[Critical discussion of new data regarding prevalence of opioid use disorder in patients with chronic pain in Germany]. / Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit neuen Daten zur Prävalenz von Opioidgebrauchsstörungen bei Patienten mit chronischen Schmerzen in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: There is no opioid crisis in Germany. However, new studies involving patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) in Germany show an unexpectedly high prevalence of opioid use disorder according to DSM­5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Diseases). OBJECTIVES: Critical discussion of new study results on the prevalence of opioid use disorder in CNCP patients in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Selective literature search and multiprofessional classification of results by an expert panel (pain therapy, neurology, psychiatry, palliative medicine, general medicine and addiction therapy). RESULTS: The DSM­5 criteria for the diagnosis of "opioid use disorder" have limited applicability to patients with CNCP, but may raise awareness of problematic behavior. The diagnosis of opioid use disorder is not the same as the diagnosis of substance dependence according to ICD-10, as the DSM­5 diagnosis covers a much broader spectrum (mild, moderate, severe). Risk factors for opioid use disorder include younger age, depressive disorders, somatoform disorders, and high daily opioid doses. The interdisciplinary guideline on long-term opioid use for CNCP (LONTS) includes recommendations intended to reduce the risk for opioid use disorder. CONCLUSION: An adaptation of the DSM­5 diagnostic criteria of opioid use disorder to the specific situation of CNCP patients and a validation of these criteria could help to collect more accurate data on opioid use disorders of patients with chronic pain in Germany in the future. Prescribers should be sensitized to this problem without pathologizing or even stigmatizing patients. Further research is needed to classify this previously underestimated phenomenon.

[Characteristic values and test statistical goodness of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) in patients with chronic pain : An evaluation based on the KEDOQ pain dataset]. / Kennwerte und teststatistische Güte des Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) bei Patienten mit chronischem Schmerz : Eine Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes.

The Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) was added to the German Pain Questionnaire (DSF) as a self-report measure of health-related quality of life in 2016, replacing the previously used SF-12, which required a license. Both measures have 12 items and include a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). Evaluations with a larger sample on characteristic values and on the test-statistical goodness of the VR-12 in patients with chronic pain are so far missing. Data on the VR-12 and other procedures of the DSF were evaluated from 11,644 patients from 31 centers participating in KEDOQ pain. The patients filled out the DSF before starting a pain therapy treatment. Change sensitivity was determined for 565 patients for whom the VR-12 was available from a follow-up questionnaire of the DSF several months after the initial survey.The reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the PCS was rtt = 0.78 and for the MCS rtt = 0.84. The MCS had significant relationships with the depression, anxiety and stress scales (r = -0.51 to r = -0.72), and the PCS correlated more highly with areas of pain-related impairment (r = -0.48 to r = -0.52). Patients with higher pain chronicity, those with higher pain severity, and those with evidence of high psychological distress described significantly lower health-related quality of life in PCS and MCS. The effect size (ES) of change in terms of improvement in health-related quality of life was ES = 0.33 in the MCS and ES = 0.51 in the PCS.The results are in agreement with the findings of the SF-36 and SF-12 in patient collectives with chronic pain. In summary, they show that the VR-12 is an adequate substitute for the SF-12 in the German pain questionnaire.

[Critical incidents in acute pain management-A risk analysis of CIRS reports]. / Kritische Ereignisse in der Akutschmerztherapie ­ eine Risikoanalyse von CIRS-Meldungen.

