Search

Objective: Acute postoperative pain is experienced by the majority of hospitalized patients undergoing surgical procedures, with many reporting inadequate pain relief and/or high levels of dissatisfaction with their pain management. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ensures patient involvement in acute pain control, a key component for implementing a quality management system. This narrative article overviews the clinical evidence for conventional PCA and briefly discusses new, non-invasive PCA systems, namely the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (FITS).Methods: A Medline literature search ("patient-controlled analgesia" and "acute postoperative pain") was conducted to 1 April 2017; results from the main clinical trials are discussed. Additional literature was identified from the reference lists of cited publications.Results: Moderate to low quality evidence supports opioid-based intravenous PCA as an efficacious alternative to non-patient-controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. However, despite the benefits of PCA, conventional intravenous PCA is limited by system-, drug- and human-related issues. The non-invasive SSTS and FITS have demonstrated good efficacy and safety in placebo- and intravenous morphine PCA-controlled trials, and are associated with high patient/healthcare practitioner satisfaction/ease of care ratings and offer early patient mobilization.Conclusions: Evidence-based guidelines for acute postoperative pain management support the use of multimodal regimens in many situations. As effective and safe alternatives to conventional PCA, and with the added benefits of being non-invasive, easy to use and allowing early patient mobilization, the newer PCA systems may complement multimodal approaches, or potentially replace certain regimens, in hospitalized patients with acute postoperative pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Pain is one of the most common reasons for an individual to consult their primary care physician, with most chronic pain being treated in the primary care setting. However, many primary care physicians/non-pain medicine specialists lack enough awareness, education and skills to manage pain patients appropriately, and there is currently no clear, common consensus/formal definition of "pain chronification".Methods: This article, based on an international Change Pain Chronic Advisory Board meeting which was held in Wiesbaden, Germany, in October 2016, provides primary care physicians/non-pain medicine specialists with a narrative overview of pain chronification, including underlying physiological and psychosocial processes, predictive factors for pain chronification, a brief summary of preventive strategies, and the role of primary care physicians and non-pain medicine specialists in the holistic management of pain chronification.Results: Based on currently available evidence, we propose the following consensus-based definition of pain chronification which provides a common framework to raise awareness among non-pain medicine specialists: "Pain chronification describes the process of transient pain progressing into persistent pain; pain processing changes as a result of an imbalance between pain amplification and pain inhibition; genetic, environmental and biopsychosocial factors determine the risk, the degree, and time-course of chronification."Conclusions: Early intervention plays an important role in preventing pain chronification and, as key influencers in the management of patients with acute pain, it is critical that primary care physicians are equipped with the necessary awareness, education and skills to manage pain patients appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the introduction of evidence-based recommendations for postoperative pain management (POPM), the consensus is that pain control remains suboptimal. Barriers to achieving patient-satisfactory analgesia include deficient knowledge regarding POPM among staff, lack of instructions, insufficient pain assessments and sub-optimal treatment. Effective monitoring of POPM is essential to enable policy makers and healthcare providers to improve the quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) are quantitative measures of clinical practice that can monitor, evaluate and guide the quality of care provided to patients. QIs can be used to assess various aspects relating to the care process and they have proven useful in improving health outcomes in diseases such as myocardial infarction. In this commentary we critically analyze the evidence regarding the use of QIs in acute POPM based upon the experience of pain specialists from Europe and the USA who are members of the Change Pain Advisory Board. We also undertook a literature review to see what has been published on QIs in acute pain with the goal of assessing which QIs have been developed and used, and which ones have been successful/unsuccessful. In the hospital sector the development and implementation of QIs is complex. The nature of POPM requires a highly trained, multidisciplinary team and it is at this level that major improvements can be made. Greater involvement of patients regarding pain management is also seen as a priority area for improving clinical outcomes. Changes in structure and processes to deliver high-level quality care need to be regularly audited to ensure translation into better outcomes. QIs can help drive this process by providing an indicator of current levels of performance. In addition, outcomes QIs can be used to benchmark levels of performance between different healthcare providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic low back pain: Chronic pain is the most common cause for people to utilize healthcare resources and has a considerable impact upon patients' lives. The most prevalent chronic pain condition is chronic low back pain (CLBP). CLBP may be nociceptive or neuropathic, or may incorporate both components. The presence of a neuropathic component is associated with more intense pain of longer duration, and a higher prevalence of co-morbidities. However, many physicians' knowledge of chronic pain mechanisms is currently limited and there are no universally accepted treatment guidelines, so the condition is not particularly well managed.Diagnosis: Diagnosis should begin with a focused medical history and physical examination, to exclude serious spinal pathology that may require evaluation by an appropriate specialist. Most patients have non-specific CLBP, which cannot be attributed to a particular cause. It is important to try and establish whether a neuropathic component is present, by