"FastSchool": A single session of an interprofessional pain management program for chronic pain patients inspired by cognitive behavioral therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary approaches to treating chronic pain have been proven effective. Currently, chronic pain patients face lengthy waitlists in pain medicine departments. To overcome this problem, we developed the "FastSchool" program to educate patients about pain management and treatment. In this study, we evaluated the benefit of a "FastSchool" session on pain and catastrophizing in chronic pain patients. METHODS: Included patients had chronic non-cancer pain, no more than 2 visits to a pain medicine department. Patients attended a single 3-hour session, conducted by an interprofessional team. Four topics were addressed: chronic pain mechanisms, pharmacological therapies, physical activity, and the management of analgesics. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3 months post-session to assess pain interference, pain intensity, and catastrophizing. RESULTS: The study population included 88 patients; 71 completed the follow-up questionnaires. Pain interference (p = 0.002), average pain intensity (p = 0.013), and catastrophizing (p < 0.001) decreased 3 months after FastSchool. At M3, 35 % of patients felt their pain had improved based on the Patient Global Impression of Change. CONCLUSION: FastSchool, an innovative short-term educational program inspired by cognitive behavioral therapy, showed positive results in reducing pain impact. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of FastSchool in pain medicine departments would reduce waitlist times for non-pharmacological treatment.

Osteopathic medicine for fibromyalgia: a sham-controlled randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with fibromyalgia (FM) frequently resort to osteopathic or chiropractic treatment, despite very weak supporting evidence. We aimed to assess the efficacy of osteopathic manipulation in FM in a properly controlled and powered randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to osteopathic or sham treatment. Treatment was administered by experienced physical medicine physicians, and consisted of six sessions per patient, over 6 weeks. Treatment credibility and expectancy were repeatedly evaluated. Patients completed standardized questionnaires at baseline, during treatment, and at 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome was pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale) during the treatment period. Secondary outcomes included fatigue, functioning, and health-related quality of life. We performed primarily intention-to-treat analyses adjusted for credibility, using multiple imputation for missing data. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients (94% women) were included. Osteopathic treatment did not significantly decrease pain relative to sham treatment (mean difference during treatment: -2.2 mm; 95% confidence interval, -9.1 to 4.6 mm). No significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events were observed, despite a likely rebound in pain and altered functioning at week 12 in patients treated by osteopathy. Patient expectancy was predictive of pain during treatment, with a decrease of 12.9 mm (4.4-21.5 mm) per 10 points on the 0-30 scale. Treatment credibility and expectancy were also predictive of several secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Osteopathy conferred no benefit over sham treatment for pain, fatigue, functioning, and quality of life in patients with FM. These findings do not support the use of osteopathy to treat these patients. More attention should be paid to the expectancy of patients in FM management.

Efficacy of a combination of hypnosis and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic non-cancer pain: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, which persists for at least three months, seriously affects quality of life. Chronic non-cancer pain patients are usually managed by a multidisciplinary team using pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Nurses perform transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and hypnosis, which are widely used in France for the treatment of chronic pain in pain departments. OBJECTIVE: To assess pain relief at three months, comparing a simultaneous combination of hypnosis and TENS (intervention) with TENS alone (control). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years, suffering from chronic peripheral neuropathic and/or nociceptive non-cancer pain were included (September 2013 to May 2017) and followed for six months. The primary outcome was the pain intensity difference (by visual analog scale score) between month 3 and baseline. The secondary outcomes, assessed at months 3 and 6, were SF36 score, analgesics consumption and number of TENS sessions performed at home (last seven days). RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included, suffering from a combination of chronic non-cancer nociceptive and neuropathic pain, with a mean pain intensity of about sixty out of a hundred. The results show an important pain reduction (forty percent) in both groups at 3 months. No significant difference was observed between the control and intervention groups. Similarly, SF36 score, change in analgesic intake and patient compliance did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized controlled study showing a decrease of pain intensity and a high level of compliance with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone or associated to hypnosis. The combination does not seem to be more efficient than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone. Chronic non-cancer pain remains a major issue and a substantial proportion of patients do not appear to benefit from interventions. IMPACT: This study increases our understanding of the combination of two non-pharmacological methods in chronic non-cancer pain patients. The combination of the two non-pharmacological strategies did not appear to be more efficient than one alone. Further research on non-pharmacological treatments targeting to patient's characteristics are needed to find appropriate strategies in patients with complex multidimensional pain conditions. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01944150 (Sept. 17, 2013).