BACKGROUND: Areas of activity with many intersections pose an increased risk for errors and critical incidents. Therefore, procedures for acute pain therapy are potentially associated with an increased risk for adverse patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to identify and grade the risk of critical incidents in the context of acute pain management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The register of the nationwide reporting system critical incident reporting system of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Medical Center for Quality in Medicine (CIRSmedical Anesthesiology) was screened for incidents concerning pain management. Out of 5365 cases reported nationwide up to 24 March 2020, 508 reports with the selection criterion "pain" could be identified and reviewed and 281 reports (55%) were included in a systematic analysis. RESULTS: Of the 281 reports most came from anesthesiology departments (94%; 3% from surgery departments and 3% from other departments). The reported cases occurred most frequently on normal wards but a relevant proportion of the reports concerned intermediate and intensive care units or areas covered by a pain service (PS). Based on the description of the incident in the report, an involvement of the PS could be assumed for 42% of the cases. In terms of time, most of the events could be assigned to normal working hours (90%) and working days (84%; weekends 16%). The analyzed reports related to parenteral administration of analgesics (40%) and central (40%) or peripheral regional anesthesia procedures (23%) and 13% of the reports related to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA; multiple answers possible). Most of the events were caused by technical errors, communication deficits and deviations from routine protocols. A relevant number of the cases were based on mix-ups in the administration route, the dosage, or the active agent. About one third of the sources of error were of an organizational nature, 59% of the cases posed a possible vital risk and in 16% of cases patients had vital complications. The risk grading by risk matrix resulted in an extremely high risk in 7%, a high risk in 62%, a moderate risk in 25% and a low risk in 6% of the cases. Comparing risk assessment of events with involvement of different analgesic methods, multiple medication, combination of analgesic methods or involvement of PS showed no significant differences. Likewise, no differences could be identified between the risk assessments of events at different superordinate cause levels. If more than one overriding cause of error had an impact, initially no higher risk profile was found. CONCLUSION: Incidents in the context of acute pain management can pose high risks for patients. Incidents or near-incidents are mostly related to mistakes and lack of skills of the staff, often due to time pressure and workload as well as to inadequate organization.

[Pain management in departments of internal medicine : Results of a national survey on structures and processes of care]. / Schmerzmanagement in der Inneren Medizin : Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Erhebung zu Struktur- und Prozessdaten.

BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES: Deficits in the quality of pain management in hospitals have been described for years. The aim of this study was to assess structures and processes of pain management in departments for internal medicine in German hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected using a standardized telephone interview (non-university hospital departments) on a randomized sample of hospitals (circa 1/3 of hospitals); all German departments of university hospitals were invited to participate and questioned separately using an online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey®). RESULTS: Data from 139 non-university departments (response rate: 21%) and 33 university hospital departments (only 21 questionnaires were fully answered, response rate 17 and 11%, respectively) were collected. Of 619 non-university hospital departments contacted, 441 explicitly refused to participate in the survey, most often on the grounds that there was no interest in pain management. Pain was regularly recorded as an independent parameter during the medical visit in 89% of the non-university hospital and 96% of the university hospital departments; written standardized treatment protocols for pain therapy were available in 57% of the non-university hospital departments (54% university hospital departments). In 76% of the non-university hospitals departments (100% university hospital departments), an acute pain service was also available for patients of internal medicine departments for co-treatment. Written cooperation agreements were less common (35% non-university hospital departments, 18% university hospital departments). CONCLUSION: The described implementation of pain management was satisfying in the participating departments. However, in consideration of the low participation and high rejection of participation due to explicit disinterest in the topic, the results should be critically assessed and presumably characterized by a significant positive bias.

