There are an estimated 35 million people with dementia across the world, of whom 50% experience regular pain. Despite this, current assessment and treatment of pain in this patient group are inadequate. In addition to the discomfort and distress caused by pain, it is frequently the underlying cause of behavioral symptoms, which can lead to inappropriate treatment with antipsychotic medications. Pain also contributes to further complications in treatment and care. This review explores four key perspectives of pain management in dementia and makes recommendations for practice and research. The first perspective discussed is the considerable uncertainty within the literature on the impact of dementia neuropathology on pain perception and processing in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, where white matter lesions and brain atrophy appear to influence the neurobiology of pain. The second perspective considers the assessment of pain in dementia. This is challenging, particularly because of the limited capacity of self-report by these individuals, which means that assessment relies in large part on observational methods. A number of tools are available but the psychometric quality and clinical utility of these are uncertain. The evidence for efficient treatment (the third perspective) with analgesics is also limited, with few statistically well-powered trials. The most promising evidence supports the use of stepped treatment approaches, and indicates the benefit of pain and behavioral interventions on both these important symptoms. The fourth perspective debates further difficulties in pain management due to the lack of sufficient training and education for health care professionals at all levels, where evidence-based guidance is urgently needed. To address the current inadequate management of pain in dementia, a comprehensive approach is needed. This would include an accurate, validated assessment tool that is sensitive to different types of pain and therapeutic effects, supported by better training and support for care staff across all settings.

Chronic pain is commonly co-morbid with a depressive or anxiety disorder. Objective of this study is to examine the influence of depression, along with anxiety, on pain-related disability, pain intensity, and pain location in a large sample of adults with and without a depressive and/or anxiety disorder. The study population consisted of 2981 participants with a depressive, anxiety, co-morbid depressive and anxiety disorder, remitted disorder or no current disorder (controls). Severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms was also assessed. In separate multinomial regression analyses, the association of presence of depressive or anxiety disorders and symptom severity with the Chronic Pain Grade and location of pain was explored. Presence of a depressive (OR = 6.67; P<.001), anxiety (OR = 4.84; P<.001), or co-morbid depressive and anxiety disorder (OR = 30.26; P<.001) was associated with the Chronic Pain Grade. Moreover, symptom severity was associated with more disabling and severely limiting pain. Also, a remitted depressive or anxiety disorder showed more disabling and severely limiting pain (OR = 3.53; P<.001) as compared to controls. A current anxiety disorder (OR = 2.96; p<.001) and a co-morbid depressive and anxiety disorder (OR = 5.15; P<.001) were more strongly associated with cardio-respiratory pain, than gastro-intestinal or musculoskeletal pain. These findings remain after adjustment for chronic cardio respiratory illness. Patients with a current and remitted depressive and/or anxiety disorder and those with more severe symptoms have more disabling pain and pain of cardio-respiratory nature, than persons without a depressive or anxiety disorder. This warrants further research.

This study shows that setting and registry characteristics have an important influence on the outcome of multimorbidity studies. We recommend provision of at least information about the setting, the (list of) conditions included, the data collection method, and the time frame used, when reporting about the size and nature of multimorbidity.

BackgroundTo study late-life depression and its unfavourable course and co morbidities in The Netherlands.MethodsWe designed the Netherlands Study of Depression in Older Persons (NESDO), a multi-site naturalistic prospective cohort study which makes it possible to examine the determinants, the course and the consequences of depressive disorders in older persons over a period of six years, and to compare these with those of depression earlier in adulthood.ResultsFrom 2007 until 2010, the NESDO consortium has recruited 510 depressed and non depressed older persons (≥ 60 years) at 5 locations throughout the Netherlands. Depressed persons were recruited from both mental health care institutes and general practices in order to include persons with late-life depression in various developmental and severity stages. Non-depressed persons were recruited from general practices. The baseline assessment included written questionnaires, interviews, a medical examination, cognitive tests and collection of blood and saliva samples. Information was gathered about mental health outcomes and demographic, psychosocial, biological, cognitive and genetic determinants. The baseline NESDO sample consists of 378 depressed (according to DSM-IV criteria) and 132 non-depressed persons aged 60 through 93 years. 95% had a major depression and 26.5% had dysthymia. Mean age of onset of the depressive disorder was around 49 year. For 33.1% of the depressed persons it was their first episode. 41.0% of the depressed persons had a co morbid anxiety disorder. Follow up assessments are currently going on with 6 monthly written questionnaires and face-to-face interviews after 2 and 6 years.ConclusionsThe NESDO sample offers the opportunity to study the neurobiological, psychosocial and physical determinants of depression and its long-term course in older persons. Since largely similar measures were used as in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA; age range 18-65 years), data can be pooled thus creating a large longitudinal database of clinically depressed persons with adequate power and a large set of neurobiological, psychosocial and physical variables from both younger and older depressed persons.

Our findings underline the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic approach to psychiatric disorders in general practice.