Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability globally and associated with enormous health-care costs. The discrepancy between the extent of tissue damage and the magnitude of pain, disability, and associated symptoms represents a diagnostic challenge for rheumatology specialists. Central sensitisation, defined as an amplification of neural signalling within the CNS that elicits pain hypersensitivity, has been investigated as a reason for this discrepancy. Features of central sensitisation have been documented in various pain conditions common in rheumatology practice, including fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, upper extremity tendinopathies, headache, and spinal pain. Within individual pain conditions, there is substantial variation among patients in terms of presence and magnitude of central sensitisation, stressing the importance of individual assessment. Central sensitisation predicts poor treatment outcomes in multiple patient populations. The available evidence supports various pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies to reduce central sensitisation and to improve patient outcomes in several conditions commonly seen in rheumatology practice. These data open up new treatment perspectives, with the possibility for precision pain medicine treatment according to pain phenotyping as a logical next step. With this view, studies suggest the possibility of matching non-pharmacological approaches, or medications, or both to the central sensitisation pain phenotypes.

Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released clinical criteria and a grading system for nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system. These criteria replaced the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant central sensitization (CS) pain and accounted for clinicians’ need to identify (early) and correctly classify patients having chronic pain according to the pain phenotype. Still, clinicians and researchers can become confused by the multitude of terms and the variety of clinical criteria available. Therefore, this paper aims at (1) providing an overview of what preceded the IASP criteria for nociplastic pain (‘the past’); (2) explaining the new IASP criteria for nociplastic pain in comparison with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain (‘the present’); and (3) highlighting key areas for future implementation and research work in this area (‘the future’). It is explained that the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are in line with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain but are more robust, comprehensive, better developed and hold more potential. Therefore, the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are important steps towards precision pain medicine, yet studies examining the clinimetric and psychometric properties of the criteria are urgently needed.

No abstract

Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a major and highly prevalent health problem. Given the high number of papers available, clinicians might be overwhelmed by the evidence on CLBP management. Taking into account the scale and costs of CLBP, it is imperative that healthcare professionals have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Therefore, this paper provides a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence non-invasive rehabilitation for CLBP. Taking together up-to-date evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analysis and available treatment guidelines, most physically inactive therapies should not be considered for CLBP management, except for pain neuroscience education and spinal manipulative therapy if combined with exercise therapy, with or without psychological therapy. Regarding active therapy, back schools, sensory discrimination training, proprioceptive exercises, and sling exercises should not be considered due to low-quality and/or conflicting evidence. Exercise interventions on the other hand are recommended, but while all exercise modalities appear effective compared to minimal/passive/conservative/no intervention, there is no evidence that some specific types of exercises are superior to others. Therefore, we recommend choosing exercises in line with the patient’s preferences and abilities. When exercise interventions are combined with a psychological component, effects are better and maintain longer over time.

The mechanism of sensitization of the central nervous system partly explains the chronic pain experience in many patients, but the etiological mechanisms of this central nervous system dysfunction are poorly understood. Recently, an increasing number of studies suggest that aberrant glial activation takes part in the establishment and/or maintenance of central sensitization. Areas covered: This review focused on preclinical work and mostly on the neurobiochemistry studied in animals, with limited human studies available. Glial overactivation results in a low-grade neuroinflammatory state, characterized by high levels of BDNF, IL-1β, TNF-α, which in turn increases the excitability of the central nervous system neurons through mechanisms like long-term potentiation and increased synaptic efficiency. Aberrant glial activity in chronic pain might have been triggered by severe stress exposure, and/or sleeping disturbances, each of which are established initiating factors for chronic pain development. Expert opinion: Potential treatment avenues include several pharmacological options for diminishing glial activity, as well as conservative interventions like sleep management, stress management and exercise therapy. Pharmacological options include propentofylline, minocycline, β -adrenergic receptor antagonists, and cannabidiol. Before translating these findings from basic science to clinical settings, more human studies exploring the outlined mechanisms in chronic pain patients are needed.

No abstract

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) and motivational interviewing (MI) have been widely implemented and tested in the field of chronic pain management, and both strategies have been shown to be effective in the short term (small effect sizes) for the management of chronic pain. PNE uses contemporary pain science to educate patients about the biopsychosocial nature of the chronicity of their pain experience. The goal of PNE is to optimize patients’ pain beliefs/perceptions to facilitate the acquisition of adaptive pain–coping strategies. MI, on the other hand, is a patient-centered communication style for eliciting and enhancing motivation for behavior change by shifting the patient away from a state of indecision or uncertainty. Conceptually, PNE and MI appear to be complementary interventions, with complementary rather than overlapping effects; MI primarily improves cognitive and behavioral awareness and, potentially, adherence to treatment principles, whereas PNE potentially increases pain knowledge/beliefs, awareness, and willingness to explore psychological factors that are potentially associated with pain. Therefore, combining PNE with MI might lead to improved outcomes with larger and longer-lasting effect sizes. The combined use of PNE and MI in patients having chronic pain is introduced here, along with a description of how clinicians might be able to integrate PNE and MI in the treatment of patients experiencing chronic pain. Clinical trials are needed to examine whether combining PNE with MI is superior to PNE or MI alone for improving pain and quality of life in patients having chronic pain.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability in older adults, which most commonly affects the joints of the knee, hip, and hand. To date, there are no established disease modifying interventions that can halt or reverse OA progression. Therefore, treatment is focused on alleviating pain and maintaining or improving physical and psychological function. Rehabilitation is widely recommended as first-line treatment for OA as, in many cases, it is safer and more effective than the best-established pharmacological interventions. In this article, we describe the presentation of OA pain and give an overview of its peripheral and central mechanisms. We then provide a state-of-the-art review of rehabilitation for OA pain—including self-management programs, exercise, weight loss, cognitive behavioral therapy, adjunct therapies, and the use of aids and devices. Next, we explore several promising directions for clinical practice, including novel education strategies to target unhelpful illness and treatment beliefs, methods to enhance the efficacy of exercise interventions, and innovative, brain-directed treatments. Finally, we discuss potential future research in areas, such as treatment adherence and personalized rehabilitation for OA pain.