- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: not found
Has the COVID 19 Pandemic Impacted the Management of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain?
review-article
Publication date (Electronic):
3 May 2023
Journal:
Current Rheumatology Reports
Publisher:
Springer US
Read this article at
There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Purpose of Review
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain; however, the extent of its impact has not been established. We conducted a comprehensive review of the pandemic’s impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare accessibility for osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), fibromyalgia (FM), lower back pain (LBP), and other musculoskeletal disorders and chronic pain syndromes to better inform clinical decision-making.
Recent Findings
We examined 30 studies ( n = 18,810) from 36 countries investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on chronic musculoskeletal pain outcomes. The available evidence suggests that the pandemic significantly impacted pain levels, mental health, quality of life and healthcare accessibility in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Of 30 studies, 25 (83%) reported symptom worsening, and 20 (67%) reported reduced healthcare accessibility. Patients were unable to access necessary care services during the pandemic, including orthopedic surgeries, medications, and complementary therapies, leading to worsened pain, psychological health, and quality of life. Across conditions, vulnerable patients reported high pain catastrophizing, psychological stress, and low physical activity related to social isolation. Notably, positive coping strategies, regular physical activity, and social support were associated with positive health outcomes.
Summary
Most patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain had greatly affected pain severity, physical function, and quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the pandemic significantly impacted treatment accessibility, preventing necessary therapies. These findings support further prioritization of chronic musculoskeletal pain patient care.
Related collections
Most cited references48
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: not found
Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease
Rolf-Detlef Treede, Winfried Rief, Antonia Barke … (2019)
Chronic pain is a major source of suffering. It interferes with daily functioning and often is accompanied by distress. Yet, in the International Classification of Diseases, chronic pain diagnoses are not represented systematically. The lack of appropriate codes renders accurate epidemiological investigations difficult and impedes health policy decisions regarding chronic pain such as adequate financing of access to multimodal pain management. In cooperation with the WHO, an IASP Working Group has developed a classification system that is applicable in a wide range of contexts, including pain medicine, primary care, and low-resource environments. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. In chronic pain syndromes, pain can be the sole or a leading complaint and requires special treatment and care. In conditions such as fibromyalgia or nonspecific low-back pain, chronic pain may be conceived as a disease in its own right; in our proposal, we call this subgroup "chronic primary pain." In 6 other subgroups, pain is secondary to an underlying disease: chronic cancer-related pain, chronic neuropathic pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. These conditions are summarized as "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom. Implementation of these codes in the upcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases will lead to improved classification and diagnostic coding, thereby advancing the recognition of chronic pain as a health condition in its own right.
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Prevalence of Chronic Pain and High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Adults — United States, 2016
James Dahlhamer, Jacqueline Lucas, Carla Zelaya, … (2018)
Chronic pain, one of the most common reasons adults seek medical care ( 1 ), has been linked to restrictions in mobility and daily activities ( 2 , 3 ), dependence on opioids ( 4 ), anxiety and depression ( 2 ), and poor perceived health or reduced quality of life ( 2 , 3 ). Population-based estimates of chronic pain among U.S. adults range from 11% to 40% ( 5 ), with considerable population subgroup variation. As a result, the 2016 National Pain Strategy called for more precise prevalence estimates of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain (i.e., chronic pain that frequently limits life or work activities) to reliably establish the prevalence of chronic pain and aid in the development and implementation of population-wide pain interventions ( 5 ). National estimates of high-impact chronic pain can help differentiate persons with