Blair H. Smith

The epidemiology of chronic pain in the community

BACKGROUND Chronic pain is recognised as an important problem in the community but our understanding of the epidemiology of chronic pain remains limited. We undertook a study designed to quantify and describe the prevalence and distribution of chronic pain in the community. METHODS A random sample of 5036 patients, aged 25 and over, was drawn from 29 general practices in the Grampian region of the UK and surveyed by a postal self-completion questionnaire. The questionnaire included case-screening questions, a question on the cause of the pain, the chronic pain grade questionnaire, the level of expressed needs questionnaire, and sociodemographic questions. FINDINGS 3605 questionnaires were returned completed. 1817 (50.4%) of patients self reported chronic pain, equivalent to 46.5% of the general population. 576 reported back pain and 570 reported arthritis; these were the most common complaints and accounted for a third of all complaints. Backward stepwise logistic-regression modelling identified age, sex, housing tenure, and employment status as significant predictors of the presence of chronic pain in the community. 703 (48.7%) individuals with chronic pain had the least severe grade of pain, and 228 (15.8%) the most severe grade. Of those who reported chronic pain, 312 (17.2%) reported no expressed need, and 509 (28.0%) reported the highest expressed need. INTERPRETATION Chronic pain is a major problem in the community and certain groups within the population are more likely to have chronic pain. A detailed understanding of the epidemiology of chronic pain is essential for efficient management of chronic pain in primary care.

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. FINDINGS 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. INTERPRETATION Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. FUNDING NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. FINDINGS 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. INTERPRETATION Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. FUNDING NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment

&NA; This is a revision of guidelines, originally published in 2004, for the assessment of patients with neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system either at peripheral or central level. Screening questionnaires are suitable for identifying potential patients with neuropathic pain, but further validation of them is needed for epidemiological purposes. Clinical examination, including accurate sensory examination, is the basis of neuropathic pain diagnosis. For more accurate sensory profiling, quantitative sensory testing is recommended for selected cases in clinic, including the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathies and for research purposes. Measurement of trigeminal reflexes mediated by A‐beta fibers can be used to differentiate symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia from classical trigeminal neuralgia. Measurement of laser‐evoked potentials is useful for assessing function of the A‐delta fiber pathways in patients with neuropathic pain. Functional brain imaging is not currently useful for individual patients in clinical practice, but is an interesting research tool. Skin biopsy to measure the intraepidermal nerve fiber density should be performed in patients with clinical signs of small fiber dysfunction. The intensity of pain and treatment effect (both in clinic and trials) should be assessed with numerical rating scale or visual analog scale. For future neuropathic pain trials, pain relief scales, patient and clinician global impression of change, the proportion of responders (50% and 30% pain relief), validated neuropathic pain quality measures and assessment of sleep, mood, functional capacity and quality of life are recommended.

The course of chronic pain in the community: results of a 4-year follow-up study

&NA; Little is known about the course of chronic pain in the community. Such information is needed for the prevention and management of chronic pain. We undertook a 4‐year follow‐up study of 2184 individuals living in Grampian, UK to describe patterns and predictors of change in chronic pain over time. In October 2000, participants completed a postal questionnaire including case definition questions, the chronic pain grade questionnaire, the SF‐36 and socio‐demographic questions. Information from this questionnaire was compared to information collected from a similar questionnaire in 1996. A response rate of 83% was achieved for the follow‐up study. The overall prevalence of chronic pain (pain or discomfort present either all the time or on and off for 3 months or longer) increased from 45.5% at baseline to 53.8% at follow‐up. Seventy‐nine percent of those with chronic pain at baseline still had it at follow‐up. The average annual incidence was 8.3% and the average annual recovery rate was 5.4%. Individuals in the study samples who are in lowest quartile of SF‐36 domains–physical functioning, social functioning and bodily pain at baseline–were more likely to develop chronic pain at follow‐up, and respondents who were retired were less likely to develop chronic pain. Individuals in the study samples in the lowest quartile of SF‐36 domains, bodily pain and general health at baseline, were less likely to recover from their chronic pain, as were those aged 45–74 compared with those aged 25–34. We concluded that chronic pain is a common, persistent problem in the community with relatively high incidence and low recovery rates. The lack of association between onset or recovery from chronic pain and most traditional socio‐demographic factors, highlights the need to broaden the range of factors included in studies of chronic pain aetiology.

