-
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Feb 2024Physical activity can provide analgesic benefit but its effect on cancer-related pain is unclear. This review synthesised and appraised the evidence for the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Physical activity can provide analgesic benefit but its effect on cancer-related pain is unclear. This review synthesised and appraised the evidence for the effect of physical activity on pain in people living with or beyond cancer.
METHODS
A systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised cross-over studies (RXTs), and prospective observational studies that examined physical activity and pain outcomes in adults living with or beyond cancer. Meta-analyses were performed to generate effect estimates. Risk of bias was assessed, and the GRADE system was used to assess evidence quality.
RESULTS
One hundred twenty-one studies (n = 13,806), including 102 RCTs, 6 RXTs, and 13 observational studies, met the criteria for inclusion. Meta-analyses of RCTs identified a decrease in pain intensity (n = 3734; standardised mean difference (SMD) - 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.45, - 0.15) and bodily pain (n = 1170; SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) but not pain interference (n = 207; SMD - 0.13, 95% CI - 0.42, 0.15) following physical activity interventions. Individual studies also identified a reduction in pain sensitivity but not analgesic use, although meta-analysis was not possible for these outcomes. High heterogeneity between studies, low certainty in some effect estimates, and possible publication bias meant that evidence quality was graded as very low to low.
CONCLUSION
Physical activity may decrease pain in people living with and beyond cancer; however, high heterogeneity limits the ability to generalise this finding to all people with cancer or to specific types of cancer-related pain.
Topics: Humans; Cancer Pain; Exercise; Neoplasms; Observational Studies as Topic; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38321248
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08343-3 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The economic impact of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) on both patients and the global healthcare system continues to escalate. However, the economic implications...
The economic impact of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) on both patients and the global healthcare system continues to escalate. However, the economic implications associated with management interventions for CRPS have received limited attention. Therefore, our objective is to perform a thorough examination of published economic assessments of the various management strategies utilized for CRPS. A thorough search spanning four general medical databases and three health economic databases to identify full economic evaluations on CRPS management strategies from January 1994 to June 2023 were conducted. The quality of these studies were evaluated by employing the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. To enable cross-study comparisons conducted in different countries, we adjusted the costs reported in the selected studies for inflation and converted them into 2023 US dollars. A total of nine economic evaluations, consisting of eight high-quality and one medium-quality, were identified across five nations during a span of 29 years. The findings suggest that the most economically efficient intervention for CRPS are interventional approaches of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in comparison to conventional management for long periods of time. Furthermore, in situations where there is a limited time period of less than 1 year, rehabilitation therapies, particularly physical therapy, have been demonstrated to be more effective in terms of both cost and clinical outcomes. The interventional management strategies, particularly for severe and persistent CRPS over long periods, may offer the greatest cost efficiency. In conditions with limited timelines, rehabilitation measures, such as rehabilitation therapies, can be cost-effective. However, insufficient data for other common interventions prevents the formation of a definitive conclusion. Similarly, it is crucial to recognize that the results of these interventions might be affected by the selection of comparator and the threshold for willingness to pay.
PubMed: 38318140
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1297927 -
PloS One 2024Quantitative sensory testing (QST) provides an assessment of cutaneous and deep tissue sensitivity and pain perception under normal and pathological settings.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Quantitative sensory testing (QST) provides an assessment of cutaneous and deep tissue sensitivity and pain perception under normal and pathological settings. Approximately 2-4% of individuals undergoing groin hernia repair (GHR) develop severe persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP). The aims of this systematic review of PPSP-patients were (1) to retrieve and methodologically characterize the available QST literature and (2) to explore the role of QST in understanding mechanisms underlying PPSP following GHR.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted from JAN-1992 to SEP-2022 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. For inclusion, studies had to report at least one QST-modality in patients with PPSP. Risk of bias assessment of the studies was conducted utilizing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment tool 2.0. The review provided both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the results. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were included (5 randomized controlled trials, 20 non-randomized controlled trials). Overall, risk of bias was low. Compared with the contralateral side or controls, there were significant alterations in somatosensory function of the surgical site in PPSP-patients. Following thresholds were significantly increased: mechanical detection thresholds for punctate stimuli (mean difference (95% CI) 3.3 (1.6, 6.9) mN (P = 0.002)), warmth detection thresholds (3.2 (1.6, 4.7) °C (P = 0.0001)), cool detection thresholds (-3.2 (-4.9, -1.6) °C (P = 0.0001)), and heat pain thresholds (1.9 (1.1, 2.7) °C (P = 0.00001)). However, the pressure pain thresholds were significantly decreased (-76 (-123, -30) kPa (P = 0.001)).
