Search

Background: A better insight in how the biopsychosocial factors influence patient outcome(s) may provide information that helps selecting the optimal pain management for a specific group., Methods: Categorization was made in the prospective DATAPAIN registry, in which patients with pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]: 7-10), depression or anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: > 10), and pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale: > 31) were identified as complex cases. Patient outcomes; treatment satisfaction on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), pain relief (NRS), pain interference on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and quality of life indicator General Perceived Health (GPH) were evaluated. Logistic regression analyzed if belonging to the complex cases showed modification in the outcome of the PGIC and GPH. Linear regression was observed if complex cases differed in average reduction in pain relief and interference compared to non-complex cases., Results: 1637 patients were included, of which 345 (21.08%) were considered complex cases. The changes in scores of pain relief and BPI active subscale were not significantly different between groups. The BPI affective subscale had a different change in score (-0.509; p: 0.002). The complex cases had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.77) on treatment satisfaction compared to non-complex cases, and an OR of 0.28 (95% CI: 0.11-0.56) on the GPH., Conclusion: When treating patients with complex cases, desired treatment outcome(s) should be recognized by specialists and patients, as these may be less likely to occur., (© 2023 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Introduction: Cervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both., Methods: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized., Results: The diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered., Conclusions: There is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.]., (© 2023 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Targeted intrathecal drug delivery (TIDD) has the objective of bringing the drug(s) close to the receptors influencing pain modulation, and thus reducing the dose and the side effects. Intrathecal drug delivery knew its real start with the development of permanent implantation of intrathecal and epidural catheters, combined with internal or external ports, reservoirs, and programmable pumps. TIDD is a valuable treatment for patients with cancer suffering refractory pain. Patients suffering noncancer-related pain should only be considered for TIDD when all other options have been tested, including spinal cord stimulation. Only two drugs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for TIDD administration for chronic pain: morphine and ziconotide as monotherapy. In pain management, off-label use of medication and combination therapy is often reported. The specific action of the intrathecal drugs, the efficacy and safety, is described, as well as the modalities for trialing intrathecal drug delivery and the implantation methods., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest No conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Change on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is based on subjective pain experience, hampering the establishment of clinically important improvement. An anchor-based method, the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC), is often added to determine whether a patient has improved. A two-point change on the NRS has been shown to be equivalent to a moderate clinically important improvement in randomized controlled trials (RCT's) on medication effects. We contemplated whether these findings could be reproduced in cohort and data and in non-drug interventional RCT's., Methods: The NRS change was quantified by subtracting the NRS of baseline from the NRS at 6-month follow-up. Categorization of success/nonsuccess was applied on the PGIC, and their average NRS raw changes were calculated. The Spearman correlation coefficient quantified the overall relationship, while the discriminative ability was explored through the receiver operating characteristic curve. Data were stratified on design, sex, and pain intensity at baseline. Besides, the cohort evaluated treatment status at follow-up., Results: The records of 1661 patients were examined. Overall, the observed NRS change needed for moderate clinically important improvement was larger than the average two points. Yet, the changes in the cohort were smaller compared with the RCT's. Moreover, it modified with pain intensity at baseline and treatment statuses indicated differences in mean clinical importance of -4.15 (2.70) when finalized at 6 months and -2.16 (2.48) when treatment was ongoing., Conclusion: The moderate clinically important improvement varied substantially, representing heterogeneity in pain relief and its relation to treatment success in chronic pain patients., (© 2021 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Background: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial., Methods: In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement., Results: Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation., Conclusions: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background and Objectives: Chronic pain affects many adults. To improve our daily practice, we need to understand multidisciplinary approaches, integrated treatment plans and the biopsychosocial context of these patients. To date, almost 15 000 chronic pain patients have been referred to the Maastricht University Pain Center in the Netherlands., Methods: This study describes 11 214 of these patients suffering from chronic pain. Chronic pain was analyzed using relevant Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials instruments., Results: Most patients were female (59.3%). The prevalence of low education was 59%, and unemployment/disability was 35.9%. The mean age was 55.6 years. Severe pain (Numerical Rating Sale score 7-10) was