Consensus and Controversies Between Pain and Addiction Experts on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Prescription Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Prescription opioid use disorder (POUD) is an established public health crisis in many countries, and current evidence indicates it is a growing problem in Europe. Many specialists play a role, including pain and addiction medicine specialists, in the diagnosis and management of POUD, but neither group can fully address these patients' needs alone. The purpose of this consensus process was to bring together experts from pain and addiction medicine to examine the positions of both specialties. METHODS: In all, 13 international pain medicine, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry experts convened a meeting to formulate a set of consensus statements on the diagnosis and management of POUD. The statements were further refined by a wider group of 22 European expert clinicians. At a second meeting of all 35 participants, a set of controversy statements was also developed to recognize some of the key areas of divergent opinion. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: There was a high level of agreement between pain and addiction specialists. Key themes that emerged were the need to strengthen interdisciplinary communication, a desire for greater education and training for clinicians in both specialties, and mutual acknowledgment of the importance of multidisciplinary management of POUD. The blurred line between poorly managed pain and POUD was also a subject of much discussion, reflecting the difficulties in defining and diagnosing this complex condition.

Towards an Effective and Safe Treatment of Inflammatory Pain: A Delphi-Guided Expert Consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical management of inflammatory pain requires an optimal balance between effective analgesia and associated safety risks. To date, mechanisms associated with inflammatory pain are not completely understood because of their complex nature and the involvement of both peripheral and central mechanisms. This Expert Consensus document is intended to update clinicians about evolving areas of clinical practice and/or available treatment options for the management of patients with inflammatory pain. METHOD: An international group of experts in pain management covering the pharmacology, neurology and rheumatology fields carried out an independent qualitative systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. RESULTS: Existing guidelines for pain management provide recommendations that do not satisfactorily address the complex nature of pain. To achieve optimal outcomes, drug choices should be individualized to guarantee the best match between the characteristics of the patient and the properties of the medication. NSAIDs represent an important prescribing choice in the management of inflammatory pain, and the recent results on paracetamol question its appropriate use in clinical practice, raising the need for re-evaluation of the recommendations in the clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing clinicians' knowledge of the available pharmacologic options to treat different pain mechanisms offers the potential for safe, individualized treatment decisions. We hope that it will help implement the needed changes in the management of inflammatory pain by providing the best strategies and new insights to achieve the ultimate goal of managing the disease and obtaining optimal benefits for patients. FUNDING: Dompé Farmaceutici SPA and Paolo Procacci Foundation.

Treatment for chronic low back pain: the focus should change to multimodal management that reflects the underlying pain mechanisms.

Chronic low back pain: Chronic pain is the most common cause for people to utilize healthcare resources and has a considerable impact upon patients' lives. The most prevalent chronic pain condition is chronic low back pain (CLBP). CLBP may be nociceptive or neuropathic, or may incorporate both components. The presence of a neuropathic component is associated with more intense pain of longer duration, and a higher prevalence of co-morbidities. However, many physicians' knowledge of chronic pain mechanisms is currently limited and there are no universally accepted treatment guidelines, so the condition is not particularly well managed. DIAGNOSIS: Diagnosis should begin with a focused medical history and physical examination, to exclude serious spinal pathology that may require evaluation by an appropriate specialist. Most patients have non-specific CLBP, which cannot be attributed to a particular cause. It is important to try and establish whether a neuropathic component is present, by combining the findings of physical and neurological examinations with the patient's history. This may prove difficult, however, even when using screening instruments. Multimodal management: The multifactorial nature of CLBP indicates that the most logical treatment approach is multimodal: i.e. integrated multidisciplinary therapy with co-ordinated somatic and psychotherapeutic elements. As both nociceptive and neuropathic components may be present, combining analgesic agents with different mechanisms of action is a rational treatment modality. Individually tailored combination therapy can improve analgesia whilst reducing the doses of constituent agents, thereby lessening the incidence of side effects. CONCLUSIONS: This paper outlines the development of CLBP and the underlying mechanisms involved, as well as providing information on diagnosis and the use of a wide range of pharmaceutical agents in managing the condition (including NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids and anticonvulsants), supplemented by appropriate non-pharmacological measures such as exercise programs, manual therapies, behavioral therapies, interventional pain management and traction. Surgery may be appropriate in carefully selected patients.

