Neuropathic pain is defined as a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system, and may involve the central or peripheral nervous systems. Treatment of neuropathic pain is a challenge for clinicians involved in affected patients' care. In 2007, the first guidelines for the treatment of neuropathic pain in the Canadian context were produced by the Canadian Pain Society. This update to these guidelines incorporates new evidence published since the first guidelines were released.
Neuropathic pain (NeP), generated by disorders of the peripheral and central nervous system, can be particularly severe and disabling. Prevalence estimates indicate that 2% to 3% of the population in the developed world suffer from NeP, which suggests that up to one million Canadians have this disabling condition. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of NeP are therefore urgently needed. Randomized, controlled trials, systematic reviews and existing guidelines focusing on the pharmacological management of NeP were evaluated at a consensus meeting. Medications are recommended in the guidelines if their analgesic efficacy was supported by at least one methodologically sound, randomized, controlled trial showing significant benefit relative to placebo or another relevant control group. Recommendations for treatment are based on degree of evidence of analgesic efficacy, safety, ease of use and cost-effectiveness. Analgesic agents recommended for first-line treatments are certain antidepressants (tricyclics) and anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin). Second-line treatments recommended are serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and topical lidocaine. Tramadol and controlled-release opioid analgesics are recommended as third-line treatments for moderate to severe pain. Recommended fourth-line treatments include cannabinoids, methadone and anticonvulsants with lesser evidence of efficacy, such as lamotrigine, topiramate and valproic acid. Treatment must be individualized for each patient based on efficacy, side-effect profile and drug accessibility, including cost. Further studies are required to examine head-to-head comparisons among analgesics, combinations of analgesics, long-term outcomes, and treatment of pediatric and central NeP.
Pain education, especially for undergraduates, has been identified as important to changing problematic pain practices, yet, no published data were found describing an integrated, interprofessional pain curriculum for undergraduate students. Therefore, this project aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate an integrated pain curriculum, based on the International Association for the Study of Pain curricula [http://www.iasp-pain.org/curropen.html], for 540 students from six Health Science Faculties/Departments. Over an 18-month period, the University of Toronto Centre for the Study of Pain's Interfaculty Pain Education Committee developed a 20-h undergraduate pain curriculum to be delivered during a 1-week period. Students from Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Physical Therapy, and Occupational Therapy participated as part of their 2nd or 3rd year program. Teaching strategies included large and small groups, Standardized Patients, and 63 facilitators. Evaluation methods included: (a) pre- and post-tests of the Pain Knowledge and Beliefs Questionnaire (PKBQ) and (b) Daily Content and Process Questionnaire (DCPQ) to obtain feedback about process, content, and format across the curriculum's 5 days. A significant improvement in pain knowledge and beliefs was demonstrated (t = 181.28, P < 0.001), although non-responders were problematic at the post-test. DCPQ overall ratings of 'exceeding or meeting expectations' ranged from 74 to 92%. Ratings were highest for the patient-related content and panel, and the small-group discussions with Standardized Patients. Overall evaluations were positive, and statistically significant changes were demonstrated in students' pain knowledge and beliefs. This unique and valuable learning opportunity will be repeated with some modifications next year.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.