Paradoxical heat sensation as a manifestation of thermal hypesthesia: a study of 1090 patients with lesions of the somatosensory system.

ABSTRACT: Paradoxical heat sensation (PHS) is the perception of warmth when the skin is cooled. Paradoxical heat sensation rarely occurs in healthy individuals but more frequently in patients suffering from lesions or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. To further understand mechanisms and epidemiology of PHS, we evaluated the occurrence of PHS in relation to disease aetiology, pain levels, quantitative sensory testing parameters, and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) items in patients with nervous system lesions. Data of 1090 patients, including NPSI scores from 404 patients, were included in the analysis. We tested 11 quantitative sensory testing parameters for thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds, and 10 NPSI items in a multivariate generalised linear model with PHS, aetiology, and pain (yes or no) as fixed effects. In total, 30% of the neuropathic patients reported PHS in contrast to 2% of healthy individuals. The frequency of PHS was not linked to the presence or intensity of pain. Paradoxical heat sensation was more frequent in patients living with polyneuropathy compared with central or unilateral peripheral nerve lesions. Patients who reported PHS demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to thermal perception, with lower sensitivity to normally painful heat and cold stimuli. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were lower for burning and electric shock-like pain quality for patients with PHS. Our findings suggest that PHS is associated with loss of small thermosensory fibre function normally involved in cold and warm perception. Clinically, presence of PHS could help screening for loss of small fibre function as it is straightforward to measure or self-reported by patients.

The association of self-reported symptoms of central sensitization and sleep disturbances in neuropathic pain.

Introduction: Patients with neuropathic pain (NP) report a higher impairment of quality of life and sleep than patients with chronic pain without neuropathic characteristics. These include somatosensory peculiarities like allodynia, a surrogate marker for central sensitization. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the relation between symptoms of central sensitization and sleep disturbances in patients with NP. Methods: Within this cross-sectional study, data sets of 3339 patients with chronic NP syndromes (painful diabetic polyneuropathy, n = 543; postherpetic neuralgia, n = 1480) or complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS, n = 1316) were analyzed. Neuropathic pain symptoms were assessed with the painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q), depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and sleep impairment with items of the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale in 4 subscales. The association of demographic/clinical data, somatosensory phenotype, depression, and pain intensity with sleep impairment was assessed by unadjusted Spearman correlation analyses and multivariable regression analyses. Results: Sleep impairment was observed in all pain aetiologies although with some significant differences in the single sleep items. The intensity of the individual PD-Q items differed to some extent between the 3 pain entities, whereas the PD-Q sum score was similar. Thermal hyperalgesia and burning assessed by the PD-Q were significantly associated with sleep disturbance, adequacy, and quantity but not with sleep somnolence. Only depression and self-reported allodynia had a significant relation to all 4 sleep elements. Conclusion: Beside depression, allodynia as a surrogate marker hints to a possible impact of central sensitization on the sleep disruption of patients with NP.

Association of sensory phenotype with quality of life, functionality, and emotional well-being in patients suffering from neuropathic pain.

