Andrew Nicolaou

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

Abstract 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

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract 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.

Managing chronic pain in elderly patients requires a CHANGE of approach

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract 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 patients 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.

The CHANGE PAIN Physician Survey.

The CHANGE PAIN Physician Survey aims to explore how physicians perceive chronic non-cancer pain and to discover their opinions regarding its treatment. The survey was started at the European Federation of IASP Chapters (EFIC) Congress in September 2009, has since been implemented at several international conferences, and is available online via the CHANGE PAIN website at http://www.change-pain.com/grt-change-pain-portal/GRT-CHANGEPAIN-PORTAL_Home/Why_Change/Survey/86600049.jsp. The response of the first 1761 participants, who completed the survey either online or at conferences before the end of May 2010, has now been analysed. Most participants were from Europe, although coverage was world-wide, and the best represented disciplines were primary care (30%) and pain medicine/anaesthesiology (35%).

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

Abstract 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.