CONCLUSION
Our review demonstrates a plethora of methods used regarding outcome assessments, data processing, and data interpretation. From a pathophysiological perspective, the most consistent findings were postsurgical cutaneous deafferentation and development of a pain generator in deeper connective tissues.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42022331750.
Topics: Humans; Herniorrhaphy; Groin; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold; Pain, Postoperative; Hernia, Inguinal
PubMed: 38295051
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292800 -
Brain Sciences Dec 2023The aim of this study is to determine the effect that different tDCS protocols have on pain processing in healthy people, assessed using quantitative sensory tests (QST)... (Review)
Review
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Effects on Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and Nociceptive Processing in Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to determine the effect that different tDCS protocols have on pain processing in healthy people, assessed using quantitative sensory tests (QST) and evoked pain intensity.
METHODS
We systematically searched in EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles on tDCS on a healthy population and regarding QST, such as pressure pain thresholds (PPT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), or evoked pain intensity were selected. Quality was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and PEDro scale.
RESULTS
Twenty-six RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and sixteen in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in PPTs between tDCS and sham, but differences were observed when applying tDCS over S1 in PPTs compared to sham. Significant differences in CPTs were observed between tDCS and sham over DLPFC and differences in pain intensity were observed between tDCS and sham over M1. Non-significant effects were found for the effects of tDCS on HPTs.
CONCLUSION
tDCS anodic over S1 stimulation increases PPTs, while a-tDCS over DLPFC affects CPTs. The HPTs with tDCS are worse. Finally, M1 a-tDCS seems to reduce evoked pain intensity in healthy subjects.
PubMed: 38275514
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14010009 -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Jul 2024Acute improvement in range of motion (ROM) is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling, which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Foam rolling and stretching do not provide superior acute flexibility and stiffness improvements compared to any other warm-up intervention: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Acute improvement in range of motion (ROM) is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling, which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness. Interestingly, these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature. Therefore, we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature.
METHODS
After a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases, 38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included. These studies had 1134 participants in total, and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes (ESs). ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package.
RESULTS
Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair (PEDro score = 4.58) with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Results showed no significant differences in ROM (ES = 0.01, p = 0.88), stiffness (ES = 0.09, p = 0.67), or passive peak torque (ES = -0.30, p = 0.14) between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities. Funnel plots revealed no publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Based on current literature, our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs. The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM, passive peak torque increases, or stiffness reductions.
Topics: Muscle Stretching Exercises; Humans; Range of Motion, Articular; Warm-Up Exercise; Torque; Muscle, Skeletal
PubMed: 38244921
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2024.01.006 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Jan 2024Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management... (Review)
Review
Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae versus serratus anterior plane block in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management following thoracic surgeries; however, their relative superiority is unclear. This review (PROSPERO: CRD42023443018) aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB and SAPB in patients undergoing thoracic surgeries through the pooled analysis of co-primary outcomes: postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h and pain scores (static) at 24 h.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2023, comparing ESPB and SAPB in thoracic surgeries. Statistical pooling was done using Review Manager 5.4.1. Bias assessment employed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the guidelines from the GRADE working group.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs (485 patients) were included in the study. Postoperative pain scores (static) at 24 h (mean difference (MD) = - 0.31 [- 0.57, 0.05], p = 0.02) and postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h (MD = - 19.73 [- 25.65, - 13.80], p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the ESBP group. However, the MDs did not exceed the set threshold for clinical importance. No significant differences were observed in the opioid-related adverse effects and block-related complications.