ABSTRACT: Neuropathic pain highly affects quality of life, well-being, and function. It has recently been shown based on cluster analysis studies that most patients with neuropathic pain may be categorized into 1 of 3 sensory phenotypes: sensory loss, mechanical hyperalgesia, and thermal hyperalgesia. If these phenotypes reflect underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, they may be more relevant for patient management than underlying neurological diagnosis or pain intensity. The aim of this study was thus to examine the impact of these sensory phenotypes on mental health, functionality, and quality of life. Data of 433 patients from the IMI/EuroPain network database were analyzed, and results of HADS-D/A, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Euro Quality of Life 5D/-VAS, Brief Pain Inventory, and Graded Chronic Pain Scale between the sensory phenotypes were compared using multiple regression analysis. There was no difference in chronic pain grade, pain intensity, depression, or anxiety scores between phenotypes. Pain interference (Brief Pain Inventory) was higher (P = 0.002); self-reported health state lower (Euro Quality of Life 5D VAS, P = 0.02); and problems regarding mobility (P = 0.008), usual activities (P = 0.004), and self-care (P = 0.039) more prominent (EQ5-D) in the sensory loss compared with the thermal hyperalgesia phenotype. Patients with sensory loss also showed higher pain catastrophizing scores (P = 0.006 and 0.022, respectively) compared with the 2 other groups. Sensory phenotype is associated with the impact of neuropathic pain conditions on well-being, daily functionality, and quality of life but is less associated with pain intensity. These results suggest that the somatosensory phenotype should be considered for personalized pain management.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the painDETECT questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neuropathic pain is common in the general population worldwide and Brazil. The painDETECT questionnaire is a notable instrument for screening on neuropathic pain. A Brazilian version of the painDETECT is necessary to broaden the possibilities of identification of neuropathic pain in the Brazilian population for the proper diagnosis and treatment. The current study aimed to perform the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the painDETECT into the Portuguese language of Brazil. METHODS: A cross-cultural adaptation study was conducted in 11 stages according to standard procedures. Descriptive statistics were performed. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha test (α). RESULTS: Four translators, 10 experts, and 30 patients participated in the study. The expert committee adapted five out of nine items (item 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10) to the Brazilian context. The pretesting phase showed good internal consistency (α = 0.74) for the nine items, including the pain pattern and the body chart domains. The Cronbach's α of the instrument with seven descriptor items of pain was 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: The painDETECT was cross-culturally adapted into a Brazilian context and can be used to identify neuropathic components in pain of Brazilian patients. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: PainDETECT is available for Brazilians to identify neuropathic components in pain.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the painDETECT questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the painDETECT questionnaire into the Persian language and assess the clinometric properties of the translated version (P-PDQ). METHODS: This is a single-center prospective observational study. After forward and backward translations, consensus was achieved by the expert panel on the pre-final version. Semantic equivalence of this version was assessed and necessary modifications were made accordingly to achieve the final version (P-PDQ). One hundred and fifty chronic pain patients were sub-classified into neuropathic pain (NeP (n = 82)) or non-NeP (n = 68) groups by two pain specialists. P-PDQ was then administered to 50 patients twice with an interval of 5-7 days to assess relative reliability. Chronbach's α and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated to evaluate internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the P-PDQ, respectively. Criterion validity was assessed as the correlation of the P-PDQ and the validated Persian version of the self-report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (P-sLANSS). RESULTS: Chronbach's α and ICC of the P-PDQ were 0.76 and 0.97, respectively. The P-PDQ scores were significantly correlated with those of P-sLANSS (ρ = 0.87, p < .01). The mean overall score of P-PDQ was significantly higher in the NeP group (p < .01) which reflects discriminant validity. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predicting values and Youden index were 74.70%, 98.51%, 78.04%, 98.48%, and 0.73, respectively at the cutoff value ≤17. CONCLUSION: The P-PDQ is a reliable and valid tool to distinguish neuropathic component in chronic pain cases.

