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]

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]

Copyright of General Practitioner / Lekarz POZ is the property of Termedia Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

Pain is one of the most prevalent and long-term adverse effects described by people who have undergone breast cancer surgery. Non-helpful perceptions and thoughts about pain may contribute to the transition of acute to persistent pain. Adding educational interventions to the current physical therapy program in this population may help to improve or prevent persistent pain. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is a type of educational intervention that addresses the experience of pain in a broader sense by explaining pain not only from a biomedical perspective, but also from a psychological and social perspective. A double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial) investigated whether PNE, in addition to a standard physiotherapy program immediately after surgery for breast cancer, was more effective on somatosensory functioning in the short (4 months postoperatively) and long term (18 months postoperatively), than providing a biomedical explanation for pain. Somatosensory functioning was evaluated using a self-reported questionnaire as well as a comprehensive quantitative sensory testing evaluation. The findings of this study revealed that adding six sessions of PNE to a standard physical therapy program (n = 184) did not result in a significantly different course of somatosensory functioning up to 18 months postoperatively as compared to biomedical pain education. These findings provide an interesting basis for future research into who should receive PNE after surgery for breast cancer (e.g., patient profiling or phenotyping) and how we can tailor it to the individual to increase its effectiveness., (© 2023 American Association for Anatomy.)