[Pain management during pregnancy : An expert-based interdisciplinary consensus recommendation]. / Schmerztherapie in der Schwangerschaft : Eine expertInnenbasierte interdisziplinäre Konsensus-Empfehlung.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy and pain of different origins is an unfavorable combination that presents all practitioners with special challenges. Pain negatively affects the homeostasis of humans. Patient compliance and in-depth knowledge of the fetotoxicity and teratogenicity of the substances are necessary to maintain a balance between therapy for the mother and safety of the unborn child. OBJECTIVES: Experts from various disciplines who are entrusted with the care of pregnant patients with pain have come together to develop drug and nondrug therapy concepts with the aim of providing adequate analgesia for pregnant pain patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant questions were formulated by experts and subjected to a literature search. Combined with further national and international recommendations, treatment concepts were developed and discussed in an interdisciplinary manner. Core statements were then drawn up and given recommendation grades. RESULTS: Depending on the trimester, paracetamol, ibuprofen, diclofenac, metamizole, and opioids can be administered carefully in the event of pain; special care is required with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs ) in the last trimester. COX­2 inhibitors are not recommended. For neuropathic pain, amitriptyline, duloxetine, and venlafaxine are considered safe. Non-pharmacological treatment concepts are also available, namely transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS therapy), kinesio tapes, and acupuncture. Lymphatic drainage is recommended in cases of edema, if not caused by preeclampsia. CONCLUSIONS: A deliberated concept for pain therapy during pregnancy should be initiated with a non-pharmacological intervention and, if necessary, supplemented with pharmacological agents.

[Ketamine in the therapy of chronic pain and depression]. / Ketamin: Einsatz bei chronischen Schmerzen und Depression.

Although ketamine has been known and clinically applied for a long time, questions still arise around the many possible indications in which the anesthetic and analgesic substance could be used. In particular, these questions relate to new indications in which ketamine is used in low subanesthetic doses.The mechanism of action at the NMDA receptor clearly distinguishes ketamine from all other analgesics. Possible applications include the prevention of chronic postoperative pain as well as the treatment of neuropathic pain. With the treatment of refractory depression completely new therapeutic areas for ketamine could be established.

S(+)-ketamine : Current trends in emergency and intensive care medicine.

S(+)-ketamine, the pure dextrorotatory enantiomer of ketamine has been available for clinical use in analgesia and anesthesia for more than 25 years. The main effects are mediated by non-competitive inhibition of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor but S(+)-ketamine also interacts with opioid receptors, monoamine receptors, adenosine receptors and other purinergic receptors. Effects on α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptors, metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluR) and L­type calcium chanels have also been described. S(+)-ketamine stimulates the sympathetic nerve system, making it an ideal drug for analgosedation or induction of anesthesia in instable patients. In addition, the neuroprotective properties, bronchodilatory, antihyperalgesic or antiepileptic effects provide interesting therapeutic options. In this article we discuss the numerous effects of S(+)-ketamine under pharmacological and clinical aspects especially for typical indications in emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

[Quality assurance of pain care in Austria : Classification of management facilities]. / Qualitätssicherung der schmerzmedizinischen Versorgung in Österreich : Klassifikation schmerztherapeutischer Einrichtungen.

In Austria there is no nationwide coverage of pain management, which meets even approximately international criteria. At present there are about 30 interdisciplinary pain management offices and clinics providing care according to a concept of the Austrian Pain Society (ÖSG), about 10 other outpatient pain clinics are located in district and country hospitals. A few years ago, there still were about 50 pain clinics. Yet closure of outpatient clinics and cost-cutting measures in the health sector jeopardize adequate pain relief for patients with chronic pain conditions.Hence, the supply of care for approx. 1.8 mio. Austrians with chronic pain is not guaranteed due to lack of a comprehensive demand planning of pain care facilities. Furthermore, existing structures such as specialized clinics or emergency services in hospitals are primarily based on the personal commitment of individuals. At present, the various centres for pain management in Austria are run with very different operating times, so that for 74% of the chronic pain patients the desired requirements for outpatient pain management are not met and about 50 full-time pain clinics are missing.Under the patronage of the Austrian Pain Society, various national specialist societies have defined the structure and quality criteria for pain management centres in Austria, include, among others, proof of training, cooperation in interdisciplinary teams or minimum number of new patients per year, depending on the classification of the institution.This stepwise concept of care provision for pain patients is intended as first step to help improve the care of pain patients in Austria!

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 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.

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.

Perioperative small-dose S(+)-ketamine has no incremental beneficial effects on postoperative pain when standard-practice opioid infusions are used.

UNLABELLED: Several studies report that when small-dose racemic ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is administered perioperatively, opioid consumption is reduced postoperatively. S(+)-ketamine has a higher affinity for the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor and less-serious side effects than racemic ketamine. Thirty patients scheduled for elective arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded clinical trial designed to determine the preemptive effect of S(+)-ketamine on postoperative analgesia requirements in a setting of clinically relevant perioperative analgesia. Total IV anesthesia was induced and maintained with remifentanil (0.125-1.0 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and a propofol target-controlled infusion (target 2-4 microg/mL). The Ketamine group received a bolus of 0.5 mg/kg S(+)-ketamine before incision, followed by a continuing infusion of 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) until 2 h after emergence from anesthesia. The Control group received NaCl in the same sequence. After IV morphine provided pain relief down to < or =3 on a visual analog scale scored from 0 to 10, patients were connected to a patient-controlled analgesia device. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total morphine consumption or VAS scores, either at rest or with movement. In our study, S(+)-ketamine did not contribute to postoperative pain reduction, possibly because of the clinically routine perioperative opioid analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: Small-dose S(+)-ketamine had no positive effect on postoperative analgesia when administered perioperatively for elective arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair. Unlike investigations of the racemic mixture of ketamine, our study methods included timely standard-practice perioperative opioid analgesia, which seems to make supplemental analgesia unnecessary.