Search

Acute pain is a symptom enabling us to implement a response when faced with an attack. Chronic pain is complex and multifactorial. The care of the patient by a multidisciplinary team comprises the diagnosis of the pain and the putting in place of a treatment for each of its components. This includes physical reconditioning, adaptation strategies and work on the psychological elements relating to the representation of the pain., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: An urgent need is to improve the efficacy and safety of use of strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) through responsible prescription rules supported by scientific evidence., Methods: Clinical questions addressing the indication, the benefice, the risk and the precautions were formulated. A task force composed of physicians from several medical specialties involved in managing CNCP was charged to elaborate evidence-based recommendations. A systematic literature search was performed using CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The approach of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied to evaluate outcomes., Results: We selected 21 meta-analyses and 31 cohort studies for analysis. Fifteen recommendations are provided. Strong opioids are not recommended in fibromyalgia and primary headaches. Strong opioids have been shown to be moderately effective against CNCP due to osteoarthritis of the lower limbs, and for back pain and neuropathic pain. Their introduction is advised only after the failure of first-line treatments, combined with patient care, provided that the patient is made aware of the advantages and risks. It is not advisable to continue strong opioids treatment for longer than three months if no improvement in pain, function or quality of life is observed. It is also recommended not to prescribe doses exceeding 150mg/day morphine equivalent. Misuse risk factors should be investigated before prescription and misuse should be assessed at each renewal. Priority should be given to extended-release forms. It is recommended not to use transmucosal rapid-release forms of fentanyl for the management of CNCP., Conclusion: These recommendations are intended for all doctors needing to prescribe strong opioids in CNCP., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective/background: This study aims to compare differences in pain beliefs according to headache type, chronic vs episodic migraine, in a large cohort of patients, using the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI), and to identify possible predictive factors of the same pain beliefs., Methods: All patients referring for the first time at our center in 2011 were screened using PBPI and the Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Scale (a total of 1032 patients). PBPI is a 4-subscale questionnaire that explores a patient's personal beliefs on their subjective experience of pain. Headache patients also completed the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and a 30-day headache diary. For all participants, age, gender, duration of pain were collected. The sample was narrowed down to 899 as we experienced a nonresponse rate of 12.8%. For the purpose of this study, 2 groups were identified: chronic and episodic migraine, consisting of 116 and 126 patients, respectively, which were compared using Student's t-test; correlation analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between variables before running a model selection based on Akaike's Information Criterion to identify possible predictive factors of different pain beliefs. Patients below 18 years of age and those diagnosed with other painful conditions were excluded from the analysis., Results: Beliefs from chronic and episodic migraine patients were very similar, with only a difference in beliefs related to constancy of pain (Mean value ± SD 0.5 ± 1.1 vs -0.6 ± 1.1, P<.001). Predictive factors were depression and HIT-6 scores for all PBPI subscales apart from Self-Blame, which showed a stronger relation to anxiety scores. Number of days with headache per month was correlated to higher constancy values. Diagnosis was a predictive factor for any particular belief., Discussion: This is the first study, to our knowledge, that addresses differences and predictive factors in pain beliefs according to headache diagnosis. A deeper knowledge of beliefs pattern in patients could lead to better-tailored psychological management., (© 2014 American Headache Society.)

Objective: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study investigated the impact of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on quality of life (QoL) of patients with fibromyalgia, and its possible brain metabolic substrate., Methods: Thirty-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive high-frequency rTMS (n = 19) or sham stimulation (n = 19), applied to left primary motor cortex in 14 sessions over 10 weeks. Primary clinical outcomes were QoL changes at the end of week 11, measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ). Secondary clinical outcomes were mental and physical QoL component measured using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), but also pain, mood, and anxiety. Resting-state [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET metabolism was assessed at baseline, week 2, and week 11. Whole-brain voxel-based analysis was performed to study between-group metabolic changes over time., Results: At week 11, patients of the active rTMS group had greater QoL improvement in the FIQ (p = 0.032) and in the mental component of the SF-36 (p = 0.019) than the sham stimulation group. No significant impact was found for other clinical outcomes. Compared with the sham stimulation group, patients of the active rTMS group presented an increase in right medial temporal metabolism between baseline and week 11 (p < 0.001), which was correlated with FIQ and mental component SF-36 concomitant changes (r = -0.38, p = 0.043; r = 0.51, p = 0.009, respectively). QoL improvement involved mainly affective, emotional, and social dimensions., Conclusion: Our study shows that rTMS improves QoL of patients with fibromyalgia. This improvement is associated with a concomitant increase in right limbic metabolism, arguing for a neural substrate to the impact of rTMS on emotional dimensions involved in QoL., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that rTMS compared with sham rTMS improves QoL in patients with fibromyalgia.