Contralateral Sensory and Pain Perception Changes in Patients With Unilateral Neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether contralateral sensory abnormalities in the clinically unaffected area of patients with unilateral neuropathic pain are due to the neuropathy or pain mechanisms. METHODS: We analyzed the contralateral clinically unaffected side of patients with unilateral painful or painless neuropathy (peripheral nerve injury [PNI], postherpetic neuropathy [PHN], radiculopathy) by standardized quantitative sensory testing following a validated protocol. Primary outcome was the independent contribution of the following variables on the contralateral sensory function using generalized linear regression models: pain intensity, disease duration, etiology, body area, and sensory patterns in the most painful area. RESULTS: Among 424 patients (PNI n = 256, PHN n = 78, radiculopathy n = 90), contralateral sensory abnormalities were frequent in both painful (n = 383) and painless (n = 41) unilateral neuropathy, demonstrating sensory loss for thermal and mechanical nonpainful stimuli and both sensory loss and gain for painful test stimuli. Analysis by etiology revealed contralateral pinprick hyperalgesia in PHN and PNI. Analysis by ipsilateral sensory phenotype demonstrated mirror-image pinprick hyperalgesia in both mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia phenotypes. Pain intensity, etiology, and affected body region predicted changes in only single contralateral somatosensory parameters. Disease duration had no impact on the contralateral sensory function. CONCLUSION: Mechanisms of sensory loss seem to spread to the contralateral side in both painful and painless neuropathies. Contralateral spread of pinprick hyperalgesia was restricted to the 2 ipsilateral phenotypes that suggest sensitization; this suggest a contribution of descending net facilitation from supraspinal areas, which was reported in rodent models of neuropathic pain but not yet in human patients.

Progressive Response to Repeat Application of Capsaicin 179 mg (8% w/w) Cutaneous Patch in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: Comprehensive New Analysis and Clinical Implications.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of repeated application of capsaicin 179 mg cutaneous patch in nonresponders to the first application. DESIGN: Post hoc, as-treated analysis of two prospective trials (STRIDE and PACE) with 52-week follow-up. BLINDING: Open-label. SETTING: Multicenter clinical trial. SUBJECTS: STRIDE: nondiabetic neuropathic pain; PACE: painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: Patients were divided according to number of applications needed before attainment of a ≥30% reduction in average pain intensity (question 5 of the Brief Pain Inventory [BPI-Q5]). We assessed the change from baseline in average pain intensity (BPI-Q5), mean "interference with sleep" score, Patient Global Impression of Change, quality of life (QOL) via the EuroQol 5-dimension, and Self-Assessment of Treatment. RESULTS: In STRIDE and PACE, respectively, n = 306 and n = 313 received the capsaicin patch; n = 60 and n = 96 had a response after the first application, n = 33 and n = 68 after the second, and n = 11 and n = 43 after the third. Among patients without a ≥30% reduction in pain intensity at 3 months, in STRIDE and PACE, respectively, 23.3% and 28.1% achieved a ≥30% reduction at 6 months, increasing to 33.9% and 45.7% at 12 months. Similar results were obtained when a decrease of ≥50% was used as the responder definition. Progressive improvements in pain intensity in slower responders reached levels similar to those in early responders at month 12 and were accompanied by improvements in sleep, QOL, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although some patients with peripheral neuropathic pain experience rapid improvements with a single treatment of capsaicin 179 mg patch, some may require two or three treatments before an initial response is observed. Similar benefits for pain, sleep, and QOL can be achieved in early and late responders.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in primary care settings: recommendations for dosing and titration.

Pregabalin is one of the first-line treatments approved for the management of neuropathic pain (NeP). While many patients benefit from treatment with pregabalin, they are often treated with suboptimal doses, possibly due to unfamiliarity around prescribing the drug and/or side effects that can occur with up-titration. This narrative review discusses key aspects of initiating, titrating, and managing patients prescribed pregabalin therapy, and addresses concerns around driving and the potential for abuse, as well as when to seek specialist opinion. To ensure that patients derive maximum therapeutic benefit from the drug, we suggest a 'low and slow' dosing approach to limit common side effects and optimize tolerability alongside patients' expectations. When requiring titration to higher doses, we recommend initiating 'asymmetric dosing,' with the larger dose in the evening. Fully engaging patients in order for them to understand the expected timeline for efficacy and side effects (including their resolution), can also help determine the optimal titration tempo for each individual patient. The 'low and slow' approach also recognizes that patients with NeP are heterogeneous in terms of their optimal therapeutic dose of pregabalin. Hence, it is recommended that general practitioners closely monitor patients and up-titrate according to pain relief and side effects to limit suboptimal dosing or premature discontinuation.

