Hubbry Logo
Pain managementPain managementMain
Open search
Pain management
Community hub
Pain management
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Pain management
Pain management
Pain management
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Pain Medicine Physician
Occupation
NamesPhysician
Occupation type
Specialty
Activity sectors
Medicine
Description
Education required
Fields of
employment
Hospitals, clinics
Active and inactive μ-opioid receptors[1]
Image of visual pain

Pain management is an aspect of medicine and health care involving relief of pain (pain relief, analgesia, pain control) in various dimensions, from acute and simple to chronic and challenging. Most physicians and other health professionals provide some pain control in the normal course of their practice, and for the more complex instances of pain, they also call on additional help from a specific medical specialty devoted to pain, which is called pain medicine.

Pain management often uses a multidisciplinary approach for easing the suffering and improving the quality of life of anyone experiencing pain,[2] whether acute pain or chronic pain. Relieving pain (analgesia) is typically an acute process, while managing chronic pain involves additional complexities and ideally a multidisciplinary approach.

A typical multidisciplinary pain management team may include: medical practitioners, pharmacists, clinical psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, recreational therapists, physician assistants, nurses, and dentists.[3] The team may also include other mental health specialists and massage therapists. Pain sometimes resolves quickly once the underlying trauma or pathology has healed, and is treated by one practitioner, with drugs such as pain relievers (analgesics) and occasionally also anxiolytics.

Effective management of chronic (long-term) pain, however, frequently requires the coordinated efforts of the pain management team.[4] Effective pain management does not always mean total eradication of all pain. Rather, it often means achieving adequate quality of life in the presence of pain, through any combination of lessening the pain and/or better understanding it and being able to live happily despite it. Medicine treats injuries and diseases to support and speed healing. It treats distressing symptoms such as pain and discomfort to reduce any suffering during treatment, healing, and dying.

The task of medicine is to relieve suffering under three circumstances. The first is when a painful injury or pathology is resistant to treatment and persists. The second is when pain persists after the injury or pathology has healed. Finally, the third circumstance is when medical science cannot identify the cause of pain. Treatment approaches to chronic pain include pharmacological measures, such as analgesics (pain killer drugs), antidepressants, and anticonvulsants; interventional procedures, physical therapy, physical exercise, application of ice or heat; and psychological measures, such as biofeedback and cognitive behavioral therapy. [citation needed]

Defining pain

[edit]
See also: Threshold of pain and Pain tolerance

In the nursing profession, one common definition of pain is any problem that is "whatever the experiencing person says it is, existing whenever the experiencing person says it does".[5]

Pain management includes patient and communication about the pain problem.[6] To define the pain problem, a health care provider will likely ask questions such as:[6]

  • How intense is the pain?
  • How does the pain feel?
  • Where is the pain?
  • What, if anything, makes the pain lessen?
  • What, if anything, makes the pain increase?
  • When did the pain start?

After asking such questions, the health care provider will have a description of the pain.[6] Pain is often rated on a scale from 1 to 10, known as the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS);[7]

Rating Pain Level

  • 0 No Pain
  • 1 – 3 Mild Pain (nagging, annoying, interfering little with ADLs)
  • 4 – 6 Moderate Pain (interferes significantly with ADLs)
  • 7 – 10 Severe Pain (disabling; unable to perform ADLs)

This pain scale is based on a person reporting their pain intensity, with 0 representing no pain experienced and 10 indicating the worst possible pain.[8] The NRS is a common tool used by clinicians and in research to understand personal pain levels and monitor changes over time.[8] In the clinical context, pain management will then be used to address that pain.[6]

Adverse effects

[edit]

There are many types of pain management. Each have their own benefits, drawbacks, and limits.[6]

A common challenge in pain management is communication between the health care provider and the person experiencing pain.[6] People experiencing pain may have difficulty recognizing or describing what they feel and how intense it is.[6] Health care providers and patients may have difficulty communicating with each other about how pain responds to treatments.[6] There is a risk in many types of pain management for the patient to take treatment that is less effective than needed or which causes other difficulties and side effects.[6] Some treatments for pain can be harmful if overused.[6] A goal of pain management for the patient and their health care provider is to identify the amount of treatment needed to address the pain without going beyond that limit.[6]

Another problem with pain management is that pain is the body's natural way of communicating a problem.[6] Pain is supposed to resolve as the body heals itself with time and pain management.[6] Sometimes pain management covers a problem, and the patient might be less aware that they need treatment for a deeper problem.[6]

Physical approaches

[edit]

Physical medicine and rehabilitation

[edit]

Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R), a medical specialty, uses a range of physical techniques, such as heat and electrotherapy, as well as therapeutic exercises and behavioral therapy in the management of pain.[citation needed] PM&R techniques are usually part of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary program that might also include pharmaceuticals.[9] Spa therapy has shown positive effects in reducing pain among patients with chronic low back pain, but its evidence base is limited.[10] Studies have shown that kinesiotape can be used to reduce chronic low back pain.[11] The US Centers for Disease Control recommended that physical therapy and exercise be prescribed as first-line treatments (rather than opioids) for multiple causes of chronic pain in 2016 guidelines.[12] Applicable disorders include chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis of the hip and knee, and fibromyalgia.[12] Exercise alone or with other rehabilitation disciplines (including psychotherapeutic approaches) can have a positive effects on pain.[12] Besides improving the experience of pain itself, exercise can also improve individuals' well-being and general health.[12]

Manipulative and mobilization therapies are considered safe interventions for low back pain, with manipulation potentially offering a larger therapeutic effect.[13]

Specifically in chronic low back pain, education about the way the brain processes pain in conjunction with routine physiotherapy interventions may provide short-term relief of disability and pain.[14]

Exercise interventions

[edit]
Aerobic exercise can help when it comes to pain management

Physical activity interventions, such as tai chi, yoga, and Pilates, promote harmony of the mind and body through total body awareness. These practices incorporate breathing techniques, meditation, and a wide variety of movements while training the body to perform functionally by increasing strength, flexibility, and range of motion.[15] Physical activity can also benefit chronic sufferers by reducing inflammation and sensitivity and boosting overall energy.[16] Physical activity and exercise may improve chronic pain (pain lasting more than 12 weeks),[17] and overall quality of life, while minimizing the need for pain medications.[15] More specifically, walking has been effective in improving pain management in chronic low back pain.[18]

TENS

[edit]
Main article: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a self-operated portable device intended to help regulate and control chronic pain via electrical impulses.[19] Limited research has explored the effectiveness of TENS in relation to pain management of multiple sclerosis (MS). MS is a chronic autoimmune neurological disorder, which consists of the demyelination of the nerve axons and the disruption of nerve conduction velocity and efficiency.[19] In one study, electrodes were placed over the lumbar spine, and participants received treatment twice a day and at any time when they experienced a painful episode.[19] This study found that TENS would benefit MS patients with localized or limited symptoms in one limb.[19] The research is mixed with whether or not TENS helps manage pain in MS patients.[citation needed]

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is ineffective for lower back pain. However, it might help with diabetic neuropathy[20] as well as other illnesses. [citation needed]

tDCS

[edit]
Main article: Transcranial direct-current stimulation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive technique of brain stimulation that can modulate activity in specific brain cortex regions, and it involves the application of low-intensity (up to 2 mA) constant direct current to the scalp through electrodes in order to modulate the excitability of large cortical areas.[21] tDCS may have a role in pain assessment by contributing to efforts in distinguishing between somatic and affective aspects of pain experience.[21] Zaghi and colleagues (2011) found that the motor cortex, when stimulated with tDCS, increases the threshold for both the perception of non-painful and painful stimuli.[21] Although there is a greater need for research examining the mechanism of electrical stimulation in pain treatment, one theory suggests that the changes in thalamic activity may be due to the influence of motor cortex stimulation on the decrease in pain sensations.[21]

Concerning MS, a study found that daily tDCS sessions resulted in an individual's subjective report of pain decreased when compared to a sham condition.[19] In addition, the study found a similar improvement at 1 to 3 days before and after each tDCS session.[19]

Fibromyalgia is a disorder in which an individual experiences dysfunctional brain activity, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, and tenderness in localized areas.[22] Research examining tDCS for pain treatment in fibromyalgia has found initial evidence for pain decreases.[22] Specifically, the stimulation of the primary motor cortex resulted in significantly greater pain improvement in comparison to the control group (e.g., sham stimulation, stimulation of the DLPFC).[22] However, this effect decreased after treatment ended, but remained significant for three weeks following the extinction of treatment.[22]

Acupuncture

[edit]
Main article: Acupuncture
Acupuncture can sometimes help to relieve pain

Acupuncture involves the insertion and manipulation of needles into specific points on the body to relieve pain or for therapeutic purposes. An analysis of the 13 highest quality studies of pain treatment with acupuncture, published in January 2009 in the British Medical Journal, was unable to quantify the difference in the effect on pain of real, sham and no acupuncture.[23] A systematic review in 2019 reported that acupuncture injection therapy was an effective treatment for patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, and is widely used in Southeast Asian countries.[24]

Light therapy

[edit]

Research has found evidence that light therapy such as low level laser therapy is an effective therapy for relieving low back pain.[25][26] Instead of thermal therapy, where reactant energy is originated through heat, Low-Level Light Therapy (LLLT) utilizes photochemical reactions requiring light to function.[citation needed] Photochemical reactions need light in order to function. Photons, the energy created from light, from these photochemical reactions provide the reactants with energy to embed in muscles, thus managing pain.[27] One study conducted by Stausholm et al. showed that at certain wavelengths, LLLT reduced pain in participants with knee osteoarthritis.[28] LLLT stimulates a variety of cell types, which in turn can help treat tendonitis, arthritis, and pain relating to muscles.[citation needed]

Sound therapy

[edit]
Main articles: Audioanalgesia and Music therapy

Audioanalgesia and music therapy are both examples of using auditory stimuli to manage pain or other distress. They are generally viewed as insufficient when used alone but also as helpful adjuncts to other forms of therapy.[citation needed]

Interventional procedures

[edit]
Main article: Interventional pain management

Interventional radiology procedures for pain control, typically used for chronic back pain, include epidural steroid injections, facet joint injections, neurolytic blocks, spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal drug delivery system implants.

Pulsed radiofrequency, neuromodulation, direct introduction of medication and nerve ablation may be used to target either the tissue structures and organ/systems responsible for persistent nociception or the nociceptors from the structures implicated as the source of chronic pain.[29][30][31][32][33] Radiofrequency treatment has been seen to improve pain in patients with facet joint low back pain. However, continuous radiofrequency is more effective in managing pain than pulsed radiofrequency.[34]

An intrathecal pump is sometimes used to deliver very small quantities of medications directly to the spinal fluid. This is similar to epidural infusions used in labour and postoperatively. The major differences are that it is much more common for the drug to be delivered into the spinal fluid (intrathecal) rather than epidurally, and the pump can be fully implanted under the skin. [medical citation needed]

A spinal cord stimulator is an implantable medical device that creates electric impulses and applies them near the dorsal surface of the spinal cord, providing a paresthesia ("tingling") sensation that alters the perception of pain by the patient.[medical citation needed]

Intra-articular ozone therapy

[edit]

Intra-articular ozone therapy has been seen to alleviate chronic pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis efficiently.[35]

Psychological approaches

[edit]

Acceptance and commitment therapy

[edit]
Main article: Acceptance and commitment therapy

Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is a type of cognitive behavioral therapy that emphasizes behavior modification over symptom reduction, focusing on changing the context of psychological experiences and employing experiential behavior change methods.[36] The central process in ACT revolves around psychological flexibility, which in turn includes processes of acceptance; awareness; present-oriented mindfulness in interacting with experiences; an ability to persist or change behavior; and an ability to be guided by one's values.[36] ACT has robust evidence in the scientific literature for a range of health and behavior problems, including chronic pain.[36] ACT facilitates the dual processes of acceptance and behavioral change, enabling patients to cultivate psychological flexibility. This approach allows for a more dynamic and adaptable focus in therapeutic interventions, enhancing overall treatment effectiveness.[36]

Recent research has applied ACT successfully to chronic pain in older adults due in part to its direction from individual values and being highly customizable to any stage of life.[36] In line with the therapeutic model of ACT, significant increases in process variables, pain acceptance, and mindfulness were also observed in a study applying ACT to chronic pain in older adults.[36] In addition, these primary results suggested that an ACT-based treatment may significantly improve levels of physical disability, psychosocial disability, and depression post-treatment and at a three-month follow-up for older adults with chronic pain.[36]

Cognitive behavioral therapy

[edit]
Main article: Cognitive behavioral therapy

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in the setting of pain management aims to aid individuals in understanding the relationship between their pain, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. A main goal in treatment is cognitive—thinking, reasoning, and remembering—restructuring to encourage helpful thought patterns.[37] This will target healthy activities such as regular exercise and pacing. Lifestyle changes are also trained to improve sleep patterns and to develop better coping skills for pain and other stressors using various techniques (e.g., relaxation, diaphragmatic breathing, and even biofeedback).[citation needed]

Studies have demonstrated the usefulness of cognitive behavioral therapy in the management of chronic low back pain, producing significant decreases in physical and psychosocial disability.[38] CBT is significantly more effective than standard care in treatment of people with body-wide pain, like fibromyalgia. Evidence for the usefulness of CBT in the management of adult chronic pain is generally poorly understood, due partly to the proliferation of techniques of doubtful quality, and the poor quality of reporting in clinical trials.[citation needed] The crucial content of individual interventions has not been isolated, and the important contextual elements, such as therapist training and development of treatment manuals, have not been determined. The widely varying nature of the resulting data makes useful systematic review and meta-analysis within the field very difficult.[39]

In 2020, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical effectiveness of psychological therapies for the management of adult chronic pain (excluding headaches). There is no evidence that behaviour therapy (BT) is effective for reducing this type of pain; however, BT may be useful for improving a person's mood immediately after treatment. This improvement appears to be small and is short-term in duration.[40] CBT may have a small positive short-term effect on pain immediately following treatment. CBT may also have a small effect on reducing disability and potential catastrophizing that may be associated with adult chronic pain. These benefits do not appear to last very long following the therapy.[40] CBT may contribute towards improving the mood of an adult who experiences chronic pain, which could possibility be maintained for more extended periods of time.[40]

For children and adolescents, a review of RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of psychological therapy for the management of chronic and recurrent pain found that psychological treatments are effective in reducing pain when people under 18 years old have headaches.[41] This beneficial effect may be maintained for at least three months following the therapy.[42] Psychological treatments may also improve pain control for children or adolescents who experience pain unrelated to headaches. It is not known if psychological therapy improves a child's or an adolescent's mood and the potential for disability related to their chronic pain.[42]

Hypnosis

[edit]

A 2007 review of 13 studies found evidence for the efficacy of hypnosis in reducing pain in some conditions. However, the studies had limitations like small study sizes, raising issues of power to detect group differences, and lacking credible controls for placebo or expectation. The authors concluded that "although the findings provide support for the general applicability of hypnosis in the treatment of chronic pain, considerably more research will be needed to fully determine the effects of hypnosis for different chronic-pain conditions."[43]: 283 

Hypnosis has reduced the pain of some harmful medical procedures in children and adolescents.[44] In clinical trials addressing other patient groups, it has significantly reduced pain compared to no treatment or some other non-hypnotic interventions.[45] The effects of self-hypnosis on chronic pain are roughly comparable to those of progressive muscle relaxation.[46]

A 2019 systematic review of 85 studies showed it to be significantly effective at reducing pain for people with high and medium suggestibility, but minimal effectiveness for people with low suggestibility. However, high-quality clinical data is needed to generalize to the whole chronic pain population.[47]

Mindfulness meditation

[edit]

A 2013 meta-analysis of studies that used techniques centered around the concept of mindfulness concluded, "that MBIs [mindfulness-based interventions] decrease the intensity of pain for chronic pain patients."[48] A 2019 review of studies of brief mindfulness-based interventions (BMBI) concluded that BMBI are not recommended as a first-line treatment and could not confirm their efficacy in managing chronic or acute pain.[49]

Mindfulness-based pain management

[edit]

Mindfulness-based pain management (MBPM) is a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) providing specific applications for people living with chronic pain and illness.[50][51] Adapting the core concepts and practices of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), MBPM includes a distinctive emphasis on the practice of 'loving-kindness', and has been seen as sensitive to concerns about removing mindfulness teaching from its original ethical framework within Buddhism.[50][52] It was developed by Vidyamala Burch and is delivered through the programs of Breathworks.[50][51]

Medications

[edit]