limitations in major life domains, including work, social, recreational, and self-care activities from those who maintain normal life activities despite chronic pain, providing a better understanding of the population in need of pain services. To estimate the prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain in the United States, CDC analyzed 2016 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data. An estimated 20.4% (50.0 million) of U.S. adults had chronic pain and 8.0% of U.S. adults (19.6 million) had high-impact chronic pain, with higher prevalences of both chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain reported among women, older adults, previously but not currently employed adults, adults living in poverty, adults with public health insurance, and rural residents. These findings could be used to target pain management interventions. NHIS is a cross-sectional, in-person, household health survey of the civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. population, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).* Data from the 2016 Sample Adult Core for adults aged ≥18 years (33,028; response rate = 54.3%) † were analyzed. Information about pain was collected through responses to the following questions: “In the past six months, how often did you have pain? Would you say never, some days, most days, or every day?” and “Over the past six months, how often did pain limit your life or work activities? Would you say never, some days, most days, or every day?” Chronic pain was defined as pain on most days or every day in the past 6 months, as recommended by the International Association for the Study of Pain, § modified to account for intermittent pain, and used in both the National Pain Strategy and National Institutes of Health Task Force on Chronic Back Pain ( 6 ). As suggested in the National Pain Strategy, high-impact chronic pain was defined as chronic pain that limited life or work activities on most days or every day during the past 6 months ( 5 ). The prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain (both crude and age-adjusted, with 95% confidence intervals) were estimated for the U.S. adult population overall and by various sociodemographic characteristics. These characteristics, collected with the Family Core questionnaire, included age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, current employment status, ¶ poverty status (calculated using NHIS imputed income files),** veteran status, health insurance coverage type (reported separately for adults aged <65 and ≥65 years), and urbanicity. All prevalence estimates met NCHS reliability standards. †† Because pain prevalence varies by age, age-adjusted estimates were used in comparisons of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain between subgroups. Based on two-tailed Z-tests, all reported differences between subgroups are statistically significant (unless otherwise noted; p<0.05). Analyses were conducted using statistical software that accounts for the stratification and clustering of households in the NHIS sampling design. Estimates incorporated the final sample adult weights adjusted for nonresponse and calibrated to population control totals to enable generalization to the civilian noninstitutionalized population aged ≥18 years. In 2016, an estimated 20.4% of U.S. adults (50.0 million) had chronic pain and 8.0% of U.S. adults (19.6 million) had high-impact chronic pain (Table), with higher prevalence associated with advancing age. Age-adjusted prevalences of both chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain were significantly higher among women, adults who had worked previously but were not currently employed, adults living in or near poverty, and rural residents. In addition, the age-adjusted prevalences of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain were significantly lower among adults with at least a bachelor’s degree compared with all other education levels. TABLE Prevalence of chronic pain* and high impact chronic pain † among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years, by sociodemographic characteristics—National Health Interview Survey, 2016 Characteristic Chronic pain* High-impact chronic pain† Estimated no.§ Crude
% (95% CI) Age-adjusted¶
% (95% CI) Estimated no.§ Crude
% (95% CI) Age-adjusted¶