No pain, still gain (of function): the relation between sensory profiles and the presence or absence of self-reported pain in a large multicenter cohort of patients with neuropathy.

ABSTRACT: The pathophysiology of pain in neuropathy is complex and may be linked to sensory phenotypes. Quantitative sensory testing, a standardized method to evaluate sensory profiles in response to defined stimuli, assesses functional integrity of small and large nerve fiber afferents and central somatosensory pathways. It has revealed detailed insights into mechanisms of neuropathy, yet it remains unclear if pain directly affects sensory profiles. The main objective of this study was to investigate sensory profiles in patients with various neuropathic conditions, including polyneuropathy, mononeuropathy, and lesions to the central nervous system, in relation to self-reported presence or absence of pain and pain sensitivity using the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire. A total of 443 patients (332 painful and 111 painless) and 112 healthy participants were investigated. Overall, loss of sensation was equally prevalent in patients with and without spontaneous pain. Pain thresholds were equally lowered in both patient groups, demonstrating that hyperalgesia and allodynia are just as present in patients not reporting any pain. Remarkably, this was similar for dynamic mechanical allodynia. Hypoalgesia was more pronounced in painful polyneuropathy, whereas hyperalgesia was more frequent in painful mononeuropathy (compared with painless conditions). Self-reported pain sensitivity was significantly higher in painful than in painless neuropathic conditions. Our results reveal the presence of hyperalgesia and allodynia in patients with central and peripheral lesions of the somatosensory system not reporting spontaneous pain. This shows that symptoms and signs of hypersensitivity may not necessarily coincide and that painful and painless neuropathic conditions may mechanistically blend into one another.

When to consider "mixed pain"? The right questions can make a difference!

The term "mixed pain" is increasingly applied for specific clinical scenarios, such as low back pain, cancer pain and postsurgical pain, in which there "is a complex overlap of the different known pain types (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) in any combination, acting simultaneously and/or concurrently to cause pain in the same body area." Whether mixed pain is the manifestation of neuropathic and nociceptive mechanisms operating simultaneously or concurrently, or the result of an entirely independent pathophysiological mechanism - distinct from nociceptive, nociplastic and neuropathic pain - is currently unknown. At present, the diagnosis of mixed pain is made based on clinical judgement following detailed history-taking and thorough physical examination, rather than by formal confirmation following explicit screening or diagnostic criteria; this lack of formalized screening or diagnostic tools for mixed pain is problematic for physicians in primary care, who encounter patients with probable mixed pain states in their daily practice. This article outlines a methodical approach to clinical evaluation of patients presenting with acute, subacute or chronic pain, and to possibly identifying those who have mixed pain. The authors propose the use of nine simple key questions, which will provide the practicing clinician a framework for identifying the predominant pain mechanisms operating within the patient. A methodical, fairly rapid, and comprehensive assessment of a patient in chronic pain - particularly one suffering from pain with both nociceptive and neuropathic components - allows validation of their experience of chronic pain as a specific disease and, importantly, allows the institution of targeted treatment.

Botulinum neurotoxin injections for muscle-based (dystonia and spasticity) and non-muscle-based (neuropathic pain) pain disorders: a meta-analytic study.

