Search

Summary: Background: Acute post‐surgical pain is managed inadequately in many patients undergoing surgery. Several prognostic risk prediction models have been developed to identify patients at high risk of developing moderate to severe acute post‐surgical pain. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate the methodological conduct of these prediction models. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies of prognostic risk prediction models for acute post‐surgical pain using predetermined criteria. Prediction model performance was evaluated according to discrimination and calibration. Adherence to TRIPOD guidelines was assessed. Risk of bias and applicability was independently assessed by two reviewers using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. Results: We included 14 studies reporting on 17 prediction models. The most common predictors identified in final prediction models included age; surgery type; sex or gender; anxiety or fear of surgery; pre‐operative pain intensity; pre‐operative analgesic use; pain catastrophising; and expected surgical incision size. Discrimination, measured by the area under receiver operating characteristic curves or c‐statistic, ranged from 0.61 to 0.83. Calibration was only reported for seven models. The median (IQR [range]) overall adherence rate to TRIPOD items was 62 (53–66 [47–72])%. All prediction models were at high risk of bias. Conclusions: Effective prediction models could support the prevention and treatment of acute post‐surgical pain; however, existing models are at high risk of bias which may affect their reliability to inform practice. Consideration should be given to the goals, timing of intended use and desired outcomes of a prediction model before development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Epidural opioids can provide effective analgesia for acute postoperative pain. Due to its unique physicochemical properties and long systemic elimination half‐life, epidural methadone may provide lasting analgesia with minimal adverse effects; however, human studies are lacking. The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that epidural methadone would exhibit greater segmental analgesia (analgesia at the dermatome of injection vs. distant dermatomes) than epidural morphine. Methods: In a prospective, randomized, double‐blinded, crossover study, thirteen healthy volunteers received a 4‐mg epidural bolus of methadone or morphine at L3–L4 and underwent repeated assessment of dermatomal heat pain tolerance and pressure pain threshold at lumbar (L3) and trigeminal (V2) dermatomes, pupil diameter, respiratory parameters and venous opioid concentration for 24 h. The primary outcome was selective (lumbar vs. trigeminal) segmental analgesia for heat pain, as a marker of a spinal analgesic mechanism. Results: The degree of segmental analgesia to heat pain tolerance was not different between morphine and methadone (P =.09), although morphine (P =.0009) but not methadone (P =.81) produced significant analgesia to heat pain at the lumbar vs. trigeminal dermatome over 0–12 h. Morphine overall provided longer lasting analgesia to heat pain vs. methadone (24 vs. 2 h, respectively). Morphine elicited greater systemic effects, including miosis (P =.009) and opioid‐related adverse effects (P =.002). Conclusions: These results suggest that, with equal epidural doses, both methadone and morphine produced analgesia and methadone did not produce greater segmental effects than morphine. Epidural methadone provided a more favourable adverse effect profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundNew 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.MethodsBetween 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.Findings229 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.InterpretationOur 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.FundingNeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]