ObjectivesThere is little consensus regarding the burden of pain in the UK. The purpose of this review was to synthesise existing data on the prevalence of various chronic pain phenotypes in order to produce accurate and contemporary national estimates.DesignMajor electronic databases were searched for articles published after 1990, reporting population-based prevalence estimates of chronic pain (pain lasting >3 months), chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia and chronic neuropathic pain. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated for chronic pain and chronic widespread pain.ResultsOf the 1737 articles generated through our searches, 19 studies matched our inclusion criteria, presenting data from 139 933 adult residents of the UK. The prevalence of chronic pain, derived from 7 studies, ranged from 35.0% to 51.3% (pooled estimate 43.5%, 95% CIs 38.4% to 48.6%). The prevalence of moderate-severely disabling chronic pain (Von Korff grades III/IV), based on 4 studies, ranged from 10.4% to 14.3%. 12 studies stratified chronic pain prevalence by age group, demonstrating a trend towards increasing prevalence with increasing age from 14.3% in 18–25 years old, to 62% in the over 75 age group, although the prevalence of chronic pain in young people (18–39 years old) may be as high as 30%. Reported prevalence estimates were summarised for chronic widespread pain (pooled estimate 14.2%, 95% CI 12.3% to 16.1%; 5 studies), chronic neuropathic pain (8.2% to 8.9%; 2 studies) and fibromyalgia (5.4%; 1 study). Chronic pain was more common in female than male participants, across all measured phenotypes.ConclusionsChronic pain affects between one-third and one-half of the population of the UK, corresponding to just under 28 million adults, based on data from the best available published studies. This figure is likely to increase further in line with an ageing population.

AbstractBackground and AimsChronic pain is a potentially disabling condition affecting one in three people through impaired physical function and quality of life. While the psychosocial impact of chronic pain is already well established, little is known about the potential biological consequences. Chronic pain may be associated with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, an effect that has been demonstrated across a spectrum of chronic pain conditions including low back pain, pelvic pain, neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. The aim of this study was to review and summarize the evidence for a link between chronic pain and cardiovascular disease. We sought to clarify the nature of the relationship by examining the basis for a dose-response gradient (whereby increasing pain severity would result in greater cardiovascular disease), and by evaluating the extent to which potentially confounding variables may contribute to this association.MethodsMajor electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, Cochrane, ProQuest and Web of Science were searched for articles reporting strengths of association between chronic pain (pain in one or more body regions, present for three months or longer) and cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular mortality, cardiac disease, and cerebrovascular disease). Meta-analysis was used to pool data analysing the association between chronic pain and the three principal cardiovascular outcomes. The impact of pain severity, and the role of potentially confounding variables were explored narratively.ResultsThe searches generated 11,141 studies, of which 25 matched our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Meta-analysis (of unadjusted study outcomes) demonstrated statistically significant associations between chronic pain and mortality from cardiovascular diseases: pooled odds ratio 1.20, (95% confidence intervals 1.05–1.36); chronic pain and cardiac disease: pooled odds ratio 1.73 (95% confidence intervals 1.42–2.04); and chronic pain and cerebrovascular disease: pooled odds ratio 1.81 (95% confidence intervals 1.51–2.10). The systematic review also found evidence supporting a dose-response relationship, with greater pain intensity and distribution producing a stronger association with cardiovascular outcomes.All of the included studies were based on observational data with considerable variation in chronic pain taxonomy, methodology and study populations. The studies took an inconsistent and incomplete approach in their adjustment for potentially confounding variables, making it impossible to pool data after adjustments for confounding variables, so it cannot be concluded that these associations are causal.ConclusionsOur review supports a possible dose-response type of association between chronic pain and cardiovascular disease, supported by a range of observational studies originating from different countries. Such research has so far failed to satisfactorily rule out that the association is due to confounding variables. What is now needed are further population based longitudinal studies that are designed to allow more robust exploration of a cause and effect relationship.ImplicationsGiven the high prevalence of chronic pain in developed and developing countries our results highlight a significant, but underpublicized, public health concern. Greater acknowledgement of the potentially harmful biological consequences of chronic pain may help to support regional, national and global initiatives aimed at reducing the burden of chronic pain.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) still represents a major clinical challenge. Collective harnessing of both the scientific evidence base and clinical experience (of clinicians and patients) can play a key role in informing treatment pathways and contribute to the debate on specific treatments (e.g., cannabinoids). A group of expert clinicians (pain specialists and psychiatrists), scientists, and patient representatives convened to assess the relative benefit-safety balance of 12 pharmacological treatments, including orally administered cannabinoids/cannabis-based medicinal products, for the treatment of CNP in adults. Methods: A decision conference provided the process of creating a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, in which the group collectively scored the drugs on 17 effect criteria relevant to benefits and safety and then weighted the criteria for their clinical relevance. Findings: Cannabis-based medicinal products consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD), in a 1:1 ratio, achieved the highest overall score, 79 (out of 100), followed by CBD dominant at 75, then THC dominant at 72. Duloxetine and the gabapentinoids scored in the 60s, amitriptyline, tramadol, and ibuprofen in the 50s, methadone and oxycodone in the 40s, and morphine and fentanyl in the 30s. Sensitivity analyses showed that even if the pain reduction and quality-of-life scores for THC/CBD and THC are halved, their benefit-safety balances remain better than those of the noncannabinoid drugs. Interpretation: The benefit-safety profiles for cannabinoids were higher than for other commonly used medications for CNP largely because they contribute more to quality of life and have a more favorable side effect profile. The results also reflect the shortcomings of alternative pharmacological treatments with respect to safety and mitigation of neuropathic pain symptoms. Further high-quality clinical trials and systematic comprehensive