A holistic approach to chronic pain management that involves all stakeholders: change is needed.

Chronic pain affects a large proportion of the population, imposing significant individual distress and a considerable burden on society, yet treatment is not always instituted and/or adequate. Comprehensive multidisciplinary management based on the biopsychosocial model of pain has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-efficient, but is not widely available. A literature review of stakeholder groups revealed many reasons for this, including: i) many patients believe healthcare professionals lack relevant knowledge, and consultations are rushed, ii) general practitioners consider that pain management has a low priority and is under-resourced, iii) pain specialists cite non-adherence to evidence-based treatment, sub-optimal prescribing, and chronic pain not being regarded as a disease in its own right, iv) nurses', pharmacists' and physiotherapists' skills are not fully utilized, and v) psychological therapy is employed infrequently and often too late. Many of the issues relating to physicians could be addressed by improving medical training, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels - for example, by making pain medicine a compulsory core subject of the undergraduate medical curriculum. This would improve physician/patient communication, increase the use of standardized pain assessment tools, and allow more patients to participate in treatment decisions. Patient care would also benefit from improved training for other multidisciplinary team members; for example, nurses could provide counseling and follow-up support, psychologists offer coping skills training, and physiotherapists have a greater role in rehabilitation. Equally important measures include the widespread adoption of a patient-centered approach, chronic pain being recognized as a disease in its own right, and the development of universal guidelines for managing chronic non-cancer pain. Perhaps the greatest barrier to improvement is lack of political will at both national and international level. Some powerful initiatives and collaborations are currently lobbying policy-making bodies to raise standards and reduce unnecessary pain - it is vital they continue.

Pain in the cancer patient: different pain characteristics CHANGE pharmacological treatment requirements.

Twenty years ago, the main barriers to successful cancer pain management were poor assessment by physicians, and patients' reluctance to report pain and take opioids. Those barriers are almost exactly the same today. Cancer pain remains under-treated; in Europe, almost three-quarters of cancer patients experience pain, and almost a quarter of those with moderate to severe pain do not receive any analgesic medication. Yet it has been suggested that pain management could be improved simply by ensuring that every consultation includes the patient's rating of pain, that the physician pays attention to this rating, and a plan is agreed to increase analgesia when it is inadequate. After outlining current concepts of carcinogenesis in some detail, this paper describes different methods of classifying and diagnosing cancer pain and the extent of current under-treatment. Key points are made regarding cancer pain management. Firstly, the pain may be caused by multiple different mechanisms and therapy should reflect those underlying mechanisms - rather than being simply based on pain intensity as recommended by the WHO three-step ladder. Secondly, a multidisciplinary approach is required which combines both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, such as psychotherapy, exercise therapy and electrostimulation. The choice of analgesic agent and its route of administration are considered, along with various interventional procedures and the requirements of palliative care. Special attention is paid to the treatment of breakthrough pain (particularly with fast-acting fentanyl formulations, which have pharmacokinetic profiles that closely match those of breakthrough pain episodes) and chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain, which affects around one third of patients who receive chemotherapy. Finally, the point is made that medical education should place a greater emphasis on pain therapy, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Managing chronic pain in elderly patients requires a CHANGE of approach.

