A modified score to identify and discriminate neuropathic pain: a study on the German version of the neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Neuropathic pain must be correctly diagnosed for optimal treatment. The questionnaire named Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) was developed in its original French version to evaluate the different symptoms of neuropathic pain. We hypothesized that the NPSI might also be used to differentiate neuropathic from non-neuropathic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We translated the NPSI into German using a standard forward-backward translation and administered it in a case-control design to patients with neuropathic (n = 68) and non-neuropathic pain (headache and osteoarthritis, n = 169) to validate it and to analyze its discriminant properties, its sensitivity to change, and to detect neuropathic pain subgroups with distinct profiles.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using a sum score (the NPSI-G score), we found sensitivity to change (r between 0.37 and 0.5 for pain items of the graded chronic pain scale) and could distinguish between neuropathic and other pain on a group basis, but not for individual patients. Post hoc development of a discriminant score with optimized diagnostic properties to distinguish neuropathic pain from non-neuropathic pain resulted in an instrument with high sensitivity (91%) and acceptable specificity (70%). We detected six different pain profiles in the patient group with neuropathic pain; three profiles were found to be distinct.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The NPSI-G potentially combines the properties of a diagnostic tool and an instrument to identify subtypes of neuropathic pain.</p

A comparison of the DN4 and LANSS questionnaires in the assessment of neuropathic pain: validity and reliability of the Turkish version of DN4

A screening tool that quickly and correctly differentiates neuropathic pain from non neuropathic pain is essential Although there are many screening tools in the assessment of neuropathic pain many physicians still have the problem of not being able to identify their neuropathic pain patients easily In this study we assessed the test retest reliability internal consistency and validity of the Turkish version of DN4 questionnaire Within the same group of patients we also corn pared the DN4 with the LANSS questionnaire A total of 180 patients (n = 121 with neuropathic pain and n = 59 with non neuropathic pain characteristics) were enrolled In our study population peripheral origin of neuropathic pain mainly radiculopathies and polyneuropathies dominated The reliability and validity of Turkish version of DN4 were found to be high The sensitivities of the DN4 and the LANSS were 95% and 70 2% respectively The specificity of both tests was 96 6% The strengths and weaknesses of these questionnaires are discussed Perspective The Turkish version of DN4 questionnaire is reliable and valid It is also an easier quicker and more sensitive screening tool (1 minute test) compared with the Turkish version of LANSS questionnaire These features of the DN4 may help clinicians to identify their neuropathic pain patients accurately in daily clinical practice and research studies (C) 2010 by the American Pain Societ

Neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain patients: What is the evidence of prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis in primary care? A systematic review of the literature.

This systematic review synthesizes literature describing prevalence, characteristics and prognosis of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) patients with neuropathic pain in primary care and/or similar settings. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and used by independent reviewers to screen citations for eligibility. The initial search yielded 24,948 citations; after screening 12 studies were included. Neuropathic pain was identified by case ascertainment tools (n=5), by clinical history with examination (n=4), and by LBLP samples assumed neuropathic (n=3). Neuropathic pain prevalence varied from 19% to 80%. There was consistent evidence for higher back-related disability (n=3), poorer health-related quality of life (n=2) and some evidence for more severe depression (n=2), anxiety (n=3) and pain intensity (n=4) in patients with neuropathic pain. Results were less consistent when cases were identified through clinical history plus examination than those identified using case ascertainment tools. Prognosis (n=1) of LBLP patients with neuropathic pain was worse compared to those without, in all outcomes (leg pain intensity, leg and back-related disability, self-reported general health) except back pain intensity. No studies described prognostic factors. This systematic review highlights the evidence gap in neuropathic pain in LBLP in primary care, especially with respect to prognosis. PERSPECTIVE: Patients with low back-related leg pain may have neuropathic pain. This systematic review emphasises the paucity of evidence describing the characteristics and prognosis of neuropathic pain in this patient population. Future research investigating prognosis of these patients with neuropathic pain is likely to contribute to better understanding and management

Classification and description of chronic pain among HIV positive patients in Uganda