Opioid epidemic: Does rheumatological practice favors risk for patients? National survey on rheumatologists' opioid prescriptions and compliance to guidelines for strong opioid prescription.

OBJECTIVES: Given the scope of rheumatology and its prevalence of pain, it seems needed that a study should focus on prescription habits, in the midst of the international opioid epidemic and given the moderate efficacy of strong opioids in chronic musculoskeletal conditions. We compared rheumatologists' opioid prescribing patterns in non-cancer pain with recommended practice. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of the French health insurance database, including all patients aged 16 years or over reimbursed for at least one strong opioid prescription from a rheumatologist in 2015. A nationwide survey of all registered rheumatologists in France was performed with a 47-item questionnaire in June 2015. RESULTS: Only 2.4% of the patients receiving a strong opioid in 2015 (n=700,946) had at least one prescription from a rheumatologist. Rheumatologists prescribed mostly morphine, and significantly less oxycodone and fentanyl (P<0.00001) than other specialists. Rheumatologists prescribed a mean of 35.8mg morphine equivalent/day. A response rate of 33.7% was obtained to the questionnaire. Acute musculoskeletal pain was the principal condition for strong opioids prescription, with 94.5% re-evaluating opioid treatment within two weeks of initiation. For efficacy, 80% said that they stopped treatment if no benefit was observed after a test period (mean=1.2 months). Rheumatologists with pain management training were significantly more likely to evaluate pain before prescribing strong opioids (P=0.001), evaluate efficacy within three months (P=0.01) and screen for risk factors for misuse at initiation (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For non-cancer pain, rheumatologists generally prescribe opioids for short periods, at low doses, mostly according to national recommendations. Pain education strongly affected opioid prescription by rheumatologists.

[Fibromyalgia]. / Fibromyalgie.

Fibromyalgia is a frequent pain condition. The main symptom is chronic widespread pain during at least 3 months. Many other comorbidities and symptoms are also present. Diagnosis has been revised at multiple occasions during the past 2 decades. The concept is still discussed considering fibromyalgia as a unique diagnosis or a condition including multiple ilnesses. The recent revision in 2016 provides an update of the criteria in order to avoid misclassification (depression). Indeed, applying the previous criteria to regional pain syndromes led to over diagnosis. However, the criteria are not sufficient to diagnose fibromyalgia; complete medical history and physical examination are necessary. There are also diagnostic confounders which should be identified. Morover, some of these confounders may also be associated in some cases with fibromyalgia. Treatments recommended combines multidisciplinary approaches including education, exercises, stress adjustment and if necessary cognitive behavioral therapies. If insufficient, medications such as antidepressents and/or antiepileptics, may be recommended.

FIBROMYALGIE. Les douleurs chroniques diffuses font partie des symptômes cardinaux de la fibromyalgie. Elles sont associées à de nombreux autres symptômes corporels, à de la fatigue, à la sensation d'un réveil non reposé, à des troubles du sommeil et à des troubles cognitifs. Les symptômes sont reconnaissables facilement et ce n'est ni un diagnostic d'exclusion ni d'élimination. La dernière révision des critères diagnostiques en 2016 permet de mieux appréhender la fibromyalgie et sa sévérité. La subjectivité des symptômes, l'absence d'étalon-or diagnostique et le manque de « marqueur spécifique biologique ¼ peuvent rendre le diagnostic difficile. En outre, il existe de nombreux diagnostics différentiels et diagnostics associés. La prise en charge est essentiellement multidisciplinaire et associe l'information, l'éducation, des exercices physiques, la gestion du stress, voire des thérapies cognitives et comportementales. Les médicaments de fond de type psychotropes (antiépileptiques et/ou antidépresseurs) sont plutôt utilisés en seconde ligne.

Quality of life and impact of pain in women treated with aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer. A multicenter cohort study.

