Opioid use and associated factors in 1676 patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a multicentre quality improvement project.

Objective: Despite its association with poorer outcomes, opioid use in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not well characterised in the UK. We aimed to examine the extent of opioid use, the associated factors and the use of mitigation techniques such as pain-service review and opioid weaning plans among individuals with IBD. Methods: Data were collected from consecutive patients attending IBD outpatient appointments at 12 UK hospitals. A predefined questionnaire was used to collect data including patient demographics, IBD history, opioid use in the past year (>2 weeks) and opioid-use mitigation techniques. Additionally, consecutive IBD-related hospital stays leading up to July 2019 were reviewed with data collected regarding opioid use at admission, discharge and follow-up as well as details of the admission indication. Results: In 1352 outpatients, 12% had used opioids within the past 12 months. Over half of these individuals were taking opioids for non-IBD pain and less than half had undergone an attempted opioid wean.In 324 hospitalised patients, 27% were prescribed opioids at discharge from hospital. At 12 months postdischarge, 11% were using opioids. Factors associated with opioid use in both cohorts included female sex, Crohn's disease and previous surgery. Conclusions: 1 in 10 patients with IBD attending outpatient appointments were opioid exposed in the past year while a quarter of inpatients were discharged with opioids, and 11% continued to use opioids 12 months after discharge. IBD services should aim to identify patients exposed to opioids, reduce exposure where possible and facilitate access to alternative pain management approaches.

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.

Immediate effects of a brief mindfulness-based body scan on patients with chronic pain.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has benefits for those with chronic pain. MBSR typically entails an intensive 8-week intervention. The effects of very brief mindfulness interventions are unknown. Among those with chronic pain, the immediate effects of a 10 min mindfulness-based body scan were compared with a control intervention. Fifty-five adult outpatients were randomly assigned to either: (1) mindfulness-based body scan (n = 27) or (2) a reading about natural history (control group, n = 28), provided via a 10 min audio-recording. Interventions were delivered twice across 24 h; once in the clinic and once in participants' 'normal' environment. Immediately before and after listening to the recording, participants rated pain severity, pain related distress, perceived ability for daily activities, perceived likelihood of pain interfering with social relations, and mindfulness. In the clinic, there was a significant reduction in ratings for pain related distress and for pain interfering with social relations for the body scan group compared with the control group (p = 0.005; p = 0.036, respectively). In the normal environment none of the ratings were significantly different between the groups. These data suggest that, in a clinic setting, a brief body scan has immediate benefits for those experiencing chronic pain. These benefits need to be confirmed in the field.

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

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

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.

Proceedings of the CHANGE PAIN Expert Summit in Rome, June 2010.

Chronic non-cancer pain - unlike acute pain, which can be regarded as a symptom of disease or injury - is gaining recognition as a disease in its own right. It is a burden for the individual sufferer that has a severe impact on physical and social functioning. Chronic back pain, in particular, is a highly prevalent condition that has a considerable economic impact on society. However, treatment approaches for severe chronic non-cancer pain differ widely. The CHANGE PAIN initiative aims to enhance the understanding of patients who suffer from severe chronic pain and to improve pain management. The following special supplement, consisting of 10 commentaries, describes the proceedings from the first international Expert Meeting of the CHANGE PAIN initiative, which was held in Rome on June 20th and 21st, 2010.

Outcome predictors for treatment success with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in low back pain with neuropathic components and neuropathic pain after surgical and nonsurgical trauma.

Five percent lidocaine medicated plaster has been proven efficacious for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain in diverse pain conditions which might be attributed to a common localized symptomatology in these indications, possibly with common predictors of treatment success. To discuss potential symptoms and other factors predicting response to treatment with lidocaine plaster for the indications of low back pain with neuropathic components and neuropathic pain after surgical and nonsurgical trauma, 44 pain specialists from 17 countries attended a two-day conference meeting in December 2009. Discussions were based on the retrospective analysis of case reports (sent in by participants in the four weeks prior to the meeting) and the practical experience of the participants. The results indicate some predictors for success with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster for the two indications. Localized pain, hyperalgesia and/or allodynia, and other positive sensory symptoms, such as dysesthesia, were considered positive predictors, whereas widespread pain and negative sensory symptoms were regarded as negative predictors. Paresthesia, diagnosis, and site of pain were considered to be of no predictive value. Common symptomatology with other neurologic pathologies suggests that treatment of localized neuropathic pain symptoms with the plaster can be considered across different neuropathic pain indications.

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.

The impact of pain on labor force participation, absenteeism and presenteeism in the European Union.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this paper are to generate estimates of the association between the experience and burden of pain, by severity and frequency, with (1) labor force participation and workforce status in five EU countries (the UK, France, Spain, Germany and Italy) and (2) patterns of absenteeism and presenteeism for the employed workforce. METHODS: Data are from the internet-based 2008 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS). This survey covers both those who report experiencing pain in the last month as well as the no pain population. A series of regression models are developed with the no pain group as the reference category. The impact of pain, categorized by severity and frequency reported, is assessed within a labor supply framework for (1) labor force participation and (2) absenteeism and presenteeism. In the former case both binomial and multinomial logistic models are estimated; in the latter case ordered logit models are estimated. RESULTS: The results demonstrate that, in the context of health status, the experience of frequent severe and moderate pain has a dominant, independent and negative association with labor force participation and employment status as well as absenteeism and presenteeism. The presence of severe daily pain is associated with a 20-point reduction in the probability of being employed full-time; with moderate daily pain associated with a 10-point reduction. The impact of pain is far greater than the potential impact of other health status measures (e.g., chronic comorbidities and BMI). The experience of pain, notably severe and frequent pain, also outstrips the impact of other health status factors in absenteeism and presenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of pain, in particular severe daily pain, has a substantial negative association with labor force participation in these five European countries as well as reported absenteeism and presenteeism. As a measure of health status, it clearly outweighs other health status measures. Whether or not pain is considered as a disease in its own right, the experience of chronic pain, as defined here, presents policy makers with a major challenge. Programs to relieve the burden of pain in the community clearly have the potential for substantial benefits from societal, individual and employer perspectives.

The societal impact of pain in the European Union: health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilization.

OBJECTIVES: This paper reports on the results of a series of quantitative assessments of the association of severe and frequent pain with health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilization in five European countries. METHODS: The analysis contrasts the contribution of the increasing severity and frequency of pain reported against respondents reporting no pain in the previous month. The data are taken from the 2008 National Health and Wellness Survey. Single-equation generalized linear regression models are used to evaluate the association of pain with the physical and mental component scores of the SF-12 questionnaire as well as health utilities generated from the SF-6D. In addition, the role of pain is assessed in its association with healthcare provider visits, emergency room visits and hospitalizations. RESULTS: The results indicate that the experience of pain, notably severe and frequent pain, is substantial and is significantly associated with the SF-12 physical component scores, health utilities and all aspects of healthcare resource utilization, which far outweighs the role of demographic and socioeconomic variables, health risk factors (in particular body mass index) and the presence of comorbidities. In the case of severe daily pain, the marginal contribution of the SF-12 physical component score is a deficit of -17.86 compared to those reporting no pain (population average score 46.49), while persons who are morbidly obese report a deficit of only -6.63 compared to those who are normal weight. The corresponding association with health utilities is equally dramatic with a severe daily pain deficit of -0.19 compared to those reporting no pain (average population utility 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: For the five largest EU countries, the societal burden of pain is considerable. The experience of pain far outweighs the contribution of more traditional explanations of HRQoL deficits as well as being the primary factor associated with increased provider visits, emergency room visits and hospitalizations.