% (95% CI) Total 50,009,000 20.4 (19.7–21.0) 19.4 (18.7–20.0) 19,611,000 8.0 (7.6–8.4) 7.5 (7.1–7.9) Age group (yrs) 18–24 2,082,000 7.0 (5.8–8.5) —** 446,000 1.5 (0.9–2.3) —** 25–44 11,042,000 13.2 (12.3–14.1) —** 3,681,000 4.4 (3.9–5.0) —** 45–64 23,269,000 27.8 (26.6–29.0) —** 10,044,000 12.0 (11.2–12.9) —** 65–84 11,808,000 27.6 (26.4–29.0) —** 4,578,000 10.7 (9.9–11.6) —** ≥85 1,766,000 33.6 (30.1–37.3) —** 830,000 15.8 (13.2–18.9) —** Sex Male 21,989,000 18.6 (17.7–19.5) 17.8 (17.0–18.7) 8,276,000 7.0 (6.5–7.6) 6.7 (6.2–7.3) Female 28,049,000 22.1 (21.2–23.0) 20.8 (19.9–21.6) 11,296,000 8.9 (8.4–9.4) 8.2 (7.7–8.7) Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 5,856,000 15.1 (13.6–16.7) 16.7 (15.2–18.4) 2,754,000 7.1 (6.0–8.3) 7.9 (6.9–9.2) White, non-Hispanic 36,226,000 23.0 (22.2–23.8) 21.0 (20.3–21.8) 13,230,000 8.4 (7.9–8.9) 7.4 (7.0–7.9) Black, non-Hispanic 5,148,000 17.9 (16.4–19.6) 17.8 (16.3–19.4) 2,387,000 8.3 (7.2–9.4) 8.1 (7.1–9.2) Other, non-Hispanic†† 2,774,000 13.8 (12.1–15.7) 14.4 (12.7–16.3) 1,326,000 6.6 (5.3–8.1) 7.0 (5.7–8.5) Education Less than high school 7,809,000 26.1 (24.2–28.2) 23.7 (21.7–25.7) 4,069,000 13.6 (12.3–15.2) 12.1 (10.7–13.7) High school/GED 14,441,000 23.7 (22.5–25.0) 22.6 (21.2–23.9) 5,910,000 9.7 (9.0–10.6) 9.1 (8.4–10.0) Some college 17,129,000 22.6 (21.5–23.8) 22.9 (21.8–24.0) 6,518,000 8.6 (7.9–9.4) 8.7 (8.0–9.5) Bachelor's degree or higher 10,383,000 13.4 (12.6–14.3) 12.4 (11.7–13.3) 2,944,000 3.8 (3.4–4.3) 3.5 (3.1–4.0) Employment status Employed 22,085,000 14.7 (14.1–15.5) 14.5 (13.8–15.2) 5,108,000 3.4 (3.1–3.8) 3.2 (2.9–3.6) Not employed; worked previously 25,737,000 31.5 (30.3–32.7) 29.2 (27.8–30.6) 13,318,000 16.3 (15.4–17.2) 16.1 (15.0–17.3) Not employed; never worked 2,083,000 15.9 (13.8–18.2) 18.7 (16.1–21.6) 1,192,000 9.1 (7.6–10.9) 11.1 (9.1–13.4) Poverty status <100% FPL 8,017,000 25.8 (24.2–27.6) 29.6 (27.9–31.3) 4,630,000 14.9 (13.6–16.4) 17.5 (16.1–19.0) 100% ≤FPL<200% 11,357,000 26.2 (24.5–27.9) 25.9 (24.2–27.7) 5,375,000 12.4 (11.3–13.6) 12.3 (11.2–13.5) 200% ≤FPL<400% 14,181,000 20.3 (19.2–21.4) 19.3 (18.3–20.4) 5,100,000 7.3 (6.7–8.1) 6.9 (6.2–7.6) ≥400% FPL 16,441,000 16.3 (15.4–17.2) 14.6 (13.8–15.5) 4,438,000 4.4 (4.0–4.9) 3.9 (3.5–4.4) Veteran Yes 6,379,000 29.1 (27.1–31.2) 26.0 (23.5–28.7) 2,258,000 10.3 (9.1–11.8) 9.2 (7.7–11.1) No 43,519,000 19.5 (18.9–20.2) 19.0 (18.4–19.7) 17,407,000 7.8 (7.4–8.2) 7.5 (7.1–7.9) Health insurance coverage§§ Age <65 yrs Private 20,539,000 15.1 (14.3–15.8) 14.0 (13.3–14.8) 5,713,000 4.2 (3.8–4.7) 3.8 (3.4–4.2) Medicaid and other public coverage 8,215,000 29.3 (27.3–31.5) 30.0 (28.0–32.2) 4,822,000 17.2 (15.6–19.0) 17.8 (16.2–19.6) Other 3,860,000 43.5 (40.0–47.2) 34.8 (31.2–38.7) 2,263,000 25.5 (22.5–28.8) 19.3 (16.4–22.5) Uninsured 3,683,000 16.2 (14.4–18.2) 17.0 (15.2–19.0) 1,319,000 5.8 (4.7–7.2) 6.2 (5.0–7.6) Age ≥65 yrs Private 5,606,000 28.0 (26.3–29.9) 28.1 (26.3–30.0) 1,842,000 9.2 (8.1–10.5) 9.3 (8.2–10.6) Medicare and Medicaid 1,428,000 42.5 (37.6–47.5) 42.5 (37.6–47.5) 816,000 24.3 (20.4–28.6) 24.3 (20.4–28.6) Medicare Advantage 3,094,000 25.5 (23.1–28.1) 25.8 (23.4–28.4) 1,226,000 10.1 (8.5–11.8) 10.3 (8.7–12.1) Medicare only, excluding Medicare Advantage 2,115,000 25.9 (23.1–28.9) 25.9 (23.1–28.9) 939,000 11.5 (9.5–13.7) 11.5 (9.5–13.7) Other 1,229,000 31.6 (27.2–36.3) 31.8 (27.4–36.5) 545,000 14.0 (11.3–17.3) 14.3 (11.5–17.7) Uninsured 106,000 —¶¶ —¶¶ 59,000 —¶¶ —¶¶ Urbanicity*** Urban 38,401,000 19.0 (18.3–19.7) 18.4 (17.7–19.0) 14,754,000 7.3 (6.9–7.8) 7.0 (6.6–7.4) Rural 11,575,000 26.9 (25.4–28.5) 24.0 (22.5–25.6) 4,776,000 11.1 (10.2–12.2) 9.8 (8.8–10.9) Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; FPL = federal poverty level; GED = General Educational Development certification. * Pain on most days or every day in the past 6 months. † Chronic pain limiting life or work activities on most days or every day in the past 6 months. § The estimated numbers, rounded to 1,000s, were annualized based on the 2016 data. Counts for adults of unknown status (responses coded as “refused,” “don’t know,” or “not ascertained”) with respect to chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain are not shown separately in the table, nor are they included in the calculation of percentages (as part of either the denominator or the numerator), to provide a more straightforward presentation of the data. ¶ Estimates are age-adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population as the standard population and five age groups: 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and ≥60 years. ** Not applicable. †† Non-Hispanic other includes non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native only, non-Hispanic Asian only, non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander only, and non-Hispanic multiple race. §§ Based on a hierarchy of mutually exclusive categories. Adults reporting both private and Medicare Advantage coverage were assigned to the Medicare Advantage category. “Uninsured” includes adults who had no coverage as well as those who had only Indian Health Service coverage or had only a private plan that paid for one type of service such as accidents or dental care. “Other” comprises military health care including TRICARE, VA, and CHAMP-VA, and certain types of local and state governmental coverage, not including the Children’s Health Insurance Program. ¶¶ Estimates are considered unreliable according to the National Center for Health Statistics’ standards of reliability. *** Based on U.S. Census Bureau definitions of urban and rural areas (https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/Defining_Rural.pdf). Whereas