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a pain ladder for managing pain relief with pharmaceutical medicine. It was first described for use in cancer pain. However it can be used by medical professionals as a general principle when managing any type of pain.[53][54] In the treatment of chronic pain, the three-step WHO Analgesic Ladder provides guidelines for selecting the appropriate medicine. The exact medications recommended will vary by country and the individual treatment center, but the following gives an example of the WHO approach to treating chronic pain with medications. If, at any point, treatment fails to provide adequate pain relief, then the doctor and patient move onto the next step.[citation needed]

Common types of pain and typical drug management
Pain type typical initial drug treatment comments
headache paracetamol/acetaminophen, NSAIDs[55] doctor consultation is appropriate if headaches are severe, persistent, accompanied by fever, vomiting, or speech or balance problems;[55] self-medication should be limited to two weeks[55]
migraine paracetamol, NSAIDs[55] triptans are used when the others do not work, or when migraines are frequent or severe[55]
menstrual cramps NSAIDs[55] some NSAIDs are marketed for cramps, but any NSAID would work[55]
minor trauma, such as a bruise, abrasions, sprain paracetamol, NSAIDs[55] opioids not recommended[55]
severe trauma, such as a wound, burn, bone fracture, or severe sprain opioids[55] more than two weeks of pain requiring opioid treatment is unusual[55]
strain or pulled muscle NSAIDs, muscle relaxants[55] if inflammation is involved, NSAIDs may work better; short-term use only[55]
minor pain after surgery paracetamol, NSAIDs[55] opioids rarely needed[55]
severe pain after surgery opioids[55] combinations of opioids may be prescribed if pain is severe[55]
muscle ache paracetamol, NSAIDs[55] if inflammation involved, NSAIDs may work better.[55]
toothache or pain from dental procedures paracetamol, NSAIDs[55] this should be short term use; opioids may be necessary for severe pain[55]
kidney stone pain paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioids[55] opioids usually needed if pain is severe.[55]
pain due to heartburn or gastroesophageal reflux disease antacid, H2 antagonist, proton-pump inhibitor[55] heartburn lasting more than a week requires medical attention; aspirin and NSAIDs should be avoided[55]
chronic back pain paracetamol, NSAIDs[55] opioids may be necessary if other drugs do not control pain and pain is persistent[55]
osteoarthritis pain paracetamol, NSAIDs[55] medical attention is recommended if pain persists.[55]
fibromyalgia antidepressant, anticonvulsant[55] evidence suggests that opioids are not effective in treating fibromyalgia[55]

Mild pain

[edit]

Paracetamol (acetaminophen), or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) such as ibuprofen will relieve mild pain.[56]

Mild to moderate pain

[edit]

Paracetamol, an NSAID or paracetamol in a combination product with a weak opioid such as tramadol, may provide greater relief than their separate use. A combination of opioid with acetaminophen can be frequently used such as Percocet, Vicodin, or Norco. [citation needed]

Moderate to severe pain

[edit]

When treating moderate to severe pain, the type of the pain, acute or chronic, needs to be considered. The type of pain can result in different medications being prescribed. Certain medications may work better for acute pain, others for chronic pain, and some may work equally well on both. Acute pain medication is for rapid onset of pain such as from an inflicted trauma or to treat post-operative pain. Chronic pain medication is for alleviating long-lasting, ongoing pain.[citation needed]

Morphine is the gold standard to which all narcotics are compared. Semi-synthetic derivatives of morphine such as hydromorphone (Dilaudid), oxymorphone (Numorphan, Opana), nicomorphine (Vilan), hydromorphinol and others vary in such ways as duration of action, side effect profile and milligramme potency. Fentanyl has the benefit of less histamine release and thus fewer side effects. It can also be administered via transdermal patch which is convenient for chronic pain management. In addition to the transdermal patch and injectable fentanyl formulations, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has approved various immediate release fentanyl products for breakthrough cancer pain (Actiq/OTFC/Fentora/Onsolis/Subsys/Lazanda/Abstral). Oxycodone is used across the Americas and Europe for relief of serious chronic pain. Its main slow-release formula is known as OxyContin. Short-acting tablets, capsules, syrups and ampules which contain oxycodone are available making it suitable for acute intractable pain or breakthrough pain. Diamorphine, and methadone are used less frequently.[citation needed] Clinical studies have shown that transdermal buprenorphine is effective at reducing chronic pain.[57] Pethidine, known in North America as meperidine, is not recommended [by whom?] for pain management due to its low potency, short duration of action, and toxicity associated with repeated use.[citation needed] Pentazocine, dextromoramide and dipipanone are also not recommended in new patients except for acute pain where other analgesics are not tolerated or are inappropriate, for pharmacological and misuse-related reasons. In some countries potent synthetics such as piritramide and ketobemidone are used for severe pain. Tapentadol is a newer agent introduced in the last decade.[citation needed]

For moderate pain, tramadol, codeine, dihydrocodeine, and hydrocodone are used, with nicocodeine, ethylmorphine and propoxyphene or dextropropoxyphene (less commonly).

Drugs of other types can be used to help opioids combat certain types of pain. Amitriptyline is prescribed for chronic muscular pain in the arms, legs, neck and lower back with an opiate, or sometimes without it or with an NSAID.

While opiates are often used in the management of chronic pain, high doses are associated with an increased risk of opioid overdose.[58]

In the U.S., the illegal use of opioids has led to an increasingly high threshold of prescribing analgesics to patients, and as a result minor pain killers were prescribed. Some medical analysts have criticized that development as it might cause premature deaths among cancer patients.[59]

Opioids

[edit]

In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration stated: "According to the National Institutes of Health, studies have shown that properly managed medical use of opioid analgesic compounds (taken exactly as prescribed) is safe, can manage pain effectively, and rarely causes addiction."[60] In 2013, the FDA stated that "abuse and misuse of these products have created a serious and growing public health problem".[61]

Opioid medications can provide short, intermediate or long acting analgesia depending upon the specific properties of the medication and whether it is formulated as an extended release drug. Opioid medications may be administered orally, by injection, via nasal mucosa or oral mucosa, rectally, transdermally, intravenously, epidurally and intrathecally. In chronic pain conditions that are opioid responsive, a combination of a long-acting (OxyContin, MS Contin, Opana ER, Exalgo and Methadone) or extended release medication is often prescribed along with a shorter-acting medication (oxycodone, morphine or hydromorphone) for breakthrough pain, or exacerbations.

Most opioid treatment used by patients outside of healthcare settings is oral (tablet, capsule or liquid), but suppositories and skin patches can be prescribed. An opioid injection is rarely needed for patients with chronic pain.

Although opioids are strong analgesics, they do not provide complete analgesia regardless of whether the pain is acute or chronic in origin. Opioids are effective analgesics in chronic malignant pain and modestly effective in nonmalignant pain management.[62] However, there are associated adverse effects, especially during the commencement or change in dose. When opioids are used for prolonged periods drug tolerance will occur. Other risks can include chemical dependency, diversion and addiction.[63][64]

Clinical guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain have been issued by the American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine. Included in these guidelines is the importance of assessing the patient for the risk of substance abuse, misuse, or addiction. Factors correlated with an elevated risk of opioid misuse include a history of substance use disorder, younger age, major depression, and the use of psychotropic medications.[65] Physicians who prescribe opioids should integrate this treatment with any psychotherapeutic intervention the patient may be receiving. The guidelines also recommend monitoring not only the pain but also the level of functioning and the achievement of therapeutic goals. The prescribing physician should be suspicious of abuse when a patient reports a reduction in pain but has no accompanying improvement in function or progress in achieving identified goals.[66]

The list below consists of commonly used opioid analgesics which have long-acting formulations. Common brand names for the extended release formulation are in parentheses.

*Methadone and buprenorphine are each used both for the treatment of opioid addiction and as analgesics

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

[edit]

The other major group of analgesics are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). They work by inhibiting the release of prostaglandins, which cause inflammatory pain. Acetaminophen/paracetamol is not always included in this class of medications. However, acetaminophen may be administered as a single medication or in combination with other analgesics (both NSAIDs and opioids). The alternatively prescribed NSAIDs such as ketoprofen and piroxicam have limited benefit in chronic pain disorders and with long-term use are associated with significant adverse effects. The use of selective NSAIDs designated as selective COX-2 inhibitors have significant cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks which have limited their utilization.[67][68] Common NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen. There are many NSAIDs such as parecoxib (selective COX-2 inhibitor) with proven effectiveness after different surgical procedures. Wide use of non-opioid analgesics can reduce opioid-induced side-effects.[69]

Antidepressants and antiepileptic drugs

[edit]

Some antidepressant and antiepileptic drugs are used in chronic pain management and act primarily within the pain pathways of the central nervous system, though peripheral mechanisms have been attributed as well. They are generally used to treat nerve brain that results from injury to the nervous system. Neuropathy can be due to chronic high blood sugar levels (diabetic neuropathy). These drugs also reduce pain from viruses such as shingles, phantom limb pain and post-stroke pain.[citation needed] These mechanisms vary and in general are more effective in neuropathic pain disorders as well as complex regional pain syndrome.[70] A common anti-epileptic drug is gabapentin, and an example of an antidepressant would be amitriptyline.[citation needed]

Cannabinoids

[edit]

The evidence for using cannabis for pain control varies in quality, but overall there is no good evidence cannabis is effective for any type of pain management, or that it is viable as a means of reducing opioid use.[71]

Ketamine

[edit]

Low-dose ketamine is sometimes used as an alternative to opioids for the treatment of acute pain in hospital emergency departments.[72][73] Ketamine probably? reduces pain more than opioids and with less nausea and vomiting.[74]

Other analgesics

[edit]

Other drugs which can potentiate conventional analgesics or have analgesic properties in certain circumstances are called analgesic adjuvant medications.[75] Gabapentin, an anticonvulsant, can reduce neuropathic pain itself and can also potentiate opiates.[76] Drugs with anticholinergic activity, such as orphenadrine and cyclobenzaprine, are given in conjunction with opioids for neuropathic pain. Orphenadrine and cyclobenzaprine are also muscle relaxants, and are useful in painful musculoskeletal conditions. Clonidine, an alpha-2 receptor agonist, is another drug that has found use as an analgesic adjuvant.[75] In 2021, researchers described a novel type of pain therapy — a CRISPR-dCas9 epigenome editing method for repressing Nav1.7 gene expression which showed therapeutic potential in three mouse models of chronic pain.[77][78]

Nefopam may be used when common alternatives are contraindicated or ineffective, or as an add-on therapy. However it is associated with adverse drug reactions and is toxic in overdose.[79]

Self-management

[edit]

As of 2024, the patient is encouraged to play a major role in the management of their pain.[80]

Self-management of chronic pain has been described as the individual's ability to manage various aspects of their chronic pain.[81] Self-management can include building self-efficacy, monitoring one's own symptoms, goal setting and action planning. It also includes patient-physician shared decision-making, among others.[81] The benefits of self-management vary depending on self-management techniques used. They only have marginal benefits in management of chronic musculoskeletal pain.[82] Some research has shown that self-management of pain can use different approaches. Those approaches can range from different therapies such as yoga, acupuncture, exercise and other relaxation techniques. Patients could also take a more natural approach by taking different minerals, vitamins or herbs. However, research has shown there is a difference between rural patients and non-rural patients having more access to different self-management approaches. Physicians in these areas may be readily prescribing more pain medication in these rural cities due to being less experienced with pain management. Simply put, it is sometimes easier for rural patients to get a prescription that insurance pays for instead of natural approaches that cost more money than they can afford to spend on their pain management. Self-management may be a more expensive alternative.[83]

Future directions

[edit]

A 2023 review said that future chronic pain diagnosis and treatment would be more personalized and precision based.[84]

Society and culture

[edit]

The medical treatment of pain as practiced in Greece and Turkey is called algology (from the Greek άλγος, algos, "pain"). The Hellenic Society of Algology and the Turkish Algology-Pain Society are the relevant local bodies affiliated to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP).[85]

Undertreatment

[edit]
Main article: Undertreatment of pain

Undertreatment of pain is the absence of pain management therapy for a person in pain when treatment is indicated.

Consensus in evidence-based medicine and the recommendations of medical specialty organizations establish guidelines to determine the treatment for pain which health care providers ought to offer.[86] For various social reasons, persons in pain may not seek or may not be able to access treatment for their pain.[86] Health care providers may not provide the treatment which authorities recommend.[86] Some studies about gender biases have concluded that female pain recipients are often overlooked when it comes to the perception of their pain. Whether they appeared to be in high levels of pain didn't make a difference for their observers. The women participants in the studies were still perceived to be in less pain than they actually were. Men participants on the other hand were offered pain relief while their self reporting indicated that their pain levels didn't necessarily warrant treatment. Biases exist when it comes to gender. Prescribers have been seen over and under prescribing treatment to individuals based on them being male or female [87].There are other prevalent reasons that undertreatment of pain occurs. Gender is a factor as well as race. When it comes to prescribers treating patients racial disparities has become a real factor. Research has shown that non-white individuals pain perception has affected their pain treatment. The African-American community has been shown to suffer significantly when it comes to trusting the medical community to treat them. Oftentimes medication although available to be prescribed is dispensed in less quantities due to their pain being perceived on a smaller scale. The black community could be undermined by physicians thinking they are not in as much pain as they are reporting. Another occurrence may be physicians simply making the choice not to treat the patient accordingly in spite of the self-reported pain level. Racial disparity is definitely a real issue in the world of pain management.[88]

In children

[edit]
Main article: Pain management in children

Acute pain is common in children and adolescents as a result of injury, illness, or necessary medical procedures.[89] Chronic pain is present in approximately 15–25% of children and adolescents. It may be caused by an underlying disease, such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, rheumatoid arthritis. Cancer or functional disorders such as migraines, fibromyalgia, and complex regional pain could also cause chronic pain in children.[90]

Young children can indicate their level of pain by pointing to the appropriate face on a children's pain scale.

Pain assessment in children is often challenging due to limitations in developmental level, cognitive ability, or their previous pain experiences. Clinicians must observe physiological and behavioral cues exhibited by the child to make an assessment. Self-report, if possible, is the most accurate measure of pain. Self-report pain scales involve younger kids matching their pain intensity to photographs of other children's faces, such as the Oucher Scale, pointing to schematics of faces showing different pain levels, or pointing out the location of pain on a body outline.[91] Questionnaires for older children and adolescents include the Varni-Thompson Pediatric Pain Questionnaire (PPQ) and the Children's Comprehensive Pain Questionnaire. They are often utilized for individuals with chronic or persistent pain.[91]

Acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and opioid analgesics are commonly used to treat acute or chronic pain symptoms in children and adolescents. However a pediatrician should be consulted before administering any medication.[91]

Caregivers may provide nonpharmacological treatment for children and adolescents because it carries minimal risk and is cost effective compared to pharmacological treatment. Nonpharmacologic interventions vary by age and developmental factors. Physical interventions to ease pain in infants include swaddling, rocking, or sucrose via a pacifier. For children and adolescents physical interventions include hot or cold application, massage, or acupuncture.[92] Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) aims to reduce the emotional distress and improve the daily functioning of school-aged children and adolescents with pain by changing the relationship between their thoughts and emotions. In addition this therapy teaches them adaptive coping strategies. Integrated interventions in CBT include relaxation technique, mindfulness, biofeedback, and acceptance (in the case of chronic pain).[93] Many therapists will hold sessions for caregivers to provide them with effective management strategies.[90]

In red-haired individuals

In recent studies, it has been noted that people who have red-hair through the MC1R receptor gene may react to opioids and perceive pain differently than the rest of the population.[94] The studies on this developing topic have only become notable in the past few years with researchers looking into how red-haired individuals may experience a different threshold in pain and react to pain management differently than others. Most studies find that redheads with this gene have a higher pain tolerance and can also react more sensitively to opiates but require more anesthesia.[95]

Professional certification

[edit]

Pain management practitioners come from all fields of medicine. In addition to medical practitioners, a pain management team may often benefit from the input of pharmacists, physiotherapists, clinical psychologists and occupational therapists, among others. Together the multidisciplinary team can help create a package of care suitable to the patient.

