This study sought to determine the prevalence and impact of pain in a nationally representative sample of older adults in the United States. Data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study were analyzed. In-person interviews were conducted in 7601 adults ages ≥65 years. The response rate was 71.0% and all analyses were weighted to account for the sampling design. The overall prevalence of bothersome pain in the last month was 52.9%, afflicting 18.7 million older adults in the United States. Pain did not vary across age groups (P = 0.21), and this pattern remained unchanged when accounting for cognitive performance, dementia, proxy responses, and residential care living status. Pain prevalence was higher in women and in older adults with obesity, musculoskeletal conditions, and depressive symptoms (P < 0.001). The majority (74.9%) of older adults with pain endorsed multiple sites of pain. Several measures of physical capacity, including grip strength and lower-extremity physical performance, were associated with pain and multisite pain. For example, self-reported inability to walk 3 blocks was 72% higher in participants with than without pain (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.72 [95% confidence interval 1.56-1.90]). Participants with 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 sites of pain had gait speeds that were 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, and 0.08 meters per second slower, respectively, than older adults without pain, adjusting for disease burden and other potential confounders (P < 0.001). In summary, bothersome pain in the last month was reported by half of the older adult population of the United States in 2011 and was strongly associated with decreased physical function.

Objectives: To examine the prevalence of mobility device use in community‐dwelling older adults in the United States and to investigate the incidence of falls and worry about falling according to type and number of mobility devices used. Design: Analysis of cross‐sectional and longitudinal data from the 2011–12 National Health and Aging Trends Study. Setting: In‐person interviews in the homes of study participants. Participants: Nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries (n = 7,609). Measurements: Participants were asked about mobility device use (e.g., canes, walkers, wheelchairs and scooters) in the last month, 1‐year fall history and worry about falling. Results: Twenty‐four percent of adults aged 65 and older reported mobility device use in 2011, and 9.3% reported using multiple devices within the last month. Mobility device use increased with advancing age and was associated with nonwhite race and ethnicity, female sex, lower education level, greater multimorbidity, and obesity (all P < .001). Adjusting for demographic and health characteristics and physical function, the incidence of falls and recurrent falls was not associated with the use of multiple devices or any particular type of mobility device. Activity‐limiting worry about falling was significantly higher in cane‐only users than in nonusers. Conclusion: The percentage of older adults reporting mobility device use is higher than results from previous national surveys, and multiple device use is common in those who use any device. Mobility device use is not associated with greater incidence of falls. Cane‐only users may compensate for worry about falling by limiting activity.

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) measure outcomes that are meaningful to patients in clinical trials and are critical for determining whether a treatment is effective. The objectives of this study are to (1) describe the different types of COAs and provide an overview of key considerations for evaluating COAs, (2) review COAs and other outcome measures for chronic pain treatments that are recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) or other expert groups, and (3) review advances in understanding pain-related COAs that are relevant to clinical trials. The authors reviewed relevant articles, chapters, and guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency and U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Since the original core set of outcome measures were recommended by IMMPACT 14 years ago, several new advancements and publications relevant to the measurement or interpretation of COAs for chronic pain trials have emerged, presenting new research opportunities. Despite progress in the quality of measurement of several outcome domains for clinical trials of chronic pain, there remain some measurement challenges that require further methodological investigation.