Apart from the known efficacy of Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A (BoNT/A) in hyperactive striated and smooth muscles, different pain states have become potential targets of toxin effects. This present study determined the comparative toxin effectiveness in pain reduction among those patients injected with BoNT/A in muscle-based and in non-muscle-based conditions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of BoNT/A on selected pain conditions were included. The conditions were spasticity and dystonia for muscle-based pain. For non-muscle-based pain, conditions included were painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), trigeminal neuralgia (TN), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and spinal cord injury (SCI). In view of possibly differing pathophysiology, myofascial pain, temporomandibular joint (TMJ), other joint or tendon pains, cervicogenic and lumbar pains, migraine and visceral pain syndromes were excluded. Standardized mean difference was used as the effect measure and computed with STATA. 25 RCTs were analyzed. Pooled estimates showed significantly lower pain score in the Treatment group (z = 5.23, p < 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.75, - 0.34). Subgroup analyses showed that BoNT/A significantly reduced both muscle-based (z = 3.78, p < 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.72, - 0.23) and non-muscle-based (z = 3.37, p = 0.001, 95% CI = - 1.00, - 0.27) pain. Meta-regression using four covariates namely dosage, route, frequency and duration was done which revealed that dosage significantly affects standardized mean differences, while the other three covariates were insignificant. The joint F-test was found to be insignificant (p value = 0.1182). The application of the model with these covariates does not significantly explain the derived heterogeneity of standardized mean differences. In conclusion, BoNT/A can be effectively used in muscle-based and non-muscle-based pain disorders. We detected no difference between the presence and magnitude of pain relief favoring muscle-based compared to non-muscle-based pain. Thus, we cannot say whether or not there might be independent mechanisms of toxin-induced pain relief for pain generated from either muscle or nerve hyperactivity.

Pain thresholds and intensities of CRPS type I and neuropathic pain in respect to sex.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Healthy women have generally been found to have increased experimental pain perception and chronic pain has a higher prevalence in female as compared to male patients. However, no study has investigated whether pain intensity and pain perception thresholds are distinct or similar between sexes within various chronic pain entities. We investigated whether average pain intensities and pain thresholds assessed using quantitative sensory testing (QST) differed between women and men suffering from three distinct chronic pain conditions: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS type I), peripheral nerve injury (PNI) or polyneuropathy (PNP), as compared to paired healthy volunteers. METHODS: QST data of 1,252 patients (669 female, 583 male) with PNI (n = 342), PNP (n = 571) or CRPS (n = 339), and average pain intensity reports from previously published studies were included. Absolute and z-values (adjusted for age and body region) of cold, heat, pressure (PPT) and pinprick pain thresholds were compared in generalized linear models with aetiology, duration of underlying pain disease and average pain intensity as fixed effects. RESULTS: Average pain intensity during the past four weeks did not differ between women and men, in both mean and range. In women absolute pain thresholds for cold, heat and pinprick were lower than in males across all diagnoses (p < .05). However, after z-transformation these differences disappeared except for PPT in CRPS (p = .001). DISCUSSION: Pain thresholds in patients show only minor sex differences. However, these differences mimic those observed in healthy subjects and do not seem to be linked to specific pathophysiological processes. SIGNIFICANCE: Female healthy participants and female patients with neuropathic pain conditions or CRPS I report lower pain thresholds compared to males, but pain intensity is similar and there is no sex difference in the extent to which the thresholds are altered in neuropathic pain or CRPS. Thus, the sex differences observed in various chronic pain conditions mimic those obtained in healthy participants, indicating that these differences are not linked to specific pathophysiological processes and are of minor clinical relevance.

The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and early treatment responses to pregabalin: an exploratory post-hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Euphoria is a complex, multifactorial problem that is reported as an adverse event in clinical trials of analgesics including pregabalin. The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and pregabalin early treatment responses was examined in this exploratory post-hoc analysis. METHODS: Data were from patients with neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain enrolled in 40 randomized clinical trials, who received pregabalin (75-600 mg/day) or placebo. Reports of treatment-emergent euphoria events were based on the Medical Dictionary of Regulatory Activities preferred term "euphoric mood". Prevalence rates of euphoria events overall and by indication were assessed. Post-treatment endpoints included ≥30% improvements in pain and sleep scores up to 3 weeks as well as a ≥1-point improvement in daily pain score up to 11 days after treatment. RESULTS: 13,252 patients were analyzed; 8,501 (64.1%) and 4,751 (35.9%) received pregabalin and placebo, respectively. Overall, 1.7% (n=222) of patients reported euphoria events. Among pregabalin-treated patients, a larger proportion who reported euphoria events achieved an early pain response compared with those who did not report euphoria (30% pain responders in week 1 with euphoria events [43.0%], without euphoria events [24.2%]). Results were similar for weeks 2 and 3. For Days 2-11, a larger proportion of pregabalin-treated patients with (relative to without) euphoria events were 1-point pain responders. Findings were similar in pregabalin-treated patients for sleep endpoints (30% sleep responders in week 1 with euphoria events [50.7%], without euphoria events [36.1%]). Similar results were found for weeks 2 and 3. Patients who received placebo showed similar patterns, although the overall number of them who reported euphoria events was small (n=13). CONCLUSION: In patients who received pregabalin for neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain, those who experienced euphoria events may have better early treatment responses than those who did not report euphoria events.