[Safety and monitoring of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia : Clinical practice in German hospitals]. / Sicherheit und Monitoring der patientenkontrollierten intravenösen Analgesie : Anwendungspraxis in deutschen Krankenhäusern.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is a well-established technique in acute pain management and available in most German hospitals. Despite its widespread use, information on current clinical practice is limited. This investigation evaluated clinical practice and monitoring as well as PCIA-associated adverse events and critical incidents in German hospitals. METHODS: An invitation to participate in this online-survey was sent to 995 heads of anesthesiology departments belonging to the "German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine". RESULTS: Of the departments receiving the link, 244 took part (response rate 25%). PCIA was used in 193 of these hospitals (79%). All the following statements relate to the hospitals in which PCIA was used. Piritramide was the most frequently used opioid. In parallel with PCIA, additional nonopioid analgesics were used in 94% of the hospitals, and in 38%, additional slow-release oral opioids were used. Parenteral opioids were administered by the ward staff in 4% of the hospitals. In 75% of hospitals, there were standardized indications for PCIA therapy, with almost two thirds of respondents stating that PCIA was the technique of second choice if regional procedures were contraindicated or failed. In all, 76% of the hospitals had an acute pain service. Twenty-four percent of the hospitals regularly used PCIA in non-surgical patients. In pediatric patients, PCIA was used in 62 hospitals (32%). Only 31% of the hospitals reported the use of standardized protocols for the specific monitoring of patients' vital signs on general wards, exceeding general care. Of the department, 158 (82%) reported adverse events in connection with the use of PCIA within the six-month period preceding the survey (most frequently due to patients' noncompliance [52%], dislocated intravenous lines [41%], communication errors [16%], administration of additional analgesics [16%] and/ or sedatives [14%], problems with the pump [16%], programming errors [9%], incorrect opioid concentration in the reservoir [8%], non-observance of contraindications [7%], incorrect dosing [6%] and self-dosing by the patient [4%] or by third parties [3%], filling the reservoir with thewrong medication [2%]; and other problems [5%]). Only 35 of the hospitals (18%) reported no problems associated with PCIA therapy. Seventy-five of the 193 respondents (39%) stated that at least one critical incident had occurred in the context of the use of PCIA. This resulted in a total of 335 cases out of an estimate of 50.000 patients treated with PCIA. The respondents classified these as follows: I) 273 incidents requiring a prolonged stay in the recovery room, but without further complications, II) 58 requiring transfer to the intensive care unit, but without further complications, III) three resulting in permanent harm to the patient and IV) one resulting in the death of the patient. A comparison of the monitoring standards for PCIA showed that critical incidents were reported less frequently in hospitals with less intensive monitoring, and more frequently in hospitals with higher monitoring standards. CONCLUSION: PCIA is a frequently used analgesic technique in German hospitals. There were many differences in how PCIA therapy was applied and monitored on general wards. Adverse events occurred to a significant extent, with a considerable part of them, which might be preventable. Critical incidents were perceived more often when standards for monitoring on general wards were higher. Consented current recommendations regarding treatment and monitoring standards as well as the systematic recording of complications when using PCIA are pending.

Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

[Pain therapy care in Germany-Do patients receiving day care differ from those receiving outpatient or inpatient care at the start of treatment? : A further evaluation based on the KEDOQ-pain data set]. / Schmerztherapeutische Versorgung in Deutschland ­ unterscheiden sich teilstationär versorgte Patienten von den ambulant oder stationär versorgten bei Behandlungsbeginn? : Eine weitere Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes.

The direct comparison of day care pain patients with patients from other treatment sectors with respect to sociodemographic, pain-related and psychological characteristics has not yet been the subject of systematic analyses. The project core documentation and quality assurance in pain therapy (KEDOQ-pain) of the German Pain Society (Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft e.V.) makes this comparison possible. This second analysis of the available KEDOQ data was intended to show how patients receiving day care treatment can be characterized using the core data set and whether and to what extent they differ from patients receiving outpatient or inpatient treatment. This is a continuation of the first publication, which showed remarkably small differences between outpatients and inpatients but did not include day care patients.The KEDOQ-pain data from 25 centers with a total of 8953 patients were evaluated. Patients had completed the German pain questionnaire (DSF) between January 2012 and March 2017 and received day care (n = 1264), outpatient (n = 4082) or inpatient (n = 3607) pain therapy treatment. Sociodemographic, pain-related and psychometric data of the DSF reported by patients were evaluated as well as physician information on the pain chronification stage and pain localization. The evaluation was descriptive and compared groups using univariate and multivariate procedures.Day care treated patients were significantly younger, had a higher level of education, were more frequently employed, reported higher impairment values and showed a higher severity index according to von Korff than inpatients and outpatients treated for pain. In addition, they described a shorter pain duration as well as worse habitual well-being (Marburg questionnaire on habitual well-being, MFHW). These predictors explained roughly half of the variance in the prediction of the day care treatment setting. The comparison of outpatients and inpatients showed significant group differences for some variables; however, the effects were very small.The evaluations suggest that pain therapy day care facilities treat a special group of pain patients that significantly differ from patients in other treatment sectors. Cautious conclusions are drawn regarding the systematic allocation of patients to care appropriate to their treatment needs.

The effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative pain management compared to PCIA : A cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standard protocols or algorithms are considered essential to ensure adequate analgesia. Germany has widely adopted postoperative protocols for pain management including oral opioids for rescue medication, but the effectiveness of such protocols has only been evaluated longitudinally in a before and after setting. The aim of this cohort analysis was to compare the effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative management of pain to the gold standard of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared cohorts of patients of two prospective observational studies undergoing elective total hip replacement. After surgery patients received piritramide to achieve a pain score of ≤3 on the numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10). A protocol was started consisting of oral long-acting oxycodone and ibuprofen (basic analgesia). Cohort 1 (C1, 126 patients) additionally received an oral opioid rescue medication (hydromorphone) when reporting pain >3 on the NRS. Cohort 2 (C2, 88 patients) was provided with an opioid by PCIA (piritramide) for opioid rescue medication. Primary endpoints were pain intensity at rest, during movement, and maximum pain intensity within the first 24 h postoperative. Secondary endpoints were opioid consumption, functional outcome and patient satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: Pain during movement and maximum pain intensity were higher in C1 compared to C2: pain on movement median 1st-3rd quartile: 6 (3.75-8) vs. 5 (3-7), p = 0.023; maximum pain intensity: 7 (5-9) vs. 5 (3-8), p = 0.008. There were no differences in pain intensity at rest or between women and men in either group. The mean opioid consumption in all patients (combined PACU, baseline, and rescue medication; mean ± SD mg ME) was 126.6 ± 51.8 mg oral ME (median 120 (87.47-154.25) mg ME). Total opioid consumption was lower in C1 than C2 (117 ± 46 mg vs 140 ± 56 mg, p = 0.002) due to differences in rescue opioids (C1: 57 ± 37 mg ME, C2: 73 ± 43 mg ME, p = 0.006, Z = -2.730). Basic analgesia opioid use was comparable (C1: 54 ± 31 mg ME, C2: 60 ± 36 mg ME, p = 0.288, Z = -1.063). There were no differences in respect to the addition of non-opioids and reported quality of mobilization, sleep, frequency of nausea and vomiting, or general satisfaction with pain management. CONCLUSION: In this study PCIA provided a better reduction of pain intensity, when compared to a standardized protocol with oral opioid rescue medication. This effect was associated with increased opioid consumption. There were no differences in frequencies of opioid side effects. This study was a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of a major project. As with all retrospective studies, our analysis has several limitations to consider. Data can only represent the observation of clinical practice. It cannot reflect the quality of a statement of a randomized controlled trial. Observational studies do not permit conclusions on causal relationships.

[Management of patients with chronic pain in acute and perioperative medicine : An interdisciplinary challenge]. / Management von Patienten mit chronischen Schmerzen in der Akut- und perioperativen Medizin : Eine interdisziplinäre Herausforderung.

Chronic pain is a frequent comorbidity of patients in hospitals and has an influence on the clinical course and the duration of hospitalization. There is a need to have a better understanding of chronic pain as a comorbidity and it should be considered to a greater extent in understanding diseases, in treatment concepts and hospital structures to ensure a resource-oriented and high-quality care. This begins on admission by identifying pre-existing pain and related risk factors with the medical history and taking these into account in the treatment regimen. A multimodal treatment approach that involves medicinal, educational, psychological and physiotherapeutic expertise is required in these patients. A unimodal approach in the treatment is not effective. A pain physician should be involved in the treatment team as early as possible. Furthermore, psychological joint supervision should be available for these patients as several studies have demonstrated positive perioperative effects of psychological approaches on the treatment in this patient group.

[Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]. / Personelle und organisatorische Voraussetzungen für Schmerzdienste in Krankenhäusern : Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e. V.

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

[Delegation of medical activities in acute pain therapy]. / Delegation ärztlicher Tätigkeiten in der Akutschmerztherapie.