Women with hormone-dependent breast cancer are treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) to slow disease progression by decreasing estrogen levels. However, AI have adverse effects, including pain, with potentially serious impact on quality of life (QOL) and treatment compliance. We evaluated quality of life during the first year of AI treatment, focusing particularly on the impact of pain. In a multicenter cohort study of 135 women with early-stage breast cancer, free of pain at the initiation of AI treatment, quality of life (by the EORTC QLQ-BR23), somatic and psychic symptoms, psychological characters, temperament and coping strategies were assessed at baseline and at each follow-up visit (1, 3, 6 and 12 months). The impact of treatment-induced pain on quality of life during follow-up was determined with repeated-measures regression models. These models were constructed to assess the effects of pain and pain type on quality of life during follow-up, taking into account predictors associated with quality of life at baseline. Prior ganglion resection, taxane treatment and chemotherapy, a high amplification score on the pain catastrophizing scale, and a high harm avoidance score on the personality questionnaire were associated with a significantly lower baseline QOL. Fifty-seven percent of women developed pain of five different types: upper or lower limb joint pain, diffuse pain, neuropathic pain, tendon pain and mixed pain. A significant decrease in QOL was noted in the women with pain, particularly for body image, sexual functioning and future perspectives. Moreover, the impact of pain on QOL depended on the type of pain experienced. In conclusion, women treated with aromatase inhibitors display changes in quality of life and the degree of change in quality of life depends mostly on the type of pain experienced. Oncologists and patients should be aware of painful adverse effects of AI and encouraged to provide or receive earlier and more appropriate management of these effects.

Opioid-Induced Constipation and Bowel Dysfunction: A Clinical Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To formulate timely evidence-based guidelines for the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. SETTING: Constipation is a major untoward effect of opioids. Increasing prescription of opioids has correlated to increased incidence of opioid-induced constipation. However, the inhibitory effects of opioids are not confined to the colon, but also affect higher segments of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to the coining of the term "opioid-induced bowel dysfunction." METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to identify and categorize relevant papers. A series of statements were formulated and justified by a comment, then labeled with the degree of agreement and their level of evidence as judged by the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) system. RESULTS: From a list of 10,832 potentially relevant studies, 33 citations were identified for review. Screening the reference lists of the pertinent papers identified additional publications. Current definitions, prevalence, and mechanism of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction were reviewed, and a treatment algorithm and statements regarding patient management were developed to provide guidance on clinical best practice in the management of patients with opioid-induced constipation and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, more insight has been gained in the pathophysiology of this "entity"; new treatment approaches have been developed, but guidelines on clinical best practice are still lacking. Current knowledge is insufficient regarding management of the opioid side effects on the upper gastrointestinal tract, but recommendations can be derived from what we know at present.

Relieving pain in rheumatology patients: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a developing approach.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive method for activating specific areas of the brain. There are two variants, repetitive TMS (rTMS) and direct TMS. Rapid changes in an electrical current induce a magnetic field, which in turn induces an electrical current in a nearby conductor. When a coil is positioned over the brain, rTMS delivers very brief and painless magnetic pulses to the brain. Initially, rTMS was developed as a treatment for depression. Since then, potential indications have been extended to the treatment of chronic pain, most notably in patients with rheumatic diseases. Thus, active research is being conducted into rTMS effects in fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, and type I complex regional pain syndrome. Studies have established that rTMS is safe; provides pain relief, at least in the short-term; and improves the psychological correlates of chronic pain. These data support further development efforts with the goal of using rTMS in patients with chronic pain, including those with rheumatic diseases. French physicians have shown a high level of interest in rTMS, and the first French recommendations for using this method were issued in 2011. Further research is needed to determine the optimal stimulation parameters, session frequency, and session duration, as well as the best indications. Physicians who see many patients with chronic pain, such as rheumatologists, should be aware of this developing non-pharmacological and safe treatment modality, which can be of considerable help to their patients.

Classification of and risk factors for estrogen deprivation pain syndromes related to aromatase inhibitor treatments in women with breast cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study.

UNLABELLED: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the first-line treatment in women with breast cancer for total estrogen depletion. Half the treated women may develop pain, and this condition may therefore be seen as a clinical model of pain related to estrogen deprivation. In this prospective multicenter study, we classified AI-related pain syndromes and identified their predictors. A 1-year, prospective, multicenter cohort study, with 6 visits, was carried out on 135 women with early-stage breast cancer and no pain at the start of AI treatment. At initial assessment, we investigated clinical (demographic and psychosocial, cancer characteristics and treatment, sleep, quality of life), biological (sex hormones, vitamin D, bone biomarkers, oxidative stress, immunologic and inflammatory markers), environmental, and genetic (polymorphism for pain mechanisms) risk factors for pain. During 1 year of follow-up, 77 women (57%) developed pain, leading to AI discontinuation in 12 cases. Five pain syndromes were identified: joint pain (36%), diffuse pain (22%), tendinitis (22%), neuropathic pain (9%), and mixed pain (11%), which are mostly persistent (57%), with diffuse and joint pains the most intense. Risk factors for the development of pain included higher levels of anxiety and impaired quality of life at the initial assessment, whereas cancer characteristics, genetic background, inflammation, and immunologic and hormonal status at baseline were not significant predictors. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a classification of AI-related pain syndromes induced by estrogen deprivation that were previously described as arthralgia, but not as neuropathic, diffuse, and mixed pain. This estrogen deprivation-related condition represents a clinical model of pain, and our study identified mostly psychological risk factors for pain development.

