The current IASP definition of pain as "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage" was recommended by the Subcommittee on Taxonomy and adopted by the IASP Council in 1979. This definition has become accepted widely by health care professionals and researchers in the pain field and adopted by several professional, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations, including the World Health Organization. In recent years, some in the field have reasoned that advances in our understanding of pain warrant a re-evaluation of the definition and have proposed modifications. Therefore, in 2018, the IASP formed a 14-member, multinational Presidential Task Force comprising individuals with broad expertise in clinical and basic science related to pain to evaluate the current definition and accompanying note and recommend whether they should be retained or changed. This review provides a synopsis of the critical concepts, the analysis of comments from the IASP membership and public, and the committee's final recommendations for revisions to the definition and notes, which were discussed over a 2-year period. The task force ultimately recommended that the definition of pain be revised to "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage," and that the accompanying notes be updated to a bulleted list that included the etymology. The revised definition and notes were unanimously accepted by the IASP Council early this year."Scientific and medical definitions are tools. Even when we recognize them as imperfect or provisional, awaiting replacement by an improved version, they perform work that cannot be accomplished by less precise instruments." David B. Morris [27] * Letter to the task force from M. Aydede titled "On the IASP Presidential Task Force's proposal for a new definition of 'pain'," dated

et al. JAMA 2015;313:1133-42.Conclusions: Regular aspirin and/or NSAID use is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer and is tied to specific genetic variants.Summary: There is data that suggests that the use of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with a lower risk of colorectal neoplasms. (Chan AT, JAMA 2005; 294:914-923 and Friis S et al, Cancer Causes Control 2009; 20:731-740 and Rothwell PM et al, Lancet 2010; 376:1741-1750 Since virtually all vascular surgical patients are treated with aspirin or other antiplatelet agents with potential anti-inflammatory actions, the association of decreased colorectal cancer risks in such patients is of potential interest to those treating vascular surgical patients. The mechanisms, however, behind the association are not well understood. Chemo prevention of cancer is not currently recommended because of the uncertainty of risk benefit profile. The authors sought to identify genetic markers that characterize individuals who may obtain differential benefit from aspirin and NSAIDs. They conducted a discover-based, genome-wide analysis of gene X environment interactions between use of aspirin, NSAIDs or both and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in relation to risk of colorectal cancer. This was a case controlled study using data from 5 case-control and 5 cohort studies initiated between 1976 and 2003 across the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany including colorectal cancer cases (N ¼ 8634) and matched controls (N ¼ 8553), ascertained between 1976 and 2011. All participants were of European descent. Overall regular use of aspirin and/or NSAIDs was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer (prevalence, 28% vs 38%; odd ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.64-0.74]; P ¼ 6.2 x 10 À28 ) compared with nonregular use. In the conventional logistic regression analysis, the SNP rs2965667 at chromosome 12p12.3 near the MGST1 gene showed a genome-wide significant interaction with aspirin and/or NSAID use (P ¼ 4.6 x 10 À9 for interaction). Aspirin and/or NSAID use was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer among individuals with re2965667-TT genotype (prevalence, 28% vs 38% OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.61-0.70]; P ¼ 7.7 x 10 À33 ) but with a higher rate risk among those with rare TA or AA genotypes (prevalence, 35% vs 29%; OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.27-2.81]; P ¼ .002). In case-only interaction analysis, the SNP re 16973225 at chromosome 15q25.2 near the IL16 gene showed a genome-wide significant interaction with use of aspirin and/or NSAIDs (P ¼ 8.2 x 10 À9 for interaction). Regular use was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer among individuals with rs16973225-AA genotype (prevalence, 28% vs 38%; OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.62-0.71]; P¼1.9 x 10 À30 ) but was not associated with risk of colorectal cancer among those with less common (9%) AC or CC genotypes (prevalence, 36% vs 39%; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20]; P ¼ .76).

