Search

Background: There is clear evidence demonstrating the benefits of physical activity (PA) on pain and overall health, however, PA is challenging for many individuals living with chronic pain. Even non-exercise specialists can (cost) effectively promote PA, but many health professionals report a number of barriers in providing guidance on PA, suggesting that it is not consistently promoted. This expert position paper summarizes the evidence and provides five recommendations for health professionals to assess, advise and support individuals living with any chronic pain condition with a long life expectancy in adopting and sustaining physically active lifestyles., Methods: This position paper was prepared by the 'On The Move' Task Force of the European Pain Federation EFIC. Final recommendations were endorsed by the European Pain Forum, Pain Alliance Europe and the Executive Board of EFIC., Results: We recommend that all health professionals (1) Take a history of the persons' PA levels, and put PA on the agenda, (2) Advise that PA is important and safe for individuals living with chronic pain, (3) Deliver a brief PA intervention and support individuals living with chronic pain in becoming physically active, (4) Discuss acceptable levels of PA-related soreness and pain and (5) Provide ongoing support in staying physically active., Significance: Physical activity is safe and offers several advantages, including general health benefits, low risk of side effects, low cost and not requiring access to healthcare. Adoption of these recommendations can improve the quality of care and life of individuals living with chronic pain and reduce their overall health risks., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation ‐ EFIC ®.)

Context: The prevalence of persistent pain among breast cancer survivors (BCS) is high, and it is unclear what distinguishes those with persistent pain from those without. Research suggests that differences in somatosensory function evaluated by quantitative sensory testing (QST) may be responsible., Objectives: This study aimed to describe somatosensory profiles in terms of hyper- and hypoesthesia in BCS with and without persistent pain using reference data from healthy controls. Second, QST parameters of BCS with and without pain were compared with those of healthy controls (i.e., a negative control group) and patients with fibromyalgia (i.e., a positive control group)., Methods: Participants (n = 128) were divided into four equal groups: healthy controls, BCS with persistent pain, BCS without persistent pain, and patients with fibromyalgia. Nine QST parameters were evaluated at the trunk and at a remote location. Somatosensory profiles were determined by Z-score transformation of QST data using normative data from healthy controls., Results: At the trunk, compared to healthy controls, BCS with persistent pain exhibited sensory aberrations across five out of seven QST parameters: pressure pain threshold, mechanical detection, and thermal thresholds. Pain-free BCS showed similar sensory aberrations across the four QST parameters compared to healthy controls: mechanical detection and thermal thresholds. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation were not significantly different between groups., Conclusion: BCS with persistent pain exert aberrations in peripheral processing of nociceptive signals, heightened facilitation of nociceptive signals, and higher psychosocial burden when compared to pain-free BCS, healthy controls, and patients with fibromyalgia., Significance: This study investigates the somatosensory function of breast cancer survivors with and without persistent pain using quantitative sensory testing and two control group (i.e., patients with fibromyalgia and healthy controls). Our results indicate somatosensory aberrations within the peripheral, but not central pathways in breast cancer survivors with persistent pain. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the somatosensory mechanisms underlying persistent pain, which may inform future interventions to prevent the development of persistent pain, and improve treatment modalities., (© 2024 European Pain Federation ‐ EFIC ®.)

Background: There is considerable public interest in whether Europe is facing an opioid crisis comparable to the one in the United States and the contribution of opioid prescriptions for pain to a potential opioid crisis., Methods: A task force of the European Pain Federation (EFIC) conducted a survey with its national chapter representatives on trends of opioid prescriptions and of drug-related emergency departments and substance use disorder treatment admissions and of deaths as proxies of opioid-related harms over the last 20 years., Results: Data from 25 European countries were received. In most European countries opioid prescriptions increased from 2004 to 2016. The levels of opioid consumption and their increase differed between countries. Some Eastern European countries still have a low opioid consumption. Opioids are mainly prescribed for acute pain and chronic noncancer pain in some Western and Northern European countries. There was a parallel increase in opioid prescriptions and some proxies of opioid-related harms in France, Finland and the Netherlands, but not in Germany, Spain and Norway. In United Kingdom, opioid overdose deaths, but not opioid prescriptions increased between 2016 and 2018. There are no robust data available on whether prescribed opioids for pain patients contributed to opioid-related harms., Conclusions: There are marked differences between European countries in trends of opioid prescribing and of proxies for opioid-related harms. Europe as a whole is not facing an opioid crisis. Discussions on the potential harms of opioids should not obstruct their prescription for cancer pain and palliative care., Significance: Europe as a whole is not facing an opioid crisis. Some Eastern European countries have limited access to opioid medicines. Discussions on the potential harms of opioid medicines for noncancer pain should not obstruct opioid therapy for cancer therapy and palliative care., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.)

Background: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC)., Methods: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment., Results: The European Clinical Practice Recommendations give guidance for combination with other medications, the management of frequent (e.g. nausea, constipation) and rare (e.g. hyperalgesia) side effects, for special clinical populations (e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy) and for special situations (e.g. liver cirrhosis)., Conclusion: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively., Significance: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. A collaboration of medical specialties and of all health care professionals is needed for some special populations and clinical situations., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.)