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is a common symptom, present in 39% of the patients with cancer pain. Treating this type of pain is challenging, as this patient group is often frail and has comorbidities which increase the risk of side events and hence influences their quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be helpful for clinicians, especially when scientific evidence is uncertain or weak. In this study, we focused on the quality of the review of the literature used in treatment recommendations in the selected European CPGs., Methods: In a previous study, 9 CPGs from European countries that contained at least one paragraph on treatment for neuropathic pain in cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year and type of publication) were compared between CPGs., Results: In all CPGs, amitriptylin was mentioned as the drug of first choice. Six guidelines proposed also gabapentinoids. Only 30 of the 163 citations (18%) were based on studies in patients with cancer. Seven CPGs did not argue the indirect evidence due to extrapolation of study results from non-cancer to patients with cancer., Conclusion: The majority of guideline development groups extrapolated their results from non-cancer publications to formulate recommendations. Consequently, these guidelines fail to address important issues such as altered kinetics and side effect profiles in these patients. We recommend creating specific recommendations by an international expert group for the treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with cancer supported by targeted research in patients with cancer., (© 2013 The Authors Pain Practice © 2013 World Institute of Pain.)

Background: In more and more countries, a specific pain education curriculum is provided to instruct pain physicians. However, there is little literature on pain education and in particularly how to evaluate their knowledge. One of the modules interesting to assess is the use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) by pain physicians., Objectives: The aim was to investigate if a case vignette is useful to evaluate pain physicians' knowledge about recommendations contained in CPGs., Setting: An email survey was conducted with the support of the Societe Francaise d'Etude et de Traitement de la Douleur to all pain specialists (primary and secondary care) in France., Methods: The survey consisted of a case vignette about a patient with pain suffering from an intractable pancreatic cancer with multiple choice questions about diagnosis and treatment of pain. Percentages of participants who treated the patient as suggested in the CPGs were calculated., Results: A total of 214 of those invited to participate (921) answered the questionnaire (24%). More than 85% of the respondents declared to know and use CPGs. Half of the participants diagnosed and treated neuropathic pain components in the case vignette according to the recommendations in the CPGs., Limitations: This exercise needed to be explained: pain physicians should be trained to this kind of questionnaire. It explains the low response rate and the progressive diminution of responders during the questionnaire., Conclusions: Case vignette is an interesting instrument for pain education because it is cheap, easy to use, and can be repeated. However, training before using this instrument is needed for pain physicians, in particular during their pain education.

Background: Neuropathic pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer, which needs a more specific algorithm than nociceptive pain or neuropathic pain from other origin. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be helpful in optimizing the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer., Methods: In this study, 9 national CPGs in Europe on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year, and type of publication) were compared between CPGs., Results: Nine CPGs including recommendations on neuropathic pain could be selected and were assessed. In total, they used 149 references of which 72 (48%) were about cancer conditions, 39 (26%) about neuropathic pain, and only 3 about neuropathic pain in patients with cancer (2%). Only 28 (19%) references were shared between 2 or more guidelines. There was only one shared reference specifically related to cancer neuropathic pain. Recommendations and their evidence grading strongly differ between CPGs., Conclusion: This work demonstrates an important heterogeneity between European recommendations on diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main weaknesses are the low level of evidence and the absence of specific data focusing on neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. We recommend that physicians dealing with neuropathic pain in patients with cancer should be specially trained, that a specific methodology to develop CPGs should followed, and that specific research should be developed on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer., (© 2012 The Authors Pain Practice © 2012 World Institute of Pain.)

Unlabelled: Between 19% and 39% of patients with cancer pain suffer from neuropathic pain. Its diagnosis and treatment is still challenging. Yet, national clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed in several European countries to assist practitioners in managing these patients safely and legally. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the development and reporting of these CPGs., Methods: In collaboration with the European Federation of IASP Chapters, a European inventory of CPGs was conducted. Inclusion criteria were at least one paragraph dedicated to the treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument, 2 appraisers independently assessed the quality of the development process of the included CPGs in 6 quality domains. Besides, CPGs developed by governmental organization were compared with those developed by professional societies using t-tests., Results: Mean scores of the domains "scope and purpose" (80%) and "clarity of presentation" (61%) were satisfactory, "stakeholder involvement" (58%), "rigor of development" (57%), and "editorial independence" (53%) were acceptable, and "applicability" was insufficient (39%). Governmental guidelines had higher quality scores than professional society guidelines for domain "stakeholder involvement" and "editorial independence" (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: The quality of the development process of the 9 included CPGs varied widely. CPGs should be developed within a structured guideline program, including methodological support. As developing a CPG is expensive and time-consuming, we recommend more international cooperation to increase quality and lower the development costs., (© 2012 The Authors Pain Practice © 2012 World Institute of Pain.)