Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Chronic pain constitutes a significant burden to patients and healthcare systems. For many patients, the only option is to attempt to manage their pain within their daily lives. Here, we review evidence provided by three systematic reviews for the effect of diet and diet supplements on patients’ experience of chronic pain.

Keywords

chronic pain dietary change dietary ingredients polyunsaturated fatty acids vegetarian

Introduction

Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months.¹ Chronic pain is common in the United Kingdom, affecting up to 30%–50% of the population,² is self-reported in all adult age groups, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and is seen to increase in prevalence in later years of life.³ Chronic pain is associated with reduced physical and mental health-related quality of life for patients and with negative impacts on social relationships and interactions in the workplace.⁴ Healthcare resources feel a significant burden from chronic pain, with hundreds of millions of pounds spent annually by the NHS on pain conditions.^5,6

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends several evidence-based approaches for clinicians managing chronic pain in adults.² These include exercise programmes, psychological therapy, and acupuncture alongside antidepressant use if justified.² Due to limited evidence of efficacy, the use of benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, paracetamol, ketamine, opioids, local anaesthetics, or corticosteroids is not recommended in such scenarios. The NICE recommends research into alternative pain management strategies such as further types of psychological therapies, manual therapies, and social interventions (e.g. exercise and nutrition assessment).

It is known that chronic pain increases with Body Mass Index (BMI).³ A higher BMI is also associated with an increased risk of back pain and musculoskeletal pain.^7,8 Several systematic reviews have been published on different elements of dietary interventions for managing chronic pain.^9–12 It is now timely to provide an overview of this evidence to help guide recommendations for patients. The three systematic reviews discussed in this commentary^9–11 were selected on the quality of evidence reported for relevant pain outcomes (moderate to high).

Aims

This commentary aims to explore and critically appraise three systematic reviews by Crawford et al.,⁹ Field et al.,¹⁰ and Prego-Dominguez et al.¹¹ and expand upon the findings in the context to clinical practice (see Supplementary file 1 for methods, full results, and critical appraisal).

Commentary

The findings from the three reviews suggest the following: (a) whole food dietary change has a small yet positive effect on chronic pain based on average-to-good quality studies, noticeably so for vegetarian/vegan or Mediterranean diets and single food changes (adding plant-based food containing bioactive compounds), (b) Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid (PUFA) supplementation has a small but positive effect on reducing chronic pain based on mostly high-quality studies, and noticeably so for Omega 3 fish oil and when given for less than 3 months at a low dosage (daily intake ≤1.35g), and (c) dietary ingredients of capsaicin, ginger, and rosehip have a small-to-medium sized positive effect on chronic pain based on moderate-to-high-quality evidence (see Table 1 for findings).

Table 1.