In many countries, the number of elderly people has increased rapidly in recent years and this is expected to continue; it has been predicted that almost a quarter of the population in the European Union will be over 65 years of age in 2035. Many elderly people suffer from chronic pain but it is regularly under-treated, partly because managing these patients is often complex. This paper outlines the extent of untreated pain in this population and the consequent reduction in quality of life, before articulating the reasons why it is poorly or inaccurately diagnosed. These include the patient's unwillingness to complain, atypical pain presentations, multiple morbidities and cognitive decline. Successful pain management depends upon accurate diagnosis, which is based upon a complete history and thorough physical examination, as well as an assessment of psychosocial functioning. Poor physician/patient communication can be improved by using standardized instruments to establish individual treatment targets and measure progress towards them. User-friendly observational instruments may be valuable for patients with dementia. In line with the widely accepted biopsychosocial model of pain, a multidisciplinary approach to pain management is recommended, with pharmacotherapy, psychological support, physical rehabilitation and interventional procedures available if required. Declining organ function and other physiological changes require lower initial doses of analgesics and less frequent dosing intervals, and the physician must be aware of all medications that the patient is taking, in order to avoid drug/drug interactions. Non-adherence to treatment is common, and various strategies can be employed to improve it; involving the elderly patient's caregivers and family, using medication systems such as pill-boxes, or even sending text messages. In the long term, the teaching of pain medicine needs to be improved--particularly in the use of opioids--both at undergraduate level and after qualification.

The development of chronic pain: physiological CHANGE necessitates a multidisciplinary approach to treatment.

Chronic pain is currently under-diagnosed and under-treated, partly because doctors' training in pain management is often inadequate. This situation looks certain to become worse with the rapidly increasing elderly population unless there is a wider adoption of best pain management practice. This paper reviews current knowledge of the development of chronic pain and the multidisciplinary team approach to pain therapy. The individual topics covered include nociceptive and neuropathic pain, peripheral sensitization, central sensitization, the definition and diagnosis of chronic pain, the biopsychosocial model of pain and the multidisciplinary approach to pain management. This last section includes an example of the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in Belgium and describes the various benefits it offers; for example, the early multidimensional diagnosis of chronic pain and rapid initiation of evidence-based therapy based on an individual treatment plan. The patient also receives continuity of care, while pain relief is accompanied by improvements in physical functioning, quality of life and emotional stress. Other benefits include decreases in catastrophizing, self-reported patient disability, and depression. Improved training in pain management is clearly needed, starting with the undergraduate medical curriculum, and this review is intended to encourage further study by those who manage patients with chronic pain.

Prevalence of medication overuse headache in an interdisciplinary pain clinic.

BACKGROUND: Medication overuse headache (MOH) has been recognized as an important problem in headache patients although the pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear. The diagnosis of MOH is based on clinical characteristics defined by the International Headache Society. The aim was the evaluation of the diagnostic criteria of MOH in a mixed population of chronic pain patients to gain information about the prevalence and possible associations with MOH. METHODS: Data of all patients referred to the interdisciplinary pain clinic at the University Hospital of Zurich between September 2005 and December 2007 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data (age, sex, history of migration), as well as data about duration of pain disease, category of pain disease (neurological, psychiatric, rheumatologic, other), use of medication, history of trauma, and comorbidity of depression and anxiety have been collected. RESULTS: Totally 178 of 187 consecutive chronic pain patients were included in the study. A total of 138 patients (78%) used analgesics on 15 or more days per month. Chronic headache was more prevalent among patients with analgesic overuse (39.8%) than without analgesic overuse (18%). The prevalence of MOH was 29%. The odds ratio (OR) for a patient with medication overuse to have chronic headache was 13.1 if he had a history of primary headache, compared to a patient without a primary headache syndrome. Furthermore, history of headache (OR 2.5, CI [1.13;5.44]), history of migration (OR 2.9, CI [1.31;6.32]) and comorbid depression (OR 3.5, CI [1.46;8.52]) were associated with overuse of acute medication, in general. CONCLUSIONS: Primary headaches have a high risk for chronification in patients overusing analgesics for other pain disorders. Whereas history of headache, history of migration and comorbidity of depression are independentely associated with analgesic overuse in this group of patients.