non-Hispanic white adults had a significantly higher age-adjusted prevalence of chronic pain than did all other racial and ethnic subgroups, no significant differences in high-impact chronic pain prevalence by race/ethnicity were observed. Similarly, the age-adjusted prevalence of chronic pain was significantly higher among veterans than among nonveterans, but no significant difference was observed in the prevalence of high-impact chronic pain. Among adults aged <65 years, the age-adjusted prevalences of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain were higher among those with Medicaid and other public health care coverage or other insurance (e.g., Veteran’s Administration, certain local and state government) than among adults with private insurance or those who were uninsured. Among adults aged ≥65 years, those with both Medicare and Medicaid had higher age-adjusted prevalences of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain than did adults with all other types of coverage. Discussion Pain is a component of many chronic conditions, and chronic pain is emerging as a health concern on its own, with negative consequences to individual persons, their families, and society as a whole ( 4 , 5 ). Healthy People 2020 (https://www.healthypeople.gov/), the nation’s science-based health objectives, has a developmental objective to “decrease the prevalence of adults having high-impact chronic pain.” This analysis extends previous national studies of chronic pain prevalence by identifying adults with high-impact chronic pain. In 2016, approximately 20% of U.S. adults had chronic pain (approximately 50 million), and 8% of U.S. adults (approximately 20 million) had high-impact chronic pain. This estimate of high-impact chronic pain is similar to or slightly lower than estimates reported in the few studies that have looked at pain using a similar construct. For example, a recent study that used a measure of high-impact chronic pain similar to the one used in this study reported an estimate of 13.7% among a sample of U.S. adult health plan enrollees ( 7 ). Similarly, a 2001 study of adults from a region in Scotland found that 14.1% of survey participants reported significant chronic pain, and 6.3% reported severe chronic pain, and a 2001 study of Australian adults reported that 11.0% of men and 13.5% of women reported chronic pain that interfered, to some degree, with daily life activities ( 3 , 8 ). The results of subgroup analyses in the current study were consistent with findings in these studies ( 3 , 8 ) insofar as the prevalence of high-impact chronic pain was higher among women, adults who had achieved lower levels of education, and those who were not employed at the time of the survey, and was lower among adults with private health insurance compared with public and other types of coverage. In addition, high-impact chronic pain was also found to be higher among adults living in poverty and among rural residents. Socioeconomic status appears to be a common factor in many of the subgroup differences in high-impact chronic pain prevalence reported here. Indicators of socioeconomic status such as education, poverty, and health insurance coverage have been determined to be associated with both general health status and the presence of specific health conditions ( 9 ) as well as with patients’ success in navigating the health care system ( 9 ). Identifying populations at risk is necessary to inform efforts for developing and targeting quality pain services. The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, data are self-reported and subject to recall bias. Second, data are cross-sectional, precluding drawing causal inferences. This might be particularly relevant for socioeconomic status, which can be both a risk factor for and a consequence of chronic pain or high-impact chronic pain, or both. Third, no information is available on treatment for chronic pain to assess the prevalence of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain among those with and without treatment. Fourth, NHIS excludes important populations, such as active duty military and residents of long-term care facilities or prisons. And finally, NHIS does not collect data on chronic pain or high-impact chronic pain in children. Despite these limitations, three strengths of this study are that it used a large, nationally representative data source to produce estimates of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain across many demographic subgroups, it used standard broad definitions of pain that were not limited to one or more specific health conditions (e.g., headache or arthritis), and it used the standard case definition for high-impact chronic pain proposed by the National Pain Strategy. Chronic pain contributes to an estimated $560 billion each year in direct medical costs, lost productivity, and disability programs ( 4 ). The National Pain Strategy, which is the first national effort to transform how the population burden of pain is