A systematic review of genome-wide association studies for pain, nociception, neuropathy, and pain treatment responses

Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide, imposing an enormous burden on personal health and society. Pain is a multifactorial and multidimensional problem. Currently, there is (some) evidence that genetic factors could partially explain individual susceptibility to pain and interpersonal differences in pain treatment response. To better understand the underlying genetic mechanisms of pain, we systematically reviewed and summarized genome-wide association studies (GWASes) investigating the associations between genetic variants and pain/pain-related phenotypes in humans. We reviewed 57 full-text articles and identified 30 loci reported in more than 1 study. To check whether genes described in this review are associated with (other) pain phenotypes, we searched 2 pain genetic databases, Human Pain Genetics Database and Mouse Pain Genetics Database. Six GWAS-identified genes/loci were also reported in those databases, mainly involved in neurological functions and inflammation. These findings demonstrate an important contribution of genetic factors to the risk of pain and pain-related phenotypes. However, replication studies with consistent phenotype definitions and sufficient statistical power are required to validate these pain-associated genes further. Our review also highlights the need for bioinformatic tools to elucidate the function of identified genes/loci. We believe that a better understanding of the genetic background of pain will shed light on the underlying biological mechanisms of pain and benefit patients by improving the clinical management of pain.</p

Palliatieve zorg als 'heelkunst' : preventie en integratie in de levenscyclus!

Contains fulltext : 30134_pallzoalh.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Inaugural address Radboud University Nijmegen32 p

Palliative care is not yet a well-defined product within the Dutch healthcare insurance system

In the Netherlands, the quality and availability of palliative care has improved markedly within the last decade. However, many open questions remain concerning the position of palliative care as an insurable product on the Dutch healthcare market. Therefore, we analysed the policies of all private Dutch healthcare insurance companies as well as the public insurance policy for extraordinary medical costs. We studied how and which parts of palliative care were reimbursed in 2007. We observed a huge variability in costs and reimbursement regulations reflecting a rapid turnover of products for palliative care due to various new developments on this specific field of medical care. We conclude that a better definition of the product 'palliative care' is necessary for patients, health care providers and insurance companies.Policy development Palliative care Healthcare insurance

Development of a national quality framework for palliative care in a mixed generalist and specialist care model: A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique

In a predominantly biomedical healthcare model focused on cure, providing optimal, person-centred palliative care is challenging. The general public, patients, and healthcare professionals are often unaware of palliative care’s benefits. Poor interdisciplinary teamwork and limited communication combined with a lack of early identification of patients with palliative care needs contribute to sub-optimal palliative care provision. We aimed to develop a national quality framework to improve availability and access to high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. We hypothesised that a whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique would be suitable to reach this aim. Analogous to the international AGREE guideline criteria and employing a whole-sector approach, an expert panel comprising mandated representatives for patients and their families, various healthcare associations, and health insurers answered the main question: ‘What are the elements defining high-quality palliative care in the Netherlands?’. For constructing the quality framework, a bottleneck analysis of palliative care provision and a literature review were conducted. Six core documents were used in a modified Delphi technique to build the framework with the expert panel, while stakeholder organisations were involved and informed in round-table discussions. In the entire process, preparing and building relationships took one year and surveying, convening, discussing content, consulting peers, and obtaining final consent from all stakeholders took 18 months. A quality framework, including a glossary of terms, endorsed by organisations representing patients and their families, general practitioners, elderly care physicians, medical specialists, nurses, social workers, psychologists, spiritual caregivers, and health insurers was developed and annexed with a summary for patients and families. We successfully developed a national consensus-based patient-centred quality framework for high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique are feasible structures to achieve this aim. The process we reported may guide other countries in their initiatives to enhance palliative care

Avoiding Catch-22: validating the PainDETECT in a population of patients with chronic pain