Acute pain management is an interprofessional and interdisciplinary task and requires a good and trustful cooperation between stakeholders. Despite provisions in Germany according to which medical treatment can only be rendered by a formally qualified physician ("Arztvorbehalt"), a physician does not have to carry out every medical activity in person. Under certain conditions, some medical activities can be delegated to medical auxiliary personnel but they need to be (1) instructed, (2) supervised and (3) checked by the physician himself; however, medical history, diagnostic assessment and evaluation, indications, therapy planning (e.g. selection, dosage), therapeutic decisions (e. g. modification or termination of therapy) and obtaining informed consent cannot be delegated. With respect to drug therapy, monitoring of the therapy remains the personal responsibility of the physician, while the actual application of medication can be delegated. From a legal perspective, the current practice needs to be stressed about what is within the mandatory requirements and what is not when medical activities are delegated to non-medical staff. The use of standards of care improves treatment quality but like any medical treatment it must be based on the physician's individual assessment and indications for each patient and requires personal contact between physician and patient. Delegation on the ward and in acute pain therapy requires the authorization of the delegator to give instructions in the respective setting. The transfer of non-delegable duties to non-medical personnel is regarded as medical malpractice.

[Impact of conflicts of interest on guideline recommendations : Empirical study within the second update of the German interdisciplinary S3 guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome]. / Der Einfluss von Interessenkonflikten auf Leitlinienempfehlungen : Eine empirische Studie zur zweiten Aktualisierung der interdisziplinären S3­Leitlinie zum Fibromyalgiesyndrom.

BACKGROUND: The impact of conflicts of interest (COI) in general and of academic COI in particular on guideline recommendations in pain medicine has not yet been studied. Whether the inclusion of patients and of representatives of all relevant healthcare professions into a guidelines group is protective against a systematic bias of decisions of a guidelines group is currently unknown. METHODS: All members of the guidelines group declared their COI before the consensus conferences by a standard form according to the rules and standards of the Association of the German Medical and Scientific Societies. The acceptance or rejection and the strength of consensus of recommendations of the second update of the interdisciplinary guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome was analyzed twice by first including and then excluding the votes of the guideline group members with COI related to a recommendation from the results of anonymous voting via an internet platform. RESULTS: A total of 42 persons from different healthcare professions and patients participated in the online voting on recommendations. Of the participants 29% had no COI according to the predefined criteria, 53% met the criteria of academic and 33% the criteria of financial COI. In the case of exclusion of participants with a COI related to a specific recommendation, 2 out of 23 recommendations (homeopathy, tramadol) were not accepted. In all votes, there were more participants without COI than with COI. CONCLUSION: Academic COI were more frequent than financial COI in the second update of the German interdisciplinary guidelines group on fibromyalgia syndrome. The impact of COI on guideline recommendations was low. The inclusion of patients and of all relevant healthcare professionals into a guidelines group is a protective factor against the influence of COI on guideline recommendations.

[Pain therapy in Germany - what is the difference between initial outpatient and inpatient treatment? : Assessment based on the KEDOQ pain dataset]. / Schmerztherapeutische Versorgung in Deutschland ­ was unterscheidet ambulante und stationäre Patienten zu Behandlungsbeginn? : Eine Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes.

A comparison of chronic pain patients in outpatient and inpatient treatment settings regarding pain-related and psychological characteristics, has not yet been systematically analyzed. The core documentation and quality assurance in pain therapy (KEDOQ-Schmerz) is a quality assurance system for documentation and quality management of pain therapy in different treatment settings. The system was initiated by the German Pain Society. We used KEDOQ-Schmerz data to describe differences between patients being treated in outpatient and inpatient settings with respect to social, pain-related and psychological factors. In total, the set of KEDOQ-Schmerz data analyzed included information from 4705 patients (from 13 clinics) collected between January 2012 and April 2016. Patients received either outpatient (n = 2682) or inpatient (n = 2023) treatment. The data analyzed comprised sociodemographic, pain-related and psychological data collected through the German Pain Questionnaire (DSF) at the beginning of treatment as well as information about pain chronification and pain localization provided by practitioners. The statistical analysis was carried out by descriptive and comparative data analysis using univariate and multivariate statistical methods. Patients with inpatient treatment were significantly older, more often female and more often had multiple pain localizations. They described stronger pain intensity and more frequently had a higher Mainz Pain Staging System (MPSS) score of pain chronification. They described a significantly poorer physical and mental health-related quality of life in the short form (SF-12) health survey, had significantly higher depression, anxiety and stress values (DASS) and a poorer habitual well-being in the Marburg questionnaire on habitual well-being (MFHW). Significant group differences had only small effect sizes. Even though most predictors for the inpatient treatment setting in multivariate analysis were significant, in total they explained less than 5% of the variance. The results indicate that pain therapy in specialized pain settings more and more has to manage patients with higher pain chronification, higher pain-related stress and previous therapy experience. The differences in patient characteristics between treatment settings are mostly clinically unimportant. Differences in clinical features do not declare the allocation to one treatment setting or the other.