CONCLUSION
Our statistically significant results imply that ESPB has superior analgesic efficacy compared to SAPB; however, this difference is clinically unimportant. The safety profile of the two blocks is comparable; hence, current evidence cannot define the relative superiority of one block over the other. Our findings warrant further research with standardized methodologies and a longer duration of analgesic efficacy assessment to yield robust evidence for better clinical applications.
PubMed: 38217050
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-023-00138-y -
The Journal of Pain Jun 2024The evidence that athletes respond to and report indices of experimental pain differently to non-athlete populations was analysed. Databases screened were SPORTDiscus,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The evidence that athletes respond to and report indices of experimental pain differently to non-athlete populations was analysed. Databases screened were SPORTDiscus, PubMED, PsycArticles, the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL. Studies that compared experimentally induced pain responses (threshold, tolerance, intensity, unpleasantness, bothersomeness, and effect on performance) in athletes and controls were included. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate and effects were described as standardised mean differences, pooled using random effects models. Thirty-six studies (2,492 participants) met the inclusion criteria comprising 19 pain tolerance, 17 pain threshold, 21 pain intensity, 5 pain unpleasantness, 2 performance in pain and 1 bothersomeness study. Athletes demonstrated greater pain tolerance (g = .88 [95% confidence interval [CI] .65, .13]) and reported less pain intensity (g = -.80, [95% CI -1.13, -.47]) compared to controls; they also had higher pain threshold but with smaller effects (g = .41, [95% CI .08, .75]). Differences for unpleasantness did not reach statistical significance but the effects were large (g = -1.23 [95% CI -2.29, .18]). Two studies reported that performance in pain was better in contact athletes than non-athletes, and one concluded that athletes find pain less bothersome than controls. There were considerable inconsistencies in the methods employed that were reflected in the meta-analyses' findings. Sub-group analyses of tolerance and intensity were conducted between endurance, contact, and other athlete groups, but were not significant. The data suggest that athletic participation is associated with altered pain responses, but mechanisms remain unclear and more transparent methods are recommended.This study was registered on the PROSPERO site in January 2019 (ref ID: CRD42019119611). PERSPECTIVE: This review examined differences in pain outcomes (threshold, tolerance, intensity, unpleasantness, bothersomeness) and the effect of pain on performance, in athletes versus controls. Meta-analyses revealed athletes had higher threshold and tolerance and found pain less intense than controls; there was some evidence of differences in bothersomeness and performance.
Topics: Humans; Athletes; Pain Threshold; Pain
PubMed: 38154623
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.12.007 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023Pain can have a serious impact on a patient's physical, mental, and social health, often causing their quality of life to decline. Various nicotine dosage forms, such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain can have a serious impact on a patient's physical, mental, and social health, often causing their quality of life to decline. Various nicotine dosage forms, such as nicotine patches and nasal spray, have been developed and used as analgesics in clinical settings. However, there is controversy over the anti-nociceptive effects of nicotine among different clinical trials. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to quantify the analgesic effect of nicotine patches, nicotine nasal spray, and tobacco smoking on pain in humans.
METHODS
Relevant articles published in English prior to July 2023 were identified using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase online databases in accordance with PRISMA (2020) guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). RStudio was used for data synthesis, heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity analysis, publication bias assessment, trim-and-fill analyses, and generating forest plots.
RESULTS
Sixteen eligible articles, including k = 5 studies of pain tolerance ( = 210), k = 5 studies of pain threshold ( = 210), and k = 12 studies of pain scores (N = 1249), were included for meta-analysis. Meta-analytic integration for pain threshold (Hedges' g = 0.28, 95% CI = 0-0.55, Z = 1.99, = 0.05) and pain tolerance (Hedges' g = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.05-0.59, Z = 2.30, = 0.02) revealed that nicotine administered via tobacco smoke generated acute analgesic effects to thermal stimuli. Meta-analytic integration for pain scores revealed that nicotine had a weak anti-nociceptive effect on postoperative pain of -0.37 (95% CI = -0.77 to 0.03, Z = -1.80) but with no statistical significance ( = 0.07). In addition, a limited number of included studies revealed that long-term smoking produced hyperalgesia that may be characterized as small to medium in magnitude (Hedges' g = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.29-0.64, Z = 5.33, < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
These results help to clarify the mixed outcomes of trials and may ultimately inform the treatment of pain. We observed that acute nicotine administration prolonged the laboratory-induced pain threshold and tolerance time and may mildly relieve postoperative pain. In addition, long-term tobacco smoking may have a nociceptive effect on different types of chronic pain. More research is needed to determine the anti-nociceptive effects of nicotine in humans, and to understand the optimal timing, dose, and method of delivery of nicotine.
