Evidence Hub

Differences Among Veterans With Chronic Overlapping Pain Conditions and Other Chronic Pain: Baseline Results From the LAMP Pain Management Trial

Adamowicz JL, Grant A, Calvert C, Elchert D, Hadlandsmyth K, Driscoll MA, Taylor SL, Allen K et al.

European journal of pain (London, England), 2025

811 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: Chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs) are a constellation of disorders posited to share an underlying pain mechanism (nociplastic pain). Unfortunately, individuals with COPCs are under-represented in clinical research. The current study aimed to determine COPC prevalence among participants enrolled in a pragmatic clinical trial and compare those with COPCs to those with non-COPCs across several domains.

Methods: Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP) study baseline data of veterans with chronic pain (N = 811) were utilised. COPC diagnoses were determined using ICD-10 codes within electronic health records. Group differences across pain and functioning-related domains were compared with and without adjustment for age and gender.

Results: Among participants with COPCs (54%), most were diagnosed with only one COPC (74%). Chronic lower back pain (71%) and migraine (28%) were the most common. Participants with COPCs were younger and more likely to be female relative to those with non-COPCs. The COPC subset was also more likely to be diagnosed with PTSD, depressive disorders and sleep disorders (p < 0.05). Those with COPCs also reported greater pain severity and interference, more impaired health-related quality of life, greater pain catastrophising and lower pain self-efficacy than participants without COPCs (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: COPCs were common among a sample of veterans in a pragmatic clinical trial. Several baseline differences emerged indicating…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 811 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free