Pain medicine in the United States

[edit]

Pain physicians are often fellowship-trained board-certified anesthesiologists, neurologists, physiatrists, emergency physicians, or psychiatrists. Palliative care doctors are also specialists in pain management. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, the American Board of Anesthesiology, the American Osteopathic Board of Anesthesiology (recognized by the AOABOS), the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the American Board of Emergency Medicine and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology[96] each provide certification for a subspecialty in pain management following fellowship training. The fellowship training is recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or the American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists (AOABOS). As the field of pain medicine has grown rapidly, many practitioners have entered the field, some non-ACGME board-certified.[97]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Pain management

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Pain management is the multidisciplinary clinical discipline dedicated to the assessment, , and alleviation of pain through integrated multimodal interventions that target its sensory, emotional, and functional impacts, aiming to minimize suffering, restore functionality, and enhance via pharmacological, rehabilitative, psychological, and interventional techniques. Central to the field is a shift from opioid-centric prescribing, which fueled the ongoing crisis of and overdose—exacerbated by pharmaceutical-driven overpromotion and lenient guidelines leading to millions of prescriptions for chronic non-cancer pain—to evidence-based strategies prioritizing non-opioid analgesics, physical therapies like exercise and , cognitive-behavioral interventions, and procedures such as or epidural injections, though many such approaches yield only modest pain reductions requiring individualized application. Notable advancements include refined understanding of pain neurobiology enabling targeted therapies, such as the 2025 U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of suzetrigine (Journavx), a non-opioid NaV1.8 inhibitor for moderate-to-severe acute pain that avoids addiction risks associated with traditional opioids, alongside growing emphasis on multidisciplinary teams to address undertreatment in complex cases while mitigating iatrogenic harms from prior overreliance on systemic medications.

Definition and Classification of Pain

Acute versus Chronic Pain

Acute pain is characterized by its sudden onset and limited duration, typically ranging from seconds to three months, and is directly linked to an identifiable cause such as tissue damage, , , or acute illness, serving an adaptive biological function as a warning signal to protect the body. In contrast, persists for more than three months, often exceeding the expected time for tissue , and may occur without ongoing nociceptive input or a clear peripheral cause, potentially reflecting maladaptive neuroplastic changes rather than a proportional response to . This distinction in duration aligns with clinical guidelines, where acute pain is sometimes subdivided into immediate (<1 month) and subacute (1-3 months) phases before transitioning to chronic if unresolved. Physiologically, acute pain arises primarily from activation of peripheral nociceptors via A-delta and C-fibers in response to noxious stimuli, transmitting signals through the spinothalamic tract to elicit reflexive protective behaviors and localized inflammation, which generally resolves as the underlying pathology heals. Chronic pain, however, often involves central sensitization, where repeated nociceptive input leads to amplified spinal and supraspinal processing, lowered pain thresholds, and expansion of receptive fields, decoupling pain perception from peripheral damage and incorporating emotional, cognitive, and autonomic components that perpetuate the condition. Unlike acute pain's self-limiting nature tied to causal resolution, chronic pain can emerge from unresolved acute episodes or idiopathic processes, with risk factors including genetic predispositions, prior trauma, and psychosocial elements, though empirical evidence emphasizes that not all acute pain progresses to chronicity, occurring in approximately 10-50% of cases depending on the inciting event. In pain management contexts, recognizing this dichotomy guides therapeutic approaches: acute pain prioritizes rapid intervention targeting the source, such as non-opioid analgesics, local anesthetics, or short-term opioids to facilitate recovery without risking dependency, whereas chronic pain requires multimodal strategies addressing sensitization, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, physical therapy, and cognitive-behavioral interventions, as opioid escalation shows limited long-term efficacy and heightened risks of tolerance and hyperalgesia. Accurate classification is essential, as misattributing chronic pain to acute mechanisms can delay comprehensive care, while over-medicalizing self-resolving acute pain may contribute to iatrogenic chronicity through unnecessary interventions.

Nociceptive, Neuropathic, and Nociplastic Pain

Pain is mechanistically classified into three primary categories by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP): nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic, reflecting distinct underlying processes in pain generation and transmission. This classification, formalized in updates around 2017, aids in diagnosis and treatment selection by distinguishing pain arising from tissue damage, neural pathology, or altered central processing without evident peripheral input. While pure forms are rare and overlaps occur—such as in chronic conditions where multiple mechanisms coexist—these descriptors emphasize causal pathways over symptom descriptions alone. Nociceptive pain originates from actual or potential damage to non-neural tissues, activating peripheral nociceptors—specialized sensory receptors responsive to mechanical, thermal, or chemical stimuli. These nociceptors, primarily Aδ and C fibers, transduce noxious inputs into electrical signals transmitted via spinal pathways to the brain, serving an adaptive protective function. Common causes include trauma, surgery, inflammation, or ischemia, with examples encompassing somatic pain from fractures or visceral pain from organ distension. Characteristics typically involve localized, proportionate aching or throbbing sensations that subside with tissue healing, though inflammatory mediators like prostaglandins can amplify responses via sensitization. Neuropathic pain results from a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system, leading to aberrant signaling independent of peripheral stimuli. Mechanisms include ectopic firing in damaged nerves, central disinhibition, or neuroinflammation, often producing dysesthesias such as burning, shooting, or electric-shock-like sensations, alongside allodynia (pain from non-noxious touch) and hyperalgesia. Prevalent causes encompass peripheral neuropathies from diabetes (affecting up to 50% of patients with long-standing disease), postherpetic neuralgia following shingles, trigeminal neuralgia from cranial nerve compression, or central variants like post-stroke pain. Unlike nociceptive pain, it persists beyond any initial injury and responds poorly to standard analgesics, reflecting maladaptive neural plasticity. Nociplastic pain, a term introduced by the IASP in 2017, denotes persistent pain arising from altered nociception in the absence of evidence for ongoing tissue damage activating nociceptors or somatosensory lesions. It involves amplified central processing, such as widespread sensitization, reduced descending inhibition, or enhanced brain connectivity in pain matrices, without peripheral drivers. Diagnostic criteria require regional or widespread pain disproportionate to identifiable pathology, often with comorbidities like fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive issues; examples include fibromyalgia (prevalence ~2-8% in adults), irritable bowel syndrome, and nonspecific chronic low back pain. This category, while useful for phenotyping treatment-resistant cases, remains debated for lacking specific biomarkers, emphasizing the need for multimodal assessment over reliance on self-report alone.

Pain Assessment Methods

Pain assessment primarily relies on patient self-report, which serves as the gold standard due to its direct reflection of subjective experience. Validated tools distinguish between acute and chronic pain, evaluate intensity, and assess functional impairment to guide management. Unidimensional scales measure pain intensity on a single dimension, while multidimensional tools capture sensory, affective, and evaluative aspects. Common unidimensional self-report tools include the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), where patients rate pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), widely used for its simplicity and reliability in adults. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) involves marking a 10 cm line from "no pain" to "worst pain," offering continuous measurement but requiring cognitive intactness. Verbal Rating Scales (VRS) use descriptive categories like "none," "mild," "moderate," "severe," or "excruciating," suitable for those with low literacy. For pediatric patients, the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale employs six cartoon faces ranging from smiling (0) to tearful (10), facilitating communication in children aged 3 years and older with demonstrated validity. In patients unable to self-report, such as infants, those with dementia, or intubated individuals, behavioral observational scales are employed. The assesses five categories—face, legs, activity, cry, and consolability—each scored 0-2 for a total of 0-10, validated for children aged 2 months to 7 years and adaptable for nonverbal adults. The PAINAD scale for advanced dementia evaluates breathing, vocalization, facial expression, body language, and consolability, each scored 0-2, providing a reliable proxy with interrater agreement exceeding 80% in studies. Multidimensional assessments offer deeper insights beyond intensity. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), developed in 1975, includes 78 descriptors grouped into sensory, affective, and evaluative subclasses, plus a present pain intensity index and VAS, enabling characterization of pain quality and validated across conditions like cancer. Short-form versions reduce administration time to 2-3 minutes while retaining reliability. These tools collectively ensure comprehensive evaluation, though limitations persist in cultural or cognitive variances, necessitating clinician judgment.

Pathophysiology of Pain

Neural Mechanisms

Pain signals originate from specialized peripheral sensory receptors known as nociceptors, which detect potentially damaging stimuli such as mechanical, thermal, or chemical insults. These nociceptors, primarily free nerve endings, transduce noxious stimuli into electrical impulses via ion channels like for heat or ASIC for acids, initiating action potentials in thinly myelinated Aδ fibers for sharp, localized pain and unmyelinated C fibers for dull, diffuse pain. Primary afferent fibers carrying these signals enter the spinal cord through the dorsal root ganglia and synapse onto second-order neurons in the dorsal horn, predominantly in laminae I, II (substantia gelatinosa), and V. In the dorsal horn, neurotransmitters such as glutamate from Aδ/C fibers bind to AMPA/NMDA receptors on projection neurons, facilitating signal transmission, while substance P and CGRP amplify excitability. Local interneurons, including inhibitory and glycinergic cells, provide initial modulation to prevent excessive firing. Ascending pathways relay processed signals from the dorsal horn to supraspinal structures via the anterolateral system, primarily the spinothalamic tract, which decussates at spinal levels and projects to the thalamus. The paleospinothalamic tract targets brainstem nuclei for affective components, while the neospinothalamic tract conveys discriminative aspects rapidly. From the thalamus, thalamocortical projections distribute to the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) for sensory localization and intensity, secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) for integration, insula for interoceptive and emotional aspects, and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) for motivational and attentional pain responses. Descending modulation from brainstem regions like the periaqueductal gray (PAG) and rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) exerts bidirectional control over dorsal horn activity, inhibiting or facilitating nociceptive transmission. Endogenous opioids, including enkephalins, endorphins, and dynorphins, bind μ-, δ-, and κ-opioid receptors in these circuits to suppress pain via presynaptic inhibition of primary afferents and postsynaptic hyperpolarization of projection neurons, often activated by stress or placebo effects. Dysregulation, such as opioid receptor desensitization or loss of inhibition, contributes to chronic pain states. ![Mu-opioid receptor structure][float-right] Central sensitization emerges when repeated nociceptive input leads to amplified synaptic efficacy in the dorsal horn via activation and wind-up phenomena, lowering thresholds for subsequent pain signals. In the brain, functional connectivity between S1, insula, and ACC integrates sensory-discriminative, affective-motivational, and cognitive-evaluative dimensions of pain, with fMRI studies confirming bilateral activation in these regions during noxious stimulation.

Inflammatory and Central Sensitization Processes

Inflammatory processes in pain pathophysiology primarily involve peripheral sensitization, where tissue injury or infection triggers the release of proinflammatory mediators from immune cells, damaged tissues, and activated nociceptors. These mediators—including cytokines (e.g., IL-1β, TNF-α), prostaglandins (e.g., PGE2), bradykinin, serotonin, and neuropeptides like substance P—act on peripheral sensory neurons to lower nociceptor activation thresholds and enhance responsiveness. For instance, prostaglandins synthesized via cyclooxygenase enzymes bind to EP receptors on nociceptors, increasing membrane excitability through cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase A pathways, while bradykinin activates B2 receptors to depolarize neurons via TRPV1 channel sensitization. This results in primary hyperalgesia at the injury site, characterized by amplified pain to noxious stimuli, and contributes to the acute protective role of pain by promoting tissue guarding during healing. Persistent inflammation can exacerbate peripheral sensitization by recruiting additional immune cells, such as mast cells and macrophages, which release proteases and growth factors (e.g., NGF) that further upregulate transient receptor potential (TRP) channels and voltage-gated sodium channels on nociceptors. Studies in rodent models of carrageenan-induced paw inflammation demonstrate that blocking these mediators, such as with COX inhibitors, reduces mechanical hypersensitivity by 40-60% within hours, underscoring their causal role independent of central adaptations. However, unresolved inflammation risks transitioning to chronic states if mediators induce long-term neuronal plasticity, including increased expression of receptors, which lowers heat detection thresholds from ~43°C to ~35°C in sensitized afferents. Central sensitization represents an amplified processing of pain signals within the central nervous system, particularly in the spinal dorsal horn, where repeated nociceptive input leads to enhanced synaptic efficacy and neuronal hyperexcitability. This process, first described in the 1980s through wind-up phenomena in animal models, involves NMDA receptor activation by glutamate, removing magnesium blockade and enabling calcium influx that triggers intracellular cascades like MAPK/ERK signaling for long-term potentiation of synapses. Cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α, released from microglia and astrocytes, further promote this by reducing inhibitory GABAergic and glycinergic transmission while boosting excitatory AMPA and NMDA currents, resulting in secondary hyperalgesia and allodynia beyond the primary injury site. In human functional imaging studies, central sensitization correlates with expanded receptive fields in wide-dynamic-range neurons, where innocuous stimuli evoke pain responses persisting for weeks in conditions like fibromyalgia, reflecting structural changes like dendritic spine remodeling observed in rodent spinal cord slices after sustained C-fiber stimulation. Unlike peripheral sensitization, central mechanisms persist post-inflammation resolution, contributing to nociplastic pain through descending facilitation from brainstem nuclei like the rostral ventromedial medulla.

Epidemiology and Societal Burden

Prevalence and Risk Factors

Chronic pain affects approximately 20-25% of adults worldwide, with estimates varying by region and methodology. A 2023 multinational study across 52 countries reported an unweighted prevalence of 28% for reported pain among adults, highlighting substantial global variability influenced by socioeconomic factors and access to healthcare. In the United States, data from the 2023 National Health Interview Survey indicate that 24.3% of adults experienced chronic pain—defined as pain on most days for at least three months—in the past three months, up from 20.9% in 2021, equating to roughly 62 million individuals. High-impact chronic pain, which substantially limits life or work activities, affected 8.5% of U.S. adults in 2023, or about 22 million people. These figures underscore chronic pain's role as a leading contributor to disability, with prevalence rising over time potentially due to aging populations and increased recognition through surveys. Prevalence disparities exist across demographics. Women consistently report higher rates than men, with odds ratios often exceeding 1.5 in epidemiological analyses, attributed to biological differences in pain processing and higher comorbidity burdens such as fibromyalgia. Older adults face elevated risks, with pain proportion increasing with age groups, peaking in those over 65 due to degenerative conditions like osteoarthritis. Lower socioeconomic status, including reduced education and income, correlates with higher incidence; for instance, U.S. adults without a college degree exhibited greater progression to chronic pain in longitudinal studies. Key risk factors for developing chronic pain include modifiable lifestyle elements and immutable traits. Obesity and smoking independently elevate risk, with epidemiological data linking excess body mass index to mechanical strain and inflammation, increasing odds by 1.5-2 times for conditions like low back pain. Psychological factors, such as pain catastrophizing and emotional distress, predict persistence and incidence, as evidenced by prospective cohorts where these traits doubled the likelihood of transition from acute to chronic states. Comorbidities like depression, anxiety, and prior acute injuries further amplify vulnerability through shared neural pathways and central sensitization. Genetic predispositions and early-life adversity also contribute, though environmental and behavioral factors predominate in population-level models. These risks interact causally, where untreated acute pain or poor coping mechanisms can perpetuate cycles leading to chronicity.

Economic and Quality-of-Life Impacts

Chronic pain accounts for a significant portion of national healthcare expenditures and productivity losses. In the United States, the annual economic burden of chronic pain reached approximately $447 billion in recent estimates, excluding direct surgical costs, driven by medical treatments, medications, and disability-related expenses. This figure aligns with broader analyses indicating total costs, including indirect losses from reduced workforce participation, exceeding $560–$635 billion per year as of earlier comprehensive studies, surpassing expenditures on major conditions like cancer and diabetes. Globally, the socioeconomic impact escalates with rising prevalence, contributing to productivity declines estimated in billions, such as AU$48.3 billion in lost work output in Australia alone in 2018. Unmanaged or inadequately treated chronic pain amplifies these costs through increased emergency visits, hospitalizations, and long-term disability claims. For instance, adults with high-impact chronic pain—defined as pain limiting life or work activities—experience elevated healthcare utilization, with U.S. data from 2019–2021 showing over 21 million affected individuals by 2023, correlating with heightened absenteeism and early retirement. Interventions like multidisciplinary pain programs demonstrate cost-effectiveness by curbing these escalations, with evidence from controlled trials indicating reduced per-patient annual costs compared to conventional care alone. On quality-of-life metrics, chronic pain substantially impairs physical, emotional, and social functioning, yielding lower scores on standardized assessments like the compared to pain-free populations. Affected individuals face fourfold higher risks of depression and anxiety, alongside diminished self-esteem, sleep disturbances, and relational strains, often perpetuating a cycle of isolation and reduced daily activity participation. Longitudinal studies confirm these deficits persist across genders and demographics, with women reporting marginally greater interference in social roles, though effective management—via multimodal approaches—can restore functionality and mitigate mental health comorbidities, as evidenced by improved composite quality-of-life scores post-intervention.

