Search

Background: New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis., Methods: Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method., Findings: 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only., Interpretation: Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies., Funding: NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of completing a randomized clinical trial (RCT) and examine the preliminary effects of 2 interventions for hip-related groin pain (HRGP). Methods In this pilot RCT, patients with HRGP, who were 18 to 40 years old, were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a joint mobilization (JtMob) group or a movement pattern training (MoveTrain) group. Both treatments included 10 supervised sessions and a home exercise program. The goal of JtMob was to reduce pain and improve mobility through peripherally and centrally mediated pain mechanisms. The key element was physical therapist-provided JtMob. The goal of MoveTrain was to reduce hip joint stresses by optimizing the biomechanics of patient-specific tasks. The key element was task-specific instruction to correct abnormal movement patterns displayed during tasks. Primary outcomes were related to future trial feasibility. The primary effectiveness outcome was the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Examiners were blinded to group; patients and treatment providers were not. Data collected at baseline and immediately after treatment were analyzed with analysis of covariance using a generalized linear model in which change was the dependent variable and baseline was the covariate. The study was modified due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Results The COVID-19 pandemic affected participation; 127 patients were screened, 33 were randomized (18 to the JtMob group and 15 to the MoveTrain group), and 29 (88%) provided posttreatment data. Treatment session adherence was 85%, and home exercise program component adherence ranged from 71 to 86%. Both groups demonstrated significant mean within-group improvements of ≥5 points on Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score scales. There were no between-group differences in effectiveness outcomes. Conclusions A large RCT to assess the effects of JtMob and MoveTrain for patients with HRGP may be feasible. Preliminary findings suggested that JtMob or MoveTrain may result in improvements in patient-reported pain and activity limitations. Impact The COVID-19 pandemic interfered with participation, but a randomized controlled trial may be feasible. Modification may be needed if the trial is completed during future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) is a common complication that impacts quality of life, often necessitating long-term opioid treatment. Certain neurocognitive factors, including reduced performance on cognitive flexibility tasks, are associated with increased risk of PPSP. We examine the perceptions of surgical patients and clinicians with regard to perioperative pain management activities and needs; patient acceptance and use of a perioperative neurocognitive training intervention; and implementation feasibility. Methods We conducted both individual and focus group interviews with patients undergoing thoracic surgery and clinicians in an academic medical center. The Consolidated Framework for Intervention Research guided the development of interview questions related to the adoption and implementation of a neurocognitive intervention to mitigate PPSP. A thematic analysis was used to analyze the responses. Results Forty patients and 15 clinicians participated. Interviews revealed that there is minimal discussion between clinicians and patients about PPSP. Most participants were receptive to a neurocognitive intervention to prevent PPSP, if evidence demonstrating its effectiveness were available. Potential barriers to neurocognitive training program adoption included fatigue, cognitive overload, lack of familiarity with the technology used for delivering the intervention, and immediate postoperative pain and stress. Implementation facilitators would include patient education about the intervention, incentives for its use, and daily reminders. Conclusion The study identified several guiding principles for addressing patients' and clinicians' barriers to effectively implementing a neurocognitive training intervention to mitigate PPSP after surgery. To ensure the sustainability of neurocognitive interventions for preventing PPSP, such interventions would need to be adapted to meet patients' and clinicians' needs within the perioperative context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The President of the International Association for the Study of Pain established a task force on cannabis and cannabinoid analgesia to systematically examine the evidence on (1) analgesic pharmacology of cannabinoids and preclinical evidence on their efficacy in animal models of injury-related or pathological persistent pain; (2) the clinical efficacy of cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines for pain; (3) harms related to long-term use of cannabinoids; as well as (4) societal issues and policy implications related to the use of these compounds for pain management. Here, we summarize key knowledge gaps identified in the task force outputs and propose a research agenda for generating high-quality evidence on the topic. The systematic assessment of preclinical and clinical literature identified gaps in rigor of study design and reporting across the translational spectrum. We provide recommendations to improve the quality, rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of preclinical and clinical research on cannabis and cannabinoids for pain, as well as for the conduct of systematic reviews on the topic. Gaps related to comprehensive understanding of the endocannabinoid system and cannabinoid pharmacology, including pharmacokinetics and drug formulation aspects, are discussed. We outline key areas where high-quality clinical trials with cannabinoids are needed. Remaining important questions about long-term and short-term safety of cannabis and cannabinoids are emphasized. Finally, regulatory, societal, and policy challenges associated with medicinal and nonmedicinal use of cannabis are highlighted, with recommendations for improving patient safety and reducing societal harms in the context of pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This narrative review represents an output from the International Association for the Study of Pain's global task force on the use of cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management, informed by our companion systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies in this area. Our aims in this review are (1) to describe the value of studying cannabinoids and endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system modulators in preclinical/animal models of pain; (2) to discuss both pain-related efficacy and additional pain-relevant effects (adverse and beneficial) of cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators as they pertain to animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain; and (3) to identify important directions for future research. In service of these goals, this review (1) provides an overview of the endocannabinoid system and the pharmacology of cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators, with specific relevance to animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain; (2) describes pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids in rodents and humans; and (3) highlights differences and discrepancies between preclinical and clinical studies in this area. Preclinical (rodent) models have advanced our understanding of the underlying sites and mechanisms of action of cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system in suppressing nociceptive signaling and behaviors. We conclude that substantial evidence from animal models supports the contention that cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators hold considerable promise for analgesic drug development, although the challenge of translating this knowledge into clinically useful medicines is not to be underestimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A personal narrative is presented in which the artist discusses her experience of producing a canvas painting showcasing trees on a pleasant landscape and describes her expressing pain and anger through it.

