The issues and challenges of orofacial pain in the elderly

Prevalence of orofacial pain in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review investigated the prevalence of orofacial pain in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search was conducted in five databases (Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus and LILACS), in three grey literature sources and in included articles' reference lists. Three independent reviewers performed study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Institutes of Health tool. Prevalence was calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore the heterogeneity of results.

RESULTS

The database and grey literature search led to 12 246 results, from which nine studies were included; a further four were selected through citation searching. The total sample comprised 6115 patients with dementia and 84 with MCI. All studies had high risk of bias. The overall estimated pooled prevalence of orofacial pain among dementia participants was 19.0% (95% CI, 11.0%-27.0%; I2 , 97.1%, P < .001). Only one study included MCI participants, among which the prevalence of orofacial pain was 20.5%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the different sources of diagnosis might explain the heterogeneity. A higher prevalence of orofacial pain was observed in dementia participants aged over 80 years or living in nursing homes. Meta-regression analysis showed a nonlinear relationship between age and the prevalence of orofacial pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled data from the primary studies revealed that 2 out of 10 patients with dementia have orofacial pain. Further research is needed to clarify the magnitude in individuals with MCI.

Psychometric evaluation of the Orofacial Pain Scale for Non-Verbal Individuals as a screening tool for orofacial pain in people with dementia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the psychometric evaluation of the Orofacial Pain Scale for Non-Verbal Individuals (OPS-NVI) as a screening tool for orofacial pain in people with dementia.

BACKGROUND

The OPS-NVI has recently been developed and needs psychometric evaluation for clinical use in people with dementia. The pain self-report is imperative as a reference standard and can be provided by people with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment.

METHODS

The presence of orofacial pain during rest, drinking, chewing and oral hygiene care was observed in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia using the OPS-NVI. Participants who were considered to present a reliable self-report were asked about pain presence, and in all participants, the oral health was examined by a dentist for the presence of potential painful conditions. After item-reduction, inter-rater reliability and criterion validity were determined.

RESULTS

The presence of orofacial pain in this population was low (0%-10%), resulting in an average Positive Agreement of 0%-100%, an average Negative Agreement of 77%-100%, a sensitivity of 0%-100% and a specificity of 66%-100% for the individual items of the OPS-NVI. At the same time, the presence of oral problems, such as ulcers, tooth root remnants and caries was high (64.5%).

CONCLUSION

The orofacial pain presence in this MCI and dementia population was low, resulting in low scores for average Positive Agreement and sensitivity and high scores for average Negative Agreement and specificity. Therefore, the OPS-NVI in its current form cannot be recommended as a screening tool for orofacial pain in people with MCI and dementia. However, the inter-rater reliability and criterion validity of the individual items in this study provide more insight for the further adjustment of the OPS-NVI for diagnostic use. Notably, oral health problems were frequently present, although no pain was reported or observed, indicating that oral health problems cannot be used as a new reference standard for orofacial pain, and a regular oral examination by care providers and oral hygiene care professionals remains indispensable.

Pain in dementia: prevalence and associated factors: protocol of a multidisciplinary study

Background

Pain is a common problem in people with dementia, however the exact prevalence of pain in dementia subtypes, e.g. Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), Vascular Dementia (VaD), Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) and dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB), is unknown, as is the relation between pain and the different subtypes of dementia. In this study, the prevalence of pain in people with dementia will be investigated per dementia subtype and the relationship between the various subtypes of dementia and the presence of specific types of pain (i.e. musculoskeletal pain, neuropathic pain and orofacial pain) will be examined. Secondly, associations between various types of pain, cognitive functioning, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life in people with dementia will be examined. A third purpose is to study the value of the assessment of autonomic responses in assessing pain in people with dementia. Finally, the effect of feedback to the attending physician on the presence of pain, based on examination by investigators with backgrounds in neuropsychology, geriatric dentistry and elderly care medicine, will be evaluated.

Methods/Design

A cross-sectional, partially longitudinal observational study in 400 participants with dementia, aged 60 years and older. Participants will be recruited from an outpatient memory clinic and dementia special care units. All participants will be examined by an elderly care medicine trainee, a dentist with experience in geriatric dentistry, and a neuropsychologist. The primary outcome is presence of pain. Secondary outcomes will include oral health, autonomic responses to pain stimulus, vital sensibility and gnostic sensibility, musculoskeletal examination, cognitive functioning, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and quality of life.

Discussion

This study will help to enhance our knowledge regarding the prevalence of different types of pain in different dementia subtypes i.e. AD, VaD, FTD and DLB. This study also aims to contribute to a better understanding of oral health status in people with dementia, the use of autonomic responses in the assessment of pain in people with dementia and the relationships between pain and cognitive symptoms, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life in people with various dementia subtypes and in different stages of the disease.