Historical Development

Early Approaches and Milestones

The earliest documented approaches to pain management involved natural remedies derived from plants, particularly opium from the poppy, which Sumerians cultivated and used as a pain reliever around 3400 BC, with prescriptions recorded on clay tablets dating back approximately 8000 years. Archaeological evidence from prehistoric sites indicates practices like trephination—drilling holes in the skull—to alleviate headaches or cranial pressure, suggesting an intuitive recognition of localized pain sources. In ancient Egypt, Greece, India, and China between 1500 and 1300 BC, opium was applied for surgical and chronic pain relief, often combined with alcohol or herbal mixtures, while (c. 460–370 BC) explicitly endorsed its efficacy for diverse pains without noting addiction risks. During the Roman era and into the Byzantine period, opium extracts remained central, with physicians like Pedanius Dioscorides (1st century CE) documenting its anesthetic properties for surgeries, alongside alternatives such as mandrake root or henbane for sedation. In the Islamic Golden Age, (980–1037 CE) systematically described opium's mechanism in blocking pain transmission via sensory numbing, recommending it for acute injuries and advocating moderation to avoid respiratory depression.30263-5/fulltext) Medieval European practices echoed these, incorporating opium tinctures (laudanum) for labor pains and wounds, though bloodletting and cautery persisted as crude interventions based on humoral theory rather than empirical pain pathways. The 17th and 18th centuries saw opium's widespread adoption in Europe for postoperative and chronic pain, administered orally or via enemas, but dependency issues emerged without purified forms. A pivotal milestone occurred in 1804 when German pharmacist Friedrich Sertürner isolated as the active alkaloid from opium, enabling standardized dosing and marking the birth of modern pharmacology for targeted analgesia. Surgical pain management transformed with the 1846 public demonstration of diethyl ether anesthesia by William T.G. Morton at Massachusetts General Hospital on October 16, allowing painless procedures like tumor excisions, followed rapidly by chloroform's introduction in 1847 for obstetric use. These developments shifted paradigms from endurance-based tolerance to pharmacological blockade of nociception, though ether's flammability and chloroform's hepatotoxicity prompted refinements.

Evolution of Modern Guidelines

The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced its three-step analgesic ladder in 1986 as a framework for managing cancer-related pain, recommending progression from non-opioid analgesics for mild pain, to weak opioids combined with non-opioids for moderate pain, and strong opioids for severe pain, emphasizing "by the clock, by the mouth" administration to maintain steady relief. This approach, developed amid global concerns over undertreated terminal pain, aimed to standardize care using accessible oral medications and was validated in subsequent studies showing effective relief in 70-90% of patients when followed. Its influence extended beyond oncology, shaping general pain guidelines by prioritizing stepwise escalation based on pain intensity rather than etiology. In the United States, the 1990s marked a shift toward formalized guidelines for both acute and chronic non-cancer pain, driven by organizations like the American Pain Society, which advocated multimodal strategies incorporating pharmacological, psychological, and interventional methods to address undertreatment documented in surveys revealing widespread patient dissatisfaction. The Joint Commission's 2000 pain management standards further institutionalized pain assessment as a quality metric—often termed the "fifth vital sign"—requiring routine screening and treatment plans, which correlated with a surge in opioid prescriptions from 76 million in 1991 to over 200 million by 2010, reflecting an intent to combat perceived stigma against pain relief but later criticized for incentivizing overprescribing without adequate risk stratification. The opioid overdose epidemic, with U.S. deaths rising from 21,000 in 2010 to 72,000 in 2017, prompted guideline revisions emphasizing risk mitigation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its first opioid prescribing guideline in 2016, recommending non-opioid therapies as first-line for chronic pain, immediate-release over extended-release formulations, and limiting initial doses to ≤90 morphine milligram equivalents per day to curb dependency risks evidenced by epidemiological data linking high-dose chronic use to 2-8 times higher overdose rates. This was updated in 2022 to provide more flexible dosing guidance, stress individualized assessment over rigid thresholds, and incorporate non-pharmacological options like physical therapy, reflecting meta-analyses showing opioids' marginal long-term efficacy for chronic non-cancer pain (effect sizes of 0.2-0.5 on pain scales) outweighed by harms in population-level studies. Contemporary guidelines, such as those from the (2017) and subsequent inter-agency reports, advocate multimodal, patient-centered protocols integrating evidence-based non-opioids (e.g., NSAIDs, acetaminophen), behavioral interventions, and judicious opioids only when benefits demonstrably exceed risks, informed by randomized trials and real-world data indicating 50-70% improvement in function from combined approaches versus opioids alone. This evolution underscores a causal pivot from enthusiasm for pharmacological escalation—fueled by early advocacy against pain neglect—to empirical restraint, prioritizing harm reduction amid revelations that prior lax standards contributed to iatrogenic addiction in vulnerable populations.

Core Principles of Effective Management

Multimodal and Individualized Therapy

Multimodal therapy in pain management integrates multiple treatment modalities, such as pharmacological agents, physical interventions, and psychological techniques, to target diverse nociceptive pathways and minimize reliance on any single class of drugs. This approach leverages synergistic effects among interventions acting on peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal mechanisms of pain transmission, thereby enhancing analgesia while reducing adverse effects like opioid-induced respiratory depression or gastrointestinal issues. Systematic reviews of postoperative settings demonstrate that multimodal regimens, including non-opioid analgesics like acetaminophen and NSAIDs alongside regional anesthesia, decrease opioid consumption by 30-50% compared to opioid monotherapy, with corresponding reductions in nausea and sedation. Evidence from meta-analyses supports multimodal strategies' superiority in chronic and acute pain contexts, showing improved pain scores, shorter hospital stays, and better functional recovery; for instance, enhanced recovery after surgery protocols incorporating multimodal analgesia report 20-40% lower rates of postoperative complications like ileus or delirium. These benefits stem from causal mechanisms where combining agents—such as gabapentinoids for central sensitization with anti-inflammatories for peripheral inflammation—interrupts pain amplification without the tolerance buildup seen in unimodal opioid use. However, implementation requires careful selection to avoid interactions, as unsupported combinations can elevate risks like bleeding from concurrent NSAIDs and anticoagulants. Individualization tailors multimodal regimens to patient-specific factors, including pain etiology, comorbidities, genetic polymorphisms in drug metabolism (e.g., variants affecting codeine efficacy), and psychosocial determinants like anxiety exacerbating central sensitization. Clinical guidelines advocate comprehensive assessments—encompassing quantitative sensory testing, imaging, and validated scales—to stratify patients and predict responses, enabling adjustments such as prioritizing non-pharmacological options for those with hepatic impairment. Personalized plans integrating patient preferences and real-time feedback have yielded up to 25% greater reductions in chronic pain intensity versus standardized protocols, as evidenced by cohort studies emphasizing iterative monitoring. This principle counters one-size-fits-all pitfalls, where generic opioid escalation ignores variability in pain thresholds influenced by age or neuropathy prevalence.

Evidence-Based Decision Making

Evidence-based decision making in pain management integrates the highest-quality scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks. This approach emphasizes systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as foundational elements, prioritizing interventions with demonstrated efficacy over anecdotal or low-level evidence. For instance, guidelines recommend initiating non-pharmacological therapies, such as exercise, for chronic low back pain due to consistent evidence from high-quality reviews showing reductions in pain and disability. The hierarchy of evidence guides treatment selection, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses ranking highest, followed by RCTs, cohort studies, and case series. In chronic pain, bodies of RCTs initially deemed high-strength may be downgraded for limitations like small sample sizes or short follow-up periods, particularly for long-term opioid use where observational data reveal risks of dependence outweighing benefits in non-cancer settings. Network meta-analyses from 2024 comparing pharmaceuticals for chronic pain highlight modest efficacy differences, underscoring the need to weigh absolute risk reductions against harms like addiction potential. Pain assessment tools, validated through rigorous studies, inform decisions by quantifying severity and response to therapy. The Wong-Baker FACES scale, reliable across pediatric and adult populations, facilitates objective tracking, enabling adjustments based on empirical thresholds for intervention escalation. Clinical guidelines, such as the 2022 CDC recommendations, advocate non-opioid analgesics and multimodal strategies first for acute and chronic pain, reserving opioids for cases where benefits demonstrably exceed risks, informed by emerging evidence from observational studies. Challenges persist due to pain's heterogeneity and evidence gaps, including over-reliance on short-term RCTs that fail to capture chronic trajectories or real-world adherence. The opioid epidemic has prompted cautious prescribing, yet abrupt guideline shifts risk undertreatment and increased suicides among chronic pain patients, as noted in analyses critiquing policy-driven restrictions over patient-specific data. Recent innovations, like interdisciplinary programs for complex regional pain syndrome, show moderate efficacy in systematic reviews, supporting individualized plans that incorporate genetic and psychosocial factors for precision.

Non-Pharmacological Interventions

Physical and Exercise-Based Therapies

Physical therapies encompass manual techniques such as joint mobilization, soft tissue manipulation, and massage, which aim to alleviate pain through biomechanical correction and neuromuscular facilitation. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials indicates that manual physical therapy provides short-term pain relief in chronic musculoskeletal conditions, though long-term benefits are less consistent and may depend on integration with other interventions. Evidence from meta-analyses suggests these approaches are particularly effective for nonspecific low back pain when addressing multidimensional pain factors, including central sensitization. Physical modalities, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), superficial heat, and ultrasound, are commonly employed to modulate pain signals and promote tissue healing. A review of non-invasive therapies highlights moderate evidence for TENS in reducing chronic primary pain intensity, potentially via gate control theory mechanisms that inhibit nociceptive transmission. However, systematic evaluations note limited high-quality data supporting ultrasound or cryotherapy for sustained relief, with effects often confined to acute phases or as adjuncts. Heat therapy demonstrates short-term efficacy in musculoskeletal pain by enhancing blood flow and reducing muscle spasm, but overuse risks counterproductive inflammation. Exercise-based therapies, including aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training, form a cornerstone of non-pharmacological pain management, particularly for chronic conditions like low back pain and osteoarthritis. A 2021 Cochrane review of 21 trials involving over 30,000 participants found that exercise therapy moderately reduces pain (mean difference of 10-15 points on a 100-point scale) and disability in chronic low back pain compared to usual care, with benefits persisting up to one year. Recent meta-analyses confirm aerobic exercises improve short- and mid-term pain in knee osteoarthritis, outperforming controls by enhancing joint function and reducing inflammatory markers. Individualized programs, incorporating painful versus nonpainful exercises, yield comparable outcomes, emphasizing adherence over intensity avoidance. Graded exercise protocols mitigate fear-avoidance behaviors and promote neuroplastic changes, countering central pain amplification. For instance, a 2022 meta-analysis of 58 randomized trials with 10,084 patients showed individualized exercise confers small but clinically relevant reductions in chronic nonspecific low back pain intensity. Combining exercise with pain neuroscience education enhances outcomes, as evidenced by systematic reviews reporting greater disability reductions when addressing pain mechanisms. Despite these benefits, effect sizes remain modest (SMD -0.25 to -0.43), underscoring the need for multimodal integration rather than reliance on exercise alone.

Psychological and Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches

Psychological approaches to pain management address the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of pain experience, positing that maladaptive thoughts and responses can amplify pain perception and disability beyond nociceptive input. These interventions aim to modify pain-related appraisals, coping strategies, and avoidance behaviors to enhance functioning, drawing on evidence that psychological factors account for up to 30-50% of variance in chronic pain outcomes. Systematic reviews indicate that such therapies yield small to moderate reductions in pain intensity and improvements in psychological distress, particularly when integrated with physical modalities. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) represents the most extensively studied psychological intervention for chronic pain, involving structured techniques to reframe catastrophic thinking, develop adaptive coping skills, and promote behavioral activation. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials demonstrate that CBT achieves short-term reductions in pain severity (effect size d ≈ 0.3-0.5) and disability, with benefits persisting up to 12 months in some cohorts, though effects on pain intensity are often modest compared to pharmacological options. For instance, in patients with chronic low back pain, CBT delivered alongside physiotherapy significantly outperforms usual care, reducing pain interference by 20-30% at six months. Limitations include inconsistent superiority over active controls and weaker impacts on negative affect in certain populations, such as those with high baseline depression. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), a third-wave CBT variant, emphasizes psychological flexibility by fostering acceptance of pain sensations while committing to value-driven actions, rather than direct symptom reduction. Evidence from meta-analyses supports ACT's efficacy, showing medium effect sizes (d ≈ 0.4-0.6) for pain acceptance, functional improvement, and reduced distress in chronic pain conditions like fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis, with gains maintained at 3-6 months follow-up. A 2023 meta-analysis confirmed ACT's benefits across diverse pain types, attributing outcomes to enhanced pain tolerance rather than altered nociception. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), including mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), train sustained attention to present-moment experiences to decouple pain from evaluative judgments. Systematic reviews report moderate evidence for MBIs in lowering pain unpleasantness and improving quality of life, with effect sizes comparable to CBT (d ≈ 0.3) in chronic conditions, though benefits are smaller for objective pain measures and may require 8-12 weeks of practice. In veterans with chronic pain, telehealth-delivered MBIs enhanced function and biopsychosocial outcomes, rivaling in-person formats. Overall, psychological therapies like these are most effective for non-malignant chronic pain, with combined approaches yielding superior long-term adherence and outcomes over standalone use.

Self-Management and Lifestyle Modifications

Self-management of chronic pain encompasses patient-initiated strategies to mitigate symptoms and enhance function, including activity pacing, goal setting, and cognitive techniques such as cognitive behavioral therapy elements. These approaches empower individuals to actively participate in their care, with evidence from systematic reviews indicating reductions in pain intensity and improvements in self-efficacy when incorporating education on pain mechanisms and physical exercises. Peer-led programs, like adaptations of the Stanford Chronic Pain Self-Management Program, have demonstrated efficacy in decreasing pain symptoms and boosting health-related behaviors in community settings. Regular physical activity stands as a cornerstone of lifestyle modification, with meta-analyses confirming its role in alleviating chronic pain across conditions like low back pain and fibromyalgia. For instance, Tai Chi emerged as particularly effective for reducing chronic low back pain intensity in a 2025 network meta-analysis of adult populations. Aerobic and strengthening exercises, when supervised and combined with stretching, outperform home-based stretching alone in diminishing fibromyalgia pain and severity, as per a 2025 review. Exercise adherence correlates directly with gains in pain relief and functional capacity, underscoring the need for tailored prescriptions to sustain engagement. Painful versus nonpainful exercise modalities yield comparable outcomes in intensity reduction, allowing flexibility based on tolerance. Nutritional interventions targeting anti-inflammatory diets represent another modifiable factor, with systematic reviews supporting their adjunctive role in pain attenuation. Diets rich in polyphenols and nutrient-dense foods—such as fruits, vegetables, and healthy fats—exert anti-inflammatory effects that correlate with decreased chronic pain severity. Optimizing dietary patterns, including weight management through caloric control, enhances nervous and immune system function, thereby improving pain thresholds. In obese individuals, weight loss via dietary interventions has been linked to lower pain prevalence and better mobility, with cohort studies showing significant reductions following structured programs. Adequate sleep hygiene practices, including consistent bedtimes and pre-sleep relaxation routines, address the bidirectional relationship between poor sleep and heightened pain sensitivity. Disrupted sleep lowers pain thresholds, perpetuating a cycle amenable to self-management via avoidance of stimulants and optimized sleep environments. Establishing routines reinforces circadian rhythms, with evidence suggesting such measures mitigate insomnia symptoms in chronic pain sufferers. Cessation of smoking and stress reduction further bolster outcomes, as lifestyle factors like tobacco use exacerbate pain persistence through inflammatory pathways. Multicomponent interventions integrating these elements yield superior results over isolated changes, emphasizing holistic adoption for sustained relief.