"Let's talk about OA pain": a qualitative analysis of the perceptions of people suffering from OA. Towards the development of a specific pain OA-Related questionnaire, the Osteoarthritis Symptom Inventory Scale (OASIS).

INTRODUCTION: Pain is the primary outcome measurement in osteoarthritis, and its assessment is mostly based on its intensity. The management of this difficult chronic condition could be improved by using pain descriptors to improve analyses of painful sensations. This should help to define subgroups of patients based on pain phenotype, for more adapted treatment. This study draws upon patients' descriptions of their pain, to identify and understand their perception of osteoarthritis pain and to categorize pain dimensions. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted with representative types of patients suffering from osteoarthritis. Two focus groups were conducted with a sample of 14 participants, with either recent or chronic OA, at one or multiple sites. Focus groups were semi-structured and used open-ended questions addressing personal experiences to explore the experiences of patients with OA pain and the meanings they attributed to these pains. RESULTS: TWO MAIN POINTS EMERGED FROM CONTENT ANALYSES: -A major difficulty in getting patients to describe their osteoarthritis pain: perception that nobody wants to hear about it; necessity to preserve one's self and social image; notion of self-imposed stoicism; and perception of osteoarthritis as a complex, changing, illogical disease associated with aging. -Osteoarthritis pains were numerous and differed in intensity, duration, depth, type of occurrence, impact and rhythm, but also in painful sensations and associated symptoms. Based on analyses of the verbatim interviews, seven dimensions of OA pain emerged: pain sensory description, OA-related symptoms, pain variability profile, pain-triggering factors, pain and physical activity, mood and image, general physical symptoms. SUMMARY: In osteoarthritis, pain analysis should not be restricted to intensity. Our qualitative study identified pain descriptors and defined seven dimensions of osteoarthritis pain. Based on these dimensions, we aim to develop a specific questionnaire on osteoarthritis pain quality for osteoarthritis pain phenotyping: the OsteoArthritis Symptom Inventory Scale (OASIS).

Pain management in heroin and cocaine users.

Drug addicts often seek medical help for pain. Numerous fears and beliefs may hinder the recognition, evaluation, and management of pain in addicts. Nevertheless, the same fundamental principles apply to these patients as to other patients in terms of pain evaluation, analgesic selection, and dosage adjustment. Clarity of the medical prescription is crucial. Specific points that require attention in addicts include the effects of the abused drugs on the nociceptive system, the nature and amount of abused drugs, concomitant nondrug addictions, co-morbidities, and the nature of the pain symptoms. Also crucial is differentiating current abusers from former abusers and from abusers taking replacement therapy, as different management strategies are required in these three situations. Detailed information on the history of drug abuse is necessary to avoid unwanted events (e.g., overdosing or withdrawal syndrome) or an exacerbation of the addictive behaviors. In practice, hospital admission should be avoided to the extent possible. The use of strong opioids should be kept to a minimum (although this important rule may be difficult to follow, for instance in surgical emergencies). The best route of administration and galenic formulation vary with each individual situation but, in general, intravenous administration of strong opioids is highly undesirable. A treatment contract established with the patient is crucial and must indicate the nature of the drug or replacement agent used and the treatments given for pain control.

Development and validation of a questionnaire assessing volitional competencies to enhance the performance of physical activities in chronic low back pain patients.

BACKGROUND: Motivation has long been emphasized as the most important determinant of action. However, there is a substantial gap between people's goals and their attainment. Patients may be motivated and yet unable to take action if their volitional competencies are insufficient. One of the important tasks of volition is goal-maintenance. Research has stressed the importance of a volitional tool, the implementation intentions. Implementation intentions indicate where, when, and how the action leading to the goal will be performed. Forming implementation intentions favours the execution of goal-directed efforts, and reinforces the relationship between intentions and behaviours. Results from various studies clearly suggest that volitional competencies and implementation intentions could play a role in low back pain (LBP) patients. However, there is at present no questionnaire allowing assessing the capacity of implementation intentions of physical activities in LBP patients. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will develop such a questionnaire, using a 3-step approach. A first qualitative step to build categories and generate items; 30 patients suffering chronic LBP will be invited to participate in semi-structured interviews; verbatim and derived items will then be submitted to a panel of experts, using a Delphi method; a second quantitative step to examine the properties of items, and determine the factorial structure of the questionnaire; 100 patients suffering chronic LBP will be recruited to respond to this phase; and third, preliminary psychometric analyses (item-scale correlations, construct validity, reliability); 180 chronic LBP patients will be recruited for this phase of the study. The relationships between implementation intentions and variables affecting physical activity on chronic LBP patients, i.e. pain, physical capacities, fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia, work status, and level of physical activity will be considered. DISCUSSION: Developing a questionnaire to assess implementation intentions would allow investigating the role of these intentions in the transition from acute to chronic LBP. The results of this study should contribute to the understanding of the psychological processes at stake in the development of chronic LBP, and in particular to the identification of factors eventually favouring patients' participation in and adherence to active physical treatments.