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials: in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of <7 and >7 days treatment duration were analysed separately. We included 36 studies (7217 participants) delivering cannabinoids (8 studies), cannabis (6 studies), and CBM (22 studies); all had high and/or uncertain risk of bias. Evidence of benefit was found for cannabis <7 days (risk difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.46; 2 trials, 231 patients, very low-quality evidence) and nabiximols >7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain.

Background IMI2-PainCare-BioPain-RCT3 is one of four similarly designed clinical studies aiming at profiling a set of functional biomarkers of drug effects on the nociceptive system that could serve to accelerate the future development of analgesics, by providing a quantitative understanding between drug exposure and effects of the drug on nociceptive signal processing in human volunteers. IMI2-PainCare-BioPain-RCT3 will focus on biomarkers derived from non-invasive electroencephalographic (EEG) measures of brain activity. Methods This is a multisite single-dose, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 4-period, 4-way crossover, pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) study in healthy subjects. Biomarkers derived from scalp EEG measurements (laser-evoked brain potentials [LEPs], pinprick-evoked brain potentials [PEPs], resting EEG) will be obtained before and three times after administration of three medications known to act on the nociceptive system (lacosamide, pregabalin, tapentadol) and placebo, given as a single oral dose in separate study periods. Medication effects will be assessed concurrently in a non-sensitized normal condition and a clinically relevant hyperalgesic condition (high-frequency electrical stimulation of the skin). Patient-reported outcomes will also be collected. A sequentially rejective multiple testing approach will be used with overall alpha error of the primary analysis split between LEP and PEP under tapentadol. Remaining treatment arm effects on LEP or PEP or effects on EEG are key secondary confirmatory analyses. Complex statistical analyses and PK-PD modeling are exploratory. Discussion LEPs and PEPs are brain responses related to the selective activation of thermonociceptors and mechanonociceptors. Their amplitudes are dependent on the responsiveness of these nociceptors and the state of the pathways relaying nociceptive input at the level of the spinal cord and brain. The magnitude of resting EEG oscillations is sensitive to changes in brain network function, and some modulations of oscillation magnitude can relate to perceived pain intensity, variations in vigilance, and attentional states. These oscillations can also be affected by analgesic drugs acting on the central nervous system. For these reasons, IMI2-PainCare-BioPain-RCT3 hypothesizes that EEG-derived measures can serve as biomarkers of target engagement of analgesic drugs for future Phase 1 clinical trials. Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials could also benefit from these tools for patient stratification. Trial registration This trial was registered 25/06/2019 in EudraCT (2019%2D%2D001204-37).

Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common complications of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Up to half of patients with diabetes develop neuropathy during the course of their disease, which is accompanied by neuropathic pain in to 30–40% of cases. Peripheral nerve injury in diabetes can manifest as progressive distal symmetric polyneuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, radiculo-plexopathies, and mononeuropathies. The most common diabetic neuropathy is distal symmetric polyneuropathy, which we will refer to as DN, with its characteristic glove and stocking like presentation of distal sensory or motor function loss. DN or its painful counterpart, painful DN, are associated with increased mortality and morbidity; thus, early recognition and preventive measures are essential. Nevertheless, it is not easy to diagnose DN or painful DN, particularly in patients with early and mild neuropathy, and there is currently no single established diagnostic gold standard. The most common diagnostic approach in research is a hierarchical system, which combines symptoms, signs, and a series of confirmatory tests. The general lack of long-term prospective studies has limited the evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of new morphometric and neurophysiological techniques. Thus, the best paradigm for screening DN and painful DN both in research and in clinical practice remains uncertain. Herein, we review the diagnostic challenges from both clinical and research perspectives and their implications for managing patients with DN. There is no established DN treatment, apart from improved glycemic control, which is more effective in type 1 than in type 2 diabetes, and only symptomatic management is available for painful DN. Currently, less than one third of painful DN patients derive sufficient pain relief with existing pharmacotherapies. A more precise and distinct sensory profile from patients with DN and painful DN may help identify responsive patients to one treatment versus another. Detailed sensory profiles will lead to tailored treatment for patient subgroups with painful DN by matching to novel or established DN pathomechanisms and also for improved clinical trials stratification. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to identify the interventions, i.e. pharmacological, physical, cognitive, educational, etc, which leads to the best therapeutic outcomes.