Pharmacological Treatments

Non-Opioid Analgesics and Anti-Inflammatories

Non-opioid analgesics, including acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), serve as foundational pharmacological options for managing mild to moderate acute, subacute, and chronic pain, often prioritized over opioids due to lower risks of dependence and respiratory depression. Clinical guidelines emphasize their use in multimodal regimens, particularly for conditions responsive to anti-inflammatory or antipyretic effects, with evidence indicating equivalence or superiority to opioids for many common pain types without the associated overdose hazards. Acetaminophen targets central pain pathways via selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-3 and modulation of endocannabinoid signaling, while NSAIDs block peripheral prostaglandin synthesis by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 enzymes, addressing both nociceptive and inflammatory components. Acetaminophen, dosed up to 4 grams daily in adults, provides analgesia through central mechanisms without significant anti-inflammatory action, making it suitable for non-inflammatory pain like headache or postoperative discomfort. Meta-analyses of acute low back pain trials show it yields no clinically meaningful reduction in pain intensity versus placebo, with mean differences of 0.2 points on a 0-10 scale (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.4). In contrast, intravenous formulations at 2 grams daily have reduced opioid requirements by approximately 20-30% in postoperative settings, alongside modest pain score improvements, though hepatic toxicity risks escalate beyond recommended limits, with overdose linked to acute liver failure in up to 1% of chronic users exceeding 4 grams. NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen (200-400 mg every 6-8 hours) and naproxen (250-500 mg twice daily), excel in inflammatory conditions like osteoarthritis or musculoskeletal strains by suppressing prostaglandin-mediated sensitization of nociceptors, with network meta-analyses confirming superior pain relief over placebo (standardized mean differences of 0.5-1.0) and comparable or better tolerability than opioids for short-term use. For chronic low back pain, oral NSAIDs reduce symptoms by 10-20 points on visual analog scales versus placebo, though efficacy wanes beyond 12 weeks. Risks include dose-dependent gastrointestinal ulceration (relative risk 2-4 for daily users) and cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 1.2-1.6 after 1-2 years), prompting selective COX-2 inhibitors like celecoxib for high-risk patients despite similar thrombotic concerns. Topical NSAIDs offer localized relief with 50-70% lower systemic exposure, minimizing adverse events while retaining efficacy for knee osteoarthritis (number needed to treat: 4-6).
Common NSAIDTypical Dose (Oral)Primary IndicationsKey Risks
Ibuprofen200-400 mg q6-8hAcute musculoskeletal pain, dysmenorrheaGI irritation, renal impairment
Naproxen250-500 mg bidChronic inflammatory arthritisCV events with prolonged use, hypertension exacerbation
Celecoxib100-200 mg dailyOsteoarthritis in GI-risk patientsReduced GI risk but potential CV equivalence to non-selective
Emerging non-opioid options, such as (a NaV1.8 sodium channel blocker approved by the FDA in 2025), demonstrate efficacy in moderate to severe acute pain with nausea reduction versus placebo in phase 3 trials, potentially expanding alternatives for refractory cases, though long-term data remain limited. Overall, patient-specific factors like renal function, age, and comorbidity profile dictate selection, with monitoring for hepatotoxicity in acetaminophen and combined organ risks in NSAIDs essential for safe application.

Opioids: Mechanisms, Efficacy, and Risks

Opioids exert their analgesic effects primarily through binding to mu-opioid receptors (MOP), which are G-protein-coupled receptors located presynaptically and postsynaptically in the central and peripheral nervous systems. This binding inhibits adenylate cyclase activity, reduces cyclic AMP levels, and activates potassium channels while inhibiting calcium channels, leading to neuronal hyperpolarization and decreased release of excitatory neurotransmitters such as substance P and glutamate in the spinal dorsal horn. Consequently, opioids suppress ascending pain signals from primary afferents to second-order neurons, modulating nociceptive transmission at the spinal level and altering pain perception in supraspinal regions like the periaqueductal gray and thalamus. In acute pain management, opioids demonstrate robust efficacy, providing rapid and significant relief for severe conditions such as postoperative or traumatic pain, often superior to non-opioid alternatives in short-term settings. For chronic non-cancer pain, systematic reviews indicate modest improvements in pain intensity and function compared to placebo, typically with small effect sizes (e.g., 5-10 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analog scale) over periods of 1-6 months, but evidence for sustained long-term benefits remains insufficient due to high dropout rates and limited high-quality trials. The 2022 CDC guideline emphasizes that while opioids may be appropriate for select patients with inadequate response to non-opioid therapies, their use should prioritize non-opioid options given the balance of benefits against harms. Key risks include dose-dependent increases in opioid use disorder (OUD), with prevalence estimates of abuse ranging from 0.6% to 8% and dependence from 3% to 26% in primary care chronic pain populations, influenced by factors like history of substance use and higher doses (e.g., >90 morphine milligram equivalents per day tripling overdose risk). Opioid-induced tolerance arises from receptor desensitization, downregulation, and adaptations in signaling pathways such as increased activity and upregulation, necessitating dose escalation for maintained efficacy. Paradoxically, prolonged exposure can induce via mechanisms including spinal dynorphin release, glial activation, and enhanced pronociceptive signaling, exacerbating pain sensitivity. Acute adverse effects encompass respiratory depression, constipation, and sedation, with drowsiness commonly caused by opioids such as oxycodone and hydrocodone, particularly in postoperative settings where sedative effects may accumulate over the first few days with repeated dosing; adjunctive sedating drugs like muscle relaxants or anti-anxiety medications used in pain management can further contribute to this. While long-term use correlates with overdose mortality, with U.S. data showing prescription opioids involved in over 16,000 deaths annually as of recent reports, underscoring the need for risk mitigation strategies like urine drug testing and prescription monitoring.

Adjuvant Drugs: Antidepressants, Anticonvulsants, and Others

Adjuvant analgesics encompass medications primarily developed for other indications but employed to augment pain relief in conditions such as , , and cancer-related pain, where standard analgesics prove insufficient. These agents target underlying pain mechanisms, including neuronal hyperexcitability and central sensitization, often as first-line options alongside non-opioids for according to clinical guidelines. Their use stems from evidence demonstrating modulation of pain pathways independent of mood effects, with efficacy supported by randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses showing moderate pain reductions, though individual responses vary and side effects like or necessitate dose titration. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), such as amitriptyline and , exert analgesic effects by inhibiting serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake, thereby enhancing descending inhibitory pathways in the . A 2023 of 184 randomized trials across 22 pain conditions found TCAs effective for reducing pain intensity in , with (NNT) values around 3-5 for 50% pain relief in conditions like . Meta-analyses confirm equivalence in efficacy to anticonvulsants for , with amitriptyline demonstrating large effect sizes for pain and sleep improvement in , though side effects limit use in elderly patients. Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), including , provide analgesia via similar noradrenergic mechanisms, with FDA approval for and diabetic based on trials showing 30-50% pain reductions at doses of 60 mg daily. A 2014 Cochrane review of 12 trials reported superior to for , with NNT of 6 for and sustained benefits over 6 months in extension studies, though gastrointestinal upset occurs in up to 20% of patients. shows comparable efficacy in smaller trials for but lacks broad approval. Anticonvulsants like and , classified as gabapentinoids, bind to voltage-gated calcium channels, reducing excitatory release and central . Cochrane reviews establish moderate-quality evidence for at ≥1200 mg daily yielding 30% pain reduction in neuropathic conditions, with NNT of 6.3 across trials, while at 300-600 mg daily achieves similar outcomes with faster onset but higher risk. Head-to-head meta-analyses indicate no significant efficacy differences between gabapentinoids and TCAs for , though may offer quicker titration. Other adjuvant agents include topical formulations like or lidocaine for localized , which desensitize nociceptors with NNT of 8-11 in meta-analyses, and alpha-2 agonists such as for adjunctive use in refractory cases via spinal noradrenergic inhibition. Corticosteroids serve short-term roles in inflammatory or by reducing , but long-term use risks . Evidence supports multimodal integration of these with primary analgesics to minimize reliance, guided by patient-specific factors like comorbidities.

Interventional Procedures

Injections and Nerve Blocks

Injections and nerve blocks deliver medications such as local anesthetics or corticosteroids directly to targeted nerves or surrounding tissues to interrupt nociceptive signaling or mitigate , offering localized pain relief without systemic effects predominant in oral analgesics. These procedures encompass diagnostic applications to identify pain sources and therapeutic uses for conditions like , , and postoperative discomfort. Common types include epidural steroid injections (ESIs) administered into the epidural space to address spinal nerve root irritation, peripheral nerve blocks targeting somatic nerves for extremity pain, and sympathetic nerve blocks for visceral or sympathetically maintained pain syndromes. Mechanisms primarily involve sodium channel blockade by anesthetics to prevent action potential propagation, complemented by steroids' anti-inflammatory effects on perineural tissues, though the latter's role in neural pain relief remains debated due to limited penetration into neural tissue. Single-injection blocks provide transient relief lasting hours to days, while continuous catheter techniques extend analgesia for postoperative settings. Evidence for efficacy varies by indication and technique. A 2020 systematic review of 25 randomized controlled trials (N=2,470) concluded ESIs yield modest short-term pain reduction (up to 3 months) for radicular compared to , but long-term benefits beyond 6 months are inconsistent and not superior to non-interventional care. For peripheral blocks in postoperative , a 2024 review indicated equivalence to in analgesia with reduced opioid consumption, though single injections may prolong hospital stays in some orthopedic contexts. However, a 2025 expert panel strongly advised against routine spinal injections for chronic , citing systematic reviews showing negligible differences from sham procedures in pain relief or function. Risks include procedural complications such as (0.01-0.1% incidence), , and transient neurologic deficits, alongside steroid-related effects like or adrenal suppression with repeated use. from needle trauma or intraneural injection occurs rarely (under 1:10,000), but diagnostic confirmation via or mitigates this. Patient selection emphasizing radicular over axial pain enhances outcomes, as axial responds poorly, underscoring the need for evidence-based application rather than empirical overuse.

Neuromodulation Techniques

Neuromodulation techniques employ electrical stimulation of neural structures to interrupt or modulate signal transmission, primarily targeting refractory conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), (CRPS), and after conservative and pharmacological therapies fail. These methods, including spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), operate on principles like the , where afferent stimulation inhibits nociceptive input at the spinal level, and may induce neuroplastic changes or suppress ectopic firing. Systematic reviews indicate moderate to strong evidence for relief in selected patients, with success defined as at least 50% reduction in pain intensity, though outcomes vary by technique, patient selection, and stimulation parameters; long-term durability remains a challenge due to explantation rates of 10-20% from lead migration or loss of efficacy. Spinal cord stimulation involves implanting epidural electrodes near the to deliver low-voltage pulses, traditionally producing masking , though -free high-frequency (10 kHz) or burst paradigms have gained prominence for improved coverage and efficacy. A of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found SCS superior to conventional medical management for chronic back and leg , with 48-62% of patients achieving ≥50% at 12-24 months versus 20-30% in controls, particularly in FBSS and CRPS. Network meta-analyses confirm novel waveforms enhance outcomes over traditional tonic stimulation, reducing use by up to 50% in responders, though evidence for primary beyond FBSS/CRPS is weaker, and explantation risks persist at 15-25% over 5 years. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation targets sensory neuron cell bodies in the DRG, providing anatomically precise coverage for focal with reduced postural sensitivity compared to . Approved by the FDA in February 2016 for and similar indications, DRGS yields higher treatment success rates (e.g., 81% vs. 53% for in lower extremity pain trials), with mechanisms including T-junction filtering of nociceptive signals and suppression of hyperexcitability. Observational and RCT data support its use in CRPS type I, with ≥50% pain reduction in 60-80% of patients at 12 months, and emerging evidence for non-CRPS like post-surgical or diabetic variants, though randomized trials remain limited outside CRPS. Peripheral nerve stimulation delivers targeted impulses to specific peripheral nerves via percutaneous or implanted leads, suitable for localized such as post-amputation or chronic knee pain. Temporary 60-day percutaneous systems have shown sustained benefits post-removal, with multicenter studies reporting average pain reductions from 7-8/10 to 3-4/10 at 12 months, and 60-70% of patients maintaining ≥50% relief at 3-4 years, potentially via peripheral or central reversal. Real-world outcomes indicate significant decreases in disability and consumption, with procedure success rates of 70-85% for focal conditions, though evidence is predominantly from prospective cohorts rather than large RCTs, and complications like occur in <5% of cases. Overall, patient selection via psychological screening and trial periods (e.g., temporary leads) predicts success, with neuromodulation offering reversibility and lower risks than ablative procedures, but cost-effectiveness hinges on durable relief exceeding 2 years; ongoing advancements like closed-loop systems adapting to evoked compound action potentials aim to address efficacy fade.

Regenerative and Surgical Interventions

Regenerative interventions seek to promote tissue repair and reduce pain through biological agents that stimulate healing mechanisms, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and prolotherapy. PRP involves injecting concentrated autologous platelets to release growth factors that modulate inflammation and enhance tendon, ligament, and cartilage repair, showing efficacy in reducing pain for knee osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic tendinopathies. A 2023 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found leukocyte-poor PRP superior to leukocyte-rich PRP in alleviating OA symptoms, with significant improvements in pain scores at 6-12 months post-injection. Similarly, for lateral epicondylitis, PRP provided sustained pain relief in patients unresponsive to conservative therapies, outperforming saline controls in prospective trials. MSCs, derived from bone marrow or adipose tissue, are administered intra-articularly to differentiate into chondrocytes and secrete anti-inflammatory cytokines, yielding pain reduction and functional gains in knee OA per multiple meta-analyses of RCTs; one 2024 review reported significant Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score improvements versus hyaluronic acid, though effects waned beyond 24 months and cartilage regeneration remained inconsistent. Prolotherapy, using hyperosmolar dextrose to induce localized inflammation and fibroblast proliferation, demonstrated statistically significant pain reductions in chronic musculoskeletal conditions like knee OA and low back pain, with a 2020 systematic review confirming benefits lasting 6-12 months, though evidence quality is moderate and comparisons to active controls show uncertain superiority. These therapies generally exhibit low adverse event rates, primarily injection-site reactions, but long-term durability and mechanisms beyond placebo require further high-quality RCTs, as some analyses suggest contextual effects contribute substantially to symptomatic relief. Surgical interventions for pain management target identifiable structural pathologies, such as nerve compression or instability, but outcomes vary widely for chronic non-specific pain due to risks like adjacent segment degeneration and failure to address central sensitization. Spinal fusion, fusing vertebrae to stabilize degenerative spondylolisthesis or discogenic pain, provides short-term relief in select cases but lacks long-term superiority over non-surgical options; a 2010 four-year follow-up RCT of 124 patients with chronic low back pain found no better disability or pain scores with instrumented fusion compared to cognitive-behavioral therapy plus exercise. Decompressive surgeries, like laminectomy for lumbar stenosis, effectively alleviate radicular pain when imaging confirms nerve impingement, with success rates exceeding 70% at one year in symptomatic cohorts, though reoperation risks rise to 10-15% over five years due to recurrent stenosis. For peripheral conditions, procedures such as carpal tunnel release yield high efficacy, resolving median nerve compression pain in over 80% of cases per long-term studies, but for axial chronic pain without clear etiology, invasive approaches like rhizotomy or neurectomy offer limited evidence, with systematic reviews concluding insufficient support for broad application. Overall, surgical candidacy demands precise diagnosis via imaging and conservative treatment failure, as meta-analyses indicate modest net benefits outweighed by complications—including infection (1-5%), hardware failure, and persistent pain—in up to 30% of chronic pain patients, underscoring the need for multidisciplinary evaluation to avoid iatrogenic harm.