reported by 71.9% of the patients; psychological and quality of life values deteriorated when pain severity increased. Approximately 36% of patients showed severe signs of depression or anxiety, and 39% displayed high pain catastrophizing. Of all patients, 17.8% reported high values for pain severity, catastrophizing and anxiety or depression., Conclusions: Based on baseline biopsychosocial values, this study shows the complexity of patients referred to pain centers. Pain management with a biopsychosocial approach in an integrated multidisciplinary setting is indispensable. Above all, adjusted education on chronic pain and attention to its biopsychosocial aspects are deemed necessary., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose of Review: The increasing number of publications on pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of chronic pain reflects the interest for this technique. We summarize the literature for PRF in five indications: radicular pain, trigeminal neuralgia (TN), occipital neuralgia, shoulder and knee pain., Recent Findings: The efficacy and safety of PRF adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion was documented on cervical and on lumbar level.PRF has been used for the treatment of TN. The observed duration of effect is shorter than that of conventional radiofrequency, but no neurological complications are reported with PRF.PRF of the nervi occipitales is superior to steroid injections in occipital neuralgia.Several studies showed that PRF of the nervus suprascapularis may relief shoulder pain and can improve mobility of the shoulder joint.For the treatment of knee pain, different nerves have been targeted for PRF treatment., Summary: PRF treatment has progressively gained a place in the management of chronic pain syndromes. The concept is appealing because long-lasting effects are reported without complications. Future research is needed with high quality randomized controlled trials and identification of the optimal parameters of PRF in clinical practice.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common medical conditions, ranking as the greatest contributor to global disability and accounting for huge societal costs based on the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Large genetic and -omics studies provide a promising avenue for the screening, development and validation of biomarkers useful for personalized diagnosis and treatment (precision medicine). Multicentre studies are needed for such an effort, and a standardized and homogeneous approach is vital for recruitment of large numbers of participants among different centres (clinical and laboratories) to obtain robust and reproducible results. To date, no validated standard operating procedures (SOPs) for genetic/-omics studies in chronic pain have been developed. In this study, we validated an SOP model that will be used in the multicentre (5 centres) retrospective "PainOmics" study, funded by the European Community in the 7th Framework Programme, which aims to develop new biomarkers for CLBP through three different -omics approaches: genomics, glycomics and activomics. The SOPs describe the specific procedures for (1) blood collection, (2) sample processing and storage, (3) shipping details and (4) cross-check testing and validation before assays that all the centres involved in the study have to follow. Multivariate analysis revealed the absolute specificity and homogeneity of the samples collected by the five centres for all genetics, glycomics and activomics analyses. The SOPs used in our multicenter study have been validated. Hence, they could represent an innovative tool for the correct management and collection of reliable samples in other large-omics-based multicenter studies.

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) produces considerable direct costs as well as indirect burdens for society, industry and health systems. CLBP is characterised by heterogeneity, inclusion of several pain syndromes, different underlying molecular pathologies and interaction with psychosocial factors that leads to a range of clinical manifestations. There is still much to understand in the underlying pathological processes and the non-psychosocial factors which account for differences in outcomes. Biomarkers that may be objectively used for diagnosis and personalised, targeted and cost-effective treatment are still lacking. Therefore, any data that may be obtained at the '-omics' level (glycomics, Activomics and genome-wide association studies-GWAS) may be helpful to use as dynamic biomarkers for elucidating CLBP pathogenesis and may ultimately provide prognostic information too. By means of a retrospective, observational, case-cohort, multicentre study, we aim to investigate new promising biomarkers potentially able to solve some of the issues related to CLBP., Methods and Analysis: The study follows a two-phase, 1:2 case-control model. A total of 12 000 individuals (4000 cases and 8000 controls) will be enrolled; clinical data will be registered, with particular attention to pain characteristics and outcomes of pain treatments. Blood samples will be collected to perform -omics studies. The primary objective is to recognise genetic variants associated with CLBP; secondary objectives are to study glycomics and Activomics profiles associated with CLBP., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is part of the PainOMICS project funded by European Community in the Seventh Framework Programme. The study has been approved from competent ethical bodies and copies of approvals were provided to the European Commission before starting the study. Results of the study will be reviewed by the Scientific Board and Ethical Committee of the PainOMICS Consortium. The scientific results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT02037789; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The study is supported by a grant from the European Commission (602736). MA is a consultant for Grünenthal, Angelini and Mundipharma. He also collaborated for speeches with MSD and CareFusion. GL has multiple patents in the field of glycoscience issued. IKP is the research director of Photeomix, the commercial name of IP Research Consulting SAS, who have ongoing patent applications and trademarks related to Activomics. YSA is a director and co-owner of Maatschap PolyOmica, which provides (consulting) services in the area of (statistical) (gen)omics., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background and Objectives: There is little evidence concerning the medical management of lumbosacral radicular pain. The prognosis for patients suffering pain for more than 3 months is poor. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been suggested as a minimally invasive treatment. We studied the effect on pain and quality of life of PRF treatment of the DRG in patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain., Methods: Patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were screened to select a homogeneous population. PRF treatment of the DRG was performed at L5 or S1. Evaluation was carried out at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Pain reduction and "fully recovered" or "much improvement," in terms of the global perceived effect, were the primary outcomes. Quality of life (RAND-36), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and the neuropathic pain scales leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) and DN4 were registered at each time point. Medication use was scored with the Medication Quantification Scale., Results: Out of 461 screened patients, 65 were included. According to the intention to treat analysis, clinical success was achieved in 56.9%, 52.3%, and 55.4% of the patients at respectively 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. DN4, Oswestry Disability Index and physical component for the RAND-36 quality of life improved significantly while the mental component remained unchanged. The number of patients on opioids was reduced., Conclusions: PRF treatment of the DRG may be considered for patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain refractory to conventional medical management., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patient preference in terms of quality of life (QoL), analgesia and bowel function for patients with moderate to severe chronic non-malignant pain, when treated with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR compared with the previous WHO-step I and/or WHO-step II analgesic treatment ., Study Design: This was a 3-week open-label phase 3b study conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands, after 3 weeks patients could enter an extension phase. Patient preference with respect to QoL for oxycodone PR/naloxone PR treatment compared with previous WHO-step I and/or WHO-step II analgesics was assessed. A patient was considered a responder with respect to QoL if this assessment was 'better' or 'much better' compared with previous WHO-step I or II analgesics at any time point., Results: Response rate with respect to QoL was 59.2% (95% CI: 51.7-66.8%) for the Full Analysis (FA)-population, for the Per Protocol-population response rate was 71.7% (95% CI: 63.1-80.3%). Explorative analysis showed that response rate with respect to QoL was highest in constipated patients pretreated with WHO-step II analgesics (73.8%). Mean ± SD pain score in the FA-population at start was 74.7 ± 16.6 decreasing to 53.9 ± 24.3 after a median (range) treatment period of 173.5 (31-771) days. For constipated subjects the significant reduction in constipation [improvement of the Bowel Function Index (BFI)], was -24.8 points (95% CI: -17.1 to -32.5). BFI for non-constipated subjects remained well below 28.8. Adverse events with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR treatment were well-known opioid-related adverse events., Conclusion: This study shows that the studied patients previously treated with WHO-step I and/or WHO-step II analgesics prefer treatment with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR with respect to QoL. Moreover, the study shows that treatment with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR significantly reduces OIC in constipated patients and that non-constipated patients do not develop OIC during treatment with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR., (© 2014 The Authors International Journal of Clinical Practice Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Chronic pain may recur after initial response to strong opioids in both patients with cancer and patients without cancer or therapy may be complicated by intolerable side effects. When minimally invasive interventional pain management techniques also fail to provide satisfactory pain relief, continuous intrathecal analgesic administration may be considered. Only 3 products have been officially approved for long-term intrathecal administration: morphine, baclofen, and ziconotide. The efficacy of intrathecal ziconotide for the management of patients with severe chronic refractory noncancer pain was illustrated in 3 placebo-controlled trials. A randomized study showed this treatment option to be effective over a short follow-up period for patients with pain due to cancer or AIDS. The efficacy of intrathecal opioid administration for the management of chronic noncancer pain is mainly derived from prospective and retrospective noncontrolled trials. The effect of intrathecal morphine administration in patients with pain due to cancer was compared with oral or transdermal treatment in a randomized controlled trial, which found better pain control and fewer side effects with intrathecal opioids. Other evidence is derived from cohort studies. Side effects of chronic intrathecal therapy may either be technical (catheter or pump malfunction) or biological (infection). The most troublesome complication is, however, the possibility of granuloma formation at the catheter tip that may induce neurological damage. Given limited studies, the evidence for intrathecal drug administration in patients suffering from cancer-related pain is more compelling than that of chronic noncancer pain., (© 2013 World Institute of Pain.)