Findings of Crawford et al.,⁹ Field et al.,¹⁰ and Prego-Dominguez et al.¹¹

Estimates of effect for dietary interventions on pain reduction
Intervention* statistically significant	Number and type of trial	Estimate of effect SMD (95%CI), p-value, I²	Interpretation of effect and heterogeneity	Quality assessment of included studies (summary)
Crawford et al⁹
Capsaicin*	8 RCTs	SMD −0.56 (−0.72 to −0.39), p < 0.00001 I² = 26%	Medium significant effect and heterogeneity might not be important	Grade: High
Ginger*	5 RCTs	SMD = −0.30 (−0.09 to −0.50), p=0.005, I² = 27%	Small significant effect and heterogeneity might not be important	Grade: Moderate
Rose Hip*	3 RCTs	SMD = 0.37 (0.13 to 0.6), p = 0.0019, I² = 0%	Small significant effect and zero heterogeneity reported	Grade: Moderate
Boswelia*	6 RCTs	SMD = −3.34 (−4.86 to −1.82), p < 0.0001, I²=94%	Large significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Grade: Very low
Curcuma*	3 RCTs	SMD = −1.05 (−1.68 to −0.02), p = 0.001 I² = 65%	Large significant effect and substantial heterogeneity	Grade: Low to very low
Vitamin D*	8 RCTs	SMD= −0.55 (−0.99 to−0.11), p = 0.001 I²=92%	Medium significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Grade: Low
Pycnogenol*	3 RCTs	SMD = −0.75, (−1.30 to −0.20), p = 0.007, I² = 76%	Medium significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Grade: Low
Avocado Soybean Unsaponifiables	5 RCTs	SMD = −0.34 (−0.72 to −0.03), p = 0.07, I² = 88%	Small non-significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Grade: Moderate to low
Glucosamine plus chondroitin	Not reported	SMD = −0.27, (−0.47, 0.06)	Small effect, significance level unclear, and heterogeneity not reported	Not reported
Collagen derivatives	4 RCTs	SMD = −0.01 (−0.32 to 0.34), p = 0.93, I² = 76%	Small non-significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Grade: Low
Willow bark extract	3 RCTs	SMD = −0.29 (−0.57 to 0.00), p=0.05, I² = 0%	Small non-significant effect and zero heterogeneity reported	Grade: Low
PUFA reported in Prego-Dominguez et al¹¹
Field et al¹⁰
Whole foods overall (combined dietary groups)*	22 RCTS and 1 case-controlled study (25 intervention groups)	SMD = −0.44 (−0.63 to −0.24), p < 0.0001, I² = 62%	Small significant effect and substantial heterogeneity	Mostly average-to-good quality studies
Vegetarian/vegan sub-group*	5 RCTs and 1 case-controlled study	SMD = −0.76 (−1.48 to −0.04), p = 0.04, I² =80%	Medium significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Mostly average-to-good quality studies
Single food change*	8 RCTs	SMD = −0.43 (−0.76 to −0.10), p = 0.01, I² = 64%	Small significant effect and substantial heterogeneity	Mostly average-to-good quality studies
Mediterranean*	1 RCT	SMD = −0.56 (−1.12 to 0.0), p = 0.05, I² = n/a	Medium significant effect and heterogeneity n/a (one study)	Average quality study
Elimination diet	4 RCTs	SMD = −0.42 (−0.88 to 0.04), p = 0.07, I² = 43%	Small non-significant effect and moderate heterogeneity	Average quality studies
Energy and/or macronutrient restriction	5 RCTs	SMD = −0.09 (−0.30 to 0.12), p = 0.39, I² = 0%	Small non-significant effect and no heterogeneity	Mostly average-to-good quality studies
Omega 3 focus	1 RCT	SMD = −0.36 (−0.80 to 0.08), p = 0.11, I² = n/a	Small non-significant effect and heterogeneity n/a (one study)	Average quality study
Prego-Dominguez et al¹¹
PUFA supplementation (all types)*	46 RCTs	SMD = −0.40 (−0.58 to −0.22), p = 0.001, I² = 81%	Small significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Mostly high-quality studies
Omega 3 (from fish oil)*	27 RCTs	SMD = −0.47, (−0.68 to −0.26), p = 0.001, I² = 77%	Small significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Unknown
Gamma-linolenic acid (Omega-6)	9 RCTs	SMD −0.16 (−0.44 to 0.12), p = 0.02, I² = 56%	No significant effect and moderate heterogeneity	Unknown
Combined PUFA	3 RCTs	SMD =−0.61 (−1.83 to 0.60), p=0.001, I² =90%	Moderate non-significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Unknown
Dietary intervention	5 RCTs	SMD = −0.63 (−1.30 to 0.05), p = 0.001, I² = 87%	Moderate non-significant effect and considerable heterogeneity	Unknown

As there appears to be initial evidence for the beneficial effects of some diets and dietary supplements for use in chronic musculoskeletal pain, the results from these reviews present interesting possibilities for applications in practice.^13–15 The attraction of these possible benefits is that supplementation is widely available (especially in the UK) without the need for a prescription. Capsaicin, Ginger, Rosehip, and Omega 3 are available as dietary preparations in most supermarkets or supplement shops. Where appropriate, and without evidence of negative health impacts, this is likely to sit well alongside other interventions planned for patients with chronic pain. For specific diets (e.g. Vegetarian and Vegan) this would have to be considered by individual patients as it may reflect a significant change in lifestyle that they are unwilling or unable to adopt. Consideration must additionally be given to the fact that dietary supplementation has the potential to represent a significant financial cost to patients. Chronic pain is more prevalent in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation,³ and it is acknowledged that this must be taken into account when educating patients on potential benefits.

Patient education (learning competencies and adapting behaviours) which is both multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional has previously been described as having a beneficial impact for patients with chronic diseases,¹⁶ and a similar approach may be appropriate in chronic pain. NICE guidance for practitioners on approaches to patient education in the prevention of obesity¹⁷ remains relevant for dietary advice with chronic pain. The guidance highlights the importance of good communication between health professionals and patients and adds that advice should be non-discriminatory, culturally appropriate, written (where appropriate), and tailored to patients’ needs. Patient education that includes verbal teaching with visual media may also be beneficial.¹⁸ Clinicians treating chronic pain will be aware of the subjective impact pain has on each patient and their lifestyle. As such, pain specialists should employ personalised recommendations on possible dietary changes based on individualised discussion for each patient, rather than rely on a set methodology.

