Usefulness of the Short Form-8 (SF-8) for chronic pain in the orofacial region

Abstract


Introduction
Chronic pain has become a major problem in recent years, affecting approximately 30% of the general population [1].The majority of these patients are difficult to treat, and even when they can be treated, 50% of them experience only partial improvement and reduced quality of life (QOL) [2,3].However, understanding chronic pain is difficult; thus, it is underdiagnosed and under-treated because pain cannot be commensurate with the organic abnormality [4,5].Chronic pain can be a comorbidity of mental illness such as depression and can also affect various aspects of patients' daily lifestyles, such as housework and employment, which immensely lowers their quality of life [6].
Chronic pain in the orofacial region includes various conditions, such as burning mouth syndrome (BMS), persistent idiopathic facial pain (PIFP), and nonorganic temporomandibular joint disorder.In particular, BMS and PIFP are commonly encountered in daily clinical practice [7].Since these patients often complain of physical symptoms only, which are the main complaints, establishing an accurate diagnosis, identifying the treatment, and evaluating the degree of improvement are difficult even after the treatment intervention.
. The concept of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has been generally used as a multidimensional assessment of how disease and treatment affect a patient's sense of overall function and well-being [8].It is also an inclusive concept based on the patient's subjective judgment.In other words, HRQOL quantifies the impact of an illness on performing activities of daily living (ADL).The Short Form-8 (SF-8) is a comprehensive, versatile, and practical tool globally used tool for measuring HRQOL [9], allowing comparison of normative values from large national surveys with results from more focused outcome studies.The SF-8 is based on the SF-36, a 36-item version of the rating scale, but is more convenient because it provides results equivalent to the SF-36.Although the authors provided treatment interventions for many patients with chronic pain in the orofacial region, pre-and post-treatment evaluations were based on conventional clinical diagnostic evaluations based on physicians and dentists and were inadequate from the patient's viewpoint.In addition to pain reduction, the goal of treatment is to improve the QOL; however, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no previous reports evaluated the QOL at pre-and post-treatment intervention for chronic pain in the orofacial region.
In this study, the SF-8 Japanese version [10] was used to investigate 1) the QOL of patients with BMS or PIFP (compared to a Japanese control group) and 2) . whether the therapeutic intervention improves the QOL and reduced pain (comparison between 0 and 12 weeks).

Ethical guidelines
This study was conducted per the principles laid out in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethical review committee of Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine (no.234, 234-2, 2004-0234-2 and 2004-0234-3) and the ethical committee of the School of Dentistry, Aichi Gakuin University (no.41).Every effort was made to protect the patients' confidentiality and personal information.All participants provided written informed consent.

Study design and patients
The study was initiated on May 10, 2010 1) [11].
A trained psychiatrist performed psychiatric evaluations on all patients using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) [12].
Patients who visited our liaison clinic before 2013 were diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) [13].These patients' psychiatric diagnoses were recategorized based on DSM-5 by confirming each patient's clinical record.antidepressants because of their fewer adverse effects although antidepressants have been widely used for the treatment of chronic pain.Our previous study reported that SNRI duloxetine is effective for chronic pain in the orofacial region [14][15][16][17].Based on the above, duloxetine was also used in the present study and administered to patients with the above diagnosis from the initial visit (0 weeks).The initial dose of duloxetine is 20 mg once daily.At ≥2 weeks after initiating the administration, the dose was increased to a maximum of 40 mg once daily observing symptom changes and adverse effect expressions.
The collected data were anonymized, and the authors did not have access to information that could identify individual participants once it was stored.

Outcome measures
As the main outcome, for patients who received the therapeutic intervention, the SF-8 at the initial visit and after 12 weeks of intervention were evaluated and

General health
Overall, how has your health been over the past week?

Physical function
In the past month, how often have you been prevented from doing any of the daily activities involving physical exertion (e.g., walking, climbing stairs) by physical reasons?

Daily role function (physical)
In the past month, how often have you been prevented from doing your usual work (including household chores) due to physical reasons?

Physical pain
In the past month, how much physical pain have you experienced?

Vitality
In the past month, how well have you been?

Social function
In the past month, how often has your usual social interaction with family and friends been prevented by physical or psychological reasons?

Mental health
In the past month, how often have you been suffering from psychological problems (feeling anxious, depressed, and irritable)?

Daily role function (mental)
In the past month, how often have your daily activities (such as work, school, and household chores) been prevented by psychological reasons?
The score for each item is indicated by a deviation score based on the national standard value (50).In addition, a summary score can be calculated by multiplying the score of each item by a coefficient summary score.The items closely related to the physical summary score are 1-4, and the items closely related to the mental summary score are 5-8.

Statistical analysis
Data are expressed as median (interquartile range [IQR]) or number.Since the sample size is small and the data do not follow a normal distribution, we adopted the median value instead of the average value.For statistical testing, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare differences between two independent groups for continuous variables.The two-sided statistical significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.Statistical analysis of the recorded data was performed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics Ver26.

Results
A total of 63 patients participated in the study.Table 3 depicts the demographic characteristics and psychiatric diagnosis.observed between 0 week and 12 weeks and between 0 week and NSV.However, no statistically significant difference was observed between 12 weeks and NSV.The BDI was 12 [6.5-18.5]at 0 week and 6 [1.5-10.5]at 12 weeks.The HDRS was 6 .