Predictive value of lidocaine for treatment success of oxcarbazepine in patients with neuropathic pain syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacotherapy in patients with neuropathic pain syndromes (NPS) can be associated with long periods of trial and error before reaching satisfactory analgesia. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a short intravenous (i.v.) infusion of lidocaine may have a predictive value for the efficacy of oxcarbazepine. METHODS: In total, 16 consecutive patients with NPS were studied in a prospective, uncontrolled, open-label study design. Each patient received i.v. lidocaine (5 mg/kg) within 30 min followed by a long-term oral oxcarbazepine treatment (900-1,500 mg/day). During an observation period of 28 days, treatment response was documented by a questionnaire including the average daily pain score documented on a numeric rating scale (NRS). RESULTS: A total of 6 out of 16 patients (38%) were lidocaine responders (defined as pain reduction >50% during the infusion), and 4 of 16 (25%) were oxcarbazepine responders. In total, 6 out of 16 participants (38%) discontinued oxcarbazepine treatment due to side effects. In an interim analysis predictive value of the lidocaine infusion was low with a Kendall's tau correlation coefficient of 0.29 and coefficient of determination R(2) of 0.119 (95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.72). As a consequence of this low correlation, the study was discontinued for ethical reasons. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, lidocaine infusion has a low predictive value for effectiveness of oxcarbazepine-if at all.

The chronic pain conundrum: should we CHANGE from relying on past history to assessing prognostic factors?

BACKGROUND: Despite limited empirical support, chronic pain has traditionally been defined mainly on the basis of its duration, which takes no account of the causative mechanisms or its clinical significance. SCOPE: For this commentary on current pain management practice, the CHANGE PAIN Advisory Board considered the evidence for adopting a prognostic definition of chronic pain. The rationale underlying this approach is to take psychological and behavioural factors into account, as well as the multidimensional nature of pain. Measures of pain intensity, interference with everyday activities, role disability, depression, duration and number of pain sites are used to calculate a risk score, which indicates the likelihood of a patient having pain in the future. The consistency of a prognostic definition with the concept of integrated patient care was also considered. FINDINGS: When this method was compared with the number of pain days experienced over the previous 6 months--in patients with back pain, headache or orofacial pain--it was a better predictor of clinically significant pain 6 months later for all three pain conditions. Further evidence supporting this approach is that several factors other than the duration of pain have been shown to be important prognostic indicators, including unemployment, functional disability, anxiety and self-rated health. The use of a multifactorial risk score may also suggest specific measures to improve outcomes, such as addressing emotional distress. These measures should be undertaken as part of an integrated pain management strategy; chronic pain is a biopsychosocial phenomenon and all aspects of the patient's pain must be dealt with appropriately and simultaneously for treatment to be effective. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a prognostic definition and wider adoption of integrated care could bring significant advantages. However, these measures require improved training in pain management and structural revision of specialist facilities, for which political support is essential.

Tapentadol in the management of chronic low back pain: a novel approach to a complex condition?

Chronic pain affects approximately 1 in 5 people in Europe, and around half of sufferers receive inadequate pain management. The most common location is the lower back. Pharmacological treatment of this condition is challenging because of the range of causative mechanisms and the difficulty of balancing analgesic efficacy and tolerability. An international panel of clinical pain specialists met in September, 2009, to discuss the treatment of chronic low back pain, and to review preclinical and clinical data relating to the new analgesic, tapentadol. A lack of consensus exists on the best treatment for low back pain. The range of regularly prescribed pharmacological agents extends from nonopioids (paracetamol, NSAIDs, and COX-2 inhibitors) to opioids, antidepressants and anticonvulsants. Pain relief may be compromised, however, by an undetected neuropathic component or intolerable side effects. Treatment is potentially life-long and effective analgesics are urgently needed, with demonstrable long-term safety. Combining separate agents with different mechanisms of action could overcome the limitations of present pharmacological therapy, but clinical evidence for this approach is currently lacking. Tapentadol combines µ-opioid agonism with noradrenaline reuptake inhibition in a single molecule. There is strong evidence of synergistic antinociception between these two mechanisms of action. In preclinical and clinical testing, tapentadol has shown efficacy against both nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Preclinical data indicate that tapentadol's µ-opioid agonism makes a greater contribution to analgesia in acute pain, while noradrenaline reuptake inhibition makes a greater contribution in chronic neuropathic pain models. Tapentadol also produces fewer adverse events than oxycodone at equianalgesic doses, and thus may have a 'µ-sparing effect'. Current evidence indicates that tapentadol's efficacy/tolerability ratio may be better than those of classical opioids. However, further research is needed to establish its role in pain management.