[Definition, classification, clinical diagnosis and prognosis of fibromyalgia syndrome : Updated guidelines 2017 and overview of systematic review articles]. / Definition, Klassifikation, klinische Diagnose und Prognose des Fibromyalgiesyndroms : Aktualisierte Leitlinie 2017 und Übersicht von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten.

BACKGROUND: The regular update of the guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome, AWMF number 145/004, was scheduled for April 2017. METHODS: The guidelines were developed by 13 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations coordinated by the German Pain Society. Working groups (n =8) with a total of 42 members were formed balanced with respect to gender, medical expertise, position in the medical or scientific hierarchy and potential conflicts of interest. A systematic search of the literature from December 2010 to May 2016 was performed in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009. The strength of recommendations was achieved by multiple step formalized procedures to reach a consensus. The guidelines were reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the societies engaged in the development of the guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome can be established by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1990 classification criteria (with examination of tender points) or without the examination of tender points by the modified preliminary diagnostic ACR 2010 or 2011 criteria.

[Etiology and pathophysiology of fibromyalgia syndrome : Updated guidelines 2017, overview of systematic review articles and overview of studies on small fiber neuropathy in FMS subgroups]. / Ätiologie und Pathophysiologie des Fibromyalgiesyndroms : Aktualisierte Leitlinie 2017 und Übersicht von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten sowie eine Übersicht über Studien zur Kleinfaserpathologie bei Subgruppen des FMS.

BACKGROUND: The regular update of the guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome, AWMF number 145/004, was planned for April 2017. METHODS: The guidelines were developed by 13 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations coordinated by the German Pain Society. Working groups (n =8) with a total of 42 members were formed balanced with respect to gender, medical expertise, position in the medical or scientific hierarchy and potential conflicts of interest. A systematic search of the literature from December 2010 to May 2016 was performed in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases. Prospective population-based studies and systematic reviews with meta-analyses of case control studies were taken into consideration for the statements. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009. The statements were generated by multiple step formalized procedures. The guidelines were reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the societies engaged in the development of the guidelines. RESULTS: Current data do not enable identification of distinct factors in the etiology and pathophysiology of fibromyalgia syndrome. Fibromyalgia syndrome can be associated with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, gene polymorphisms, life style factors (e.g. smoking, obesity and lack of physical activity), depressive disorders as well as physical and sexual abuse in childhood and adulthood. CONCLUSION: Fibromyalgia syndrome is most probably the end result of various pathogenetic factors and pathophysiological mechanisms.

[Multimodal therapy of fibromyalgia syndrome : Updated guidelines 2017 and overview of systematic review articles]. / Multimodale Therapie des Fibromyalgiesyndroms : Aktualisierte Leitlinie 2017 und Übersicht von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten.

BACKGROUND: The regular update of the guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome, AWMF number 145/004, was scheduled for April 2017. METHODS: The guidelines were developed by 13 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations coordinated by the German Pain Society. Working groups (n = 8) with a total of 42 members were formed balanced with respect to gender, medical expertise, position in the medical or scientific hierarchy and potential conflicts of interest. A search of the literature for systematic reviews on randomized controlled trials of multimodal therapy from December 2010 to May 2016 was performed in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009. The strength of recommendations was achieved by multiple step formalized procedures to reach a consensus. Efficacy, risks, patient preferences and applicability of available therapies were weighed up against each other. The guidelines were reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the societies engaged in the development of the guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The use of multimodal therapy (combination of aerobic exercise with at least one psychological therapy) with a duration of at least 24 h is strongly recommended for patients with severe forms of fibromyalgia.