Are there risk factors for musculoskeletal procedural pain? A national prospective multicentre study of procedural instantaneous pain and its recall after knee and spine injections.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk factors for procedural pain during spinal and joint injections. METHODS: In this prospective national multicentre study, procedural pain was investigated by rheumatologists who visited four consecutive patients undergoing synovial aspiration and infiltrations of the knee (K), and four consecutive patients undergoing spinal (S) injections. Pain assessments were carried out just before, during, and 48 hours after the procedure. RESULTS: The 249 rheumatologists enrolled 1350 patients (720 K and 630 S; 64 ± 14 years, 64.6% female). Instantaneous procedure-induced pain was reported in 76.1% of cases, was generally mild (mean 2.6 ± 2.5 on 10) and not different between the two sites. The frequency of procedure-induced pain increased significantly with pain related to the underlying disease and level of anxiety before the procedure. Procedure-induced pain was recalled after 48 hours later by 66.2% of the patients, with an intensity of 2.4 ± 2.6. The recall of procedure-induced pain increased with pain due to the underlying condition, with the intensity of instantaneous procedure-induced pain, with the level of anxiety, but was less frequent if the patient underwent the procedure for the first time. Patients' and physicians' estimates of procedural pain were poorly concordant (kappa coefficient 0.45), physicians tended to overestimate the frequency of pain but to underestimate its intensity. CONCLUSION: Procedural pain is common, but mild, in patients undergoing musculoskeletal injections. Instantaneous procedural pain and its recall 48 hours later depend principally on the level of underlying pain and anxiety, regardless of the injection site and the analgesic procedure performed.

Study of the information delivery by general practitioners and rheumatologists to patients with acute low back pain.

Providing information to patients regarding appropriate management of LBP is a crucial component of primary care and treatment of low back pain (LBP). Limited knowledge is available, however, about the information delivered by physicians to patients with low back pain. Hence, this study aimed at evaluating (1) the self-reported practices of French physicians concerning information about patients with acute LBP (2) the consistency of these practices with the COST B13 guidelines, and (3) the effects of the delivery of a leaflet summarizing the COST B13 recommendations on the management of patient information, using the following study design: 528 French physicians [319 general practitioners (GP) and 209 rheumatologists (RH)] were asked to provide demographic information, responses to a Fear Avoidance Beliefs questionnaire adapted for physicians and responses to a questionnaire investigating the consistency of their practice with the COST B13 guidelines. Half of the participants (163 GP and 105 RH) were randomized to receive a summary of the COST B13 guidelines concerning information delivery to patient with low back pain and half (156 GP and 104 RH) were not given this information. The mean age of physicians was 52.1±7.6 years, 25.2% were females, 75% work in private practice, 63.1% reported to treat 10-50 patients with LBP per month and 18.2%<10 per month. The majority of the physicians (71.0%) reported personal LBP episode (7.1% with a duration superior to 3 months). Among the 18.4% (97) of the physicians that knew the COST B13 guidelines, 85.6% (83/97) reported that they totally or partially applied these recommendations in their practice. The average work (0-24) and physical activity (0-24) FABQ scores were 21.2±8.4 and 10.1±6.0, respectively. The consistency scores (11 questions scored 0 to 6, total score was standardized from 0 to 100) were significantly higher in the RH group (75.6±11.6) than in GP group (67.2±12.6; p<0.001). The delivery of a summary of the COST B13 guidelines significantly improved the consistency score (p=0.018). However, a multivariate analysis indicated that only GP consistency was improved by recommendations' delivery.The results indicated that GP were less consistent with the European COST B13 guidelines on the information of patients with acute LBP than RH. Interestingly, delivery of a summary of these guidelines to GP improved their consistency score, but not that of the RH. This suggests that GP information campaign can modify the message that they deliver to LBP, and subsequently could change patient's beliefs on LBP.

