PAIN ®10. Remember the context: Always be flexible: This is a stressful time for everyone, but particularly for those with long-term conditions. Each patient will be dealing with extra pressures (eg, financial, childcare, and health of others) that may be influence her or his pain and ability to cope.

Neuropathic pain (NeP), generated by disorders of the peripheral and central nervous system, can be particularly severe and disabling. Prevalence estimates indicate that 2% to 3% of the population in the developed world suffer from NeP, which suggests that up to one million Canadians have this disabling condition. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of NeP are therefore urgently needed. Randomized, controlled trials, systematic reviews and existing guidelines focusing on the pharmacological management of NeP were evaluated at a consensus meeting. Medications are recommended in the guidelines if their analgesic efficacy was supported by at least one methodologically sound, randomized, controlled trial showing significant benefit relative to placebo or another relevant control group. Recommendations for treatment are based on degree of evidence of analgesic efficacy, safety, ease of use and cost-effectiveness. Analgesic agents recommended for first-line treatments are certain antidepressants (tricyclics) and anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin). Second-line treatments recommended are serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and topical lidocaine. Tramadol and controlled-release opioid analgesics are recommended as third-line treatments for moderate to severe pain. Recommended fourth-line treatments include cannabinoids, methadone and anticonvulsants with lesser evidence of efficacy, such as lamotrigine, topiramate and valproic acid. Treatment must be individualized for each patient based on efficacy, side-effect profile and drug accessibility, including cost. Further studies are required to examine head-to-head comparisons among analgesics, combinations of analgesics, long-term outcomes, and treatment of pediatric and central NeP.

Effective therapeutic options for patients living with chronic pain are limited. The pain relieving effect of cannabinoids remains unclear. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain was conducted according to the PRISMA statement update on the QUORUM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews that evaluate health care interventions. Cannabinoids studied included smoked cannabis, oromucosal extracts of cannabis based medicine, nabilone, dronabinol and a novel THC analogue. Chronic non-cancer pain conditions included neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and mixed chronic pain. Overall the quality of trials was excellent. Fifteen of the eighteen trials that met the inclusion criteria demonstrated a significant analgesic effect of cannabinoid as compared with placebo and several reported significant improvements in sleep. There were no serious adverse effects. Adverse effects most commonly reported were generally well tolerated, mild to moderate in severity and led to withdrawal from the studies in only a few cases. Overall there is evidence that cannabinoids are safe and modestly effective in neuropathic pain with preliminary evidence of efficacy in fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis. The context of the need for additional treatments for chronic pain is reviewed. Further large studies of longer duration examining specific cannabinoids in homogeneous populations are required.

Only one-third of the present sample could identify time designated for teaching mandatory pain content. Two-thirds reported 'integrated' content that was not quantifiable or able to be determined, which may suggest it is not a priority at that site. Many expressed a need for pain-related curriculum resources.

The objective of the present study was to examine the relative contributions of different dimensions of catastrophic thinking (i.e. rumination, magnification, helplessness) to the pain experience and disability associated with neuropathic pain. Eighty patients with diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, post-surgical or post-traumatic neuropathic pain who had volunteered for participation in a clinical trial formed the basis of the present analyses. Spontaneous pain was assessed with the sensory and affective subscales of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic tactile allodynia were used as measures of evoked pain. Consistent with previous research, individuals who scored higher on a measure of catastrophic thinking (Pain Catastrophizing Scale; PCS) also rated their pain as more intense, and rated themselves to be more disabled due to their pain. Follow up analyses revealed that the PCS was significantly correlated with the affective subscale of the MPQ but not with the sensory subscale. The helplessness subscale of the PCS was the only dimension of catastrophizing to contribute significant unique variance to the prediction of pain. The PCS was not significantly correlated with measures of evoked pain. Catastrophizing predicted pain-related disability over and above the variance accounted for by pain severity. The findings are discussed in terms of mechanisms linking catastrophic thinking to pain experience. Treatment implications are addressed.