+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Study protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of duloxetine for the treatment and prevention of musculoskeletal pain: altering the transition from acute to chronic pain (ATTAC pain)

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Chronic musculoskeletal pain affects a substantial portion of adults visiting the emergency department (ED). Current treatment is limited in scope and does not effectively reduce musculoskeletal pain in patients. The study will evaluate the use of duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of chronic pain, as a promising option in its prevention. The proposed study may present a well-tolerated and effective non-opioid treatment for patients with acute musculoskeletal pain that may also be effective in preventing the transition to persistent or chronic musculoskeletal pain.

          Methods and analysis

          The primary outcome of this study will be to assess the tolerability and preliminary effectiveness of duloxetine in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. The study will take place at two EDs in Rhode Island, USA. The study will involve randomisation to one of three arms: duloxetine 30 mg, duloxetine 60 mg or placebo. Tolerability will be assessed by comparing the proportion of participants that report an adverse event and that drop-out across the three study arms. Effectiveness will be determined by self-reported pain over 6 weeks of follow-up. Specifically, we will compare the proportion of participants with persistent pain (ongoing pain at 6-week follow-up), across the three study arms. 60 adults (aged 18–59) presenting to the ED with acute axial musculoskeletal pain within 7 days of onset are expected to be enrolled in the proposed study.

          Ethics and dissemination

          Ethics approval was obtained by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). These results will be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.

          Trial registration number


          Related collections

          Most cited references 37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population

           L Radloff (1977)
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

            A 36-item short-form (SF-36) was constructed to survey health status in the Medical Outcomes Study. The SF-36 was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys. The SF-36 includes one multi-item scale that assesses eight health concepts: 1) limitations in physical activities because of health problems; 2) limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems; 3) limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems; 4) bodily pain; 5) general mental health (psychological distress and well-being); 6) limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems; 7) vitality (energy and fatigue); and 8) general health perceptions. The survey was constructed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older, and for administration by a trained interviewer in person or by telephone. The history of the development of the SF-36, the origin of specific items, and the logic underlying their selection are summarized. The content and features of the SF-36 are compared with the 20-item Medical Outcomes Study short-form.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The economic costs of pain in the United States.

              In 2008, according to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), about 100 million adults in the United States were affected by chronic pain, including joint pain or arthritis. Pain is costly to the nation because it requires medical treatment and complicates treatment for other ailments. Also, pain lowers worker productivity. Using the 2008 MEPS, we estimated 1) the portion of total U.S. health care costs attributable to pain; and 2) the annual costs of pain associated with lower worker productivity. We found that the total costs ranged from $560 to $635 billion in 2010 dollars. The additional health care costs due to pain ranged from $261 to $300 billion. This represents an increase in annual per person health care costs ranging from $261 to $300 compared to a base of about $4,250 for persons without pain. The value of lost productivity due to pain ranged from $299 to $335 billion. We found that the annual cost of pain was greater than the annual costs of heart disease ($309 billion), cancer ($243 billion), and diabetes ($188 billion). Our estimates are conservative because they do not include costs associated with pain for nursing home residents, children, military personnel, and persons who are incarcerated. This study estimates that the national cost of pain ranges from $560 to $635 billion, larger than the cost of the nation's priority health conditions. Because of its economic toll on society, the nation should invest in research, education, and training to advocate the successful treatment, management, and prevention of pain. Copyright © 2012 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                5 March 2019
                : 9
                : 3
                [1 ] departmentEmergency Medicine , Rhode Island Hospital , Providence, Rhode Island, USA
                [2 ] departmentBiology and Medicine , Brown University , Providence, Rhode Island, USA
                [3 ] departmentEmergency Medicine and Anesthesiology , University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [4 ] departmentEmergency Medicine , Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School , Providence, Rhode Island, USA
                [5 ] departmentHealth Services, Policy, and Practice , Brown University School of Public Health , Providence, Rhode Island, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Francesca L Beaudoin; Francesca_Beaudoin@
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:

                Funded by: FundRef, Mayday Fund;
                Funded by: FundRef, National Institute of General Medical Sciences;
                Emergency Medicine
                Custom metadata


                clinical trials, pain management


                Comment on this article