Abstract Background Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and is a major therapeutic challenge. Several screening tools have been developed to help physicians detect patients with neuropathic pain. These have typically been validated in populations pre-stratified for neuropathic pain, leading to a so called “Catch-22 situation:” “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule”. The validity of screening tools needs to be proven in patients with pain who were not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome: neuropathic pain or non-neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the validity of the Dutch PainDETECT (PainDETECT-Dlv) in a large population of patients with chronic pain. Methods A cross-sectional multicentre design was used to assess PainDETECT-Dlv validity. Included where patients with low back pain radiating into the leg(s), patients with neck-shoulder-arm pain and patients with pain due to a suspected peripheral nerve damage. Patients’ pain was classified as having a neuropathic pain component (yes/no) by two experienced physicians (“gold standard”). Physician opinion based on the Grading System was a secondary comparison. Results In total, 291 patients were included. Primary analysis was done on patients where both physicians agreed upon the pain classification (n = 228). Compared to the physician’s classification, PainDETECT-Dlv had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 55%, versus the Grading System it achieved 74 and 46%. Conclusion Despite its internal consistency and test-retest reliability the PainDETECT-Dlv is not an effective screening tool for a neuropathic pain component in a population of patients with chronic pain because of its moderate sensitivity and low specificity. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the PainDETECT-Dlv as a surrogate for clinical assessment should be avoided in daily clinical practice as well as in (clinical-) research. Catch-22 situations in the validation of screening tools can be prevented by not pre-stratifying the patients on basis of the target outcome before inclusion in a validation study for screening instruments. Trial registration The protocol was registered prospectively in the Dutch National Trial Register: NTR 3030

Avoiding Catch-22: validating the PainDETECT in a in a population of patients with chronic pain

Abstract Background Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and is a major therapeutic challenge. Several screening tools have been developed to help physicians detect patients with neuropathic pain. These have typically been validated in populations pre-stratified for neuropathic pain, leading to a so called “Catch-22 situation:” “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule”. The validity of screening tools needs to be proven in patients with pain who were not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome: neuropathic pain or non-neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the validity of the Dutch PainDETECT (PainDETECT-Dlv) in a large population of patients with chronic pain. Methods A cross-sectional multicentre design was used to assess PainDETECT-Dlv validity. Included where patients with low back pain radiating into the leg(s), patients with neck-shoulder-arm pain and patients with pain due to a suspected peripheral nerve damage. Patients’ pain was classified as having a neuropathic pain component (yes/no) by two experienced physicians (“gold standard”). Physician opinion based on the Grading System was a secondary comparison. Results In total, 291 patients were included. Primary analysis was done on patients where both physicians agreed upon the pain classification (n = 228). Compared to the physician’s classification, PainDETECT-Dlv had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 55%, versus the Grading System it achieved 74 and 46%. Conclusion Despite its internal consistency and test-retest reliability the PainDETECT-Dlv is not an effective screening tool for a neuropathic pain component in a population of patients with chronic pain because of its moderate sensitivity and low specificity. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the PainDETECT-Dlv as a surrogate for clinical assessment should be avoided in daily clinical practice as well as in (clinical-) research. Catch-22 situations in the validation of screening tools can be prevented by not pre-stratifying the patients on basis of the target outcome before inclusion in a validation study for screening instruments. Trial registration The protocol was registered prospectively in the Dutch National Trial Register: NTR 3030

Avoiding Catch-22: validating the PainDETECT in a population of patients with chronic pain

Abstract Background Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and is a major therapeutic challenge. Several screening tools have been developed to help physicians detect patients with neuropathic pain. These have typically been validated in populations pre-stratified for neuropathic pain, leading to a so called “Catch-22 situation:” “a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule”. The validity of screening tools needs to be proven in patients with pain who were not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome: neuropathic pain or non-neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the validity of the Dutch PainDETECT (PainDETECT-Dlv) in a large population of patients with chronic pain. Methods A cross-sectional multicentre design was used to assess PainDETECT-Dlv validity. Included where patients with low back pain radiating into the leg(s), patients with neck-shoulder-arm pain and patients with pain due to a suspected peripheral nerve damage. Patients’ pain was classified as having a neuropathic pain component (yes/no) by two experienced physicians (“gold standard”). Physician opinion based on the Grading System was a secondary comparison. Results In total, 291 patients were included. Primary analysis was done on patients where both physicians agreed upon the pain classification (n = 228). Compared to the physician’s classification, PainDETECT-Dlv had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 55%, versus the Grading System it achieved 74 and 46%. Conclusion Despite its internal consistency and test-retest reliability the PainDETECT-Dlv is not an effective screening tool for a neuropathic pain component in a population of patients with chronic pain because of its moderate sensitivity and low specificity. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the PainDETECT-Dlv as a surrogate for clinical assessment should be avoided in daily clinical practice as well as in (clinical-) research. Catch-22 situations in the validation of screening tools can be prevented by not pre-stratifying the patients on basis of the target outcome before inclusion in a validation study for screening instruments. Trial registration The protocol was registered prospectively in the Dutch National Trial Register: NTR 3030