Epidemiology and treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee in Germany: A retrospective health claims data analysis.

Objective: Osteoarthritis of the knee (knee OA) is a serious joint disease leading to pain and reduced quality of life. Pharmacological treatments include anti-inflammatories, analgesics, intraarticular hyaluronic acid, and intraarticular corticosteroids while for severe knee OA, knee replacement is an option. This study examined the incidence, prevalence, patient characteristics, and uptake of medical and surgical treatments in knee OA patients in Germany. Design: A non-interventional, retrospective health claims data analysis with anonymized data from the InGef database was performed. Patients ≥18 years were analyzed cross-sectionally for each year 2015-2020. Newly diagnosed patients in 2015 were also longitudinally analyzed until end of 2020. Results: Annual knee OA prevalence increased from 7.07 â€‹% in 2015 to 7.39 â€‹% in 2020. Annual incidence proportions ranged from 1.71 â€‹% in 2015 to 1.46 â€‹% in 2020. Knee replacement was the most common surgery, with rising patient numbers (e.g., 7918 patients in 2015 and 8975 patients in 2019). Approximately 62 â€‹% of patients newly diagnosed in 2015 received prescription pharmacological pain treatment during follow-up. Most (96.95 â€‹%) received non-opioid analgesics, followed by weak opioids (8.14 â€‹%) and strong opioids (3.00 â€‹%) as first-line treatment (combinations possible). Knee surgery was performed in 16.6 â€‹% of patients during follow-up. Median time from first diagnosis until surgery was 346 days for any knee surgery and 564 days for knee replacement. Conclusions: The number of patients with knee OA in Germany is steadily rising, along with an increasing number of surgical interventions, especially knee replacement. Time until first surgery and knee replacement is relatively short, even for newly diagnosed patients.

Responsiveness of multiple patient-reported outcome measures for acute postsurgical pain: primary results from the international multi-centre PROMPT NIT-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Postsurgical outcome measures are crucial to define the efficacy of perioperative pain management; however, it is unclear which are most appropriate. We conducted a prospective study aiming to assess sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures assessing the core outcome set of domains pain intensity (at rest/during activity), physical function, adverse events, and self-efficacy. METHODS: Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively, on day 1 (d1), d3, and d7 after four surgical procedures (total knee replacement, breast surgery, endometriosis-related surgery, and sternotomy). Primary outcomes were sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures analysed by correlating their changes (d1-d3) with patients' global impression of change and patients' specific impression of change items as anchor criteria. Secondary outcomes included identification of baseline and patient characteristic variables explaining variance in change for each of the scales and descriptive analysis of various patient-reported outcome measures from different domains and after different surgeries. RESULTS: Of 3322 patients included (18 hospitals, 10 countries), data from 2661 patients were analysed. All patient-reported outcome measures improved on average over time; the median calculated sensitivity-to-change for all patient-reported outcome measures (overall surgeries) was 0.22 (range: 0.07-0.31, scale: 0-10); all changes were independent of baseline data or patient characteristics and similar between different procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Pain-related patient-reported outcome measures have low to moderate sensitivity-to-change; those showing higher sensitivity-to-change from the same domain should be considered for inclusion in a core outcome set of patient-reported outcome measures to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management.

Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process.

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Neuropathic Pain Clinical Trials - A Systematic Literature Review.

In neuropathic pain clinical trials, the patient's perspective is often insufficiently reflected focusing mainly on pain intensity. Comparability of outcome assessment is limited due to heterogenous patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases and reference lists of published meta-analyses were searched. Randomized controlled studies assessing treatment efficacy of drugs for chronic neuropathic pain were included. PROMs were assigned to recommended IMMPACT/NeuPSIG domains: pain intensity, pain other aspects, physical functioning, emotional functioning, global improvement and satisfaction, adverse events, participant disposition. Domains and PROMs were compared regarding the publication year and methodological quality of the studies. Within the 251 included studies 200 PROMs were used with 27 being recommended by IMMPACT/NeuPSIG. The number of domains was higher in high/moderate quality studies. The (sub-) domains 'physical functioning', 'global improvement and satisfaction', and 'neuropathic pain quality' were assessed more frequently in high/moderate quality studies and those published after 2011. Recent studies and those of better quality more often used the recommended PROMs. Although neuropathic assessment via PROMs has improved, there is still a high heterogeneity. A standardized core set of outcome domains and should be defined to improve neuropathic pain treatment and to achieve better comparability of clinical trials. Perspective: This systematic literature review assesses the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in chronic neuropathic pain. The results show that there is still a high heterogeneity, highlighting the need for a standardized core set of outcome domains and PROMs to improve comparability of clinical trials and neuropathic pain treatment.

