Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released clinical criteria and a grading system for nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system. These criteria replaced the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant central sensitization (CS) pain and accounted for clinicians’ need to identify (early) and correctly classify patients having chronic pain according to the pain phenotype. Still, clinicians and researchers can become confused by the multitude of terms and the variety of clinical criteria available. Therefore, this paper aims at (1) providing an overview of what preceded the IASP criteria for nociplastic pain (‘the past’); (2) explaining the new IASP criteria for nociplastic pain in comparison with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain (‘the present’); and (3) highlighting key areas for future implementation and research work in this area (‘the future’). It is explained that the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are in line with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain but are more robust, comprehensive, better developed and hold more potential. Therefore, the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are important steps towards precision pain medicine, yet studies examining the clinimetric and psychometric properties of the criteria are urgently needed.

Nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP) is associated with significant health care use and high rates of disability worldwide.¹ Currently, nonsurgical treatments for nCSP, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, joint manipulation, acupuncture, and exercise therapy, seem to have limited benefits (small to moderate effect sizes).² This finding may be explained by the fact that such treatments do not comply with recent advances in chronic pain research.

Central sensitization (CS) is present in a variety of chronic pain disorders, including whiplash, temporomandibular disorders, low back pain, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, headache, lateral epicondylalgia among others. In spite of our increased understanding of the mechanisms involved in CS pain, its treatment remains a challenging issue. An overview of the treatment options we have for desensitising the CNS in patients with CS pain is provided. These include strategies for eliminating peripheral sources of nociception, as well as pharmacotherapy and conservative interventions that primarily address top-down (i.e., brain-orchestrated) mechanisms. A combination of different strategies, each targeting a different 'desensitizing' mechanism, might prove superior over monotherapies. Such combined therapy may include both bottom-up and top-down (e.g., opioids, combined μ-opioid receptor agonist and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor drugs) strategies. Topically applied analgesic therapies have strong potential for (temporally) decreasing peripheral nociceptive input (bottom-up approach). Targeting metabolic (e.g., ketogenic diets) and neurotrophic factors (e.g., decreasing brain-derived neurotrophic factor) are promising new avenues for diminishing hyperexcitability of the CNS in central sensitization pain patients. Addressing conservative treatments, pain neuroscience education, cognitive behavioural therapy and exercise therapy are promising treatments for CS pain.