Are joint and soft tissue injections painful? Results of a national French cross-sectional study of procedural pain in rheumatological practice.

BACKGROUND: Joint, spinal and soft tissue injections are commonly performed by rheumatologists in their daily practice. Contrary to other procedures, e.g. performed in pediatric care, little is known about the frequency, the intensity and the management of procedural pain observed in osteo-articular injections in daily practice. METHODS: This observational, prospective, national study was carried out among a French national representative database of primary rheumatologists to evaluate the prevalence and intensity of pain caused by intra-and peri-articular injections, synovial fluid aspirations, soft tissue injections, and spinal injections. For each physician, data were collected over 1 month, for up to 40 consecutive patients (>18-years-old) for whom a synovial fluid aspiration, an intra or peri-articular injection or a spinal injection were carried out during consultations. Statistical analysis was carried out in order to compare patients who had suffered from pain whilst undergoing the procedure to those who had not. Explanatory analyses were conducted by stepwise logistic regression with the characteristics of the patients to explain the existence of pain. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 8446 patients (64% female, mean age 62 +/- 14 years) recruited by 240 physicians. The predominant sites injected were the knee (45.5%) and spine (19.1%). Over 80% of patients experienced procedural pain which was most common in the small joints (42%) and spine (32%) Pain was severe in 5.3% of patients, moderate in 26.6%, mild in 49.8%, and absent in 18.3%. Pain was significantly more intense in patients with severe pain linked to their underlying pathology and for procedures performed in small joints.Preventative or post-procedure analgesia was rarely given, only to 5.7% and 36.3% of patients, respectively. Preventative analgesia was more frequently prescribed in patients with more severe procedural pain. CONCLUSION: Most patients undergoing intra-or peri-articular injections, synovial fluid aspirations and spine injections suffer from procedural pain. Most patients experience usually mild procedural pain and procedural pain management is uncommonly provided by physicians. Specific research and guidelines for the management of procedural pain related to rheumatologic care should be established to improve the quality of care provided by physicians.

Antidepressant use in painful rheumatic conditions.

This article reviews the pharmacologic and clinical evidence supporting the use of antidepressant drugs for treating painful rheumatologic conditions. Clinical studies have shown that tricyclic antidepressants, even at low doses, have analgesic effects in rheumatologic conditions equivalent to those of serotonin and noradrenalin reuptake inhibitors, but are less well tolerated. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may also have analgesic effects, but higher doses are required to achieve analgesia in conditions such as fibromyalgia and low back pain. Antidepressant drugs may be useful in painful rheumatologic conditions, but in some studies the analgesic effects of antidepressants may be associated with functional impairment, sleep disorders, and fatigue. Further studies are required to determine antidepressants' analgesic mechanism of action and the specific role they should play in the management of chronic painful rheumatologic conditions.

[Deciding on analgesic prescription dosing for acute back pain: once daily or more?]. / Evaluation de la prise de décision de prescription d'un antalgique en prise quotidienne unique ou multiple dans les rachialgies aiguës.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions about treatment prescriptions depend on many factors. For example, the choice of once-daily or multiple administration of an analgesic, an aspect that is not determined by guidelines, depends essentially on medical practice habits, patient preferences, or both. We analyzed this treatment decision for acute back pain in a case-control study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted in metropolitan France between October and December 2005 among outpatients seeing general practitioners and specialists for acute back pain (cervical, thoracic, lumbar and low back pain). We compared the group treated by a once-daily analgesic (tramadol) with those treated by analgesics (WHO analgesic ladder steps 1 and 2) administered twice daily or more. Patients and physicians were questioned about the different supposed determinants of the treatment choice for acute back pain. RESULTS: Patients for whom physicians prescribed a once-daily analgesic had a history of back pain and previous prescriptions for other analgesics more frequently than the other patients, experienced significantly greater pain and more marked disability. The time to recovery estimated by the physicians was shorter for these patients, as was the time to return to work, estimated by patients. Treatment choice was also guided by the patient's choices: the once-daily analgesic was reserved for patients who prefer to take drugs to prevent pain and prefer a single dose daily. CONCLUSION: The choice of type of analgesic treatment for acute back pain depends not only on clinical condition (pain and disability), but also on clinical history, the future as envisioned by the physician and the patient's desires. Action to improve treatment choices must integrate these factors, especially as part of an overall education in therapeutics.