Developing consensus on core outcome domains for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management: results of the PROMPT/IMI-PainCare Delphi Meeting.

ABSTRACT: Postoperative pain management is still insufficient, leading to major deficits, including patient suffering, impaired surgical recovery, long-term opioid intake, and postsurgical chronic pain. Yet, identifying the best treatment options refers to a heterogeneous outcome assessment in clinical trials, not always reflecting relevant pain-related aspects after surgery and therefore hamper evidence synthesis. Establishing a core outcome set for perioperative pain management of acute pain after surgery may overcome such limitations. An international, stepwise consensus process on outcome domains ("what to measure") for pain management after surgery, eg, after total knee arthroplasty, sternotomy, breast surgery, and surgery related to endometriosis, was performed. The process, guided by a steering committee, involved 9 international stakeholder groups and patient representatives. The face-to-face meeting was prepared by systematic literature searches identifying common outcome domains for each of the 4 surgical procedures and included breakout group sessions, world-café formats, plenary panel discussions, and final voting. The panel finally suggested an overall core outcome set for perioperative pain management with 5 core outcome domains: physical function (for a condition-specific measurement), pain intensity at rest, pain intensity during activity, adverse events, and self-efficacy. Innovative aspects of this work were inclusion of the psychological domain self-efficacy, as well as the specific assessment of pain intensity during activity and physical function recommended to be assessed in a condition-specific manner. The IMI-PROMPT core outcome set seeks to improve assessing efficacy and effectiveness of perioperative pain management in any clinical and observational studies as well as in clinical practice.

Assessing outcome in postoperative pain trials: are we missing the point? A systematic review of pain-related outcome domains reported in studies early after total knee arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT: The management of acute postoperative pain remains suboptimal. Systematic reviews and Cochrane analysis can assist with collating evidence about treatment efficacy, but the results are limited in part by heterogeneity of endpoints in clinical trials. In addition, the chosen endpoints may not be entirely clinically relevant. To investigate the endpoints assessed in perioperative pain trials, we performed a systematic literature review on outcome domains assessing effectiveness of acute pain interventions in trials after total knee arthroplasty. We followed the Cochrane recommendations for systematic reviews, searching PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, resulting in the screening of 1590 potentially eligible studies. After final inclusion of 295 studies, we identified 11 outcome domains and 45 subdomains/descriptors with the domain "pain"/"pain intensity" most commonly assessed (98.3%), followed by "analgesic consumption" (88.8%) and "side effects" (75.3%). By contrast, "physical function" (53.5%), "satisfaction" (28.8%), and "psychological function" (11.9%) were given much less consideration. The combinations of outcome domains were inhomogeneous throughout the studies, regardless of the type of pain management investigated. In conclusion, we found that there was high variability in outcome domains and inhomogeneous combinations, as well as inconsistent subdomain descriptions and utilization in trials comparing for effectiveness of pain interventions after total knee arthroplasty. This points towards the need for harmonizing outcome domains, eg, by consenting on a core outcome set of domains which are relevant for both stakeholders and patients. Such a core outcome set should include at least 3 domains from 3 different health core areas such as pain intensity, physical function, and one psychological domain.

Bone fractures in patients using tapentadol or oxycodone: an exploratory US claims database study.

Aim: To explore fracture outcomes with tapentadol or oxycodone, two opioids with differing mechanisms of action. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort pilot study, using MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases, on patients with postoperative pain, back pain, or osteoarthritis and ≥1 claim for tapentadol (n = 16,457), oxycodone (n = 1,356,920), or both (n = 15,893) between June 2009 and December 2015. Results: During 266,826 and 9,007,889 days of tapentadol and oxycodone treatment, patients evidenced 1080 and 72,275 fractures, respectively. Fracture rates per treatment-year were 1.512 for tapentadol and 3.013 for oxycodone. Conclusion: Examination of administrative claims has inherent limitations, but this exploratory analysis indicates a lower fracture rate with tapentadol than oxycodone in the analyzed dataset, which needs confirmation by further clinical trials.

Quality of life and functional outcomes with tapentadol prolonged release in chronic musculoskeletal pain: post hoc analysis.