Discussion
This study showed that while PCS in patients with BMS or PIFP improved with treatment, it did not improve to NSV after 12 weeks of intervention, whereas MCS improved to the same level as NSV after 12 weeks of intervention.The results demonstrated that treatment intervention improved BDI and HDRS, a measure of depression.Emotional factors have been reported to be strongly involved in the deposition and relief of chronic pain and may have diverse effects on pain expression [20].This study indicates that especially when no organic cause has been identified for physical symptoms, prompt collaboration with psychosomatic medicine and psychiatry . is extremely important, rather than making a definitive diagnosis and treatment by dentistry alone.
The validity of the study results is considered high because the SF-8, a standard and universally used instrument worldwide, was used to measure QOL.Previous reports using the SF8 have included evaluation for rheumatism [21] and stroke [22], and the study results indicate that it can be used adequately in the field of dentistry.Visual assessment methods such as the VAS [23] and the face scale [24] have been previously used as assessment methods that include patients' mental satisfaction; however, it is difficult to say that they are sufficient.To evaluate medical interventions, subjective factors including psychosocial aspects should be measured, and a simple scale is needed for this purpose.In other words, in addition to the subjective evaluation of physicians and dentists, improvement of patients' ADL, and tracking the blood data, a scale similar to the SF8, which easily measures PCS and MCS, can be a good means of communication between physicians and patients.
Although the above findings are similar, MCS recovered while PCS did not recover to NSV in this study.Thus, emotional turbulence may cause muscle hyperactivity induced by the central nervous system, resulting in parafunctional habits [25].Depression is also reported to be more likely a consequence than a precursor of .living with pain so the mind needs to gain supremacy over the body to compensate for pain.In other words, the emotional side of pain should be managed first, rather than both the mental and physical sides, and our study may have been the result of intervention from the mental side.However, restoring PCS is still necessary to improve the patients' QOL.This may be because many patients do not yet achieve the level where treatment can be terminated although symptoms tend to decrease after up to 12 weeks of treatment, and treatment for PCS may take a few more weeks to recover to a level comparable to NSV.One report revealed that it took 2 years for PCS to finally approach the national norm in a patient with postoperative head and neck cancer [26].
This finding suggests that PCS may not be adequately improved even with long-term follow-up.
MCS improves first due to "the effects of specialized psychiatric treatment with psychotherapy and antidepressants." This study has several limitations.First, the number of patients and the study duration are limited (as noted above, PCS may improve with longer follow-up), and it is a single-center study.In addition, as the SF-8 is a scale that can be used for a wide range of patients, from normal participants to patients with chronic diseases, it is not a disease-specific scale for chronic pain in the orofacial region. .
In conclusion, we used the SF-8 Japanese version to investigate (1) the QOL of patients with BMS or PIFP (compared to a Japanese control group) and (2) whether the therapeutic intervention improves the QOL and pain reduction (comparison between 0 and 12 weeks).The results showed that therapeutic intervention improves MCS and reduces pain; however, improving PCS takes time.

Table 1 .1. Burning quality 2 .
Diagnostic Criteria of BMS and PIFP Based on the 3rd Edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorder.117 BMS PIFP A. Oral pain fulfilling criteria B and C A. Facial and/or oral pain fulfilling criteria B and C B. Recurring daily for 2 h per day for >3 months B. Recurring daily for 2 h per day for >3 months C. Pain has the following characteristics: Felt superficially in the oral mucosa C. Pain has the following characteristics: 1. Poorly localized and not following the distribution of the peripheral nerve 2. Dull, aching, or nagging quality .D. Oral mucosa is of normal appearance, and clinical examination, including sensory testing, is normal D. Clinical neurological examination is normal E.Not better accounted for by another ICHD-3 diagnosis E. A dental cause has been excluded by appropriate investigations F.Not better accounted for by another ICHD-3 diagnosis BMS, Burning Mouth Syndrome; PIFP, Persistent Idiopathic Facial Pain; ICHD-3, The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition .To make a psychiatric diagnosis based on DSM-5, a structured clinical interview was conducted.The psychiatrist and dentist are providing treatment in the same clinic, and the psychiatric and dental diagnoses were performed in the same place and at the same time.Regarding therapeutic intervention, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are recently more commonly used than tricyclic

Table 2 )
[9].These eight items were scored using norm-based scoring (NBS: scoring based on the national standard value [NSV] [50]) for each item.Based on the eight [18,19]two summary scores, "Physical Component Summary (PCS)" and "Mental Component Summary (MCS)," were calculated to indicate physical and mental health, respectively.For both PCS and MCS, higher scores indicate a higher quality of life.A group of healthy participants matched in the number with the patient group was also created from the NBS data and used as the NSV.Additionally, pain intensity was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) value.To evaluate depression in 63 patients with BMS and PIFP, Beck's depression inventory (BDI: cutoff value, ≤10) was used as a subjective index and the Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS: cutoff value, ≤7), which uses semi-structured interviews by a trained psychiatrist, as a highly precise objective index[18,19]..

Table 3 . Patient Characteristics in this Study.
. Data are expressed as median [interquartile range: IQR] or number.172 BMS, Burning Mouth Syndrome; PIFP, Persistent Idiopathic Facial Pain