Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic and Mixed Pain in Children and Adolescents: Results of a Survey Study amongst Practitioners

Validated diagnostic tools to diagnose chronic neuropathic and mixed pain in children are missing. Therapeutic options are often derived from therapeutics for adults. To investigate the international practice amongst practitioners for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain in children and adolescents, we performed a survey study among members of learned societies or groups whose members are known to treat pediatric pain. The survey included questions concerning practitioners and practice characteristics, assessment and diagnosis, treatment and medication. We analyzed 117 returned questionnaires, of which 41 (35%) were fully completed and 76 (65%) were partially completed. Most respondents based the diagnosis of neuropathic pain on physical examination (68 (58.1%)), patient history (67 (57.3%)), and underlying disease (59 (50.4%)) combined. Gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin were the first-choice treatments for moderate neuropathic pain. Tramadol, ibuprofen, amitriptyline, and paracetamol were the first-choice treatments for moderate mixed pain. Consensus on the diagnostic process of neuropathic pain in children and adolescents is lacking. Drug treatment varies widely for moderate, severe neuropathic, and mixed pain. Hence, diagnostic tools and therapy need to be harmonized and validated for use in children

The research gap in chronic paediatric pain : A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Background and Objective: Chronic pain is associated with significant functional and social impairment. The objective of this review was to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pain management interventions in children and adolescents with chronic pain. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to July 2017. We included RCTs that involved children and adolescents (3 months-18 years) and evaluated the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention(s) in the context of pain persisting or re-occurring for more than 3 months. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Tool. Results: A total of 58 RCTs were identified and numbers steadily increased over time. The majority were conducted in single hospital institutions, with no information on study funding. Median sample size was 47.5 participants (Q1,Q3: 32, 70). Forty-five percent of RCTs included both adults and children and the median of the mean ages at inclusion was 12.9 years (Q1,Q3: 11, 15). Testing of non-pharmacological interventions was predominant and only 5 RCTs evaluated analgesics or co-analgesics. Abdominal pain, headache/migraine and musculoskeletal pain were the most common types of chronic pain among participants. Methodological quality was poor with 90% of RCTs presenting a high or unclear ROB. Conclusions: Evaluation of analgesics targeting chronic pain relief in children and adolescents through RCTs is marginal. Infants and children with long-lasting painful conditions are insufficiently represented in RCTs. We discuss possible research constraints and challenges as well as methodologies to circumvent them. Significance: There is a substantial research gap regarding analgesic interventions for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Most clinical trials in the field focus on the evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions and are of low methodological quality. There is also a specific lack of trials involving infants and children and adolescents with long-lasting diseases

The research gap in chronic paediatric pain: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Background and Objective: Chronic pain is associated with significant functional and social impairment. The objective of this review was to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pain management interventions in children and adolescents with chronic pain. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to July 2017. We included RCTs that involved children and adolescents (3 months-18 years) and evaluated the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention(s) in the context of pain persisting or re-occurring for more than 3 months. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Tool. Results: A total of 58 RCTs were identified and numbers steadily increased over time. The majority were conducted in single hospital institutions, with no information on study funding. Median sample size was 47.5 participants (Q1,Q3: 32, 70). Forty-five percent of RCTs included both adults and children and the median of the mean ages at inclusion was 12.9 years (Q1,Q3: 11, 15). Testing of non-pharmacological interventions was predominant and only 5 RCTs evaluated analgesics or co-analgesics. Abdominal pain, headache/migraine and musculoskeletal pain were the most common types of chronic pain among participants. Methodological quality was poor with 90% of RCTs presenting a high or unclear ROB. Conclusions: Evaluation of analgesics targeting chronic pain relief in children and adolescents through RCTs is marginal. Infants and children with long-lasting painful conditions are insufficiently represented in RCTs. We discuss possible research constraints and challenges as well as methodologies to circumvent them. Significance: There is a substantial research gap regarding analgesic interventions for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Most clinical trials in the field focus on the evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions and are of low methodological quality. There is also a specific lack of trials involving infants and children and adolescents with long-lasting diseases