Aims: To investigate quality of life (QOL) and functionality changes in chronic pain during tapentadol prolonged release (PR) treatment. Patients & methods: Post hoc analysis of data from three Phase III trials in patients with osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. QOL and functionality changes were assessed by SF-36 scores. Results: All SF-36 subdomain scores improved progressively to week 3 of tapentadol titration and were sustained during 12-week maintenance treatment. Improvements in SF-36 scores were similar between tapentadol dose groups (e.g., 200 to <300 mg vs ≥500 mg), with no greater effect from higher doses. QOL and functionality improvements were consistently greater with tapentadol PR than oxycodone controlled release. Conclusion: Tapentadol PR provides consistent, clinically relevant improvements in QOL and functionality in chronic pain.

Developing consensus on core outcome domains and measurement instruments for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management after sternotomy, breast cancer surgery, total knee arthroplasty, and surgery related to endometriosis : The IMI-PainCare PROMPT protocol for achieving a consensus on core outcome domains.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence synthesis of clinical trials requires consistent outcome assessment. For pain management after surgery, inconsistency of effectiveness assessment is still observed. A subproject of IMI-PainCare (Innovative Medicine Initiatives, www.imi-paincare.eu ) aims for identifying core outcome domains and measurement instruments for postoperative pain in four surgical fields (sternotomy, breast cancer surgery, total knee arthroplasty, and surgery related to endometriosis) in order to harmonize outcome assessment for perioperative pain management. METHODS: A multifaceted process will be performed according to existing guidelines (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)). In a first step, outcome domains will be identified via systematic literature review and consented on during a 1-day consensus meeting by 10 stakeholder groups, including patient representatives, forming an IMI PROMPT consensus panel. In a second step, outcome measurement instruments regarding the beforehand consented core outcome domains and their psychometric properties will be searched for via systematic literature review and approved by COSMIN checklist for study quality and scale quality separately. In a three-step online survey, the IMI PROMPT consensus panel will vote for most suitable measurement instruments. The process is planned to be conducted between 11/2017 (systematic literature review on common outcome domains) and 3/2022 (final voting on core outcome measurement).

Pain assessment for chronic lower back pain: performance of the PAL-S and PAL-I patient-reported measures for symptoms and impacts.

Objective: The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S) and the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I) were developed to incorporate patient perspective of treatment benefit in chronic low back pain (cLBP) trials. This study documents psychometric measurement properties of the PAL-S and PAL-I.Methods: In this multicenter, observational study, eligible participants clinically diagnosed with cLBP provided sociodemographic information and completed PAL measures and other patient-reported outcome measures of pain and/or disability. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), construct validity, and reliability were assessed.Results: The 104 participants were 61% female, 89% white, and mean age of 55 years; mean cLBP duration was 11.4 (range 0-47) years. Using painDETECT scores, 36.5% reported small likelihood of neuropathic pain, 30.8% reported unclear likelihood, and 32.7% reported definite likelihood. Persistent pain with pain attacks was reported by 38.5% of participants. CFA confirmed single components with adequate fit indices. Cronbach's alpha was 0.83 (PAL-S) and 0.87 (PAL-I), indicating reliable scales. Intraclass correlation coefficients (test-retest reproducibility, n = 44) were 0.81 (PAL-S) and 0.85 (PAL-I). PAL-S score correlation was 0.49 with Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and 0.77 with Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). PAL-I correlated at 0.73 with RMDQ and -0.60 with Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-36 Bodily Pain. Both measures significantly differentiated between pain intensity levels (based on numeric response scale) and painDETECT groups.Conclusion: The PAL-S and PAL-I generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. Routine use of these measures in treatment trials will enhance comparability of LBP-related symptom and impact results, including patient perspective of treatment benefit.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster vs. pregabalin.

Objective: Neuropathic pain prevalence is estimated between 7% and 10% of the population. International guidelines recommend a variety of drugs at different therapy lines for pain relief. However, side effect profiles, for example, prompted the UK government recently to classify pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs. Lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) might be a safer alternative. A systematic review assessed how LMP and pregabalin compared in terms of efficacy and safety. The review focused on pain reduction, quality of life and adverse events in peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) i.e. post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-surgical/trauma, or other PNP conditions.Methods: Electronic databases were searched as well as a number of other sources up to November 2018. Sensitive strategies were used, with no restriction by language or publication status. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data with consensus determining final decisions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration 2011 checklist for RCTs. Full network meta-analysis was conducted to compare LMP to pregabalin 300/600 mg in terms of pain reduction, quality of life, as well as serious adverse events and selected adverse events. Trials with enriched enrolment design were excluded.Results: Searches retrieved 7,104 records. In total 111 references pertaining to 43 RCTs were included for data extraction. Bayesian network meta-analysis of several pain outcomes showed no clear difference in efficacy between treatments However, LMP was clearly advantageous in terms of dizziness and any adverse event vs. pregabalin 600 mg/day and discontinuations vs. pregabalin 300 mg/day or 600 mg/day, as well as being associated with improved quality of life (albeit in this case based on weak evidence).Conclusions: LMP was found to be similar to pregabalin in reducing pain in all populations but had a better adverse events profile.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2-The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I).