Guidance on the management of pain in older people

This guidance document reviews the epidemiology and management of pain in older people via a literature review of published research. The aim of this document is to inform health professionals in any care setting who work with older adults on best practice for the management of pain and to identify where there are gaps in the evidence that require further research. The assessment of pain in older people has not been covered within this guidance and can be found in a separate document (http://www.britishpainsociety.org/pub_professional.htm#assessmentpop). Substantial differences in the population, methods and definitions used in published research makes it difficult to compare across studies and impossible to determine the definitive prevalence of pain in older people. There are inconsistencies within the literature as to whether or not pain increases or decreases in this age group, and whether this is influenced by gender. There is, however, some evidence that the prevalence of pain is higher within residential care settings. The three most common sites of pain in older people are the back; leg/knee or hip and 'other' joints. In common with the working-age population, the attitudes and beliefs of older people influence all aspects of their pain experience. Stoicism is particularly evident within this cohort of people. Evidence from the literature search suggests that paracetamol should be considered as first-line treatment for the management of both acute and persistent pain, particularly that which is of musculoskeletal origin, due to its demonstrated efficacy and good safety profile. There are few absolute contraindications and relative cautions to prescribing paracetamol. It is, however, important that the maximum daily dose (4 g/24 h) is not exceeded. Non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be used with caution in older people after other safer treatments have not provided sufficient pain relief. The lowest dose should be provided, for the shortest duration. For older adults, an NSAID or cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitor should be co-prescribed with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and the one with the lowest acquisition cost should be chosen. All older people taking NSAIDs should be routinely monitored for gastrointestinal, renal and cardiovascular side effects, and drug–drug and drug–disease interactions. Opioid therapy may be considered for patients with moderate or severe pain, particularly if the pain is causing functional impairment or is reducing their quality of life. However, this must be individualised and carefully monitored. Opioid side effects including nausea and vomiting should be anticipated and suitable prophylaxis considered. Appropriate laxative therapy, such as the combination of a stool softener and a stimulant laxative, should be prescribed throughout treatment for all older people who are prescribed opioid therapy. Tricyclic antidepressants and anti-epileptic drugs have demonstrated efficacy in several types of neuropathic pain. But, tolerability and adverse effects limit their use in an older population. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections in osteoarthritis of the knee are effective in relieving pain in the short term, with little risk of complications and/or joint damage. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid is effective and free of systemic adverse effects. It should be considered in patients who are intolerant to systemic therapy. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid appears to have a slower onset of action than intra-articular steroids, but the effects seem to last longer. The current evidence for the use of epidural steroid injections in the management of sciatica is conflicting and, until further larger studies become available, no firm recommendations can be made. There is, however, a limited body of evidence to support the use of epidural injections in spinal stenosis. The literature review suggests that assistive devices are widely used and that the ownership of devices increases with age. Such devices enable older people with chronic pain to live in the community. However, they do not necessarily reduce pain and can increase pain if used incorrectly. Increasing activity by way of exercise should be considered. This should involve strengthening, flexibility, endurance and balance, along with a programme of education. Patient preference should be given serious consideration. A number of complementary therapies have been found to have some efficacy among the older population, including acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and massage. Such approaches can affect pain and anxiety and are worth further investigation. Some psychological approaches have been found to be useful for the older population, including guided imagery, biofeedback training and relaxation. There is also some evidence supporting the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) among nursing home populations, but of course these approaches require training and time. There are many areas that require further research, including pharmacological management where approaches are often tested in younger populations and then translated across. Prevalence studies need consistency in terms of age, diagnosis and terminology, and further work needs to be done on evaluating non-pharmacological approaches.

Psychological evaluation and cope with trigeminal neuralgia and temporomandibular disorder

OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychological aspects of orofacial pain in trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and temporomandibular disorder (TMD), and associated factors of coping as limitations in daily activities and feelings about the treatment and about the pain. METHOD: 30 patients were evaluated (15 with TN and 15 with TMD) using a semi-directed interview and the Hospital Anxiety Depression (HAD) scale. RESULTS: TN patients knew more about their diagnosis (p<0.001). Most of the patients with TN considered their disease severe (87%), in opposite to TMD (p=0.004); both groups had a high level of limitations in daily activities, and the most helpful factors to overcome pain were the proposed treatment followed by religiosity (p<0.04). Means of HAD scores were 10.9 for anxiety (moderate) and 11.67 for depression (mild), and were not statistically different between TMD and NT (p=0.20). CONCLUSION: TN and TMD had similar scores of anxiety and depression, therefore patients consider TN more severe than TMD. Even with higher limitations, patients with TN cope better with their disease then patients with TMD.