perceived, assessed, and treated, recognizes the need for better data to inform action and calls for estimates of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain in the general population ( 5 ). This report helps fulfill this objective and provides data to inform policymakers, clinicians, and researchers focused on pain care and prevention. Summary What is already known about this topic? Chronic pain has been linked to numerous physical and mental conditions and contributes to high health care costs and lost productivity. A limited number of studies estimate that the prevalence of chronic pain ranges from 11% to 40%. What is added by this report? In 2016, an estimated 20.4% of U.S. adults had chronic pain and 8.0% of U.S. adults had high-impact chronic pain. Both were more prevalent among adults living in poverty, adults with less than a high school education, and adults with public health insurance. What are the implications for public health practice? This report helps fulfill a National Pain Strategy objective of producing more precise estimates of chronic pain and high-impact chronic pain.
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: not found
A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11
Rolf-Detlef Treede, Winfried Rief, Antonia Barke … (2015)
1. Introduction Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time 5 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 worldwide 6,13,14,18 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 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. 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 Üstün 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 the IASP Council on an annual basis. 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. 2.2. Chronic cancer pain Pain is a frequent and debilitating accompaniment of cancer 8 that as yet has not been represented in the ICD. The Task Force decided to list it as a separate entity because there are specific treatment guidelines. 7,38 Chronic cancer pain includes pain caused by the cancer itself (the primary tumor or metastases) and pain that is caused by the cancer treatment (surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and others). Cancer-related pain will be subdivided based on location into visceral, bony (or musculoskeletal), and somatosensory (neuropathic). It will be described as either continuous (background pain) or intermittent (episodic pain) if associated with physical movement or clinical procedures. The treatment-related pain will be cross-referenced from the chapters on postsurgical pain and neuropathic pain. 2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain Because pain that persists beyond normal healing is frequent after surgery and some types of injuries, the entity of postsurgical and posttraumatic pain was created. This is defined as pain that develops after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury (involving any trauma, including burns) and persists at least 3 months after surgery or tissue trauma 26 ; this is a definition of exclusion, as all other causes of pain (infection, recurring malignancy) as well as pain from a pre-existing pain problem need to be excluded. In view of the different causality, as well as from a medicolegal point of view, a separation between postsurgical pain and pain after all other trauma is regarded as useful. Depending on the type of surgery, chronic postsurgical pain is often neuropathic pain (on average 30% of cases with a range from 6% to 54% and more). 15 Pain including such a neuropathic component is usually more severe than nociceptive pain and often affects the quality of life more adversely. 21 2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain Chronic neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. 20,22 The somatosensory nervous system provides information about the body including skin, musculoskeletal, and visceral organs. Neuropathic pain may be spontaneous or evoked, as an increased response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia) or a painful response to a normally nonpainful stimulus (allodynia). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain requires a history of nervous system injury, for example, by a stroke, nerve trauma, or diabetic neuropathy, and a neuroanatomically plausible distribution of the pain. 22 For the identification of definite neuropathic pain, it is necessary to demonstrate the lesion or disease involving the nervous system, for example, by imaging, biopsy, neurophysiological, or laboratory tests. In addition, negative or positive sensory signs compatible with the innervation territory of the lesioned nervous structure must be present. 