Background: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC)., Methods: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment., Results: The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation., Conclusions: Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance., Significance: In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.)

Background: Pain therapy in inpatients is regularly suboptimal and might be improved by clinical pharmacy services. In our hospital, we have implemented a software-supported 'Check of Medication Appropriateness' (CMA), which is a centralized pharmacist-led service consisting of a clinical rule-based screening for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs), and a subsequent medication review by pharmacists. We aimed to investigate the impact of the CMA on pain-related prescribing., Methods: A quasi-experimental study was performed in a large teaching hospital, using an interrupted time series design. Pre-implementation, patients were exposed to standard of care. Afterwards, a pain-focused CMA comprising 12 specific clinical rules pertaining to analgesic prescribing were implemented in the post-implementation period. A regression model was used to assess the impact of the intervention on the number of pain-related residual PIPs between both periods. The total number of recommendations and acceptance rate was recorded for the post-implementation period., Results: At baseline, a median number of 13.1 (range: 9.5-15.8) residual PIPs per day was observed. After the CMA intervention, the number was reduced to 2.2 (range: 0-9.5) per day. Clinical rules showed an immediate relative reduction of 66% (p < .0001) in pain-related residual PIPs. A significant decreasing time trend was observed during the post-implementation period. Post-implementation, 1683 recommendations were given over 1 year with an acceptance rate of 74.3%., Conclusions: We proved that the CMA approach reduced the number of pain-related residual PIPs. More pharmacist involvement and the use of clinical rules during hospital stay should be further promoted to optimize appropriate prescribing of analgesics., Significance: Prescribing of analgesics should be improved in inpatients to optimize pain control and to reduce iatrogenic harm. The Check of Medication Appropriateness (CMA) approach, comprising a clinical rule-based screening for patients at risk and a targeted medication review by pharmacists, reduced the number of pain-related potentially inappropriate prescriptions in a highly significant and sustained manner. This study presents the opportunities of a centralized clinical pharmacy service to help clinicians to further improve analgesic prescribing., (© 2020 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Background and Objective: Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Evidence from meta-analyses suggests that pain remains poorly controlled for a large proportion of patients; barriers to good management include poor assessment of pain, inadequate support for patient self-management and late or inadequate access to strong opioid analgesia in those with advanced disease., Methods: The European Pain Federation (EFIC) established a Task Force in 2017 which convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate standards for the management of cancer-related pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and made recommendations using the GRADE system to combine quality of evidence with strength of recommendation. The panel took into account the desirable and undesirable effects of the management recommendation, including the cost and inconvenience of each when deciding the recommendation., Results and Conclusions: The 10 standards presented are aimed to improve cancer pain management and reduce variation in practice across Europe. The Task Force believes that adoption of these standards by all 37 countries will promote the quality of care of patients with cancer-related pain and reduce unnecessary suffering., Significance: Pain affects up to 40% of cancer survivors and affects at least 66% of patients with advanced progressive disease, many of whom experience poor pain control. These 10 standards are aimed to improve cancer pain management, promote the quality of care of patients and reduce variation across Europe., (© 2018 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Cannabis-based medicines are being approved for pain management in an increasing number of European countries. There are uncertainties and controversies on the role and appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for the management of chronic pain. EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper to empower and inform specialist and nonspecialist prescribers on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the clinical experience to produce these series of recommendations. Therapy with cannabis-based medicines should only be considered by experienced clinicians as part of a multidisciplinary treatment and preferably as adjunctive medication if guideline-recommended first- and second-line therapies have not provided sufficient efficacy or tolerability. The quantity and quality of evidence are such that cannabis-based medicines may be reasonably considered for chronic neuropathic pain. For all other chronic pain conditions (cancer, non-neuropathic noncancer pain), the use of cannabis-based medicines should be regarded as an individual therapeutic trial. Realistic goals of therapy have to be defined. All patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to reach the predefined goals and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects and/or there are signs of abuse and misuse of the drug by the patient, therapy with cannabis-based medicines should be terminated., Significance: This position paper provides expert recommendations for nonspecialist and specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, on the importance and the appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines as part of a multidisciplinary approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients., (© 2018 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Health care providers, treating patients with chronic non-malignant pain, often experience that medication is not as effective as expected. It is important to realize that the effectiveness of a pharmacological treatment can be influenced by the way the medication is taken. Medication adherence is a topic that gains more attention, especially in chronic conditions, because it affects treatment outcome. A systematic review of studies on medication adherence in patients with chronic non-malignant pain was performed to gain insight in the prevalence of the problem, the impact on treatment outcome, influencing variables and interventions. Searching several electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo and Cochrane), 14 relevant articles were found. The results indicate that medication non-adherence is common in patients with chronic non-malignant pain. Both overuse and underuse of medication occurs. However, due to the scarce literature and important methodological limitations, it is not possible to make firm conclusions concerning the impact on outcome, influencing variables and optimal intervention strategies. This review highlights some important gaps in the adherence literature in a chronic non-malignant pain population and sets the stage for future research.