Pain Phenotypes, Treatment Patterns, and Utilization Burden Among Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Referred to a Tertiary Pain Clinic: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Pain is a prominent and disabling manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal, pelvic, musculoskeletal, axial, and neuropathic pain phenotypes. Patients referred to pain clinics represent a selected subgroup with clinically meaningful, persistent, refractory, or diagnostically complex pain. Objective: To characterize pain phenotypes, treatment patterns, interventional pain-care exposure, and utilization burden among patients with IBD evaluated in tertiary pain-clinic settings and to explore differences between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective electronic medical-record cohort study of patients with documented IBD who were evaluated in pain-clinic settings between 24 October 2010 and 14 May 2026. Repeated clinical entries were aggregated into unique visit dates and patient-level variables. IBD diagnosis, pain phenotypes, treatment documentation, interventional procedures, and pain-clinic utilization were summarized descriptively using counts, percentages, means, medians, interquartile ranges, and ranges as appropriate. Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis subgroups were compared using univariable odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and two-sided p-values. Because repeated clinical entries could belong to the same patient, the primary analytic unit was the patient rather than the individual note. Results: The source dataset included 19,615 clinical entries representing 7053 unique pain-clinic visits among 596 unique patients with IBD. The cohort included 314 patients with Crohn’s disease (52.7%), 247 with ulcerative colitis (41.4%), and 35 with IBD-unclassified (5.9%). The mean number of pain-clinic visits per patient was 11.8, with a median of four visits (interquartile range, 1–11). The dominant patient-level pain phenotypes were limb or peripheral joint pain (395/596, 66.3%), back or axial spine pain (358/596, 60.1%), and abdominal or pelvic pain (246/596, 41.3%). Overall, 437 patients (73.3%) had documentation of at least one interventional pain procedure. Compared with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease was associated with higher documentation of abdominal or pelvic pain (148/314, 47.1% vs. 82/247, 33.2%; odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.27–2.53; p = 0.001) and fibromyalgia-like or widespread pain (83/314, 26.4% vs. 39/247, 15.8%; odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–2.93; p = 0.0027). In contrast, radiofrequency procedures (59/314, 18.8% vs. 78/247, 31.6%; odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–0.74; p = 0.0005) and facet or medial branch procedures (79/314, 25.2% vs. 87/247, 35.2%; odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.89; p = 0.012) were less frequently documented in Crohn’s disease than in ulcerative colitis. Conclusions: Among patients with IBD referred to tertiary pain-clinic evaluation, pain was heterogeneous and predominantly musculoskeletal, axial, neuropathic, and procedurally targetable rather than exclusively visceral. These findings support structured, mechanism-based pain assessment integrated with gastroenterology, rheumatology, and pain-medicine care.