The present work investigates how patients at the University Clinic Erlangen receiving monodisciplinary treatment differ from those receiving interdisciplinary treatment (research question I) as well as how patients participating in a pain management program differ from those who do not (research question II). The aim is to generate insights into whether the differences between the patient groups under various treatment modalities reflect the officially defined criteria for the indication of chronic pain management programs. Methods Routine data of 1,833 patients treated from January 2008 to March 2013 at the University Clinic Erlangen were analyzed. After univariate preanalyses and checks for multicollinearity, the remaining variables were used for the final multivariate model (multiple binary logistic regression) for research question I and II. Results Research question I: Patients getting interdisciplinary treatment were more often employed, had higher affective experience of pain, more often regarded their pain as treatable, had more often participated in at least one pain-associated rehabilitation treatment in the past, were younger and rarely had application for retirement in consideration. Research question II: Patients who participated in a pain management program were more often female, more often employed, described their pain as mainly located at the upper part of the body, had more concomitant symptoms, were more often diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain and rarely had a retirement request pending. Conclusions It could be shown that patients in the analyzed pathways of care mainly differed in demographic variables, and regarding pain management programs, also in the type of pain. Differences between patients in different treatment paths reflecting the officially defined indication criteria for chronic pain management programs were detectable only to a minor extent. Clearer and operational practical guidance should help support the clinical decision to assign patients to different treatment options and close the gap between theory and practice.


2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
April Hazard Vallerand ◽  
Patricia Cosler ◽  
Jack E. Henningfield ◽  
Pam Galassini

BACKGROUND: Wounded soldiers often experience substantial pain, which must be addressed before returning to active duty or civilian life. The United States (US) military has instituted several guidelines and initiatives aimed at improving pain management by providing rapid access to medical care, and developing interdisciplinary multimodal pain management strategies based on outcomes observed both in combat and hospital settings.OBJECTIVE: To provide a narrative review regarding US military pain management guidelines and initiatives, which may guide improvements in pain management, particularly chronic pain management and prevention, for the general population.METHODS: A literature review of US military pain management guidelines and initiatives was conducted, with a particular focus on the potential of these guidelines to address shortcomings in chronic pain management in the general population.DISCUSSION: The application of US military pain management guidelines has been shown to improve pain monitoring, education and relief. In addition, the US military has instituted the development of programs and guidelines to ensure proper use and discourage aberrant behaviours with regard to opioid use, because opioids are regarded as a critical part of acute and chronic pain management schemes. Inadequate pain management, particularly inadequate chronic pain management, remains a major problem for the general population in the US. Application of military strategies for pain management to the general US population may lead to more effective pain management and improved long-term patient outcomes.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2;18 (2;3) ◽  
pp. E157-E161
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Deer

Blood testing is quickly becoming a useful laboratory tool for opioid prescribers who wish to document and assess patient tolerance, more objectively monitor patient safety, and evaluate patient compliance using information that is not available with traditional urine drug testing (UDT). Blood testing does not need to be performed as frequently as UDT but provides extremely valuable information which can be used to more accurately evaluate patient compliance and assist with interpreting blood toxicology results commonly used in impairment or overdose cases. This narrative review presents the current evidence supporting the use of blood testing within the chronic pain management setting. In addition, this review aims to introduce and discuss the role of routine blood testing within the chronic pain management setting. Blood testing for the purpose of documenting opioid tolerance is a relatively novel tool for pain physicians and as such this review is not intended to be a comprehensive or exhaustive review of the scientific or medical literature. Prescribers must also be aware that this type of laboratory testing need only be administered to chronic pain patients receiving daily opioid therapy. Patients taking infrequent, low dose, or as needed medications are not anticipated to benefit from this type of test. Based on the complexity of both achieving acceptable outcomes with opioid treatment and the legal and societal issues at hand, we feel that the addition of blood concentration levels will become the standard of care in the near future. Key words: Chronic pain, blood testing, opioids, opioid tolerance, patient compliance, opioid overdose


Author(s):  
Andrew Purcell ◽  
Keshava Channappa ◽  
David Moore ◽  
Dominic Harmon

Abstract Background Chronic pain management services have historically been under-resourced in Ireland. There is no agreed model of care for chronic pain management services in Ireland. Previous studies have assessed the extent of services in Ireland without examining waiting times for access to services. Aims This study aimed to quantify the extent of, geographical distribution of and waiting times for access to publicly funded chronic pain management services in Ireland. Methods Using the British Pain Society’s Core Standards for Pain Management Services in the UK (2015) and International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) recommendations, a questionnaire was devised. Publically funded departments in Ireland were contacted and questionnaires completed. Waiting list data was publicly available and obtained from the National Treatment Purchase Fund website. Results There was a 100% response rate. Sixteen publicly funded chronic pain management services were identified. There are 27 chronic pain management consultants (16.6 whole time equivalents (WTE)) practicing chronic pain management, amounting to 0.55 specialists (0.34 WTEs)/100,000 of the population. There are 21 WTE for non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs), 26.5 WTEs for nursing, 8 WTEs for physiotherapy and 6.2 WTEs for psychology, nationally. A percentage of 93.75% of departments (n = 15) provide interventional therapies, 37.5% (n = 6) provide advanced neuromodulation and 43.75% (n = 7) are managing intrathecal pump therapies. There are five pain management programmes nationally. As of January 2020, ~ 25% patients on waiting lists for outpatient appointments were waiting > 18 months, with ~ 17% patients on waiting lists for interventional treatments waiting > 12 months. Conclusions Shortage of multidisciplinary staff is of particular concern for Irish services. Patient access is limited as evidenced by significant waiting lists. In order to improve access to care and bring services in line with international recommendations, increased resources are needed.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanying He ◽  
Zichan Cui ◽  
Yin Chen ◽  
Fang Wang ◽  
Fengxian Li

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document