Introduction: Chronic pain classification in HIV positive patients is essential for diagnosis and treatment. However, this is rarely done despite association with poor outcomes.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 345 consented patients at a specialized HIV care center in Uganda was conducted. Chronic pain was defined as pain of more than two weeks duration. Data was collected using a socio-demographic questionnaire, the IASP classification of chronic pain; the StEP; Mini Mental Status Examination, Patient Health Questionnaire, Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview and the World Health Organization quality of life instrument brief version. Chi-square, Fisher’s exact, t-test and logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors associated with chronic pain.Results: Description of pain aetiology was difficult. Chronic pain was reported in 21.5% of the participants. Non-neuropathic (92.0%) was more common than neuropathic pain (8.0%). Chronic pain was found to be associated with feeling ill [OR=6.57 (3.48 – 12.39)], and worse scores in the quality of life domain for physical health [OR=0.71 (0.60 – 0.83)].Conclusion: People living with HIV/AIDS commonly have chronic pain that is associated with poor quality of life. More sensitive tools are needed to accurately describe chronic pain in resource limited settings.Keywords: Chronic pain, classification, HIV/AIDS

Epidemiology of neuropathic pain:an analysis of prevalence and associated factors in UK Biobank

Abstract. Introduction:. Previous epidemiological studies of neuropathic pain have reported a range of prevalences and factors associated with the disorder. Objectives:. This study aimed to verify these characteristics in a large UK cohort. Methods:. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 148,828 UK Biobank participants who completed a detailed questionnaire on chronic pain. The Douleur Neuropathique en Quatre Questions (DN4) was used to distinguish between neuropathic pain (NeuP) and non-neuropathic pain (non-NeuP) in participants with pain of at least 3 months' duration. Participants were also identified with less than 3 months' pain or without pain (NoCP). Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with NeuP compared with non-NeuP and NoCP, respectively. Results:. Chronic pain was present in 76,095 participants (51.1%). The overall prevalence of NeuP was 9.2%. Neuropathic pain was significantly associated with worse health-related quality of life, having a manual or personal service type occupation, and younger age compared with NoCP. As expected, NeuP was associated with diabetes and neuropathy, but also other pains (pelvic, postsurgical, and migraine) and musculoskeletal disorders (rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). In addition, NeuP was associated with pain in the limbs and greater pain intensity and higher body mass index compared with non-NeuP. Female sex was associated with NeuP when compared with NoCP, whereas male sex was associated with NeuP when compared with non-NeuP. Conclusion:. This is the largest epidemiological study of neuropathic pain to date. The results confirm that the disorder is common in a population of middle- to older-aged people with mixed aetiologies and is associated with a higher health impact than non-neuropathic pain

The Prevalence and Cost of Unapproved Uses of Top-Selling Orphan Drugs

Introduction: The Orphan Drug Act encourages drug development for rare conditions. However, some orphan drugs become top sellers for unclear reasons. We sought to evaluate the extent and cost of approved and unapproved uses of orphan drugs with the highest unit sales. Methods We assessed prescription patterns for four top-selling orphan drugs: lidocaine patch (Lidoderm) approved for post-herpetic neuralgia, modafinil (Provigil) approved for narcolepsy, cinacalcet (Sensipar) approved for hypercalcemia of parathyroid carcinoma, and imatinib (Gleevec) approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. We pooled patient-specific diagnosis and prescription data from two large US state pharmaceutical benefit programs for the elderly. We analyzed the number of new and total patients using each drug and patterns of reimbursement for approved and unapproved uses. For lidocaine patch, we subcategorized approved prescriptions into two subtypes of unapproved uses: neuropathic pain, for which some evidence of efficacy exists, and non-neuropathic pain. Results: We found that prescriptions for lidocaine patch, modafinil, and cinacalcet associated with non-orphan diagnoses rose at substantially higher rates (average monthly increases in number of patients of 14.6, 1.45, and 1.58) than prescriptions associated with their orphan diagnoses (3.12, 0.24, and 0.03, respectively (p75%). Increases in lidocaine patch use for non-neuropathic pain far exceeded neuropathic pain (10.2 vs. 3.6 patients, p<0.001). Discussion In our sample, three of four top-selling orphan drugs were used more commonly for non-orphan indications. These orphan drugs treated common clinical symptoms (pain and fatigue) or laboratory abnormalities. We should continue to monitor orphan drug use after approval to identify products that come to be widely used for non-FDA approved indications, particularly those without adequate evidence of efficacy

A Novel Tool for the Assessment of Pain: Validation in Low Back Pain

Joachim Scholz and colleagues develop and validate an assessment tool that distinguishes between radicular and axial low back pain