Current understanding of the mixed pain concept: a brief narrative review.

Despite having been referenced in the literature for over a decade, the term "mixed pain" has never been formally defined. The strict binary classification of pain as being either purely neuropathic or nociceptive once left a good proportion of patients unclassified; even the recent adoption of "nociplastic pain" in the IASP Terminology leaves out patients who present clinically with a substantial overlap of nociceptive and neuropathic symptoms. For these patients, the term "mixed pain" is increasingly recognized and accepted by clinicians. Thus, an independent group of international multidisciplinary clinicians convened a series of informal discussions to consolidate knowledge and articulate all that is known (or, more accurately, thought to be known) and all that is not known about mixed pain. To inform the group's discussions, a Medline search for the Medical Subject Heading "mixed pain" was performed via PubMed. The search strategy encompassed clinical trial articles and reviews from January 1990 to the present. Clinically relevant articles were selected and reviewed. This paper summarizes the group's consensus on several key aspects of the mixed pain concept, to serve as a foundation for future attempts at generating a mechanistic and/or clinical definition of mixed pain. A definition would have important implications for the development of recommendations or guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of mixed pain.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2-The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I).

We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts. Classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory (quantitative methods) were used to evaluate item-level and scale-level performance of the PAL-I using an iterative approach between qualitative and quantitative methods. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and assessment of paper-to-electronic format equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of self-reported patients with cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and patients with physician-diagnosed cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the PAL-I. The instrument contained 9 items describing cLBP impacts (walking, sitting, standing, lifting, sleep, social activities, travelling, climbing, and body movements). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.94]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with PAL-I total score and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Pearson correlation 0.82), MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.71), and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (-0.71). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-I demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in clinical trials of cLBP therapies.

Clinical Manifestation of Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain in Different Age Groups: Low Back Pain in 35,446 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major healthcare problem causing tremendous economic costs. METHODS: Clinical manifestation of LBP was characterized in 35,446 patients. We focused on the comparison of the acute, subacute, and chronic LBP stage with regard to patients' ages, based on epidemiologic and clinical questionnaires (eg, painDETECT Questionnaire, Pain Disability Index), pain intensity, pain descriptors, and functional impairment. RESULTS: We found that neuropathic components were most frequent in chronic LBP patients at the ages of 51 to 60 years. Elderly LBP patients showed a decrease in neuropathic and an increase in nociceptive pain. The most frequently reported pain descriptors were "pressure pain" and "pain attacks" through all stages of LBP, whereas "burning" and "prickling" were most frequent in the chronic stage. Patients after back surgery presented neuropathic pain symptoms most frequently and had the highest amount of pain medication intake. CONCLUSIONS: Burning and prickling were revealed as possible indicators for LBP chronicity. Combined with pain attacks and pressure pain, these 4 pain descriptors might be a promising adjunct to pain intensity in terms of outcome parameters for future LBP studies. The decrease of neuropathic pain syndromes in the elderly might be explained by degenerative processes. The presented work provides important insights on LBP management in the acute, subacute, and chronic stages.