Complementary and Alternative Modalities

Acupuncture, Massage, and Manual Therapies

Acupuncture involves the insertion of thin needles into specific points on the body, purportedly to balance energy flow, though empirical evidence attributes any benefits primarily to neurophysiological mechanisms such as endorphin release and local tissue modulation. Systematic reviews indicate acupuncture provides modest pain relief for conditions like osteoarthritis, migraines, and chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, with effect sizes typically small to moderate. However, comparisons to sham acupuncture often reveal minimal differences beyond placebo responses, raising questions about specificity; a 2012 individual patient data meta-analysis of 29 trials found acupuncture superior to sham by about 0.15-0.23 standard deviations on pain scales, but critics argue this equates to clinically marginal gains attributable to expectation effects. For chronic nonspecific low back pain, a 2020 Cochrane review of 33 randomized controlled trials (n=7,278) concluded acupuncture yields short-term pain reduction and functional improvement versus no acupuncture, but not superior to sham, with low-quality evidence limiting confidence in long-term effects. Evidence for neuropathic pain remains insufficient, as per a 2017 Cochrane analysis showing no reliable benefits over sham or usual care. Adverse effects are generally mild, including needle-site soreness, bruising, or dizziness in up to 10-15% of sessions, with serious complications like pneumothorax or infection rare (incidence <0.01%) when performed by trained practitioners using sterile needles. Massage therapy encompasses techniques like Swedish, deep tissue, or myofascial release to manipulate soft tissues, potentially alleviating pain through mechanical disruption of muscle tension, improved circulation, and gate control theory modulation of nociceptive signals. A 2024 systematic review of 21 prior reviews (covering 2018-2023) rated moderate-certainty evidence that massage reduces pain intensity in adults with various chronic conditions, particularly musculoskeletal disorders, though effects are short-term (up to 12 weeks) and comparable to active comparators like exercise. For low back pain, meta-analyses confirm small reductions in pain and disability immediately post-treatment, but benefits wane without ongoing sessions, and evidence quality is moderate due to heterogeneity in techniques and populations. In fibromyalgia, a 2014 meta-analysis of 9 trials (n=404) found massage of ≥5 weeks duration improves pain scores versus control, with standardized mean differences of -0.44, though long-term data are sparse. Common adverse events include transient muscle soreness or heightened pain in 10-20% of recipients, resolving within 24-48 hours, with no serious risks identified in systematic overviews for pain-related applications. Despite these findings, methodological limitations such as small sample sizes and lack of blinding undermine causal attribution, and benefits may partly stem from non-specific effects like relaxation. Manual therapies, including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) via high-velocity thrusts or mobilization, aim to restore joint mobility and reduce nociception in conditions like low back pain, with biomechanical evidence supporting transient hypoalgesia via afferent input to spinal gates. A 2019 meta-analysis of 47 randomized trials (n=5,163) for chronic low back pain showed SMT produces pain relief similar to recommended therapies (e.g., NSAIDs, exercise), with mean differences of -7.5 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale, outperforming non-recommended interventions like bed rest. Network meta-analyses for acute/subacute nonspecific low back pain rank SMT moderately effective for pain and disability at short-term follow-up, though not superior to pharmacological options. For neck pain, evidence is weaker and risks higher, but for lumbar applications, serious adverse events like cauda equina syndrome are exceedingly rare (<1 in 1 million manipulations). A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis confirmed thrust and non-thrust SMT reduce chronic low back pain more than active controls in the short term, with low-moderate evidence quality hampered by inconsistent dosing and patient selection. Overall, these therapies offer adjunctive value for acute/chronic musculoskeletal pain but lack robust superiority over evidence-based alternatives, necessitating integration with diagnostics to avoid delaying causal treatments.

Nutritional, Herbal, and Cannabinoid-Based Options

Nutritional interventions for pain management emphasize anti-inflammatory diets rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and omega-3 fatty acids, which may reduce systemic inflammation linked to chronic pain conditions such as arthritis and fibromyalgia. A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 865 participants with chronic non-cancer pain demonstrated that nutrition-focused interventions, including dietary counseling and supplementation, significantly lowered self-reported pain severity, with a standardized mean difference of -0.736 (95% CI: -1.078 to -0.394, p < 0.001), though heterogeneity was high (I² = 84%). Similarly, a 2021 review of whole-food dietary patterns, such as Mediterranean-style diets, reported pain reductions in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and low back pain, attributing benefits to decreased pro-inflammatory cytokines via improved gut microbiota and adipokine profiles. Evidence for specific supplements remains mixed; for instance, vitamin D supplementation alleviates musculoskeletal pain in deficient individuals but shows no broad effect in replete populations, per multiple trials. Overall, these approaches offer low-risk adjuncts but require individualized assessment, as poor dietary intake exacerbates pain through oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction. Herbal remedies have been employed historically for analgesia, with modern evidence supporting select options through anti-inflammatory and analgesic mechanisms, though randomized trial quality varies and interactions with pharmaceuticals necessitate caution. Curcumin, derived from turmeric (Curcuma longa), inhibits NF-κB signaling to reduce osteoarthritis pain; a meta-analysis of 10 trials found it superior to placebo in lowering visual analog scale scores by approximately 2 points (p < 0.05), comparable to ibuprofen but with fewer gastrointestinal side effects. Boswellia serrata extracts, containing boswellic acids that block leukotriene synthesis, yielded pain reductions in knee osteoarthritis per a 2024 expert consensus, with 300-500 mg daily doses improving function in short-term studies. Capsaicin from chili peppers desensitizes TRPV1 receptors for neuropathic pain relief, with topical 0.075% creams reducing post-herpetic neuralgia intensity by 30-50% in meta-analyses, though initial burning limits adherence. Ginger (Zingiber officinale) shows modest efficacy for dysmenorrhea and postoperative pain via prostaglandin inhibition, but evidence for chronic musculoskeletal pain is preliminary. Willow bark (Salix alba), a salicin source akin to aspirin, eases low back pain in doses of 120-240 mg salicin equivalents, yet lacks superiority over NSAIDs in larger trials and carries bleeding risks. Regulatory bodies like the FDA classify most herbals as supplements without proven efficacy claims, underscoring the need for standardized extracts and monitoring for adulteration or variability. Cannabinoid-based options, including THC, CBD, and full-spectrum extracts, interact with the endocannabinoid system to modulate pain signaling, particularly in neuropathic and inflammatory states, though clinical outcomes are modest and adverse effects common. A 2025 review of systematic evidence concluded cannabinoids provide moderate short-term relief for chronic non-cancer pain subtypes like neuropathic pain and multiple sclerosis spasticity, with number needed to treat around 6-12 for 30% pain reduction, but no long-term benefits beyond placebo in many trials. Nabiximols (THC:CBD oromucosal spray) reduced central neuropathic pain in MS patients by 1.3 points on an 11-point scale versus placebo in phase III trials, yet failed to meet efficacy thresholds in broader chronic pain populations. Oral CBD isolates show limited analgesia alone but enhance opioid-sparing effects in cancer pain, per observational data, with doses of 25-100 mg daily minimizing psychoactivity. A living systematic review updated through 2024 highlighted higher risks of dizziness, somnolence, and psychosis (odds ratio 2.2-3.5) compared to non-cannabinoid therapies, advising against routine use absent refractory symptoms. Legal and pharmacokinetic variability, including CYP450 interactions, complicates dosing, and while promising for fibromyalgia (30-50% response rates in small cohorts), high-quality RCTs are sparse, with industry funding biasing some positive findings.

Management in Special Populations

Pediatric Pain Control

Pediatric pain control addresses the unique physiological, developmental, and assessment challenges in children from neonates to adolescents, where immature metabolic pathways and limited verbal communication complicate management. Historically undertreated due to myths of children's pain tolerance, empirical evidence now confirms that untreated pain leads to adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, including altered pain sensitivity and behavioral issues later in life. Guidelines emphasize multimodal approaches integrating pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies tailored to age and pain type, with routine assessment using validated scales to guide interventions. Pain assessment in pediatrics relies on age-appropriate tools, as self-report is unreliable in preverbal children. For infants and nonverbal patients, behavioral observational scales predominate: the FLACC (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability) scale scores behaviors from 0-10, showing high interrater reliability in postoperative and procedural settings; the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) evaluates cry, facial expression, and limb movements for neonates. In verbal children aged 3-18, self-report scales like the Wong-Baker FACES or Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0-10) correlate well with physiological indicators, with the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) demonstrating strong validity across cultures. Systematic reviews validate these tools' sensitivity but note limitations in cognitively impaired children, recommending multidimensional assessment including parental input. For acute procedural or postoperative pain, pharmacological management follows a stepwise approach akin to the WHO analgesic ladder, prioritizing non-opioids. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) at 10-15 mg/kg every 4-6 hours and ibuprofen at 5-10 mg/kg every 6-8 hours effectively manage mild-to-moderate pain, with NSAIDs showing superior efficacy over placebo in reducing acute pain intensity per network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Moderate-to-severe pain warrants short-course opioids like morphine (0.05-0.1 mg/kg IV) or codeine alternatives (due to genetic metabolism variability), with mid-to-high potency agents outperforming placebo but requiring monitoring for respiratory depression. Ketamine (0.3-1 mg/kg IV) provides analgesia without significant respiratory risk, suitable for emergency settings. Consensus guidelines stress lowest effective doses, avoiding routine opioids in mild cases to mitigate dependency risks observed in adult data extrapolated cautiously to youth. Non-pharmacological interventions complement drugs, particularly for procedural pain, reducing reliance on analgesics. Cochrane reviews confirm efficacy of sucrose (24% solution, 0.1-0.5 mL/kg) combined with non-nutritive sucking for neonatal heel sticks, decreasing pain scores by 1-2 points on behavioral scales via endogenous opioid release. In older children, distraction techniques (e.g., video games, guided imagery) and facilitated tucking or swaddling lower self-reported pain during venipuncture, with effect sizes comparable to topical anesthetics in meta-analyses. Breastfeeding or skin-to-skin contact during procedures attenuates neonatal stress responses, supported by physiological data on cortisol reduction. These methods are cost-effective and low-risk, though evidence quality varies, with stronger support for sucrose in preterm infants than hypnosis in school-age groups. Neonatal pain management in intensive care units prioritizes prevention, as cumulative exposures (e.g., heel lances, intubations) associate with brain structural changes per neuroimaging studies. Guidelines recommend sweet-taste solutions, positioning, and minimal handling alongside opioids like fentanyl infusions (0.5-2 mcg/kg/hr) for ventilated infants, titrated to Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores. Local anesthetics (e.g., EMLA cream) prevent circumcision pain, reducing acute responses without long-term harm. Chronic pediatric pain, affecting 5-8% of youth, requires interdisciplinary care targeting underlying causes, with cognitive-behavioral therapy showing moderate evidence for functional improvement over pharmacotherapy alone in randomized trials.

Geriatric Considerations

Chronic pain affects 25-50% of community-dwelling older adults and up to 80% of those in long-term care facilities, often stemming from musculoskeletal conditions like osteoarthritis, compounded by multimorbidity and reduced physiological reserve. Age-related declines in renal and hepatic function lead to prolonged drug half-lives and increased sensitivity to analgesics, necessitating "start low and go slow" dosing principles to minimize adverse effects such as sedation, falls, and delirium. Pain assessment in geriatric patients requires validated tools like the numeric rating scale or behavioral observation for those with cognitive impairment, as stoicism or atypical presentations may mask severity and contribute to undertreatment. Nonpharmacological interventions, including exercise therapy and cognitive-behavioral approaches, demonstrate moderate evidence for reducing pain intensity and interference, with meta-analyses showing significant improvements in symptoms without the risks associated with polypharmacy. Opioid use demands particular caution due to heightened risks of respiratory depression, constipation (affecting up to 30% of users), and falls from orthostatic hypotension or sedation, with guidelines recommending non-opioid alternatives first and immediate-release formulations at lowest effective doses if trialed. Adjuvant therapies like topical NSAIDs or acetaminophen are preferred for localized pain, while multidisciplinary strategies incorporating physical therapy address functional decline and prevent deconditioning. Comprehensive geriatric assessments, including frailty screening, guide individualized plans to balance analgesia with preserving mobility and cognition. Palliative care addresses pain in patients with advanced, life-limiting illnesses, particularly cancer, by prioritizing symptom relief and quality of life over curative intent. Cancer-related pain arises from tumor invasion, inflammation, compression of nerves or organs, or treatment effects such as chemotherapy-induced neuropathy or post-surgical scars, affecting up to 44.5% of cancer patients overall, with 30.6% experiencing moderate to severe intensity. In end-of-life scenarios, pain prevalence reaches 81% among those dying from cancer. Effective management requires comprehensive assessment, including distinguishing nociceptive, neuropathic (present in 30-40% of cases), and mixed pain types, alongside patient-reported outcomes to guide individualized plans. The World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder, introduced in 1986, remains foundational for escalating therapy from non-opioids (e.g., acetaminophen, NSAIDs) for mild pain, to weak opioids for moderate, and strong opioids like morphine for severe pain, with adjuncts for specific etiologies. Recent guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) updated in 2025, emphasize multimodal approaches integrating opioids with co-analgesics (e.g., gabapentinoids for neuropathic pain), bisphosphonates for bone metastases, and radiotherapy for localized pain. Strong opioids, particularly oral morphine, demonstrate comparable efficacy to alternatives like hydromorphone or fentanyl in achieving pain relief, with titration to effect minimizing side effects such as constipation or sedation through prophylactic laxatives and antiemetics. In palliative settings, where prognosis is limited, opioid doses can be liberally escalated without primary concern for long-term dependence, as evidence supports their role in restoring function and reducing suffering. Despite evidence-based protocols, undertreatment persists, with studies indicating that one-third or more of cancer patients receive inadequate analgesia, exacerbated by regulatory fears post-opioid crisis, rising non-opioid prescriptions from 28% in 2016 to 41% in 2021, and long-acting opioid use declining from 26% to 12%. Barriers include clinician hesitation due to overdose concerns, patient stigma, and disparities in access, particularly in low-resource settings where opioid availability remains limited. Nonpharmacologic interventions, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy or physical rehabilitation, complement opioids to enhance outcomes, though pharmacologic backbone dominates in refractory cases. For 10-15% with opioid-resistant pain, interventional options like nerve blocks or intrathecal pumps may be considered, guided by multidisciplinary palliative teams. Overall, proactive, evidence-driven strategies can achieve pain control in 70-90% of cases when barriers are addressed.

Controversies and Debates

Opioid Prescribing: Crisis versus Undertreatment

The opioid prescribing debate in pain management pits the public health imperative to curb addiction and overdose risks against the ethical obligation to alleviate severe, debilitating chronic pain. Beginning in the late 1990s, aggressive pharmaceutical marketing—exemplified by 's promotion of OxyContin as a safer, less addictive option for chronic non-cancer pain based on flawed claims of addiction rates below 1%—drove a rapid expansion in opioid prescriptions, quadrupling from 1999 to 2010 and shifting perceptions among clinicians toward broader use for non-malignant conditions. This overprescribing contributed to escalating misuse, with prescription opioid-involved overdose deaths rising from fewer than 4,000 in 1999 to a peak of about 16,000 in 2010. Prescription volumes subsequently declined sharply after 2012 amid heightened regulatory scrutiny, state-level interventions, and prescriber caution, dropping by roughly 50% by 2020, while overdose fatalities decoupled from legitimate prescribing trends and surged due to illicit heroin and, increasingly, synthetic fentanyl sourced extraterritorially. By 2023, total drug overdose deaths reached approximately 105,000, with opioids implicated in 76% (around 80,000), but prescription opioids accounted for only a fraction—less than 15%—as fentanyl analogs dominated, comprising over 70,000 deaths and highlighting how supply-side restrictions inadvertently amplified street drug potency and contamination. The 2016 CDC guideline, recommending non-opioid therapies first, maximum doses under 90 morphine milligram equivalents daily for chronic pain, and periodic reassessment, accelerated this prescribing contraction but was frequently misapplied as rigid quotas, prompting widespread involuntary tapering or discontinuation even for stable, long-term patients who had derived benefit without misuse. This shift correlated with reports of heightened patient distress, as an estimated 50 million U.S. adults endure chronic pain (lasting ≥3 months), with post-2016 access barriers— including prescriber reluctance and pharmacy refusals—leaving many without viable alternatives for severe cases refractory to non-opioids. Empirical data underscore undertreatment risks: rapid or forced tapering elevates odds of overdose, suicide, and mortality, with cohort studies documenting a 15% higher risk of such events during dose reductions and observational analyses linking discontinuation to doubled suicide rates among chronic pain cohorts. Untreated or poorly managed chronic pain independently heightens suicide ideation and completion by 2-3 fold, compounded here by withdrawal symptoms, uncontrolled nociception, and eroded trust in providers, as evidenced in surveys of pain advocacy groups and clinical registries. Conversely, judicious opioid use in vetted patients yields substantial analgesia and functional gains for chronic non-cancer pain, per systematic reviews analyzing dozens of trials, with misuse rates below 10% when screening excludes high-risk histories and monitoring includes urine tests and contracts—rates comparable to other chronic medications like benzodiazepines. Blanket aversion overlooks this, potentially violating principles of beneficence, as non-opioid options like NSAIDs or gabapentinoids suffice for mild-moderate pain but falter against neuropathic or inflammatory extremes, leaving high-impact sufferers (8-10% of adults) functionally impaired. The 2022 CDC update clarified guidelines as non-prescriptive tools, urging individualized dosing and warning against rapid tapers to avert harms, yet implementation lags amid liability fears and institutional inertia, perpetuating a cycle where crisis rhetoric—often amplified by media and regulatory bodies—obscures nuanced evidence favoring multimodal, patient-centered strategies over de facto prohibition. Resolving this requires enhanced prescriber education, expanded non-pharmacologic access, and data-driven policies distinguishing therapeutic use from diversion risks.