Neuropathic pain in the general population: A systematic review of epidemiological studies

Summary This systematic review includes epidemiological studies of neuropathic pain within the general population. There is a wide range of incidence and prevalence rates. ABSTRACT Most patients with neuropathic pain symptoms present and are managed in primary care, with only a minority being referred for specialist clinical assessment and diagnoses. Previous reviews have focused mainly on specific neuropathic pain conditions based in specialist settings. This is the first systematic review of epidemiological studies of neuropathic pain in the general population. Electronic databases were searched from January 1966 to December 2012, and studies were included where the main focus was on neuropathic pain prevalence and/or incidence, either as part of a specific neuropathic pain‐related condition or as a global entity in the general population. We excluded studies in which data were extracted from pain or other specialist clinics or focusing on specific population subgroups. Twenty‐one articles were identified and underwent quality assessment and data extraction. Included studies differed in 3 main ways: method of data retrieval, case ascertainment tool used, and presentation of prevalence/incidence rates. This heterogeneity precluded any meta‐analysis. We categorised comparable incidence and prevalence rates into 2 main subgroups: (1) chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics (range 3–17%), and (2) neuropathic pain associated with a specific condition, including postherpetic neuralgia (3.9–42.0/100,000 person–years [PY]), trigeminal neuralgia (12.6–28.9/100,000 PY), painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (15.3–72.3/100,000 PY), glossopharyngeal neuralgia (0.2–0.4/100,000 PY). These differences highlight the importance of a standardised approach for identifying neuropathic pain in future epidemiological studies. A best estimate of population prevalence of pain with neuropathic characteristics is likely to lie between 6.9% and 10%.

A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11

Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table ​Table1).1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents. Table 1 Glossary of ICD-11 terms. The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. ​(Fig.1):1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Ustun and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017. Figure 1 Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to ... 2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective.

Health and quality of life associated with chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin in the community.

ObjectivesTo assess the health and quality of life associated with chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin (POPNO) on health and daily activity in the general population. MethodsThe Self-complete Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) questionnaire, recently validated for identifying pain of predominantly neuropathic origin, was sent to 6000 adults identified from general practices in the United Kingdom, along with chronic pain identification and severity questions, the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Neuropathic Pain Scale, and the SF-36 general health questionnaire. ResultsWith a corrected response rate of 52%, 3 groups of respondents were identified: those without chronic pain (“No Chronic Pain” group, n=1537); those with chronic pain who were S-LANSS positive indicating the presence of POPNO (“Chronic POPNO” group, n =241); and those with chronic pain who were S-LANSS negative [“Chronic Pain (non-POPNO)” group, n=1179]. The chronic POPNO group reported higher pain severity and had significantly poorer scores for all interference items of the BPI than those with chronic pain (non-POPNO). Mean scores from the Neuropathic Pain Scale were also significantly higher for the Chronic POPNO group. There were significant differences between the groups in all domains of the SF-36, with the Chronic POPNO group reporting the worst health. After adjusting for pain severity, age, and sex, the chronic POPNO group was still found to have poorer scores than the other Chronic Pain (non-POPNO) group in all domains of the SF-36 and all interference items in the BPI, indicating poorer health and greater disability. DiscussionThis study confirms the importance of identifying neuropathic pain in the community, and the need for multidimensional management strategies that address all aspects of health.

Assessment of Neuropathic Pain in Primary Care

Management of patients presenting with chronic pain is a common problem in primary care. Essentially, the classification of chronic pain falls into 3 broad categories: (1) pain owing to tissue disease or damage (nociceptive pain), (2) pain caused by somatosensory system disease or damage (neuropathic pain), and (3) pain without a known somatic background. Key challenges in developing a targeted holistic approach to treatment include appropriate diagnosis of the cause or causes of pain; identifying the type of pain and assessing the relative importance of its various components; and determining appropriate treatment. In clinical examination, sensory abnormalities are the crucial findings leading to a diagnosis of neuropathic pain, for which pharmacotherapy with antidepressants and anticonvulsants represents the cornerstone of medical treatment. Chronic neuropathic pain is underrecognized and undertreated, yet primary care physicians are uniquely placed on the frontlines of patient management, where they can play a pivotal role in treatment and prevention through diagnosis, therapy, follow-up, and referral. This review provides guidance in understanding and identifying the neuropathic contribution to pain presenting in primary care; assessing its severity through patient history, physical examination, and appropriate diagnostic tests; and establishing a rational treatment plan.

Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance

Chronic pain affects ∼20% of the European population and is commoner in women, older people, and with relative deprivation. Its management in the community remains generally unsatisfactory, partly because of lack of evidence for effective interventions. Epidemiological study of chronic pain, through an understanding of its distribution and determinants, can inform the development, targeting, and evaluation of interventions in the general population. This paper reviews current knowledge of risk markers associated with chronic pain and considers how these might inform management and prevention. Risk factors include socio-demographic, clinical, psychological, and biological factors. These are relevant to our understanding of chronic pain mechanisms and the nature of, and responses to, current and future treatments.