We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts. Classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory (quantitative methods) were used to evaluate item-level and scale-level performance of the PAL-I using an iterative approach between qualitative and quantitative methods. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and assessment of paper-to-electronic format equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of self-reported patients with cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and patients with physician-diagnosed cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the PAL-I. The instrument contained 9 items describing cLBP impacts (walking, sitting, standing, lifting, sleep, social activities, travelling, climbing, and body movements). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.94]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with PAL-I total score and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Pearson correlation 0.82), MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.71), and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (-0.71). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-I demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in clinical trials of cLBP therapies.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 1-the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain - Symptoms (PAL-S).

We describe the mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Qualitative methods (concept elicitation and cognitive interviews) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts and quantitative methods (classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory) were used to evaluate item- and scale-level performance of the measure using an iterative approach. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and interview-based assessment of paper-to-electronic mode equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of patients with self-reported cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and a physician-diagnosed cohort of patients with cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the measure. The PAL-S contained 14 items describing symptoms (overall pain, sharp, prickling, sensitive, tender, radiating, shocking, shooting, burning, squeezing, muscle spasms, throbbing, aching, and stiffness). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.91]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with total score and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (Pearson correlation -0.79), Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (0.73), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0.67), and MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.65). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Respondent interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-S has demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in cLBP clinical trials.

Characteristics, resource utilization and safety profile of patients prescribed with neuropathic pain treatments: a real-world evidence study on general practices in Europe - the role of the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster.

OBJECTIVES: To identify characteristics, resource utilization, and safety profile of patients prescribed with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, pregabalin, gabapentin, amitriptyline and duloxetine when experiencing pain in the real-world setting of general practitioners (GPs) in Europe. METHODS: Retrospective analysis on real world data from IMS Health Longitudinal Patient Database. Patients with at least one prescription of the drugs of interest during 2014 were selected and those with a non-neuropathic pain-related diagnosis were excluded. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, resource utilization data and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as described in the leaflet were extracted. The association between treatments and ADR occurrence was evaluated applying multivariate logistic models. RESULTS: A total of 70,515 patients were selected from Italy, Germany, the UK, Spain and Belgium. Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients were the oldest in Italy, the UK and Spain and the most health impaired in Italy, Spain and Belgium. No relevant differences in the number of co-prescriptions, specialist visits, examinations and hospitalizations were found. Significantly less lidocaine 5% plasters patients experienced ADRs, with odds ratios in favor of lidocaine 5% medicated plasters ranging from 3.41 (p = .036) to 52.33 (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from daily clinical practice in GP settings agrees with the findings from more controlled clinical-trial settings, with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients showing a better safety profile, but also a comparable level of resource utilization. A possible re-evaluation of the scientific value coming from this retrospective study in building up a diagnostic as well as a therapeutic algorithm is suggested.

Indirect treatment comparison of two non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia treatments for acute post-operative pain management.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with two non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) treatments, sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and fentanyl iontophoretic patient-controlled transdermal system (PCTS). These two treatments have recently been approved in the EU for the management of acute moderate-to-severe post-operative pain in adult patients. METHODS: As no head-to-head trials comparing SSTS and PCTS currently exist, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analyses were conducted to evaluate SSTS or PCTS versus intravenous (IV) morphine PCA. RESULTS: Five studies, four assessing PCTS and one assessing SSTS, were included in this analysis. SSTS had statistical or numerical advantages over PCTS for both patient global assessment (PGA) and healthcare professional global assessment (HPGA) outcomes at all time points investigated. SSTS was also associated with greater patient ease of use (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.02-0.28) and a higher patient satisfaction score (WMD: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57; p = .019) compared with PCTS. In terms of tolerability, all-cause withdrawals from treatment were reported to be less likely with SSTS (risk ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42-1.02). No significant differences were observed between SSTS and PCTS in terms of safety and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct head-to-head data, the combination of promising phase III trial results compared to IV morphine PCA, a SLR comparison against other opioid treatments, and the results of this exploratory analysis present a strong rationale in support of SSTS as a key option for management of post-operative pain.

