Stated Preferences of Physicians and Chronic Pain Sufferers in the Use of Classic Strong Opioids

AbstractWe conducted a two-stage study in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom of the stated preferences of chronic pain sufferers treated with classic strong opioids and of physicians treating such patients. The qualitative stage identified attributes perceived important through focus groups with 84 pain sufferers and semistructured interviews with 11 physicians. The quantitative stage included online, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in which respondents chose between hypothetical profiles or an opt-out in 15 choice tasks. The profile descriptions were based on the attributes elicited in the qualitative stage. DCEs were conducted for pain sufferers (N = 242) and physicians (N = 270) who passed a rationality test. Main-effects models were estimated by hierarchical Bayesian regression. Sufferers ranked nausea, pain impact, energy, alertness, and constipation; physicians ranked pain response, central nervous system (CNS) effects, nausea, dose form, and constipation in descending order of importance. Sufferers were unwilling to incur severe side effects to decrease pain and chose the opt-out in approximately one half of the choice tasks, whereas physicians were willing to trade between profiles. The models predicted physicians' choices better than those of pain sufferers. No age, sex, or country effects were seen, but stronger preferences were found among physicians treating noncancer (n = 40) than cancer pain and among the 55% of sufferers who had never discontinued long-term pain medication use. Sufferers' mean pain scores on an 11-point Likert scale were 4.0, 5.7, and 8.6 on their best, average, and worst days, respectively

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

Peer reviewe

[Structure of pain management facilities in Germany : Classification of medical and psychological pain treatment services-Consensus of the Joint Commission of the Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine].

On behalf of the Medical/Psychological Pain Associations, Pain Patients Alliance and the Professional Association of Pain Physicians and Psychologists, the Joint Commission of Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine, working in close collaboration with the respective presidents, has developed verifiable structural and process-related criteria for the classification of medical and psychological pain treatment facilities in Germany. Based on the established system of graded care in Germany and on existing qualifications, these criteria also argue for the introduction of a basic qualification in pain medicine. In addition to the first-ever comprehensive description of psychological pain facilities, the criteria presented can be used to classify five different levels of pain facilities, from basic pain management facilities, to specialized institutions, to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine. The recommendations offer binding and verifiable criteria for quality assurance in pain medicine and improved pain treatment

Pharmacological treatment of chronic pain the need for CHANGE

Background: Although chronic pain affects around 20 of adults in Europe and the USA, there is substantial evidence that it is inadequately treated. In June 2009, an international group of pain specialists met in Brussels to identify the reasons for this and to achieve consensus on strategies for improving pain management. Scope: Literature on chronic pain management was reviewed, and information presented to and discussed by a panel of experts. Findings: It was agreed that guidelines are not universally accepted by those involved in pain management, and pain treatment seems to be driven mainly by tradition and personal experience. Other factors include poor communication between patients and physicians, the side effects of analgesic drugs, and limited individualisation of therapy. Difficulty in maintaining the balance between adequate pain relief and acceptable tolerability, particularly with strong opioids, can lead to the establishment of a vicious circle that alternates between lack of efficacy and unpleasant side effects, prompting discontinuation of treatment. The medical communitys understanding of the physiological differences between nociceptive pain and neuropathic pain, which is often more severe and difficult to treat, could be improved. Increasing physicians knowledge of the pharmacological options available to manage these different pain mechanisms offers the promise of better treatment decisions and more widespread adoption of a multi-mechanistic approach; this could involve loosely combining two substances from different drug classes, or administering an analgesic with two different mechanisms of action. In some circumstances, a single compound capable of addressing both nociceptive and neuropathic pain is desirable. Conclusions: To improve patient outcomes, a thorough understanding of pain mechanisms, sensitisation and multi-mechanistic management is required. Universal, user-friendly educational tools are therefore required to familiarise physicians with these topics, and also to improve communication between physicians and their pain patients, so that realistic expectations of treatment can be established