Abstract: Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials: in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of <7 and >7 days treatment duration were analysed separately. We included 36 studies (7217 participants) delivering cannabinoids (8 studies), cannabis (6 studies), and CBM (22 studies); all had high and/or uncertain risk of bias. Evidence of benefit was found for cannabis <7 days (risk difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.46; 2 trials, 231 patients, very low-quality evidence) and nabiximols >7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The growing demand for improved pain treatments together with expanding legalization of, and access to, cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines has intensified the focus on risk-benefit considerations in pain management. Given limited harms data from analgesic clinical trials, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews focused on all harms possibly relevant to patients receiving cannabinoids for pain management. This PROSPERO-registered, PRISMA-compliant systematic overview identified 79 reviews, encompassing over 2200 individual reports about psychiatric and psychosocial harms, cognitive/behavioral effects, motor vehicle accidents, cardiovascular, respiratory, cancer-related, maternal/fetal, and general harms. Reviews, and their included studies, were of variable quality. Available evidence suggests variable associations between cannabis exposure (ranging from monthly to daily use based largely on self-report) and psychosis, motor vehicle accidents, respiratory problems, and other harms. Most evidence comes from settings other than that of pain management (eg, nonmedicinal and experimental) but does signal a need for caution and more robust harms evaluation in future studies. Given partial overlap between patients receiving cannabinoids for pain management and individuals using cannabinoids for other reasons, lessons from the crisis of oversupply and overuse of opioids in some parts of the world emphasize the need to broadly consider harms evidence from real-world settings. The advancement of research on cannabinoid harms will serve to guide optimal approaches to the use of cannabinoids for pain management. In the meantime, this evidence should be carefully examined when making risk-benefit considerations about the use of cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine for chronic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We assessed methodological quality, scope, and results of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of these treatments. Several search strategies sought self-declared systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using both AMSTAR-2 and techniques important for bias reduction in pain studies. Of the 106 articles read, 57 were self-declared systematic reviews, most published since 2010. They included any type of cannabinoid, cannabis, or CBM, at any dose, however administered, in a broad range of pain conditions. No review examined the effects of a particular cannabinoid, at a particular dose, using a particular route of administration, for a particular pain condition, reporting a particular analgesic outcome. Confidence in the results in the systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 definitions was critically low (41), low (8), moderate (6), or high (2). Few used criteria important for bias reduction in pain. Cochrane reviews typically provided higher confidence; all industry-conflicted reviews provided critically low confidence. Meta-analyses typically pooled widely disparate studies, and, where assessable, were subject to potential publication bias. Systematic reviews with positive or negative recommendation for use of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain typically rated critically low or low (24/25 [96%] positive; 10/12 [83%] negative). Current reviews are mostly lacking in quality and cannot provide a basis for decision-making. A new high-quality systematic review of randomised controlled trials is needed to critically assess the clinical evidence for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Pain recovery was associated with the left prefrontal theta power increase. • Theta band connectivity increased in a prefrontal-somatosensory network during pain recovery. • Pain increased phase-amplitude coupling between theta/alpha and gamma oscillations. • Theta, alpha and high gamma power effects showed good reliability across test–retest sessions. The objective of this study was to comprehensively investigate patterns of brain activities associated with pain recovery following experimental tonic pain in humans. Specific electrophysiological features of pain recovery may either be monitored or be modulated through neurofeedback (NF) as a novel chronic pain treatment. The cold pressor test was applied with simultaneous electroencephalogram (EEG) recording. EEG data were acquired, and analyzed to define: (1) EEG power topography patterns of pain recovery; (2) source generators of pain recovery at cortical level; (3) changes in functional connectivity associated with pain recovery; (4) features of phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) as it relates to pain recovery. The novel finding of this study is that recovery from pain was characterized by significant theta power rebound at the left fronto-central area. The sources of theta power over-recovery were located in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), cingulate cortex, left insula and contralateral sensorimotor cortex. These effects were paralleled by theta band connectivity increase within hemispheres in a prefrontal–somatosensory network and interhemispherically between prefrontal and parietal areas. In addition, this study revealed significant reduction in PAC between theta/alpha and gamma oscillations during recovery period following tonic pain. These findings have largely been replicated across two identical sessions. Our study emphasizes the association between pain recovery and left lateral prefrontal theta power rebound, and significant over-recovery of functional connectivity in prefrontal-sensorimotor neural network synchronized at theta frequencies. These findings may provide basis for chronic pain treatment by modulating neural oscillations at theta frequencies in left prefrontal cortex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]