Validity of Psychological Constructs like Pain Catastrophizing

Pain catastrophizing refers to a set of exaggerated negative cognitive and emotional responses to anticipated or actual pain, characterized by rumination, magnification of pain's threat, and feelings of helplessness, as operationalized in the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), a 13-item self-report measure developed in 1995. The PCS subscales assess these dimensions, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of catastrophizing thoughts, and it has been translated into multiple languages for cross-cultural use. Psychometric evaluations, including a 2019 meta-analysis of 57 studies involving over 10,000 participants, demonstrate strong internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.88–0.92) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.70–0.84 over intervals of 1–6 months) for the PCS total score, supporting its reliability as a consistent measure of the construct. Construct validity is evidenced by moderate to strong correlations with related measures of pain-related anxiety (r = 0.60–0.75), depression (r = 0.50–0.65), and fear avoidance beliefs (r = 0.55–0.70), while scores remain largely independent of demographic factors like age and sex, though they are highest in individuals with widespread or conditions. Short-form versions, such as the 6-item PCS-SF, retain comparable reliability (α > 0.80) and validity in clinical populations, including with . Prospectively, elevated PCS scores predict greater pain intensity, , and interference in longitudinal studies; for instance, a 2023 analysis of ecological momentary assessments found momentary catastrophizing uniquely associated with subsequent increases in severity and functional interference, independent of baseline pain levels. In surgical contexts, preoperative catastrophizing doubles the risk of persistent postoperative pain, as shown in a 2014 study of orthopedic patients where high scorers developed at rates up to 40% higher than low scorers. These associations hold after controlling for confounders like anxiety, suggesting predictive utility, though experimental manipulations (e.g., cognitive training to reduce catastrophizing) yield small to moderate reductions in pain reports ( d = 0.3–0.5). Critiques question the construct's conceptual validity, arguing that "catastrophizing" pathologizes rational responses to severe or unpredictable , potentially stigmatizing by implying irrational exaggeration rather than adaptive vigilance against genuine threats. feedback in qualitative studies reports the term fosters a "," with sufferers perceiving it as dismissive of nociceptive or neuropathic drivers, exacerbating in providers. Causally, while cross-sectional links to altered pain processing (e.g., enhanced central ) exist, evidence for catastrophizing as a primary cause of remains correlational; reverse causation is plausible, as unrelieved elicits helpless cognitions, and confounds with depressive symptoms explain up to 60% of shared variance in some models. A 2023 review defends the term against replacement suggestions (e.g., "pain-related worry"), noting that abandoning it overlooks replicable empirical patterns, but acknowledges definitional ambiguities, such as overlap with general , which inflate predictive claims without causal isolation via randomized interventions. Overall, the PCS validly captures a cognitive-emotional reliably associated with adverse outcomes, aiding risk stratification in , but its framing as a maladaptive "construct" risks overattribution of to psychological factors at the expense of biomedical , particularly in contexts of tissue damage or where such thoughts may reflect accurate threat appraisal rather than distortion. Interventions targeting it, like cognitive-behavioral therapy, show efficacy in reducing scores and symptoms (success rates 50–70% in meta-analyses), yet fail to outperform or in some trials, underscoring that while measurable, its role as a modifiable driver versus epiphenomenon of requires further causal evidence from mechanistic studies.

Integrative versus Specialized Interventional Focus

Integrative pain management adopts a multidisciplinary framework that incorporates lifestyle modifications, psychological interventions, physical therapies, and complementary modalities such as , exercise, optimization, and stress reduction to address the biopsychosocial dimensions of chronic pain. This approach posits that chronic pain arises from interconnected biological, environmental, and behavioral factors, advocating for patient empowerment through sustainable changes rather than isolated symptom suppression. Evidence from clinical studies supports its efficacy; for instance, exercise interventions have demonstrated pain reduction in and , with one analysis showing a 50% decrease in use among participants. Similarly, improved correlates with lowered pain perception, as 67-88% of chronic pain patients exhibit sleep disorders amenable to targeted interventions. In contrast, specialized emphasizes targeted anatomical procedures, including epidural steroid injections, , and devices like spinal cord stimulators, aimed at disrupting specific pain pathways or nociceptive sources. These techniques provide rapid symptomatic relief, with some procedures achieving 50% pain reduction in refractory cases and high patient satisfaction rates. However, systematic reviews indicate limited superiority over sham interventions for common conditions like chronic back or knee pain; a of 10 randomized trials (N=941) found standardized mean differences of 0.18 for (equivalent to a 4.5-point VAS reduction, 73% attributable to effects) and 0.04 for (1-point VAS reduction, with sham outperforming active treatment), graded as moderate-quality evidence. Comparative analyses favor multidisciplinary integrative programs over procedure-centric models for long-term outcomes in , particularly . Multidisciplinary care enhances control, functional activity, , and reduces emergency visits and reliance, while lowering daily prescription costs by approximately $6.68 and overall healthcare utilization. Such programs yield superior improvements in intensity and compared to single-modality treatments, including isolated procedures, by fostering coordinated care across providers. Interventional approaches, while valuable for acute flares or identifiable pathologies, often fail to yield durable benefits beyond and may overlook modifiable risk factors like modulated by diet or psychosocial stressors. Debates persist regarding optimal integration, with proponents of interventional focus arguing for evidence-based targeting in time-constrained clinical settings, whereas integrative advocates highlight systemic barriers like reimbursement gaps and physician training deficits that hinder holistic adoption. Telemedicine emerges as a potential bridge, facilitating remote coaching to augment procedural care and improve adherence. Overall, empirical underscore the value of hybrid models, where interventional relief supports engagement in integrative strategies for sustained efficacy, though real-world implementation varies due to access and payer constraints.

Societal, Ethical, and Policy Dimensions

Access Disparities and Undertreatment

Racial and ethnic minorities experience higher rates of pain undertreatment compared to non- patients across acute, chronic, and settings. Systematic reviews indicate that and patients are less likely to receive adequate analgesics, with one analysis finding 31% of African American and 28% of Hispanic emergency department patients receiving insufficient pain relief for long-bone fractures, versus lower rates in White patients. These disparities persist in pediatric, obstetric, and , where minorities report higher pain intensity but receive fewer opioids or interventional procedures. Gender disparities also contribute to undertreatment, with women consistently reporting worse pain outcomes than men, including lower rates of opioid prescriptions and specialist referrals for . A 2022 systematic review of perioperative pain found females and racialized minorities more likely to experience severe postoperative pain due to undertreatment, independent of clinical factors. exacerbates these issues, as lower-income individuals face barriers like limited access to pain clinics and non-pharmacologic therapies, leading to higher prevalence and reliance on emergency care. Community-level factors, such as neighborhood , correlate with reduced out-of-hospital administration across racial groups. The opioid crisis has intensified undertreatment through regulatory pressures and clinician reluctance, reducing overall opioid prescribing by up to 40% in some U.S. states post-2010, often leaving legitimate patients without alternatives. This shift, driven by fears of addiction and overdose liability, has led to documented increases in untreated severe acute pain, potentially transitioning to chronic conditions, particularly among vulnerable populations already facing disparities. Peer-reviewed analyses attribute part of this to overcorrection from prior undertreatment concerns that fueled initial opioid expansion, now compounded by incomplete adoption of non-opioid modalities like . Addressing these requires targeted interventions, such as bias training and equitable access policies, though evidence on their efficacy remains mixed due to factors like patient trust and reporting differences.

Regulatory Policies and Their Consequences

In the United States, the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommended non-opioid therapies as preferred for , with opioids reserved for cases where benefits outweigh risks, and immediate-release formulations favored over extended-release; it suggested maximum daily doses of 90 milligram equivalents (MME) for most patients and 50 MME or less for opioid-naïve individuals. These recommendations, while not legally binding, influenced state laws, insurer policies, and systems, leading to a 44% decline in opioid prescriptions from 2011 to 2019. The (DEA) classifies most therapeutic opioids like and as Schedule II controlled substances, imposing strict manufacturing quotas, no-refill rules, and monitoring via Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) in all states by 2017, which require prescribers to check patient histories before issuing Schedule II prescriptions. These policies correlated with reduced opioid-related overdose deaths from prescription opioids, dropping from 21,000 in 2010 to about 14,000 by 2017, though total opioid overdoses continued rising due to illicit . However, empirical studies indicate significant undertreatment of legitimate , with surveys of over 1,400 patients showing forced dose reductions leading to worsened pain intensity (mean increase of 1.2 points on a 0-10 scale), reduced function, and heightened suicidality; one analysis linked opioid tapering to a 78% increased risk among patients. State-level caps on initial opioid prescriptions for acute pain (e.g., 3-7 day limits in over 40 states by 2020) showed no broad spillover to chronic prescribing but prompted reports of patients enduring unmanaged postoperative or injury-related pain, sometimes turning to unregulated alternatives like alcohol or . The FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for extended-release opioids, implemented in 2011 and expanded post-2016, mandated prescriber education on risks, contributing to prescribing hesitancy; reports documented harms from abrupt discontinuation, including withdrawal symptoms, , and hospitalizations in physically dependent . DEA manufacturing quotas, reduced by 25% for opioids in 2017 following CDC guidance, aimed to limit supply but exacerbated shortages for and cancer care, where opioids remain first-line; a 2021 review found no that quotas reduced diversion while increasing barriers to access. In response, the CDC's 2022 updated guideline clarified that the 2016 recommendations were misapplied as rigid mandates, emphasizing individualized dosing and rejecting hard MME thresholds to mitigate undertreatment. Overall, while regulations curbed overprescribing excesses from the late 1990s-2010s, causal analyses attribute persistent overdose trends more to illicit supply chains than therapeutic use, with policies inadvertently shifting harm to vulnerable pain populations without proportionally enhancing safety.

Recent Advances

Novel Non-Opioid Pharmacotherapies

Suzetrigine (Journavx), approved by the U.S. on January 30, 2025, represents the first novel non-opioid approved in over two decades for moderate to severe acute pain in adults. This selective inhibitor of the NaV1.8 voltage-gated acts peripherally on sensory neurons to block pain signal initiation and transmission, sparing pathways associated with opioid reward and respiration. Unlike traditional non-opioids such as NSAIDs or acetaminophen, which primarily target or central , suzetrigine addresses excitability directly, offering efficacy in postoperative settings without liability. Efficacy was established in two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, - and active-controlled trials involving 1,118 patients undergoing or bunionectomy. In these studies, suzetrigine 50 mg orally every 12 hours reduced pain intensity (measured via numerical rating scale) by approximately 2 points more than over 48 hours, with effects comparable to bitartrate/ibuprofen but without opioid-related adverse events like or . Abuse potential assessments, including human abuse liability studies, confirmed minimal euphoric effects, supporting its classification under Schedule V if rescheduled, though it launched without DEA scheduling due to low risk. Common side effects included pruritus (6%), (5%), and elevated (4%), with no signals of respiratory depression or dependence. Ongoing investigations extend suzetrigine to chronic conditions, including phase 2 trials for diabetic and lumbosacral , where preliminary data suggest dose-dependent pain reduction without central tolerance development. Broader pipeline efforts target related ion channels, such as NaV1.7-selective blockers (e.g., vixotrigine derivatives), which aim for but have encountered variable trial outcomes due to incomplete channel specificity and off-target cardiac effects. In parallel, peripherally restricted compounds modulating or ASIC channels show preclinical promise for inflammatory and , though human translation remains limited by sensory side effects like . These developments prioritize mechanism-based selectivity to mitigate the historical failures of broad-spectrum analgesics, emphasizing peripheral modulation over central mimicry. Regulatory momentum supports this shift, with FDA guidance issued September 10, 2025, advocating efficient trial designs for non- therapies, including enriched enrollment for responders and biomarkers like evoked pain thresholds. Despite enthusiasm, challenges persist: suzetrigine's acute approval does not yet cover chronic use, where responses and heterogeneity complicate endpoints, and cost barriers (estimated $20-30 per dose) may limit access compared to generics. Long-term safety data, particularly for repeated dosing, await post-marketing surveillance, underscoring the need for vigilant monitoring amid overstated claims of universal replacement.

Technological and Regenerative Innovations

Advances in technologies have enhanced management through targeted electrical or magnetic stimulation of neural pathways. stimulation (SCS) and (DRG) stimulation have demonstrated superior efficacy in treating refractory , with a 2025 of randomized trials reporting significant reductions in pain intensity (up to 50% relief in responders) and improved functional outcomes compared to conventional medical management. These devices, often implantable, employ high-frequency or burst waveforms to modulate pain signals without opioids, with recent innovations incorporating closed-loop systems that adapt stimulation based on real-time feedback. Noninvasive techniques, such as (TMS) and (TENS) variants, offer accessible alternatives for conditions like and . A 2025 review highlighted TMS's role in promoting , achieving 30-40% pain reduction in chronic cases via repeated sessions targeting cortical areas involved in pain processing. Integration of (AI) and (ML) with and (RPM) enables personalized therapy adjustments, for flare-ups, and reduced clinician oversight, as evidenced by trials showing 25% better adherence and outcomes in chronic cohorts. Virtual reality (VR) and wearable technologies represent emerging noninvasive tools, leveraging immersive distraction and to alleviate acute and . Clinical studies from 2024-2025 indicate VR reduces procedural pain by 20-35% through multisensory gating of nociceptive inputs, particularly in burn care and postoperative settings, while wearables like smartwatches track physiological markers (e.g., ) to optimize non-pharmacological interventions. Regenerative approaches focus on repairing underlying tissue damage rather than symptom suppression, with (MSC) therapies showing promise in and . A 2024 phase 1 trial of allogeneic marrow-derived MSCs for facet reported sustained pain relief (Visual Analog Scale reductions of 40-60%) at 6-12 months post-injection, attributed to paracrine effects and tissue regeneration. (PRP) injections, derived from autologous blood, promote tendon and joint healing, with 2024 meta-analyses confirming moderate efficacy (pain scores dropping 2-3 points on 10-point scales) for tendinopathies when combined with rehabilitation. Optimization strategies for MSCs, including for enhanced analgesia, are under investigation, with preclinical data from 2024 demonstrating prolonged secretion of pain-modulating factors like . using hypertonic solutions to stimulate ligament repair has gained traction for spinal instability-related pain, though evidence remains mixed, with randomized trials showing benefits primarily in short-term follow-up (3-6 months). These therapies face challenges in and long-term durability, necessitating larger phase 3 trials to confirm causal mechanisms beyond effects.

Future Directions

Emerging Research Priorities

The National Institutes of Health's Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative has identified advancing the understanding of human pain biology and mechanisms as a core emerging priority, emphasizing the need for research into molecular pathways and neural circuits to inform novel therapeutic targets. This includes developing mechanistically diverse, non-addictive pharmacotherapies such as monoclonal antibodies and mRNA-based interventions, with the Preclinical Screening Platform having profiled 55 compounds as of 2025, advancing five to clinical development. Similarly, the European Pain Federation's 2024 survey highlighted understanding pain pathophysiology—particularly for neuropathic and musculoskeletal conditions—as the top priority, alongside critically evaluating existing therapies to identify ineffective or overused interventions. Personalized medicine approaches represent another focus, with priorities centered on biomarkers for treatment response and "pain signatures" to enable mechanism-based, individualized interventions, as supported by HEAL's Consortium, which developed the CAPER tool for tailoring therapies. Prevention strategies to halt the transition from acute to , targeting vulnerable life stages, are also emphasized, building on evidence that early mechanistic insights could reduce chronicity rates. Cross-cutting efforts include real-world implementation studies and addressing disparities in underserved populations, with HEAL funding over 2,200 projects since 2018 to integrate findings into clinical practice. Technological innovations are gaining traction, including for pain prediction via on physiological data, for distraction-based relief in (reducing scores by up to 2.0 points on numeric rating scales without opioid risks), and AI-enhanced for real-time nerve regulation. Wearables for monitoring vitals and psychedelics targeting serotonin receptors show preliminary efficacy in trials for and , underscoring the need for rigorous validation of these adjuncts to traditional pharmacotherapies. Overall, these priorities aim to shift from symptom palliation toward causal interventions, with interdisciplinary data ecosystems like HEAL's repository of 1,015 datasets facilitating open-science advancements.