PubMed: 38139792
DOI: 10.3390/ph16121665 -
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal... 2024Central sensitization cannot be demonstrated directly in humans. Therefore, studies used different proxy markers (signs, symptoms and tools) to identify factors assumed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central sensitization cannot be demonstrated directly in humans. Therefore, studies used different proxy markers (signs, symptoms and tools) to identify factors assumed to relate to central sensitization in humans, that is, Human Assumed Central Sensitization (HACS). The aims of this systematic review were to identify non-invasive objective markers of HACS and the instruments to assess these markers in patients with fibromyalgia (FM).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted with the following inclusion criteria: (1) adults, (2) diagnosed with FM, and (3) markers and instruments for HACS had to be non-invasive. Data were subsequently extracted, and studies were assessed for risk of bias using the quality assessment tools developed by the National Institute of Health.
RESULTS
78 studies (n= 5234 participants) were included and the findings were categorized in markers identified to assess peripheral and central manifestations of HACS. The identified markers for peripheral manifestations of HACS, with at least moderate evidence, were pain after-sensation decline rates, mechanical pain thresholds, pressure pain threshold, sound 'pressure' pain threshold, cutaneous silent period, slowly repeated evoked pain sensitization and nociceptive flexion reflex threshold. The identified markers for central manifestations of HACS were efficacy of conditioned pain modulation with pressure pain conditioning and brain perfusion analysis. Instruments to assess these markers are: pin-prick stimulators, cuff-algometry, repetitive pressure stimulation using a pressure algometer, sound, electrodes and neuroimaging techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides an overview of non-invasive markers and instruments for the assessment of HACS in patients with FM. Implementing these findings into clinical settings may help to identify HACS in patients with FM.
Topics: Fibromyalgia; Humans; Central Nervous System Sensitization; Pain Threshold; Biomarkers; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 38073369
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-220430 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Dec 2023Migraine is the world's second most common disabling disorder, affecting 15% of UK adults and costing the UK over £1.5 billion per year. Several costly new drugs have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Migraine is the world's second most common disabling disorder, affecting 15% of UK adults and costing the UK over £1.5 billion per year. Several costly new drugs have been approved by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
AIM
To assess the cost-effectiveness of drugs used to treat adults with chronic migraine.
METHODS
We did a systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of preventive drugs for chronic migraine. We then assessed the cost-effectiveness of the currently prescribable drugs included in the review: Onabotulinum toxin A (BTA), Eptinezumab (100mg or 300mg), Fremanezumab (monthly or quarterly dose), Galcanezumab or Topiramate, each compared to placebo, and we evaluated them jointly. We developed a Markov (state-transition) model with a three-month cycle length to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the different medications from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. We used a two-year time horizon with a starting age of 30 years for the patient cohort. We estimated transition probabilities based on monthly headache days using a network meta-analysis (NMA) developed by us, and from published literature. We obtained costs from published sources and applied discount rates of 3.5% to both costs and outcomes.
RESULTS
Deterministic results suggest Topiramate was the least costly option and generated slightly more QALYs than the placebo, whereas Eptinezumab 300mg was the more costly option and generated the most QALYs. After excluding dominated options, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between BTA and Topiramate was £68,000 per QALY gained and the ICER between Eptinezumab 300mg and BTA was not within plausible cost-effectiveness thresholds. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier showed that Topiramate is the most cost-effective medication for any amount the decision maker is willing-to-pay per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS
Among the various prophylactic medications for managing chronic migraine, only Topiramate was within typical cost-effectiveness threshold ranges. Further research is needed, ideally an economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial, to compare these newer, expensive CGRP MAbs with the cheaper oral medications.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Topiramate; Migraine Disorders; Headache; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Making; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 38053051
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01686-y