36 Diagnostic entities within this category will be divided into conditions of peripheral or central neuropathic pain. 2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain The International Headache Society (IHS) has created a headache classification 17 that is implemented in full in the chapter on neurology. This classification differentiates between primary (idiopathic), secondary (symptomatic) headache, and orofacial pain including cranial neuralgias. In the section on chronic pain, only chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain will be included. Chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain is defined as headaches or orofacial pains that occur on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months. For most purposes, patients receive a diagnosis according to the headache phenotypes or orofacial pains that they currently present. The section will list the most frequent chronic headache conditions. The most common chronic orofacial pains are temporomandibular disorders, 32 which have been included in this subchapter of chronic pain. Chronic orofacial pain can be a localized presentation of a primary headache. 2 This is common in the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, less common in migraines, and rare in tension-type headache. Several chronic orofacial pains such as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain, 3 persistent idiopathic orofacial pain, and burning mouth syndrome are cross-referenced to, eg, primary chronic pain and neuropathic pain. The temporal definition of “chronic” has been extrapolated from that of chronic headaches. 1 2.6. Chronic visceral pain Chronic visceral pain is persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the internal organs of the head and neck region and the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic cavities. 24,33,34 The pain is usually perceived in the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, subcutis, muscle) in areas that receive the same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred visceral pain). 12 In these areas, secondary hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to painful stimuli in areas other than the primary site of the nociceptive input) often occurs 30 ; the intensity of the symptom may bear no relationship with the extent of the internal damage or noxious visceral stimulation. 9 The section on visceral pain will be subdivided according to the major underlying mechanisms, ie, persistent inflammation, vascular mechanisms (ischemia, thrombosis), obstruction and distension, traction and compression, combined mechanisms (eg, obstruction and inflammation concurrently), and referral from other locations. Pain due to cancer will be cross-referenced to the chapter chronic cancer pain and pain due to functional or unexplained mechanisms to chronic primary pain. 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that arises as part of a disease process directly affecting bone(s), joint(s), muscle(s), or related soft tissue(s). According to the constraints of the approach as described in the Introduction, this category is therefore limited to nociceptive pain and does not include pain that may be perceived in musculoskeletal tissues but does not arise therefrom, such as the pain of compression neuropathy or somatic referred pain. The entities subsumed in this approach include those characterized by persistent inflammation of infectious, autoimmune or metabolic etiology, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and by structural changes affecting bones, joints, tendons, or muscles, such as symptomatic osteoarthrosis. Musculoskeletal pain of neuropathic origin will be cross-referenced to neuropathic pain. Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain. 3. Outlook Irrespective of its etiology, chronic pain is a major source of suffering and requires special treatment and care. Our proposal may not represent a perfect solution for the classification of all manifestations of chronic pain. However, it does represent the first systematic approach to implementing a classification of chronic pain in the ICD. It is based on international expertise and agreement, and consistent with the requirements of the ICD regarding the structure and format of content models. The 7 major categories of chronic pain were identified after considerable research and discussion. They represent a compromise between comprehensiveness and practical applicability of the classification system. Several clinically important conditions that were neglected in former ICD revisions will now be mentioned, eg, chronic cancer pain or chronic neuropathic pain. Etiological factors, pain intensity, and disability related to pain will be reflected. With the introduction of chronic primary pain as a new diagnostic entity, the classification recognizes conditions that affect a broad group of patients with pain and would be neglected in etiologically defined categories. We hope that this classification strengthens the representation of chronic pain conditions in clinical practice and research and welcome comments to improve it further. Conflict of interest statement Q. Aziz has attended advisory board meetings for Almirall pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal. He has also received funding