SUMMARY According to several guidelines, topical agents should be considered for the pharmacological management of localized neuropathic pain. As a definition for the term 'localized neuropathic pain' that might facilitate easier identification of patients who are putatively responsive to topical treatments could not be found in the literature, six pain specialists met in 2010 to address this challenging issue. The following nucleus of a definition that is based on the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) definition of neuropathic pain, is the most detailed that can currently be proposed: 'Localized neuropathic pain is a type of neuropathic pain that is characterized by consistent and circumscribed area(s) of maximum pain'. An extended version of this core definition and the difficulties in covering all aspects of localized neuropathic pain are presented, and discussions within the scientific community are encouraged to develop a definition that might help to identify patients who could benefit most from topical treatment.

Background: As in other fields of medicine, development of new medications for management of neuropathic pain has been difficult since preclinical rodent models do not necessarily translate to the clinics. Aside from ongoing pain with burning or shock-like qualities, neuropathic pain is often characterized by pain hypersensitivity (hyperalgesia and allodynia), most often towards mechanical stimuli, reflecting sensitization of neural transmission. Data treatment: We therefore performed a systematic literature review (PubMed-Medline, Cochrane, WoS, ClinicalTrials) and semi-quantitative meta-analysis of human pain models that aim to induce central sensitization, and generate hyperalgesia surrounding a real or simulated injury. Results: From an initial set of 1569 reports, we identified and analysed 269 studies using more than a dozen human models of sensitization. Five of these models (intradermal or topical capsaicin, low-or high-frequency electrical stimulation, thermode-induced heat-injury) were found to reliably induce secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and have been implemented in multiple laboratories. The ability of these models to induce dynamic mechanical allodynia was however substantially lower.The proportion of subjects who developed hypersensitivity was rarely provided, giving rise to significant reporting bias. In four of these models pharmacological profiles allowed to verify similarity to some clinical conditions, and therefore may inform basic research for new drug development. Conclusions: While there is no single "optimal" model of central sensitization, the range of validated and easy-to-use procedures in humans should be able to inform preclinical researchers on helpful potential biomarkers, thereby narrowing the translation gap between basic and clinical data. Significance: Being able to mimic aspects of pathological pain directly in humans has a huge potential to understand pathophysiology and provide animal research with translatable biomarkers for drug development. One group of human surrogateThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We assessed methodological quality, scope, and results of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of these treatments. Several search strategies sought self-declared systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using both AMSTAR-2 and techniques important for bias reduction in pain studies. Of the 106 articles read, 57 were self-declared systematic reviews, most published since 2010. They included any type of cannabinoid, cannabis, or CBM, at any dose, however administered, in a broad range of pain conditions. No review examined the effects of a particular cannabinoid, at a particular dose, using a particular route of administration, for a particular pain condition, reporting a particular analgesic outcome. Confidence in the results in the systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 definitions was critically low (41), low (8), moderate (6), or high (2). Few used criteria important for bias reduction in pain. Cochrane reviews typically provided higher confidence; all industry-conflicted reviews provided critically low confidence. Meta-analyses typically pooled widely disparate studies, and, where assessable, were subject to potential publication bias. Systematic reviews with positive or negative recommendation for use of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain typically rated critically low or low (24/25 [96%] positive; 10/12 [83%] negative). Current reviews are mostly lacking in quality and cannot provide a basis for decision-making. A new high-quality systematic review of randomised controlled trials is needed to critically assess the clinical evidence for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain.