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.

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.

Pain Drawings Improve Subgrouping of Low Back Pain Patients.

BACKGROUND: Subgrouping of low back pain (LBP) patients may be improved when pain drawings are combined with the painDETECT (PD-Q) questionnaire. We hypothesized that (1) different LBP subgroups determined by their pain radiation show different clinical patterns and (2) the occurrence of neuropathic symptoms depends on pain radiation. METHODS: A total of 19,263 acute (< 6 weeks' duration), subacute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (> 3 months) LBP patients were allocated prospectively into 4 groups based on the location of pain drawings on a manikin and compared regarding neuropathic pain components, functionality, depression, pain intensity, and surgical interventions. All items were investigated at baseline and follow-up visits. Group I was composed of patients with axial LBP without radiating pain; group II, LBP with radiation into the thigh; group III, LBP with radiation into the shank; and group IV, LBP with radiation into the feet. Side-dependent pain radiation was assessed additionally. RESULTS: Depression, functionality, and pain intensity showed no clinically relevant differences, whereas PD-Q scores and the probability to rate positive for neuropathic pain increased with more distally radiating pain. Surgery and medication intake were most frequent in group IV. Follow-up analyses showed that only axial LBP became more neuropathic, whereas pain intensity decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Radicular patterns of pain drawings in LBP patients indicate severe pain conditions with the most neuropathic components, while axial LBP has the fewest. For the categorization of LBP, pain drawings help explain the underlying mechanism of pain, which might further improve mechanism-based treatment when used in clinical routines and research.

The painDETECT project - far more than a screening tool on neuropathic pain.

Background and objectives The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q), a simple and reliable screening questionnaire of neuropathic pain, was developed in 2004 in cooperation with the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain. The initial aim was to implement quality management and to improve the situation of neuropathic pain (NeP) patients in Germany. The PD-Q proved immediately successful and was translated into and validated in multiple languages. Subsequently a comprehensive electronic system (PD) comprising various validated questionnaires with regard to pain typical comorbidities, such as function, sleep, mood or anxiety, was implemented Germany wide. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview about the development and validation as well as the application of the PD-Q in various clinical conditions. Methods This overview is based on a literature search on English full-text papers using the term 'painDETECT' in Medline and PubMed covering the time period from 2006 to September 2015, amended with further publications cited in the retrieved publications or provided by the questionnaire developers. Results PD-Q as screening tool for NeP described in patients with lower back pain (8 studies), rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis (10), thoracotomy (2 studies), tumor diseases (4 studies), fibromyalgia (4 studies), diverse musculoskeletal conditions (12 studies) and diverse other conditions (10 studies). In addition, the PD-Q was used in 9 studies that investigated the effect of drugs for the treatment of patients with a NeP component. Conclusion To date more than 300,000 patients were assessed, providing the basis for one of the world's largest datasets for chronic pain. Among others the extensive pool of PD-Q data triggered the idea of subgrouping patients on the basis of their individual sensory profiles which might in the future lead to a stratified treatment approach and ultimately to personalized therapy. Started as a healthcare utilization project in Germany, the PD-Q is nowadays used for clinical and research purposes around the world.

The role of screening tools in diagnosing neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain affects 6-8% of the general adult population. It is reported by 27% of chronic pain patients and 40% of cancer patients, yet there is no standardized diagnostic test for neuropathic pain. A number of screening tools have been developed based on verbal pain descriptors, with or without limited clinical examination, to identify individuals with neuropathic pain. Over the past decade these neuropathic pain screening tools have been validated in a wide range of pain populations, as well as translated into many languages, to discriminate between neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain. We describe here the five most commonly used neuropathic pain screening tools and discuss current assessment guidelines, the use of screening tools in novel clinical contexts and their potential use in personalized therapy.

Axial low back pain: one painful area--many perceptions and mechanisms.

Axial low back pain can be considered as a syndrome with both nociceptive and neuropathic pain components (mixed-pain). Especially neuropathic pain comprises a therapeutic challenge in practical experience and may explain why pharmacotherapy in back pain is often disappointing for both the patient and the therapist. This survey uses epidemiological and clinical data on the symptomatology of 1083 patients with axial low back pain from a cross sectional survey (painDETECT). Objectives were (1) to estimate whether neuropathic pain contributes to axial low back pain and if so to what extent. (2) To detect subgroups of patients with typical sensory symptom profiles and to analyse their demographic data and co-morbidities. (3) To compare patients with and without prior intervertebral disc surgery (IVD). Neuropathic pain components could be detected in 12% of the entire cohort. Cluster analyses of these patients revealed five distinct subgroups of patients showing a characteristic sensory profile, i.e. a typical constellation and combination of symptoms. All subgroups occurred in relevant numbers and some showed distinct neuropathic characteristics while others showed nociceptive features. Post-IVD-surgery patients showed a tendency to score more "neuropathic" than patients without surgery (not statistically significant). Axial low back pain has a high prevalence of co-morbidities with implication on therapeutic aspects. From these data it can be concluded that sensory profiles based on descriptor severity may serve as a better predictor for therapy assessment than pain intensity or sole diagnosis alone. Standardized phenotyping of pain symptoms with easy tools may help to develop an individualized therapy leading to a higher success rate in pharmacotherapy of axial low back pain.

[Diagnosis of neuropathic pain]. / Diagnostik bei Neuropathischen Schmerzen.

Neuropathic pain arises from damage, or pathological change, in the peripheral or central nervous system. As such, the term neuropathic pain represents a varying set of symptoms rather than a single diagnosis. There is no diagnostic gold standard for neuropathic pain and so making a diagnosis is based on clinical judgement. The essential elements of this process are to identify painful symptoms and a clinical history that all match a neuro-anatomical or dermatomal pattern. Abnormal responses to nerve damage account for many of the clinical features of neuropathic pain. Painful symptoms arising in an area of altered sensation (numbness or hyper-excitability) is the hallmark of neuropathic pain. Cardinal features are spontaneous pains (pain arising without stimulus) and abnormal responses to non-painful (allodynia) or painful stimuli. The diagnostic work-up includes screening tools such as pain questionnaires and pain drawings as well as information on the history of the disease and a detailed clinical-neurological examination. Bedside examination is straightforward. The aim is to identify altered sensation in the painful area and so responses should be compared with a non-painful adjacent or contra-lateral area. A combination of characteristic painful symptoms in an area of altered sensation on bedside testing is usually enough to make a diagnosis of neuropathic pain. When doubt arises, more detailed examination using Quantitative Sensory Testing or conventional electrophysiology can be helpful.

Fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain--differences and similarities. A comparison of 3057 patients with diabetic painful neuropathy and fibromyalgia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetic neuropathy (DPN) and fibromyalgia differ substantially in pathogenetic factors and the spatial distribution of the perceived pain. We questioned whether, despite these obvious differences, similar abnormal sensory complaints and pain qualities exist in both entities. We hypothesized that similar sensory symptoms might be associated with similar mechanisms of pain generation. The aims were (1) to compare epidemiological features and co-morbidities and (2) to identify similarities and differences of sensory symptoms in both entities. METHODS: The present multi-center study compares epidemiological data and sensory symptoms of a large cohort of 1434 fibromyalgia patients and 1623 patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. Data acquisition included standard demographic questions and self-report questionnaires (MOS sleep scale, PHQ-9, PainDETECT). To identify subgroups of patients with characteristic combinations of symptoms (sensory profiles) a cluster analysis was performed using all patients in both cohorts. RESULTS: Significant differences in co-morbidities (depression, sleep disturbance) were found between both disorders. Patients of both aetiologies chose very similar descriptors to characterize their sensory perceptions. Burning pain, prickling and touch-evoked allodynia were present in the same frequency. Five subgroups with distinct symptom profiles could be detected. Two of the subgroups were characteristic for fibromyalgia whereas one profile occurred predominantly in DPN patients. Two profiles were found frequently in patients of both entities (20-35%). CONCLUSIONS: DPN and fibromyalgia patients experience very similar sensory phenomena. The combination of sensory symptoms--the sensory profile--is in most cases distinct and almost unique for each one of the two entities indicating aetiology-specific mechanisms of symptom generation. Beside the unique aetiology-specific sensory profiles an overlap of sensory profiles can be found in 20-35% of patients of both aetiologies.

A cross-sectional survey of 3035 patients with fibromyalgia: subgroups of patients with typical comorbidities and sensory symptom profiles.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with FM are heterogeneous. They present with a variety of pain qualities, sensory abnormalities and additional comorbidities. The aim was to identify clinically distinguishable subgroups of patients. METHODS: This investigation uses epidemiological and clinical data of 3035 FM patients from a cross-sectional survey (painDETECT) to (i) describe characteristic epidemiological data and comorbidities and (ii) detect subgroups of patients with typical patterns of sensory symptoms and comorbidities. RESULTS: Clinically relevant sensory abnormalities (strongly, very strongly present) included pressure pain (58%), prickling (33%), burning (30%) and thermal hypersensitivity (24%). Pain attacks were complained by 40% of patients. Moderate to severe comorbid depression occurred in 66% of patients. Only approximately 30% of the patients had optimal sleep. A hierarchical cluster analysis using descriptors of sensory abnormalities as well as the extent of comorbidities revealed five distinct subgroups of patients showing a characteristic clinical profile. Four subgroups of patients suffer from severe sensory disturbances in various combinations but lack pronounced comorbidities. In one subgroup, however, severe comorbidities dominate the clinical picture. Differences in pathophysiological mechanisms of pain generation can be attributed to each subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that FM patients can be classified on the basis of their sensory symptoms and comorbidities by the use of a patient-reported questionnaire. Subgrouping of patients with FM may be used for future research and to tailor optimal treatment strategies for the appropriate patient.

Differential effects of painful and non-painful stimulation on tactile processing in fibromyalgia syndrome and subjects with masochistic behaviour.

BACKGROUND: In healthy subjects repeated tactile stimulation in a conditioning test stimulation paradigm yields attenuation of primary (S1) and secondary (S2) somatosensory cortical activation, whereas a preceding painful stimulus results in facilitation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Since previous data suggest that cognitive processes might affect somatosensory processing in S1, the present study aims at investigating to what extent cortical reactivity is altered by the subjective estimation of pain. To this end, the effect of painful and tactile stimulation on processing of subsequently applied tactile stimuli was investigated in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and in subjects with masochistic behaviour (MB) by means of a 122-channel whole-head magnetoencephalography (MEG) system. Ten patients fulfilling the criteria for the diagnosis of FMS, 10 subjects with MB and 20 control subjects matched with respect to age, gender and handedness participated in the present study. Tactile or brief painful cutaneous laser stimuli were applied as conditioning stimulus (CS) followed by a tactile test stimulus (TS) 500 ms later. While in FMS patients significant attenuation following conditioning tactile stimulation was evident, no facilitation following painful stimulation was found. By contrast, in subjects with MB no attenuation but significant facilitation occurred. Attenuation as well as facilitation applied to cortical responses occurring at about 70 ms but not to early S1 or S2 responses. Additionally, in FMS patients the amount of attenuation was inversely correlated with catastrophizing tendency. CONCLUSION: The present results imply altered cortical reactivity of the primary somatosensory cortex in FMS patients and MB possibly reflecting differences of individual pain experience.

Fatal respiratory depression after multiple intravenous morphine injections.

A 26-year-old female was treated with morphine within the first 2 hours after knee surgery, in an attempt to titrate analgesia. The patient received a total of four intravenous injections of morphine 35 mg in total. Soon after the last injection the patient had adequate pain relief, was in a good clinical state and had adequate blood oxygenation. However, 40 minutes later, the patient had a deep respiratory depression followed by a fatal cardiac arrest. Solving the case in a medico-legal context was possible by applying results of clinical pharmacokinetic research on opioid analgesics, most importantly morphine, to this particular clinical case. This knowledge made it possible to estimate the probable concentrations of morphine at the site of its effect, the brain, during the time of the fatal event, and to show that these concentrations could have produced respiratory depression. We mainly attribute the fatal intoxication of morphine to the lag period needed for the transfer of morphine across the blood-brain barrier. Because of its slow transfer between plasma and the effect site, the CNS effects of morphine are delayed from its plasma concentrations to a clinically relevant degree. Successive injections at short intervals of relatively high amounts of morphine increase the clinical relevance of this delay. The present report demonstrates an important application of clinical pharmacokinetics for explaining clinical observations at a scientific level and transferring theoretical knowledge from clinical pharmacokinetics into daily clinical practice as a basis for rational opioid selection.