Search

Studies on the concurrent validity of clinically applicable testing protocols for conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with persistent pain are lacking.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic back pain is one of the most prevalent conditions and has a large socio-economic impact. The lack of routine use of non-pharmacological options and issues associated with pharmacological treatments underscore high unmet needs in the treatment of back pain. Although blue light phototherapy has proven efficacy in dermatology, limited information is available about its use in back pain. Methods: In this proof-of-concept, randomized controlled trial, a pain relief patch (PRP) delivered blue light at the site of back pain for 30 min during five treatment sessions. The comparator device delivered green light for 5 s but was worn for 30 min. A follow-up visit took place after the last treatment. The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of treatment by PRP, compared to the control device, in reducing pain intensity at the end of the treatment period. The post-treatment visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score for each group was calculated across the five treatment sessions and compared to the baseline. Secondary objectives included the disability score (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and safety. Results: The full analysis set included 171 patients. A statistically significant reduction in pain intensity occurred after the use of PRP (p < 0.02), but the study did not meet its primary objective of a superiority trial aimed at demonstrating a 0.6 cm difference in favor of PRP on the VAS scale. There was no significant change in the disability scores. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify the treatment response by patient characteristics such as pain intensity at baseline and skin type. As expected, safety data showed erythema and skin discoloration in the PRP group but not in the control group. Discussion/conclusion: This trial had multiple limitations that need to be addressed in future research. Although the primary objective was not achieved, this proof-of-concept study provides important efficacy and safety data in relation to the use of blue light in the treatment of chronic back pain and key insights that may support further research on similar devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the essences of rehabilitation is enhancing a persons' functioning and participation in society, including work. According to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), participation can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including pain. In many patients with a pain complaint a neuropathic pain component is present. To steer (vocational) rehabilitation, it is important to recognize the presence of neuropathic pain. Expensive and time-consuming instrumental tests (e.g. Quantitative Sensory Testing) to identify presence of neuropathic pain are available in specialized centers but not applicable in daily clinical practice in rehabilitation settings. The aim of this manuscript is to give an overview of alternative screening and assessment methods of neuropathic pain that are applicable in a daily clinical setting and for the different professionals who may be involved in rehabilitation (e.g., physical therapists, occupationl therapists, counselors, etc). The first part elaborates on the definition of neuropathic pain and common terminology. Second, basic anatomy and physiology related to neuropathic pain are presented needed to understand neuropathic pain. Third, the relevant aspects of clinical history and clinical examination are discussed. Finally, screening tools for neuropathic pain and alternative clinical assessments methods for Quantitative Sensory Testing are presented. Keywords: neuropathic pain, assessment, Quantitative Sensory Testing, rehabilitation; clinical practice, Rehabilitation aims at promotion of a persons' health in order to enhance the ability to engage in meaningful activities and participation in society, including work (Momsen et al., 2018; Reneman [...]

Opioid-induced constipation remains undertreated despite effective and safe treatment options exists. Previous guidelines have only been partially effective in improving management, possibly due to their complexity, and studies suggest that a simple setup of concise and behaviorally-orientated steps improves usability. This article introduces the concept of opioid-induced constipation and provides an overview of existing guidelines in this field. We also propose simplified recommendations for managing opioid-induced constipation, derived from a synthesis of current guidelines and the principles of optimal guideline design theory. Despite standard treatment with laxatives and fluid intake in patients with opioid-induced constipation, escalation of treatment is often needed where μ-opioid receptor antagonists or newer medications such as lubiprostone, linaclotide, or prucalopride are used. Previous guidelines have not been used sufficiently and thus management of the condition is often insufficient. We therefore propose simplified recommendations to management, which we believe can come into broader use. It was validated in primary care for credibility, clarity, relevance, usability, and overall benefit. We believe that this initiative can lead to better management of the substantial proportion of patients suffering from side effects of opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain after breast cancer surgery is a common and disabling problem. A reliable and valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability is the Pain Disability Index (0–70). However, properties of the Dutch version (PDI-DLV) have never been investigated in this population. To assess psychometric properties of the PDI-DLV after breast cancer surgery. For reliability, relative and absolute reliability were calculated with a one-week test–retest interval, as well as internal consistency. Moreover, content and construct validity were examined to evaluate validity. One hundred twenty-three women were included. Relative reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.80). Standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change (absolute reliability) were 5.57 and 15.45 points, respectively. The mean difference between two measurements was −1.98 points, with 95% limits of agreement equal to 13.19 and −17.15. The within-subjects coefficient of variation was 59%. Internal consistency was confirmed (α = 0.87). The PDI-DLV was