Sublingual, transdermal and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for acute post-operative pain: systematic literature review and mixed treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and quantitative analysis to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) against other available patient controlled analgesia (PCA) options for post-operative analgesia. METHODS: An SLR was conducted for studies published between 2004 and 2016. Due to study heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were conducted controlling for differences in imputation methods for missing values, baseline pain severity, and type of surgery. Where sufficient data was available, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was performed. RESULTS: The MTC and subgroup analyses used 13 studies. In direct meta-analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of SSTS compared with intravenous (IV) PCA (morphine) at 24 hours for the patient global assessment (PGA) scores of "good" or "excellent". For the Pain Intensity Score, there were numerical but not statistically significant differences in favor of the SSTS versus IV PCA (morphine) and the patient controlled transdermal system (PCTS) (fentanyl) in the MTC at 6 hours (standardized mean difference -0.27 [credible interval -2.78, 2.09] and -0.36 [-3.89, 3.03], respectively). The onset of pain relief was earlier with the SSTS versus IV PCA (morphine) as shown by the Pain Intensity Difference. Likewise, the onset was earlier compared with PCTS (fentanyl) where data was available. There was a significant difference in favor of SSTS compared with IV PCA (morphine) and with PCTS (fentanyl) for any adverse event, and numerical improvements for withdrawals due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that SSTS is an option for non-invasive management of moderate-to-severe post-operative pain which can be more effective, faster in onset and better tolerated than IV PCA (morphine) and PCTS (fentanyl).

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments to Assess Chronic Low Back Pain.

Objective: To identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that assess chronic low back pain (cLBP) symptoms (specifically pain qualities) and/or impacts for potential use in cLBP clinical trials to demonstrate treatment benefit and support labeling claims. Design: Literature review of existing PRO measures. Methods: Publications detailing existing PRO measures for cLBP were identified, reviewed, and summarized. As recommended by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) PRO development guidance, standard measurement characteristics were reviewed, including development history, psychometric properties (validity and reliability), ability to detect change, and interpretation of observed changes. Results: Thirteen instruments were selected and reviewed: Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, PainDETECT, Pain Quality Assessment Scale Revised, Revised Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Low Back Pain Impact Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, Pain Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form, Musculoskeletal Outcomes Data Evaluation and Management System Spine Module, Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire, and the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory Interference Scale. The instruments varied in the aspects of pain and/or impacts that they assessed, and none of the instruments fulfilled all criteria for use in clinical trials to support labeling claims based on recommendations outlined in the FDA PRO guidance. Conclusions: There is an unmet need for a validated PRO instrument to evaluate cLBP-related symptoms and impacts for use in clinical trials.

A burden of illness study for neuropathic pain in Europe.

PURPOSE: Neuropathic pain (NP) is often severe and represents a major humanistic and economic burden. This study aimed at providing insight on this burden across France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, considering direct and indirect costs, productivity loss, and humanistic impact on patients and their families. METHODS: Physician questionnaires provided data on patients presenting with NP covering demographics, sick leave and retirement, number of consultations, drug treatments, and surgical procedures. Patients provided further demographic and disease-related data and completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D), and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaires. All health-related direct unitary costs were collected from relevant country-specific sources and adjusted to 2012 prices (€) where necessary. A subgroup analysis of costs based on diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n=894), fibromyalgia (n=300), and low back pain (n=963) was performed. FINDINGS: About 413 physicians completed a total of 3,956 patient records forms. Total annual direct health-care costs per patient ranged from €1,939 (Italy) to €3,131 (Spain). Annual professional caregiver costs ranged from €393 (France) to €1,242 (UK), but this only represented a small proportion of total care because much care is provided by family or friends. Sick leave costs ranged from €5,492 (UK) to €7,098 (France), with 10%-32% patients prevented from working at some point by NP. Total cost (including direct and indirect costs) of NP per patient was €10,313 in France (69% of the total cost), €14,446 in Germany (78%), €9,305 in Italy (69%), €10,597 in Spain (67%), and €9,685 in the UK (57%). Indirect costs (ie, sick leave) constituted the majority of costs in all five countries: €7,098 in France, €11,232 in Germany, €6,382 in Italy, €7,066 in Spain, and €5,492 in the UK. In the subgroup analysis, total annual direct costs per patient were highest for neuropathic back pain and radiculopathy, and lowest for fibromyalgia. Mean WPAI score range was 34.4-56.1; BPI interference was 4.1-4.8; and EQ-5D was 0.57-0.74. The results suggest that a significant proportion of the patient's work time in the previous week was affected by NP, and these are relatively high compared with other diseases such as diabetes, respiratory conditions, and arthritis. IMPLICATIONS: Despite differences in practice between countries, these findings suggest a high opportunity cost for society in terms of lost work and productivity due to NP. The wider costs appear significantly higher to patients, carers/families, and society as a whole than to the health system alone.