Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for relief of pain in adults. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Cochrane Central, Embase (and others) from inception to July 2019 and updated on 17 May 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Data extraction and synthesis Reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Mean pain intensity and proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or >50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain. Results The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=−0·96 (95% CI −1·14 to –0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = −0·72 (95% CI −0·95 to –0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild and not different to comparators. Conclusion There was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019125054.

Understanding service provision for patients with advanced disease is a research priority, with a need to identify barriers that limit widespread integration of palliative care. To identify patient and organisational factors that influence the duration of hospice-based palliative care in the United Kingdom prior to death. This is a retrospective cohort study. A total of 64 UK hospices providing specialist palliative care inpatient beds and community services extracted data for all adult decedents (aged over 17 years) with progressive, advanced disease, with a prior referral (e.g. inpatient, community teams, and outpatient) who died between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015. Data were requested for factors relating to both the patient and hospice site. Across 42,758 decedents, the median time from referral to death was 48 days. Significant differences in referral to death days were found for those with cancer (53 days) and non-cancer (27 days) (p < 0.0001). As age increases, the median days from referral to death decreases: for those under 50 years (78 days), 50–74 years (59 days), and 75 years and over (39 days) (p = 0.0001). An adjusted multivariable negative binomial model demonstrated increasing age persisting as a significant predictor of fewer days of hospice care, as did being male, having a missing ethnicity classification and having a non-cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001). Despite increasing rhetoric around early referral, patients with advanced disease are receiving referrals to hospice specialist palliative care very late in their illness trajectory. Age and diagnosis persist as determinants of duration of hospice specialist palliative care before death.

Background: Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required. Design: A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice. Data sources: National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for ‘cancer’ AND ‘pain’ in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made. Results: A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only. Conclusion: Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Neuropathic pain in cancer is common and debilitating. It is important to differentiate neuropathic pain from other cancer-related pains as it is associated with worse pain outcomes and requires different treatment strategies. This review summarises recent updates to pain classification, aetiology, pain assessment and current recommendations for treatment in patients with cancer-related neuropathic pain.

Objective: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is being increasingly reported by patients as one of the most common persistent symptoms in post-COVID-19 syndrome or Long COVID. However, there is a lack of understanding of its prevalence, characteristics, and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The objective of this review is to identify and describe the features and characteristics of MSK pain in Long COVID patients. Methods: The narrative review involved a literature search of the following online databases: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL, PsyclNFO, and Web of Science (December 2019 to February 2022). We included observational studies that investigated the prevalence, characteristics, risk factors and mechanisms of MSK pain in Long COVID. After screening and reviewing the initial literature search results, a total of 35 studies were included in this review. Results: The overall reported prevalence of MSK pain in Long COVID ranged widely from 0.3% to 65.2%. The pain has been reported to be localized to a particular region or generalized and widespread. No consistent pattern of progression of MSK pain symptoms over time was identified. Female gender and higher BMI could be potential risk factors for Long COVID MSK pain, but no clear association has been found with age and ethnicity. Different pathophysiological mechanisms have been hypothesized to contribute to MSK pain in Long COVID including increased production of proinflammatory cytokines, immune cell hyperactivation, direct viral entry of neurological and MSK system cells, and psychological factors. Conclusion: MSK pain is one of the most common symptoms in Long COVID. Most of the current literature on Long COVID focuses on reporting the prevalence of persistent MSK pain. Studies describing the pain characteristics are scarce. The precise mechanism of MSK pain in Long COVID is yet to be investigated. Future research must explore the characteristics, risk factors, natural progression, and underlying mechanisms of MSK pain in Long COVID.

Background: Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking. Aim: To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian–Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed. Results: Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients’ pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, −0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive. Conclusion: Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.