combining the findings of physical and neurological examinations with the patient's history. This may prove difficult, however, even when using screening instruments. Multimodal management: The multifactorial nature of CLBP indicates that the most logical treatment approach is multimodal: i.e. integrated multidisciplinary therapy with co-ordinated somatic and psychotherapeutic elements. As both nociceptive and neuropathic components may be present, combining analgesic agents with different mechanisms of action is a rational treatment modality. Individually tailored combination therapy can improve analgesia whilst reducing the doses of constituent agents, thereby lessening the incidence of side effects.Conclusions: This paper outlines the development of CLBP and the underlying mechanisms involved, as well as providing information on diagnosis and the use of a wide range of pharmaceutical agents in managing the condition (including NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids and anticonvulsants), supplemented by appropriate non-pharmacological measures such as exercise programs, manual therapies, behavioral therapies, interventional pain management and traction. Surgery may be appropriate in carefully selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor management of post-operative acute pain can contribute to medical complications including pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, infection and delayed healing, as well as the development of chronic pain. It is therefore important that all patients undergoing surgery should receive adequate pain management. However, evidence suggests this is not currently the case; between 10% and 50% of patients develop chronic pain after various common operations, and one recent US study recorded >80% of patients experiencing post-operative pain. At the first meeting of the acute chapter of the Change Pain Advisory Board, key priorities for improving post-operative pain management were identified in four different areas. Firstly, patients should be more involved in decisions regarding their own treatment, particularly when fateful alternatives are being considered. For this to be meaningful, relevant information should be provided so they are well informed about the various options available. Good physician/patient communication is also essential. Secondly, better professional education and training of the various members of the multidisciplinary pain management team would enhance their skills and knowledge, and thereby improve patient care. Thirdly, there is scope for optimizing treatment. Examples include the use of synergistic analgesia to target pain at different points along pain pathways, more widespread adoption of patient-controlled analgesia, and the use of minimally invasive rather than open surgery. Fourthly, organizational change could provide similar benefits; introducing acute pain services and increasing their availability towards the 24 hours/day ideal, greater adherence to protocols, increased use of patient-reported outcomes, and greater receptivity to technological advances would all help to enhance performance and increase patient satisfaction. It must be acknowledged that implementing these recommendations would incur a considerable cost that purchasers of healthcare may be unwilling or unable to finance. Nevertheless, change is under way and the political will exists for it to continue. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Chronic pain affects a large proportion of the population, imposing significant individual distress and a considerable burden on society, yet treatment is not always instituted and/or adequate. Comprehensive multidisciplinary management based on the biopsychosocial model of pain has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-efficient, but is not widely available. A literature review of stakeholder groups revealed many reasons for this, including: i) many patients believe healthcare professionals lack relevant knowledge, and consultations are rushed, ii) general practitioners consider that pain management has a low priority and is under-resourced, iii) pain specialists cite non-adherence to evidence-based treatment, sub-optimal prescribing, and chronic pain not being regarded as a disease in its own right, iv) nurses’, pharmacists’ and physiotherapists’ skills are not fully utilized, and v) psychological therapy is employed infrequently and often too late. Many of the issues relating to physicians could be addressed by improving medical training, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels – for example, by making pain medicine a compulsory core subject of the undergraduate medical curriculum. This would improve physician/patient communication, increase the use of standardized pain assessment tools, and allow more patients to participate in treatment decisions. Patient care would also benefit from improved training for other multidisciplinary team members; for example, nurses could provide counseling and follow-up support, psychologists offer coping skills training, and physiotherapists have a greater role in rehabilitation. Equally important measures include the widespread adoption of a patient-centered approach, chronic pain being recognized as a disease in its own right, and the development of universal guidelines for managing chronic non-cancer pain. Perhaps the greatest barrier to improvement is lack of political will at both national and international level. Some powerful initiatives and collaborations are currently lobbying policy-making bodies to raise standards and reduce unnecessary pain – it is vital they continue. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Twenty years ago, the main barriers to successful cancer pain management were poor assessment by physicians, and patients' reluctance to report pain and take opioids. Those barriers are almost exactly the same today. Cancer pain remains under-treated; in Europe, almost three-quarters of cancer patients experience pain, and almost a quarter of those with moderate to severe pain do not receive any analgesic medication. Yet it has been suggested that pain management could be improved simply by ensuring that every consultation includes the patient's rating of pain, that the physician pays attention to this rating, and a plan is agreed to increase analgesia when it is inadequate. After outlining current concepts of carcinogenesis in some detail, this paper describes different methods of classifying and diagnosing cancer pain and the extent of current under-treatment. Key points are made regarding cancer pain management. Firstly, the pain may be caused by