Validity and reliability of Arabic version of the ID Pain screening questionnaire in the assessment of neuropathic pain

Diagnosis of neuropathic pain (NP) can be challenging. The ID Pain (ID-P) questionnaire, a screening tool for NP, has been used widely both in the original version and translated forms. The aim of this study was to develop an Arabic version of ID-P and assess its validity and reliability in detecting neuropathic pain. The original ID-P was translated in Arabic language and administered to the study population. Reliability of the Arabic version was evaluated by percentage observed agreement, and Cohen’s kappa; and validity by sensitivity, specificity, correctly classified, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Physician diagnosis was considered as the gold standard for comparing the diagnostic accuracy. The study included 375 adult patients (153 [40.8%] with NP; 222 [59.2%] with nociceptive pain). Overall observed percentage agreement and Cohen’s kappa were >90% and >0.80, respectively. Median (range) score of ID-P scale was 3 (2–4) and 1 (0–2) in the NP group and NocP group, respectively (p<0.001). Area under the ROC curve was 0.808 (95% CI, 0.764–0.851). For the cut-off value of ≥2, sensitivity was 84.3%, specificity was 66.7%, and correct classification was 73.9%. Thus, the Arabic version of ID-P showed moderate reliability and validity as a pain assessment tool. This article presents the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of ID Pain questionnaire. This Arabic version may serve as a simple yet important screening tool, and help in appropriate management of neuropathic pain, specifically in primary care centers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

A randomized, double-blind comparison of OROS® hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine for the control of chronic cancer pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Long-acting opioid formulations are advocated for maintaining pain control in chronic cancer pain. OROS^®hydromorphone is a sustained-release formulation of hydromorphone that requires dosing once daily to maintain therapeutic concentrations. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the clinical equivalence of immediate-release and sustained-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine for chronic cancer pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>200 patients with cancer pain (requiring ≤ 540 mg/d of oral morphine) participated in this double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive hydromorphone or morphine (immediate-release for 2–9 days, sustained-release for 10–15 days). Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), investigator and patient global evaluations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and the Mini-Mental State Examination. The primary endpoint was the 'worst pain in the past 24 hours' item of the BPI, in both the immediate-release and sustained-release study phases, with treatments deemed equivalent if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the between-group differences at endpoint were between -1.5 and 1.5. No equivalence limits were defined for secondary endpoints.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Least-squares mean differences (95% CI) between groups were 0.2 (-0.4, 0.9) in the immediate-release phase and -0.8 (-1.6, -0.01) in the sustained-release phase (intent-to-treat population), indicating that the immediate-release formulations met the pre-specified equivalence criteria, but that the lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) was outside the boundary (-1.5) for the sustained-release formulations. BPI 'pain now PM' was significantly lower with OROS^®hydromorphone compared with controlled-release morphine (least-squares mean difference [95% CI], -0.77 [-1.49, -0.05]; <it>p </it>= 0.0372). Scores for other secondary efficacy variables were similar between the two sustained-release treatments. At endpoint, > 70% of investigators and patients rated both treatments as good to excellent. The safety profiles of hydromorphone and morphine were similar and typical of opioid analgesics.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Equivalence was demonstrated for immediate-release formulations of hydromorphone and morphine, but not for the sustained-release formulations of OROS^®hydromorphone and controlled-release morphine. The direction of the mean difference between the treatments (-0.8) and the out-of-range lower limit of the 95% CI (-1.6) were in favor of OROS^®hydromorphone.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0041054</p

An open-label, 1-year extension study of the long-term safety and efficacy of once-daily OROS® hydromorphone in patients with chronic cancer pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Opioid analgesics have proven efficacy in the short-term management of chronic cancer pain, but data on their long-term use is more limited. OROS^®hydromorphone is a controlled-release formulation of oral hydromorphone that may be particularly well suited to long-term management of chronic cancer pain because it provides stable plasma concentrations and consistent analgesia with convenient once-daily dosing. The objective of this study (DO-118X) was to characterise the pain control achieved with long-term repeated dosing of OROS^®hydromorphone in patients with chronic cancer pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this multicentre, phase III, open-label, single treatment, 1-year extension study, OROS^®hydromorphone was administered to 68 patients with moderate-to-severe chronic cancer pain, who had successfully completed a short-term equivalence study, and whose pain was controlled with a stable dose of medication (≥ 8 mg OROS^®hydromorphone or equivalent controlled-release morphine). Patients were started on the dose of OROS^®hydromorphone equivalent to the opioid dose on which they achieved dose-stable pain control in the equivalence study; dose adjustments were made as necessary and breakthrough pain medication was permitted. Efficacy was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and patient and investigator global evaluations of treatment effectiveness. No formal statistical analysis was done.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean (standard deviation) duration of exposure to study medication was 139 (129.9) days and the mean (standard deviation) average daily consumption of OROS^®hydromorphone was 43.7 (28.14) mg/day. All scores were maintained at a mild to moderate severity throughout the study; however, BPI scores for pain at its worst, pain at its least, pain on average, pain right now, and pain relief were slightly worsened at end point compared with baseline. Mean BPI pain interference with daily activities and patient and investigator global evaluation scores also remained generally stable. Treatment effectiveness was rated as fair to good throughout the study. The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (n = 24, 35.3%), constipation (n = 22, 32.4%), and vomiting (n = 15, 22.1%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of this extension study suggest that long-term repeated dosing with once-daily OROS^®hydromorphone can be beneficial in the continuing management of persistent, moderate-to-severe cancer pain.</p

Prevalence and clinical features of opioid-induced constipation in the general population: A French study of 15,000 individuals

International audienc