No abstract

CABG and SCS appear to be equivalent methods in terms of symptom relief in this group of patients. Effects on ischemia, morbidity, and mortality should be considered in the choice of treatment method. Taking all factors into account, it seems reasonable to conclude that SCS may be a therapeutic alternative for patients with an increased risk of surgical complications.

Background: Chronic pain constitutes a substantial socio-economic challenge but little is known about its actual cost. Aim: To estimate the direct and indirect costs of patients with a diagnosis related to chronic pain (DRCP), to determine variation in these costs across different diagnosis groups, and to identify what resources constitute the most important components of costs. Methods: Patient level data from three administrative registries in Västra Götalandsregionen in Sweden including inpatient and outpatient care, prescriptions, long-term sick-leaves, and early retirement were extracted. Patients with a DRCP between January 2004 and November 2009 were selected. Results: In total, 840,000 patients with a DRCP were identified. The mean total costs per patient and year were estimated at 6400 EUR but were higher for patients with cancer (10,400 EUR). Patients on analgesic drugs had more than twice as high costs as patients without analgesic drugs, on average. Indirect costs (sick-leaves and early retirement) constituted the largest cost component (59%) followed by outpatient (21%) and inpatient care (14%), whereas analgesic drug prescriptions constituted less than 1 percent of the total. Conclusions: The socio-economic burden of patients with a diagnosis related to chronic pain amounts to 32 billion EUR per year, when findings from Västra Götalandsregionen are extrapolated to the whole of Sweden. This compares to a fifth of the total Swedish tax burden in 2007 or about a tenth of Swedish GDP. This study does not provide evidence on what costs are caused by chronic pain per se. However, the higher costs of patients on analgesic drugs might indicate that the consequences of pain are of major importance.

No abstract

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over multi-center study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain caused by traumatic or postsurgical peripheral nerve injury, using doses up to 2400 mg/day. The study comprised a run-in period of two weeks, two treatment periods of five weeks separated by a three weeks' washout period. The primary efficacy variable was the change in the mean pain intensity score from baseline to the last week of treatment. Other variables included pain relief, health related quality of life (SF-36), interference of sleep by pain, Clinician and Patient Global Impression of Change, and adverse effects. Nine centers randomized a total of 120 patients, 22 of whom withdrew. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatments for the primary outcome efficacy variable. However, gabapentin provided significantly better pain relief (p=0.015) compared with placebo. More patients had at least a 30% pain reduction with gabapentin compared with placebo (p=0.040) and pain interfered significantly less with sleep during gabapentin treatment compared with placebo (p=0.0016). Both the Patient (p=0.023) and Clinician (p=0.037) Global Impression of Change indicated a better response with gabapentin compared with placebo. Gabapentin was well tolerated. The most common adverse effects were dizziness and tiredness.