Addressing Evidence Gaps in Low-Resource Settings

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), evidence gaps in management arise primarily from the scarcity of locally generated clinical trials and , as the majority of originates from high-income settings where resource availability, patient demographics, and profiles differ substantially. For instance, conditions prevalent in LMICs—such as those stemming from trauma, infectious diseases, or advanced cancers—often lack tailored efficacy and safety for interventions like opioids or non-pharmacological therapies, exacerbating undertreatment rates estimated at over 80% for moderate to severe in some regions. This disparity is compounded by infrastructural barriers, including limited funding and ethical review capacities, which hinder rigorous studies on scalable, low-cost options like task-shifting to workers. International organizations have prioritized bridging these gaps through adaptive guidelines and capacity-building initiatives. The (WHO) issued its first guideline on non-surgical management of chronic primary in primary and community care settings on December 7, 2023, recommending evidence-informed strategies such as exercise, , and psychological interventions that require minimal equipment and can be implemented by non-specialists in resource-constrained environments. Similarly, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) advocates for pragmatic clinical trials in LMICs to evaluate interventions under real-world conditions, emphasizing priorities like optimizing oral use and integrating traditional medicines where biomedical evidence is absent. These efforts underscore the need to contextualize high-income evidence, accounting for factors like disruptions for essential analgesics, which affect 90% of LMIC populations lacking access to opioids. Further progress involves fostering local research ecosystems via partnerships and . IASP's 2025 Global Year initiative targets pain management in low-resource areas, promoting curricula that address deficits among healthcare providers, where inadequate contributes to persistent practice gaps. Implementation science approaches, such as adapting WHO's 2020 revised guidelines for national policies, have shown promise in scaling non-opioid alternatives like and ibuprofen, though sustained funding from global donors remains critical to generate robust, LMIC-specific datasets and mitigate biases from overreliance on HIC-derived protocols. Ongoing challenges include regulatory hurdles and risks in transitioning LMICs, necessitating balanced policies that prioritize empirical validation over imported assumptions.

References

  1. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/toolkits/pain-management-center/chapter1/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11512731/
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK458655/
  4. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1807061
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541698/
  6. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-novel-non-opioid-treatment-moderate-severe-acute-pain
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12152734/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3829620/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7736598/
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553030/
  11. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/rr/rr7103a1.htm
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1875958/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556098/
  14. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/acute-vs-chronic-pain
  15. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/bsc/BSC_Background_Overview_Progress-GL-Update_6_28_cleared_final_D_Dowell-508-fx.pdf
  16. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/terminology/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8347369/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10470273/
  19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1638761
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551562/
  21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470255/
  22. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/42843
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6003018/
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584191/
  25. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15833-neuropathic-pain
  26. https://www.iasp-pain.org/publications/pain-research-forum/papers-of-the-week/paper/170975-nociplastic-pain-towards-understanding-prevalent-pain-conditions/
  27. https://www.epain.org/journal/view.html?uid=1867&vmd=Full
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1317046/
  29. https://www.epain.org/journal/view.html?uid=1837&vmd=Full
  30. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/wong-baker-pain-scale
  31. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/126/5/e1168/65231/A-Systematic-Review-of-Faces-Scales-for-the-Self
  32. https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/pain-assessment-in-the-elderly
  33. https://www.painmanagementnursing.org/article/S1524-9042%2821%2900029-1/fulltext
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10873938/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3285427/
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1235985/
  37. https://prc.hmsa.com/s/article/Unidimensional-and-Multidimensional-Pain-Assessment-Tools
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5010652/
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6121522/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19837031/
  41. https://www.bjanaesthesia.org.uk/article/S0007-0912%2817%2934262-9/fulltext
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263931909002531
  43. https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/m/s2/chapter07.html
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7313723/
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00886/full
  46. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adp8494
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3438523/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10056254/
  49. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.14.7705
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10569336/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3132049/
  52. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2023.1147437/full
  53. https://academic.oup.com/bja/article/87/1/3/304226
  54. https://rupress.org/jem/article/221/5/e20221687/276694/Immune-drivers-of-physiological-and-pathological
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10214073/
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390825000978
  57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-01845-w
  58. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/70343
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2750819/
  60. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/20/5189
  61. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jabr.12137
  62. https://www.ccjm.org/content/90/4/245
  63. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncel.2018.00035/full
  64. https://www.jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jospt.2020.0610
  65. https://www.imrpress.com/journal/JIN/23/5/10.31083/j.jin2305089/htm
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9198107/
  67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK610674/
  68. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db518.htm
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40758540/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6676152/
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12053548/
  72. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2804995
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590163/
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590021002443
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091217329616
  76. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00508-017-1301-0
  77. https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/presentations-database/presentation/intl2024-3898/136819
  78. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7215a1.htm
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11090028/
  80. https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900%2806%2901024-8/fulltext
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31218259/
  82. https://mhanational.org/resources/chronic-pain-and-mental-health/
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10534032/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10504912/
  85. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.92.15_supplement.P4.9-055
  86. https://daradia.com/history-of-pain-medicine/
  87. https://painmanagementcollaboratory.org/pain-management-history-timeline/
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0531513102006994
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11970827/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5760261/
  91. https://www.mgh.harvard.edu/anesthesia/about/history.aspx
  92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554435/
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6311547/
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871617300030
  95. https://medschool.cuanschutz.edu/docs/librariesprovider189/mat-resources-chapter-7/7-10_rethinking-jcaho-pain-standards-jama-2-23-17.pdf?sfvrsn=ed3269ba_0
  96. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pain-mgmt-best-practices-draft-final-report-05062019.pdf
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12128797/
  98. https://rapm.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/13/rapm-2025-106720
  99. https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2018/03/multimodal-approach-to-pain-management-reduces-opioid-use
  100. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2798137
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6515722/
  102. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44254-023-00043-1
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12147818/
  104. https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/behavioral-health/pain-management-guidance-emphasizes-individualized-patient-care
  105. https://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/2022/10000/evidence_based_interventions_to_treat_chronic_low.11.aspx
  106. https://www.cfpc.ca/CFPC/media/Resources/Pain-Management/Low_Back_Pain_Guidelines_Oct19.pdf
  107. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573961/
  108. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49761-3
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3573466/
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6301419/
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743519303287
  112. https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article/26/4/180/7922563
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666379124005330
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5498791/
  115. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-023-03076-2
  116. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK569985/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9980484/
  118. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009790.pub2/full
  119. https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj-2025-085242
  120. https://www.jospt.org/doi/abs/10.2519/jospt.2025.13253?af=R
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590021003461
  122. https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900%2822%2900364-9/fulltext
  123. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31250682/
  124. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejp.70090
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3584580/
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304395910006767
  127. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26645543/
  128. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub4/full
  129. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-067718
  130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37960716/
  131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27479642/
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590023005394
  133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796723000578
  134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29220782/
  135. https://academic.oup.com/abm/article/51/2/199/4564147
  136. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2822046
  137. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29801109/
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10210462/
  139. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2217/pmt.15.57
  140. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501319221121464
  141. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1512450/full
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11730678/
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1836955325000165
  144. https://www.jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jospt.2025.13253
  145. https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/can-diet-heal-chronic-pain
  146. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/fact-sheets/nutrition-and-chronic-pain/
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11150618/
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9289983/
  149. https://www.ncoa.org/article/managing-chronic-pain-and-sleep/
  150. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9145084/
  151. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468781223001431
  152. https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/hcp/clinical-care/nonopioid-therapies-for-pain-management.html
  153. https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-resources/hcp/files/non-opioid-therapies-for-pain-a-clinical-reference.html
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10251124/
  155. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4381278/
  156. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/214/7/efficacy-and-safety-paracetamol-pain-relief-overview-systematic-reviews
  157. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2022.909572/full
  158. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2321
  159. https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/journals/journal-of-pharmacy-pharmaceutical-sciences/articles/10.3389/jpps.2024.12384/full
  160. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5772852/
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12378001/
  162. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459161/
  163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590096/
  164. https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/31/1/98/2354848
  165. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277257232100011X
  166. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556253/
  167. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M14-2559
  168. https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/etm.2021.10437
  169. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17723928/
  170. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21127-opioids
  171. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1507771
  172. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685445/
  173. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/pain/treatment-of-pain
  174. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27207115/
  175. https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj-2022-072415
  176. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38932764/
  177. https://www.ccjm.org/content/86/12/807
  178. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24385423/
  179. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014682.pub2/full
  180. https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD007938_gabapentin-chronic-neuropathic-pain-adults
  181. https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD007076_pregabalin-chronic-neuropathic-pain-adults
  182. https://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/2024/04000/a_systematic_review_and_meta_analysis_of.11.aspx
  183. https://thischangedmypractice.com/gabapentin-pregabalin-chronic-neuropathic-pain/
  184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20671006/
  185. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10402723/
  186. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459210/
  187. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10239283/
  188. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/nerve-blocks
  189. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470189/
  190. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11456737/
  191. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2022/0700/fpin-hda-epidural-steroid-injections-low-back-pain.html
  192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091225003447
  193. https://bmjgroup.com/back-pain-recommendations/
  194. https://rapm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/08/07/rapm-2024-105593
  195. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11790416/
  196. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34062145/
  197. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8943693/
  198. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37436342/
  199. https://www.dovepress.com/spinal-cord-stimulation-explantation-and-chronic-pain-a-systematic-rev-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JPR
  200. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2826172
  201. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26752493/
  202. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424001481
  203. https://janesthanalgcritcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s44158-024-00219-6
  204. https://journals.lww.com/pain/fulltext/2017/04000/dorsal_root_ganglion_stimulation_yielded_higher.14.aspx
  205. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737175.2016.1206817
  206. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/7/3591
  207. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878875024010982
  208. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11801347/
  209. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594423000699
  210. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40122-025-00737-3
  211. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39834252/
  212. https://orthopedicreviews.openmedicalpublishing.org/article/143096-60-day-peripheral-nerve-stimulation-in-chronic-knee-pain-a-retrospective-analysis
  213. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39066995/
  214. https://www.neuromodulationjournal.org/article/S1094-7159%2823%2900980-7/fulltext
  215. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21359919/
  216. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1357513
  217. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2020/0315/p325.html
  218. https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD013814_acupuncture-chronic-non-specific-low-back-pain-lbp
  219. https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD012057_acupuncture-neuropathic-pain-adults
  220. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10088157/
  221. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39008297/
  222. https://www.amt.org.au/downloads/practice-resources/AMT-State-of-Evidence-2024.pdf
  223. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089304
  224. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4145795/
  225. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30867144/
  226. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/56/1/41
  227. https://www.iasp-pain.org/publications/relief-news/article/spinal-manipulative-therapy-a-slow-death-by-data/
  228. https://www.acatoday.org/news-publications/research-review-manipulation-and-mobilization-for-treating-chronic-low-back-pain-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/
  229. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360859222000778
  230. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jhn.12601
  231. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33202007/
  232. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.931090/full
  233. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7918078/
  234. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10860847/
  235. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-77796-7
  236. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11940634/
  237. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03319
  238. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK618044/
  239. https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article/10/8/1353/1857926
  240. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/137/2/e20154271/52762/Prevention-and-Management-of-Procedural-Pain-in
  241. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240017870
  242. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2639489/
  243. https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-023-04099-7
  244. https://www.mypcnow.org/fast-fact/pediatric-pain-assessment-scales/
  245. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2829876
  246. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/5/e2024068752/199482/Opioid-Prescribing-for-Acute-Pain-Management-in
  247. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10156497/
  248. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006275.pub4/full
  249. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37314064/
  250. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/management-and-prevention-of-pain-in-neonates
  251. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7014916/
  252. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.736688/full
  253. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4589921/
  254. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11954733/
  255. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/geriatrics/pharmacologic-therapy-in-older-adults/pharmacokinetics-in-older-adults
  256. https://geriatricpain.org/older-adults/pain-management-information
  257. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38366560/
  258. https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03846.x
  259. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2820%2930145-2/fulltext
  260. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934763/
  261. https://www.mypcnow.org/fast-fact/pain-management-considerations-in-older-adults/?print=print
  262. https://www.americangeriatrics.org/publications-tools/guidelines-recommendations
  263. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9913127/
  264. https://bmcpalliatcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12904-024-01497-1
  265. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11864-024-01248-7
  266. https://jnccn.org/view/journals/jnccn/23/7/article-e250032.xml?print
  267. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552053/
  268. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555200/
  269. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11416366/
  270. https://www.oncologynewscentral.com/oncology/are-oncologists-undertreating-pain-in-cancer-patients-new-data-raise-questions
  271. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4052588/
  272. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4755508/
  273. https://karger.com/sfn/article/doi/10.1159/000547446/930618/Epidemiology-of-Resistant-Cancer-Pain-Prevalence
  274. https://ecancer.org/en/journal/article/1821-management-of-pain-in-cancer-patients-an-update/pdf
  275. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4940677/
  276. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002883
  277. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates
  278. https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html
  279. https://usafacts.org/articles/are-fentanyl-overdose-deaths-rising-in-the-us/
  280. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11853623/
  281. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2795159
  282. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11616967/
  283. https://journals.lww.com/pain/fulltext/2022/05000/clinical_and_neuroscience_evidence_supports_the.5.aspx
  284. https://uspainfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/A-Chronic-Pain-Crisis-US-Pain-2022-FINAL.pdf
  285. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pain-research/articles/10.3389/fpain.2021.721357/full
  286. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6736a2.htm
  287. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232599723_The_Pain_Catastrophizing_Scale_Development_and_validation
  288. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32416018/
  289. https://journals.lww.com/pain/fulltext/2019/09000/meta_analysis_of_the_psychometric_properties_of.5.aspx
  290. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/190/Supplement_2/793/8256295
  291. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9910323/
  292. https://www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2014/10/patients-with-catastrophizing-disorder-more-likely-to-develop-chronic-pain-after-surgery
  293. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590017307526
  294. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590023004716
  295. https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900%2822%2900418-7/fulltext
  296. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2696024/
  297. https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900%2823%2900471-6/fulltext
  298. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603420/full
  299. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12004303/
  300. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6611529/
  301. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8915644/
  302. https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article/4/3/277/1862837
  303. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0035204.pdf
  304. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37245951/
  305. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590009007755
  306. https://www.jopan.org/article/S1089-9472%2822%2900516-0/fulltext
  307. https://journals.lww.com/pain/fulltext/9900/over_50_years_of_research_on_social_disparities_in.943.aspx
  308. https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2823%2900267-6/fulltext
  309. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pain-research/articles/10.3389/fpain.2025.1642035/full
  310. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2818%2930067-3/fulltext
  311. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10324842/
  312. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11096-025-02008-9
  313. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2780932
  314. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537318/
  315. https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2016/10/04/dea-reduces-amount-opioid-controlled-substances-be-manufactured-2017
  316. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8525419/
  317. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10039157/
  318. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321523000574
  319. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-identifies-harm-reported-sudden-discontinuation-opioid-pain-medicines-and-requires-label-changes
  320. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2020/0415/p458.html
  321. https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/novel-nonopioid-analgesic-for-acute-pain
  322. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-025-00024-w
  323. https://www.uchealth.org/today/journavx-long-awaited-non-opioid-treatment-for-acute-pain-hits-market/
  324. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39692452/
  325. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11938896/
  326. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17581869.2024.2442292
  327. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-new-guidance-expand-non-opioid-options-chronic-pain-curb-misuse
  328. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463569/opioid-alternative-painkiller-journavx-acute-pain-fda-approval
  329. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913%2825%2900035-9/fulltext
  330. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12065515/
  331. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11995363/
  332. https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01409-0
  333. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12091054/
  334. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11444211/
  335. https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/physical-medicine-rehabilitation/news/case-report-allogeneic-culture-expanded-bone-marrow-derived-mesenchymal-stem-cells-for-the-treatment-of-painful-lumbar-facet-arthropathy/mcc-20573758
  336. https://journals.lww.com/painrpts/fulltext/2024/10000/cellkine_clinical_trial__first_report_from_a_phase.13.aspx
  337. https://advancedspineandpain.com/2024/08/01/the-best-new-regenerative-medicine-treatments-for-chronic-pain/
  338. https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-024-03828-8
  339. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12429811/
  340. https://heal.nih.gov/files/2025-07/Final-HEAL-Pain-Strategic-Research-Priorities-Report-5-14-25.pdf
  341. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/news-events/directors-messages/all-directors-messages/nih-heal-initiativer-promising-path-forward-pain-research
  342. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejp.4767
  343. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11370752/
  344. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11370752
  345. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/fact-sheets/setting-clinical-pain-research-priorities-in-low-and-middle-income-settings/
  346. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2822%2900063-9/fulltext
  347. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9169832/
  348. https://www.who.int/news/item/07-12-2023-who-releases-guidelines-on-chronic-low-back-pain
  349. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/fact-sheets/adapting-global-pain-guidelines-to-local-contexts-strategies-for-low-and-middle-income-countries/
  350. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/fact-sheets/opioid-analgesics-access-in-low-middle-income-countries/
  351. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/fact-sheets/pain-management-education-in-low-and-middle-income-settings/
  352. https://www.who.int/who-revision-of-pain-management-guidelines
  353. https://journals.lww.com/pain/fulltext/2025/11001/tackling_the_growing_burden_of_pain_in.32.aspx
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.