Make a CHANGE: optimising communication and pain management decisions.

The major objectives of the CHANGE PAIN International Advisory Board are to enhance understanding of chronic pain and to develop strategies for improving pain management. At its second meeting, in November 2009, evidence was presented that around one person in five in Europe and the USA experiences chronic pain, and the delay before referral to a pain specialist is often several years. Moreover, physicians' pharmacological approach to chronic pain is inconsistent, as evidenced by the huge variation in treatment between different European countries. It was agreed that efficient communication between physician and patient is essential for effective pain management, and that efficacy/side-effect balance is a key factor in choosing an analgesic agent. The multifactorial nature of chronic pain produces various physical and psychological symptoms, so the management of chronic pain should be tailored to the individual. Pharmacological therapy must be matched to the causative mechanisms responsible, or it is likely to prove ineffective and risk the development of a 'vicious circle'; doses are increased because of inadequate pain relief, but this increases side-effects so doses are reduced, pain relief is then inadequate, so doses are increased, and so on. Pain management decisions should not therefore be based solely on the severity of pain. Based on the concept of individual treatment targets (ITT), the CHANGE PAIN Scale was adopted - a simple, user-friendly assessment tool to improve communication between physician and patient. The 11-point NRS enables the patient to rate the current pain intensity and to set a realistic individual target level. On the reverse are six key parameters affecting the patient's quality of life; clinicians simply need to agree with patients whether improvement is needed in each one. Regular use can establish the efficacy and tolerability of pain management, and the rate of progress towards individual treatment targets.

Cortisol reduces recall of explicit contextual pain memory in healthy young men.

Remembering painful incidents has important adaptive value but may also contribute to clinical symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder and chronic pain states. Because glucocorticoids are known to impair memory retrieval processes, we investigated whether cortisol affects recall of previously experienced pain in healthy young men. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, 20 male participants were presented pictures, half of them combined with a heat-pain stimulus. The next day, the same pictures were shown in the absence of pain. Cortisol (20 mg) administered 1h before retention testing reduced recall of explicit contextual pain memory, whereas it did not affect pain threshold or pain tolerance.

Evaluation of a standardized internet-based and telephone-based patient monitoring system for pain therapy with transdermal fentanyl.

The aim of the present observational 4-week study was to document the feasibility and utility of telephone-based or Internet-based pain monitoring in patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain, such as nociceptive or neuropathic pain, using transdermal fentanyl. Pain intensity, treatment tolerability, activities of daily living, quality of life, and patient and physician satisfaction were evaluated in 60 (60% women, 42% opioid-naive) chronic pain patients who were switched from oral pain therapy to transdermal fentanyl therapy because of persisting severe pain. When the total dataset of all patient entries was analyzed, treatment with transdermal fentanyl led to decreases in maximal and mean pain scores as reported by the patients (-14% and -19%, respectively, last observation carried forward vs. baseline). Pain reduction was more pronounced in opioid-naive than in opioid-experienced patients (-35% and -25% vs. baseline, respectively; P=0.03). Overall, impairment of daily activities was reduced by 23% with transdermal fentanyl. No effect was observed with regard to quality of life and use of rescue pain medication. Transdermal fentanyl was generally well tolerated. Most patients (60%) preferred the telephone-based to the Internet-based or Internet combined with telephone questionnaires. Patient preference was driven by age, whereby younger patients tended to prefer the Internet and older patients the telephone (mean age, 45 and 54 y, respectively; difference n.s.). Internet-based and telephone-based monitoring of the efficacy and tolerability of opioid treatment for chronic pain was feasible in daily practice and generally well accepted by patients and physicians. Future research will determine the relative contribution of these 2 new options for patient-physician interaction and delineate their role in improving chronic pain control.