[Drug therapy of fibromyalgia syndrome : Updated guidelines 2017 and overview of systematic review articles]. / Medikamentöse Therapie des Fibromyalgiesyndroms : Aktualisierte Leitlinie 2017 und Übersicht von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten.

BACKGROUND: The regular update of the guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome, AWMF number 145/004, was scheduled for April 2017. METHODS: The guidelines were developed by 13 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations coordinated by the German Pain Society. Working groups (n =8) with a total of 42 members were formed balanced with respect to gender, medical expertise, position in the medical or scientific hierarchy and potential conflicts of interest. A literature search for systematic reviews of randomized controlled drug trials from December 2010 to May 2016 was performed in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009. The strength of recommendations was achieved by multiple step formalized procedures to reach a consensus. Efficacy, risks, patient preferences and applicability of available therapies were weighed up against each other. The guidelines were reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the societies engaged in the development of the guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Amitriptyline and duloxetine are recommended in the case of comorbid depressive disorders or generalized anxiety disorder and pregabalin in the case of generalized anxiety disorder. Off-label use of duloxetine and pregabalin can be considered if there are no comorbid mental disorders or no generalized anxiety disorder. Strong opioids are not recommended.

[General treatment principles, coordination of care and patient education in fibromyalgia syndrome : Updated guidelines 2017 and overview of systematic review articles]. / Allgemeine Behandlungsgrundsätze, Versorgungskoordination und Patientenschulung beim Fibromyalgiesyndrom : Aktualisierte Leitlinie 2017 und Übersicht von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten.

BACKGROUND: The regular update of the guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome, AWMF number 145/004, was scheduled for April 2017. METHODS: The guidelines were developed by 13 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations coordinated by the German Pain Society. Working groups (n =8) with a total of 42 members were formed balanced with respect to gender, medical expertise, position in the medical or scientific hierarchy and potential conflicts of interest. A search of the literature for systematic reviews on randomized, controlled trials on patient education and shared decision-making from December 2010 to May 2016 was performed in the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009. The strength of recommendations was achieved by multiple step formalized procedures to reach a consensus. Efficacy, risks, patient preferences, clinical and practical applicability of available therapies were weighed up against each other. The guidelines were reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the societies engaged in the development of the guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome should be explicitly communicated to the affected individual. Shared decision-making with the patient on the therapeutic options based on individual preferences of the patient, comorbidities and the success of previous treatment is recommended. A step-wise treatment approach depending on the severity of fibromyalgia syndrome and the response to therapeutic measures is recommended.

[Role of anesthesiology in pain medicine and palliative care treatment in German hospitals : Survey of department heads of anesthesiology on treatment structures]. / Rolle der Anästhesiologie in der schmerzmedizinischen und palliativmedizinischen Versorgung in deutschen Krankenhäusern : Befragung von Chefärzten der Anästhesiologie zu Versorgungsstrukturen.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this analysis was to describe the role of anesthesiology departments in pain medicine and palliative care services in German hospitals. METHOD: In the year 2012, all heads of departments of anesthesiology registered with the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine were surveyed about structures of pain medicine and palliative care services in their hospitals using a standardized postal questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 408 returned questionnaires (response rate 47%) 403 could be evaluated. Of the hospitals 58% had a designated pain medicine service, in 36 (9%) of the hospitals this was organized as an independent department and in 195 (57%) as part of another department, mostly the department of anesthesiology. The "pain clinic" as an outpatient service was the most common form of structure for pain medicine services (41%). Inpatient pain medicine units were available in 77 (19%) of the hospitals and a partial inpatient unit in the form of a day hospital in 26 (7%) of the hospitals. For the care of inpatients from other departments, there was an intrahospital pain consultation service in 166 of the hospitals, which was the only structure for pain medicine in 32 of the 231 hospitals that reported having a designated pain medicine service. In 160 pain medicine services anesthesiologists were the only medical practitioners and in a further 18 both anesthesiologists and other specialists were available (orthopedist/orthopedic surgeons n = 6, internal medicine n = 4, psychiatrist n = 2, general practitioner = 1 and neurologist n = 1). Only two hospitals had no anesthesiologist in the pain medicine team and for the remaining 51 hospitals no information was provided. In 189 of the 231 hospitals with pain medicine services, there was at least 1 physician with special qualifications in pain management. In 97 (44%) of the hospitals psychologists were part of the team with 53 having at least 1 psychologist with a special qualification in chronic pain management. Of the hospitals, 16% had a specialized department for palliative care, in 32% a specialized palliative care service was part of another department, which was the department of anesthesiology in 30%. Of the hospitals 56% had a palliative care consultation service, 41% had a specialized inpatient palliative care unit, 6% an outpatient clinic, 4% a day hospital and in 16% a specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) serving the community was incorporated. Inpatient consultation services and the SOPC were more common when the department of anesthesiology was involved in the palliative care services. CONCLUSION: In German hospitals, the departments of anesthesiology make a significant contribution to the provision of both pain medicine and palliative care services. Nevertheless, the respective structures of care are often incomplete or even lacking. There were shortcomings in terms of organization and qualification of the team in pain medicine services (e.g. no doctor with special qualifications in pain management or no psychologist). Palliative care services are more often organized as independent departments than as pain medicine services. Engagement of the anesthesiology department in palliative care is linked to a broader scope of the services provided, which might reflect the capacity of many anesthesiologists to work in an interdisciplinary manner and across interfaces.

[Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for chronic neuropathic pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled studies]. / Wirksamkeit, Verträglichkeit und Sicherheit von Cannabinoiden bei neuropathischen Schmerzsyndromen : Eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit von randomisierten, kontrollierten Studien.

BACKGROUND: Recently published systematic reviews came to different conclusions with respect to the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was carried out in MEDLINE, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) and clinicaltrials.gov up until November 2015. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies (RCT) of at least 2 weeks duration and with at least 9 patients per treatment arm comparing medicinal cannabis, plant-based or synthetic cannabinoids with placebo or any other active drug treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Clinical endpoints of the analyses were efficacy (more than 30 % or 50 % reduction of pain, average pain intensity, global improvement and health-related quality of life), tolerability (drop-out rate due to side effects, central nervous system and psychiatric side effects) and safety (severe side effects). Using a random effects model absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. The methodological quality of RCTs was rated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs with 1619 participants. Study duration ranged between 2 and 15 weeks. Of the studies 10 used a plant-derived oromucosal spray with tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol, 3 studies used a synthetic cannabinoid (2 with nabilone and 1 with dronabinol) and 2 studies used medicinal cannabis. The 13 studies with parallel or cross-over design yielded the following results with 95 % confidence intervals (CI): cannabinoids were superior to placebo in the reduction of mean pain intensity with SMD - 0.10 (95 % CI - 0.20- - 0.00, p = 0.05, 13 studies with 1565 participants), in the frequency of at least a 30 % reduction in pain with an RD of 0.10 [95 % CI 0.03-0.16, p = 0.004, 9 studies with 1346 participants, number needed to treat for additional benefit (NNTB) 14, 95 % CI 8-45] and in the frequency of a large or very large global improvement with an RD of 0.09 (95 % CI 0.01-0.17, p = 0.009, 7 studies with 1092 participants). There were no statistically significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo in the frequency of at least a 50 % reduction in pain, in improvement of health-related quality of life and in the frequency of serious adverse events. Patients treated with cannabinoids dropped out more frequently due to adverse events with an RD of 0.04 [95 % CI 0.01-0.07, p = 0.009, 11 studies with 1572 participants, number needed to treat for additional harm (NNTH) 19, 95 % CI 13-37], reported central nervous system side effects more frequently with an RD of 0.38 (95 % CI 0.18-0.58, p = 0.0003, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 3, 95 % CI 2-4) and psychiatric side effects with an RD of 0.11 (95 % CI 0.06-0.16, p < 0.0001, 9 studies with 1304 participants, NNTH 8, 95 % CI 7-12). CONCLUSION: Cannabinoids were marginally superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Cannabinoids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety during the study period. Short-term and intermediate-term therapy with cannabinoids can be considered in selected patients with chronic neuropathic pain after failure of first-line and second-line therapies.