Search

Chronic pain is a major source of morbidity for which there are limited effective treatments. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), a naturally occurring fatty acid amide, has demonstrated utility in the treatment of neuropathic and inflammatory pain. Emerging reports have supported a possible role for its use in the treatment of chronic pain, although this remains controversial. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of PEA as an analgesic agent for chronic pain. A systematic literature search was performed, using the databases MEDLINE and Web of Science, to identify double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing PEA to placebo or active comparators in the treatment of chronic pain. All articles were independently screened by two reviewers. The primary outcome was pain intensity scores, for which a meta-analysis was undertaken using a random effects statistical model. Secondary outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and side effects are represented in a narrative synthesis. Our literature search identified 253 unique articles, of which 11 were ultimately included in the narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Collectively, these articles described a combined sample size of 774 patients. PEA was found to reduce pain scores relative to comparators in a pooled estimate, with a standard mean difference of 1.68 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.31, p = 0.00001). Several studies reported additional benefits of PEA for quality of life and functional status, and no major side effects were attributed to PEA in any study. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PEA is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for chronic pain. Further study is warranted to determine the optimal dosing and administration parameters of PEA for analgesic effects in the context of chronic pain.

Background: Pain clinics provide interdisciplinary therapy to treat chronic pain patients and to increase the return-to-work rate. In recent years and due to increased economic pressure in health care, a change in the management of pain in Austrian health care centers has been observed. For the analysis of the current situation, two surveys addressing all Austrian pain clinics were performed., Materials and Methods: In total, 133 heads of Austrian Anesthesia Departments were interviewed online and personally. The data from the first interview were confirmed by an additional telephone survey that was performed by one anesthetist per Austrian state (n = 9)., Results: Currently, 44 Austrian pain clinics are active. During the last 5 years, 9 pain clinics closed. Adding the current active pain clinics together, they represent a total of 17.5 full-time-operated clinics. The most common reasons for closing the pain clinics were lack of personnel (47%), lack of time resources (26%), lack of space resources (11%), and financial difficulties (11%). A reduction of >50% of operating hours during the last 3 years was reported by 9 hospitals. The reasons for not running a pain clinic were lack of personnel (36%), lack of time (25%) and department too small (16%). Estimates between actual and required clinics indicate that 49.5 full-time-operating pain clinics are lacking in Austria, resulting in 74% of the Austrian chronic pain patients not receiving interdisciplinary pain management., Conclusion: Our survey confirmed the closure of 9 pain clinics during the last 5 years due to lack of personnel and time. Pain clinics appear to provide the simplest economic saving potential. This development is a major concern. Although running a pain clinic seems to be expensive at the first sight, it reduces pain, sick leave, complications, and potential legal issues against health care centers, while simultaneously increasing the hospital's competitiveness. Our results show that 74% of Austrian chronic pain patients do not have access to an interdisciplinary pain clinic. Because of plans to further economize resources, Austria may lose its ability to provide state-of-the-art pain therapy and management.

The article discusses the use of nociception level-guided anesthesia and its effect on pain levels and opioid consumption in the post-anesthesia care unit. The authors conducted a meta-analysis and found that while there are studies suggesting that this type of anesthesia may reduce postoperative pain, the evidence is not strong enough to recommend its general use. They support the call for further research, particularly in vulnerable patient groups and procedures associated with severe postoperative pain. The article concludes that more investigation is needed to fully understand the potential benefits and limitations of nociception level-guided anesthesia. [Extracted from the article]