multiple different mechanisms and therapy should reflect those underlying mechanisms - rather than being simply based on pain intensity as recommended by the WHO three-step ladder. Secondly, a multidisciplinary approach is required which combines both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, such as psychotherapy, exercise therapy and electrostimulation. The choice of analgesic agent and its route of administration are considered, along with various interventional procedures and the requirements of palliative care. Special attention is paid to the treatment of breakthrough pain (particularly with fast-acting fentanyl formulations, which have pharmacokinetic profiles that closely match those of breakthrough pain episodes) and chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain, which affects around one third of patients who receive chemotherapy. Finally, the point is made that medical education should place a greater emphasis on pain therapy, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many countries, the number of elderly people has increased rapidly in recent years and this is expected to continue; it has been predicted that almost a quarter of the population in the European Union will be over 65 years of age in 2035. Many elderly people suffer from chronic pain but it is regularly under-treated, partly because managing these patients is often complex. This paper outlines the extent of untreated pain in this population and the consequent reduction in quality of life, before articulating the reasons why it is poorly or inaccurately diagnosed. These include the patient's unwillingness to complain, atypical pain presentations, multiple morbidities and cognitive decline. Successful pain management depends upon accurate diagnosis, which is based upon a complete history and thorough physical examination, as well as an assessment of psychosocial functioning. Poor physician/patient communication can be improved by using standardized instruments to establish individual treatment targets and measure progress towards them. User-friendly observational instruments may be valuable for patients with dementia. In line with the widely accepted biopsychosocial model of pain, a multidisciplinary approach to pain management is recommended, with pharmacotherapy, psychological support, physical rehabilitation and interventional procedures available if required. Declining organ function and other physiological changes require lower initial doses of analgesics and less frequent dosing intervals, and the physician must be aware of all medications that the patient is taking, in order to avoid drug/drug interactions. Non-adherence to treatment is common, and various strategies can be employed to improve it; involving the elderly patient's caregivers and family, using medication systems such as pill-boxes, or even sending text messages. In the long term, the teaching of pain medicine needs to be improved - particularly in the use of opioids - both at undergraduate level and after qualification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic pain is currently under-diagnosed and under-treated, partly because doctors' training in pain management is often inadequate. This situation looks certain to become worse with the rapidly increasing elderly population unless there is a wider adoption of best pain management practice. This paper reviews current knowledge of the development of chronic pain and the multidisciplinary team approach to pain therapy. The individual topics covered include nociceptive and neuropathic pain, peripheral sensitization, central sensitization, the definition and diagnosis of chronic pain, the biopsychosocial model of pain and the multidisciplinary approach to pain management. This last section includes an example of the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in Belgium and describes the various benefits it offers; for example, the early multidimensional diagnosis of chronic pain and rapid initiation of evidence-based therapy based on an individual treatment plan. The patient also receives continuity of care, while pain relief is accompanied by improvements in physical functioning, quality of life and emotional stress. Other benefits include decreases in catastrophizing, self-reported patient disability, and depression. Improved training in pain management is clearly needed, starting with the undergraduate medical curriculum, and this review is intended to encourage further study by those who manage patients with chronic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractBackground:Despite limited empirical support, chronic pain has traditionally been defined mainly on the basis of its duration, which takes no account of the causative mechanisms or its clinical significance.Scope:For this commentary on current pain management practice, the CHANGE PAIN Advisory Board considered the evidence for adopting a prognostic definition of chronic pain. The rationale underlying this approach is to take psychological and behavioural factors into account, as well as the multidimensional nature of pain. Measures of pain intensity, interference with everyday activities, role disability, depression, duration and number of pain sites are used to calculate a risk score, which indicates the likelihood of a patient having pain in the future. The consistency of a prognostic definition with the concept of integrated patient care was also considered.Findings:When this method was compared with the number of pain days experienced over the previous 6 months – in patients with back pain, headache or orofacial pain – it was a better predictor of clinically significant pain 6 months later for all three pain conditions. Further evidence supporting this approach is that several factors other than the duration of pain have been shown to be important prognostic indicators, including unemployment, functional disability, anxiety and self-rated health. The use of a multifactorial risk score may also suggest specific measures to improve outcomes, such as addressing emotional distress. These measures should be undertaken as part of an integrated pain management strategy; chronic pain is a biopsychosocial phenomenon and all aspects of the patient’s pain must be dealt with appropriately and simultaneously for treatment to be effective.Conclusion:The implementation of a prognostic definition and wider adoption of integrated care could bring significant advantages. However, these measures require improved training in pain management and structural revision of specialist facilities, for which political support is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]