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.

Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a major and highly prevalent health problem. Given the high number of papers available, clinicians might be overwhelmed by the evidence on CLBP management. Taking into account the scale and costs of CLBP, it is imperative that healthcare professionals have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Therefore, this paper provides a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence non-invasive rehabilitation for CLBP. Taking together up-to-date evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analysis and available treatment guidelines, most physically inactive therapies should not be considered for CLBP management, except for pain neuroscience education and spinal manipulative therapy if combined with exercise therapy, with or without psychological therapy. Regarding active therapy, back schools, sensory discrimination training, proprioceptive exercises, and sling exercises should not be considered due to low-quality and/or conflicting evidence. Exercise interventions on the other hand are recommended, but while all exercise modalities appear effective compared to minimal/passive/conservative/no intervention, there is no evidence that some specific types of exercises are superior to others. Therefore, we recommend choosing exercises in line with the patient’s preferences and abilities. When exercise interventions are combined with a psychological component, effects are better and maintain longer over time.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability in older adults, which most commonly affects the joints of the knee, hip, and hand. To date, there are no established disease modifying interventions that can halt or reverse OA progression. Therefore, treatment is focused on alleviating pain and maintaining or improving physical and psychological function. Rehabilitation is widely recommended as first-line treatment for OA as, in many cases, it is safer and more effective than the best-established pharmacological interventions. In this article, we describe the presentation of OA pain and give an overview of its peripheral and central mechanisms. We then provide a state-of-the-art review of rehabilitation for OA pain—including self-management programs, exercise, weight loss, cognitive behavioral therapy, adjunct therapies, and the use of aids and devices. Next, we explore several promising directions for clinical practice, including novel education strategies to target unhelpful illness and treatment beliefs, methods to enhance the efficacy of exercise interventions, and innovative, brain-directed treatments. Finally, we discuss potential future research in areas, such as treatment adherence and personalized rehabilitation for OA pain.

(1) Background: In recent years, placebo and nocebo effects have been extensively documented in different medical conditions, including pain. The scientific literature has provided strong evidence of how the psychosocial context accompanying the treatment administration can influence the therapeutic outcome positively (placebo effects) or negatively (nocebo effects). (2) Methods: This state-of-the-art paper aims to provide an updated overview of placebo and nocebo effects on pain. (3) Results: The most common study designs, the psychological mechanisms, and neurobiological/genetic determinants of these phenomena are discussed, focusing on the differences between positive and negative context effects on pain in experimental settings on healthy volunteers and in clinical settings on chronic pain patients. Finally, the last section describes the implications for clinical and research practice to maximize the medical and scientific routine and correctly interpret the results of research studies on placebo and nocebo effects. (4) Conclusions: While studies on healthy participants seem consistent and provide a clear picture of how the brain reacts to the context, there are no unique results of the occurrence and magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in chronic pain patients, mainly due to the heterogeneity of pain. This opens up the need for future studies on the topic.

The objective of this cross-sectional study was to analyze the relationship between symptoms of central sensitization (CS) and important cognitive behavioral and psychosocial factors in a sample of patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Participants with chronic nonspecific low back pain for at least 3 months were included in the study. They completed several questionnaires and a functional test. Pearson's correlation was used to analyze associations between symptoms of CS and pain behavior, functioning, pain, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, and illness perceptions. Additionally, a between-group analysis was performed to compare patients with and without clinically relevant symptoms of CS. Data from 38 participants were analyzed. Significant associations were found between symptoms of CS and all other outcomes, especially current pain (r = 0.510, P = .001), mean pain during the past 7 days (r = 0.505, P = .001), and pain catastrophizing (r = 0.518, P = .001). Patients with clinically relevant symptoms of CS scored significantly worse on all outcomes compared with persons without relevant symptoms of CS, except on functioning (P = .128). Symptoms of CS were significantly associated with psychosocial and cognitive behavioral factors. Patients exhibiting a clinically relevant degree of symptoms of CS scored significantly worse on most outcomes, compared with the subgroup of the sample with fewer symptoms of CS.

Chronic pain is the most prevalent disease worldwide, leading to substantial disability and socioeconomic burden. Therefore, it can be regarded as a public health disease and major challenge to scientists, clinicians and affected individuals. Behavioral lifestyle factors, such as, physical (in)activity, stress, poor sleep and an unhealthy diet are increasingly recognized as perpetuating factors for chronic pain. Yet, current management options for patients with chronic pain often do not address lifestyle factors in a personalized multimodal fashion. This state-of-the-art clinical perspective aims to address this gap by discussing how clinicians can simultaneously incorporate various lifestyle factors into a personalized multimodal lifestyle intervention for individuals with chronic pain. To do so the available evidence on (multimodal) lifestyle interventions targeting physical (in)activity, stress, sleep and nutritional factors, specifically, was reviewed and synthetized from a clinical point of view. First, advise is provided on how to design a personalized multimodal lifestyle approach for a specific patient. Subsequently, best-evidence recommendations on how to integrate physical (in)activity, stress, sleep and nutritional factors as treatment targets into a personalized multimodal lifestyle approach are outlined. Evidence supporting such a personalized multimodal lifestyle approach is growing, but further studies are needed.