Our commentary suggests that there is a gap in the research exploring the development of chronic pain and different types of diets. Despite the moderate-to-high-quality evidence available around the medicinal properties of many supplements, considerable variability exists in studies of this nature and more work is needed to identify dietary interventions that are effective. Future interventions should be well defined to determine the factors that influence the intervention such as vegan versus vegetarian versus non-vegetarian (white meat vs red meat), amount of salt, sugar, fat content, information provided, and mode/frequency of intake. Future research should also use standard reporting frameworks such as the template for intervention description and replication.¹⁹ Furthermore, rather than using unidimensional pain assessments like the VAS and the Numeric Rating Scale, multi-dimensional pain assessment tools should be used to assess dietary interventions. Outcome measures should also consider the biopsychosocial context including physiological measures: physical functioning, development of chronic illness (diabetes and cardiovascular, fibromyalgia), psychological measures (anxiety, depression, and catastrophising), and social measures (family structure, wealth, eating habits, education, employment, and benefits). A longitudinal observational study (20–30 years) of young adults combining the abovementioned outcome measures would help to inform how diet can be changed to avoid or minimise certain pain conditions in the long term. In addition, future research should explore what are the mediating factors of the supplements (e.g. curcuma and its anti-inflammatory effect, specific diets, and reduction in BMI).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Pain and diet: A summary of the evidence for the role of diet modification in chronic pain

Supplemental Material for Pain and diet: A summary of the evidence for the role of diet modification in chronic pain by David Cameron, Joanna Harrison, Shiva Tripathi, and James Hill in British Journal of Pain.

Ethical statement

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not sought for this article because it is not required for review articles.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not sought for this article because no individual patient details or results are utilised.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC) and supported by the NIHR Lancashire Clinical Research Facility. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author contributions

S. T. conceived the review commentary. D. C., S. T., J. H., and J. H. researched the literature. All authors contributed to the first draft of the manuscript and future reviews. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC) and supported by the NIHR Lancashire Clinical Research Facility. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

ORCID iDs

David Cameron

Joanna Harrison

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

ICD-11 for mortality and morbidity statistics [version 02/22]: MG30 Chronic Pain. Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053 (Accessed 02/12/22)

National Institute For Health and . Chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain. Published: 7 April 2021 (Accessed 25/11/22). Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng193

Public Health England . Chronic pain in adults 2017 health survey for england, 2017. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940858/Chronic_Pain_Report.pdf (Accessed 02/12/22)

Dueñas

Ojeda

Salazar

, et al. A review of chronic pain impact on patients, their social environment and the health care system. J Pain Res 2016; 28(9): 457–467. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S105892

Maniadakis

Gray

. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain 2000; 84(1): 95–103. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00187-6

Phillips

. The cost and burden of chronic pain. Reviews in pain 2009; 3(1): 2–5, DOI: 10.1177/204946370900300102

Muthuri

Cooper

Kuh

, et al. Do the associations of body mass index and waist circumference with back pain change as people age? 32 years of follow-up in a British birth cohort. BMJ Open 2020; 10(12): e039197. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039197

Radojčić

Perera

Chen

, et al. Specific body mass index trajectories were related to musculoskeletal pain and mortality: 19-year follow-up cohort. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 141: 54–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.020

Crawford

Boyd

Paat

, et al. Dietary Ingredients as an alternative approach for mitigating chronic musculoskeletal pain: evidence-based recommendations for practice and research in the military. Pain Med 2019; 20(6): 1236–1247. DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnz040

10.

Field

Pourkazemi

Turton

, et al. Dietary interventions are beneficial for patients with chronic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Pain Med 2021; 22(3): 694–714. DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnaa378

11.

Prego-Dominguez

Hadrya

Takkouche

. Polyunsaturated fatty acids and chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician 2016; 19(8): 521–535.

12.

Elma

Yilmaz

Deliens

, et al. Do nutritional factors interact with chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review. J Clin Med 2020; 9(3): 702. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030702

13.

Joanna Briggs

Institute.

Checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses, 2017. Available from: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Systematic_Reviews2017_0.pdf (Accessed 02/12/22)

14.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis in the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988.

15.

Thomas

Chandler

Cumpston

, et al. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane: Cochrane Collaboration, 2022. Available from version 6.3(updated February 2022): www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed 02/12/22)

16.

Lagger

Pataky

Golay

. Efficacy of therapeutic patient education in chronic diseases and obesity. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 79(3): 283–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.03.015

17.

National Institute For Health and Care Excellence (NICE) . Obesity prevention clinical guideline 2006. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg43/resources/obesity-prevention-pdf-975445344709 (Accessed 20/10/22)

18.

Friedman

Cosby

Boyko

, et al. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ 2011; 26(1): 12–21. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-010-0183-x

19.

Hoffmann

Glasziou

Boutron

, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication. TIDieR) checklist and guide BMJ 2014; 348: g1687. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g1687

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.55 MB