scored as understandable and complete (content validity). Construct validity was supported by confirmation of more than 75% of the tested hypotheses and of the one-factor model. The PDI-DLV is a valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability 1 year after breast cancer surgery. Although absolute reliability is disputable, its good relative reliability allows evaluating changes between subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain and sensory disturbances are common side effects of breast cancer treatment. Differential somatosensory functioning may reflect distinct pathophysiological backgrounds and therapeutic needs. Aim was to examine whether questionnaires evaluating signs and symptoms related to somatosensory functioning correlate sufficiently with quantitative sensory testing (QST) in breast cancer survivors to warrant consideration for somatosensory profiling in clinical practice. One year after breast cancer surgery, 147 women underwent QST and completed following questionnaires: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), Central Sensitization Inventory, Margolis Pain Diagram and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Associations between the questionnaires and QST were evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients (rs). Significant but weak (rs < 0.30) correlations were found between total DN4 score and QST results at the inner upper arm for detection of sharp stimuli (rs = 0.227), cold stimuli (rs = −0.186), and painful heat stimuli (rs = 0.179), as well as between QST evaluating conditioned pain modulation and the Margolis Pain Diagram on one hand (rs = 0.176) and minimum-maximum pain intensity differences (VAS) on the other (rs = −0.170). Questionnaires evaluating signs and symptoms related to somatosensory functioning are insufficient for somatosensory profiling. Although somatosensory profiling may be valuable in a mechanism-based management, more research on the most appropriate clinical tools is needed. Clinicians should be able to recognize that patients with persistent pain or sensory disturbances following breast cancer surgery may have a component of altered somatosensory processing as a significant contributor to their complaint in order to address it appropriately. Somatosensory profiling has yet to be implemented into clinical practice. No evidence-based recommendations can be made on the use of self-reported questionnaires to assess somatosensory processing in a breast cancer population based on the findings of this study. It is suggested to combine information on how individuals process and experience somatosensory stimulation with information from the patient interview or questionnaires to consider which biological, psychological and/or social factors may drive or sustain these neurophysiological processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of chronic low back pain (CLBP) on patients' personal and professional lives, and management strategies applied to treat CLBP. Methods: A 60‐question survey was developed, and respondents from 16 countries with a self‐reported physician's diagnosis of CLBP were recruited via an online market research survey panel. Respondents were stratified as having mild, moderate, or severe pain. Target sample sizes per country and for pain severity were set. Data were weighted according to the known population and prevalence of CLBP in each country and the number of respondents from that country. Results: Results from 9642 CLBP patients indicated that almost a quarter of patients with severe CLBP report a psychological comorbidity. Prescription pain medications were more commonly used by patients with severe CLBP (56%) than those with mild (20%) or moderate (34%) CLBP. Among those with severe CLBP who had been prescribed pain medication, 58% were prescribed opioids, with 1 in 4 patients using opioids for more than 5 years. Patients were primarily managed by general practitioners/primary care physicians, physiotherapists, neurologists, or orthopedic surgeons. CLBP negatively impacted patients' daily activities, social lives, and work productivity. Conclusion: Chronic low back pain has pronounced effects on patients' personal relationships, ability to work, and daily living. Almost 1 in four patients with severe CLBP reported a psychological comorbidity. Adherence to guidelines appears inconsistent, which is noteworthy as a substantial subgroup of patients with severe CLBP had been prescribed opioid medication for more than 5 years. Improved education is required to support healthcare professionals (HCPs) in identifying and understanding the complex biopsychosocial needs of CLBP patients to optimize pain management and to encourage referral of CLBP patients to physiotherapists and psychologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pain science education on pain, psychological factors and physical functioning in adults who underwent surgery. Data sources: A systematic literature search of English articles using PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library. Review methods: The search strategy was constructed as follows: (((pain) AND (education)) OR (pain education)) AND (surgery). Only controlled quantitative studies in adults reporting outcome(s) on pain, psychological factors and/or physical functioning were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. P -values and corresponding effect sizes for interaction-effect (time × group) portrayed the difference in change over time between groups were of interest. The last search was conducted on February 28, 2021. Results: Nine papers (n = 1078) were deemed eligible for this review. Two randomized controlled trials showed significant interaction effects. Breast cancer patients who had received one preoperative pain science education session showed a significant increase in postoperative pain compared to controls (P -value = 0.0394). Furthermore, p sychological factors (pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia) decreased in participants who had received pain science education before total knee arthroplasty, while this was not the case in the control group (P -value < 0.001, ƞ2p:0.11). Conclusions: Overall, pain science education did not result in any significant postoperative effects on pain, psychological factors and/or physical functioning compared to controls. There is currently no strong evidence for the implementation of pain science education in the perioperative period. Registration number: PROSPERO: ID 161267, registration number CRD42020161267 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]