Sensory symptom profiles differ between trigeminal and thoracolumbar postherpetic neuralgia.

INTRODUCTION: Animal experimental evidence suggests that mechanisms of pain generation and response to treatment differ between neuropathic pain in the cephalic and the extracephalic innervation territories. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to examine whether in humans an identical peripheral painful neuropathy is associated with different pain qualities and sensory abnormalities in the face as compared with the thoracic region. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed epidemiological and clinical data of 639 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in the face and at the trunk who were collected within a cross-sectional cohort survey and compared the respective sensory symptom profiles captured with the painDETECT questionnaire. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients suffered from trigeminal PHN and 415 from thoracolumbar PHN. There were no significant differences in sex-ratio, age, body mass index, and pain duration. Patients with trigeminal PHN were more often severely depressed. Anxiety and sleep scores were not different. The average pain intensity was slightly higher in thoracolumbar PHN than trigeminal PHN (visual analogue scale 5.0 vs 4.6). Postherpetic neuralgia in the thoracolumbar region showed significantly more intense burning sensations, allodynia, painful attacks, and significantly less prickling and numbness than PHN in the face. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in sensory symptom profiles between facial PHN and truncal PHN might be associated with different pathophysiological mechanisms and different treatment response. Drugs that primarily act on sensitization processes in the peripheral nociceptive system may work better in thoracolumbar PHN than in trigeminal PHN. If new medications are tested in patients with PHN, it would therefore be of interest to include an analysis of the treatment results in regard to subgroups based on the localisation of pain in patients with PHN.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 1-the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain - Symptoms (PAL-S).

We describe the mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Qualitative methods (concept elicitation and cognitive interviews) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts and quantitative methods (classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory) were used to evaluate item- and scale-level performance of the measure using an iterative approach. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and interview-based assessment of paper-to-electronic mode equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of patients with self-reported cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and a physician-diagnosed cohort of patients with cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the measure. The PAL-S contained 14 items describing symptoms (overall pain, sharp, prickling, sensitive, tender, radiating, shocking, shooting, burning, squeezing, muscle spasms, throbbing, aching, and stiffness). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.91]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with total score and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (Pearson correlation -0.79), Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (0.73), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0.67), and MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.65). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Respondent interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-S has demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in cLBP clinical trials.

Stratifying patients with peripheral neuropathic pain based on sensory profiles: algorithm and sample size recommendations.

In a recent cluster analysis, it has been shown that patients with peripheral neuropathic pain can be grouped into 3 sensory phenotypes based on quantitative sensory testing profiles, which are mainly characterized by either sensory loss, intact sensory function and mild thermal hyperalgesia and/or allodynia, or loss of thermal detection and mild mechanical hyperalgesia and/or allodynia. Here, we present an algorithm for allocation of individual patients to these subgroups. The algorithm is nondeterministic-ie, a patient can be sorted to more than one phenotype-and can separate patients with neuropathic pain from healthy subjects (sensitivity: 78%, specificity: 94%). We evaluated the frequency of each phenotype in a population of patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (n = 151), painful peripheral nerve injury (n = 335), and postherpetic neuralgia (n = 97) and propose sample sizes of study populations that need to be screened to reach a subpopulation large enough to conduct a phenotype-stratified study. The most common phenotype in diabetic polyneuropathy was sensory loss (83%), followed by mechanical hyperalgesia (75%) and thermal hyperalgesia (34%, note that percentages are overlapping and not additive). In peripheral nerve injury, frequencies were 37%, 59%, and 50%, and in postherpetic neuralgia, frequencies were 31%, 63%, and 46%. For parallel study design, either the estimated effect size of the treatment needs to be high (>0.7) or only phenotypes that are frequent in the clinical entity under study can realistically be performed. For crossover design, populations under 200 patients screened are sufficient for all phenotypes and clinical entities with a minimum estimated treatment effect size of 0.5.