Despite the introduction of evidence-based recommendations for postoperative pain management (POPM), the consensus is that pain control remains suboptimal. Barriers to achieving patient-satisfactory analgesia include deficient knowledge regarding POPM among staff, lack of instructions, insufficient pain assessments and sub-optimal treatment. Effective monitoring of POPM is essential to enable policy makers and healthcare providers to improve the quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) are quantitative measures of clinical practice that can monitor, evaluate and guide the quality of care provided to patients. QIs can be used to assess various aspects relating to the care process and they have proven useful in improving health outcomes in diseases such as myocardial infarction. In this commentary we critically analyze the evidence regarding the use of QIs in acute POPM based upon the experience of pain specialists from Europe and the USA who are members of the Change Pain Advisory Board. We also undertook a literature review to see what has been published on QIs in acute pain with the goal of assessing which QIs have been developed and used, and which ones have been successful/unsuccessful. In the hospital sector the development and implementation of QIs is complex. The nature of POPM requires a highly trained, multidisciplinary team and it is at this level that major improvements can be made. Greater involvement of patients regarding pain management is also seen as a priority area for improving clinical outcomes. Changes in structure and processes to deliver high-level quality care need to be regularly audited to ensure translation into better outcomes. QIs can help drive this process by providing an indicator of current levels of performance. In addition, outcomes QIs can be used to benchmark levels of performance between different healthcare providers.

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is defined by pain intensity and pain-related functional interference. This study included measures of function in a composite score of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to investigate the incidence of CPSP. Registry data were analyzed for PROs 1 day and 12 months postoperatively. Based on pain intensity and pain-related interference with function, patients were allocated to the groups “CPSPF” (at least moderate pain with interference), “mixed” (milder symptoms), and “no CPSPF”. The incidence of CPSPF was compared with CPSP rates referring to published data. Variables associated with the PRO-12 score (composite PROs at 12 months; numeric rating scale 0-10) were analyzed by linear regression analysis. Of 2319 patients, 8.6%, 32.5%, and 58.9% were allocated to the groups CPSPF, mixed, and no CPSPF, respectively. Exclusion of patients whose pain scores did not increase compared with the preoperative status, resulted in a 3.3% incidence. Of the patients without pre-existing pain, 4.1% had CPSPF. Previously published pain cutoffs of numeric rating scale >0, ≥3, or ≥4, used to define CPSP, produced rates of 37.5%, 9.7%, and 5.7%. Pre-existing chronic pain, preoperative opioid medication, and type of surgery were associated with the PRO-12 score (all P < 0.05). Opioid doses and PROs 24 hours postoperatively improved the fit of the regression model. A more comprehensive assessment of pain and interference resulted in lower CPSP rates than previously reported. Although inclusion of CPSP in the ICD-11 is a welcome step, evaluation of pain characteristics would be helpful in differentiation between CPSPF and continuation of pre-existing chronic pain.

Effective perioperative pain management is crucial to prevent patient suffering, delayed recovery, chronic postsurgical pain, and long-term opioid use. However, the heterogeneous use of outcomes in studies complicates evidence synthesis and might not accurately reflect the experiences of individual patients. We initiated a consensus process to establish a core outcome set (COS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in postoperative pain, building upon the earlier consensus on a COS of domains. Potential PROMs were identified via systematic literature searches for the domains pain intensity (with subdomains at rest and during activity), physical function, self-efficacy, and adverse events, followed by appraisal of psychometric properties according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology. Then, a consensus meeting was convened, followed by a Delphi process with an international, multiprofessional panel of stakeholders, including those with lived experience. A conclusive consensus meeting approved the final COS of PROMs. The final COS consists of one unidimensional numerical rating scale for assessing pain intensity on average, worst pain intensity, pain intensity at rest, and procedure-specific pain intensity during activity; one unidimensional scale for pain interfering with activities in bed; one procedure-specific scale for assessing physical function; the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale for assessing self-efficacy; and the IMI-PainCare PROMPT adaptation of the Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale for assessing adverse events. Comprehensive use of a core outcome set will help harmonise outcome assessment, facilitate comparisons between studies, promote patient-centred research, and improve postoperative pain care.

Inadequate treatment of postoperative pain in hospital is still a common complaint by patients in Germany (1, 2). This is an unacceptable state of affairs. There has been an S3 guideline on postoperative pain therapy in Germany since 2007 (3)...

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects over half a billion people worldwide. Current pharmacologic treatments offer limited efficacy and carry substantial risks, warranting the development of safe and effective alternatives. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of VER-01 in CLBP. It enrolled 820 adults with CLBP (VER-01, n = 394; placebo, n = 426) and included a double-blind 12-week treatment phase (phase A), a 6-month open-label extension (phase B), followed by either a 6-month continuation (phase C) or randomized withdrawal (phase D). The primary endpoint of phase A was a change in mean numeric rating scale (NRS) pain intensity, with a change in total neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI) score as a key secondary endpoint in participants with a neuropathic pain component (PainDETECT > 18). The primary endpoint for phase D was time to treatment failure. The study met its primary endpoint in phase A, with a mean pain reduction of −1.9 NRS points in the VER-01 group (mean difference (MD) versus placebo = −0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.9 to −0.3; P < 0.001). Pain further decreased to −2.9 NRS points in phase B, with effects sustained through phase C. The study also met its key secondary endpoint of phase A, with a mean NPSI decrease of −14.4 (standard error, 3.3) points from baseline in the VER-01 arm (MD versus placebo = −7.3, 95% CI = −13.2 to −1.3; P = 0.017). Although phase D did not meet its primary endpoint (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.44–1.27; P = 0.288), pain increased significantly more with placebo upon withdrawal (MD = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.0–1.0; P = 0.034). In phase A, the incidence of adverse events—mostly mild to moderate and transient—was higher with VER-01 than with placebo (83.3% versus 67.3%; P < 0.001). VER-01 was well-tolerated, with no signs of dependence or withdrawal. VER-01 shows potential as a new, safe and effective treatment for CLBP. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04940741 .