Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: case studies.

Three case reports in this article illustrate the diagnostic methods used and the treatment course encountered for many patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Each case addresses an aspect of DPNP: pain that appears to be refractory to initial therapy, DPNP occurring with other medical conditions, and nondiabetlc neuropathy occurring in patients with diabetes mellitus. Together, these cases bring clarity to the confusing clinical experience for patients who have decreased sensation in combination with burning pain, and they apply the consensus guidelines for DPNP. Recently approved medications by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of DPNP offer hope for many patients whose pain was thought to be refractory to treatment.

Consensus guidelines: treatment planning and options. Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

Despite the number of patients affected by diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), little consensus exists about the pathophysiology, best diagnostic tools, and primary treatment choices. Theories about the causes of DPNP are inextricably linked with the causes of diabetic neuropathles, yet most patients with such neuropathies do not experience pain. The factors that differentiate patients with pain from those without remain unknown and are the subject of much research. When choosing treatment for patients with DPNP, physicians are confronted with a myriad of choices, none of which has been shown to be effective for all patients. This article reviews the evidence for these treatments and attempts to guide physicians in choosing those treatments based on evidence from well-designed clinical trials to support their use. Two agents, duloxetine and pregabalin, are formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of DPNP. In addition, several other agents, including the tricyclic class of antidepressants, have been effective in clinical trials. Ultimately, treatment choice must also Include consideration of adverse effects, individual patient factors such as comorbidities, and often cost.

The DIRE score: predicting outcomes of opioid prescribing for chronic pain.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this retrospective study was to test the validity and reliability of a scoring tool (the DIRE Score), for use by clinicians, that predicts which chronic noncancer pain patients will have effective analgesia and be compliant with long-term opioid maintenance treatment. DIRE scores were assigned to 61 cases from the pain center's databases. These cases were abstracted into vignettes that were reviewed and scored by 6 physicians. Repeat scoring was carried out on a subset of 30 vignettes after 2 weeks. The main outcome measures were: global impression of compliance and efficacy as indicated in the medical record and by interview with the patient's treating clinician; and final disposition, ie, whether or not opioids were continued or discontinued at the time of last clinical documentation. Internal consistency of the factors making up the DIRE Score was high (Cronbach's alpha = .80). Sensitivity and specificity of the DIRE Score for predicting patient compliance were 94% and 87%, respectively. For efficacy, sensitivity and specificity were 81% and 76%. For disposition, the sensitivity and specificity were 86% and 73%. Intraclass correlation was 0.94 for interrater reliability and 0.95 for intrarater reliability. PERSPECTIVE: Public controversy about the use of long-term opioids for chronic pain fuels physician ambivalence about the prescribing process. In this initial retrospective study, validity and reliability of the DIRE Score are demonstrated. The score correlated well with measures of patient compliance and efficacy of long-term opioid therapy.

Do pain specialists meet the needs of the referring physician? A survey of primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To study the factors that influence the use of opioids in the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) by primary care providers (PCPs) for patients returning from a pain specialist. DESIGN: A survey of PCPs. SETTING: Two physician groups in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Two seventy-six PCPs surveyed and 80 surveys returned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants rated the importance of specific concerns regarding the role of pain specialists and the use of opioids in the management of CNCP. Past experience with pain specialists, comfort using opioids, and opinions regarding a trilateral opioid agreement were also examined. RESULTS: The top concerns for PCPs were as follows: the use of opioids in patients with chemical dependency or psychological issues, the escalation of opioid dosing, and the use of opioids in pain states without objective findings. They also ranked highly the importance of coordinating the return of patients from a pain specialist with explicit opioid instructions and the availability of consultation by phone or a timely follow-up visit. PCPs were supportive of the concept of a trilateral opioid agreement. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs have significant concerns regarding the prescribing of opioids in CNCP. They desire closer collaboration with pain specialists, including more explicit plans of care when patients are transferred back to them. The trilateral agreement may provide one framework for better collaboration.