for clinical trials from Ono Pharmaceutical and Protexin. M.I. Bennett has received consultancy or speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, and Grunenthal in the last 5 years. M. Cohen has received honoraria for contributions to educational programs from Mundipharma Pty Limited and Pfizer. S. Evers received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards) and research grants within the past 5 years by AGA Medical (now St Jude), Allergan, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, CoLucid, Desitin, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt-Benckiser, UCB. N.B. Finnerup has received speaker's honoraria from Pfizer, Grunenthal, and Norpharma, research grant from Grünenthal, and consultancy fee from Astellas and is member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. M.B. First on the faculty of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. In the past 2 years, M.A. Giamberardino received research funding or honoraria (participation in Advisory Board) from Bayer Healthcare, Helsinn, and Epitech Group. S. Kaasa declares no conflict of interest related to this work. In the past year he received honoraria from Helsinn related to participation in Advisory Board. E. Kosek has received consultancy and speaker fees in the past 24 months from Eli Lilly and Company and Orion and has ongoing research collaborations with Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott and Pierre Fabre. M. Nicholas received honoraria for contributing to educational sessions for Mundipharma and Pfizer in the last 5 years. S. Perrot received honoraria as a speaker and/or member of the advisory board in the past 5 years from Pfizer, BMS, Grunenthal, Elli Lilly, Sanofi, Daichi-Sankyo, Astellas, and Mundipharma. He has received grant support from BMS. W. Rief received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards on topics such as adherence, placebo mechanisms) within the past 5 years from Berlin Chemie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Heel (research grant). J. Scholz has received speaker fees from Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, St Jude Medical, and Zalicus. He has served on advisory boards or consulted for Convergence, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Zalicus Pharmaceuticals. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. In the last 5 years, the Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of Western Australia, but not S. Schug personally, has received research and travel funding and speaking and consulting honoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iX Biopharma within the last 2 years. B.H. Smith has received lecture and consultancy fees, on behalf of his institution, from Pfizer, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, and Napp. He has received unconditional educational grants from Pfizer Ltd; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Napp. P. Svensson served as a paid consultant for Sunstar Suisse SA. R.-D. Treede has received speaker's honoraria, research grants or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acron, Astellas, Bauerfeind, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Hydra, Mundipharma, and Pfizer and is a member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. J.W.S. Vlaeyen is a member of the PHILIPS advisory board on pain management and declares no conflicts of interest with regard to this work. S.-J. Wang has served on the advisory boards of Allergan and Eli Lilly, Taiwan. He has received speaking honoraria from local companies (Taiwan branches) of Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and GSK. He has received research grants from the Novartis Taiwan, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital and Taiwan Headache Society. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Author and article information
Contributors
Chenchen Wang: cwang2@tuftsmedicalcenter.org
Journal
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Curr Rheumatol Rep
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Curr Rheumatol Rep
Title:
Current Rheumatology Reports
Publisher:
Springer US
(New York
)
ISSN
(Print):
1523-3774
ISSN
(Electronic):
1534-6307
Publication date
(Electronic):
3
May
2023
Pages: 1-16
Affiliations
Article
Publisher ID: 1103DOI: 10.1007/s11926-023-01103-y
PMC ID: 10155143
PubMed ID: 37133652
SO-VID: afc8f874-4f88-42fd-a141-afcfe3703008
Copyright © © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC,
part of Springer Nature 2023, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other
partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with
the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript
version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
and applicable law.
License:
This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
History
Date
accepted
: 19
March
2023
Categories
Subject:
Article
ScienceOpen disciplines: Rheumatology
Data availability:
ScienceOpen disciplines: Rheumatology