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.

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.

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.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments to Assess Chronic Low Back Pain.

Objective: To identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that assess chronic low back pain (cLBP) symptoms (specifically pain qualities) and/or impacts for potential use in cLBP clinical trials to demonstrate treatment benefit and support labeling claims. Design: Literature review of existing PRO measures. Methods: Publications detailing existing PRO measures for cLBP were identified, reviewed, and summarized. As recommended by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) PRO development guidance, standard measurement characteristics were reviewed, including development history, psychometric properties (validity and reliability), ability to detect change, and interpretation of observed changes. Results: Thirteen instruments were selected and reviewed: Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, PainDETECT, Pain Quality Assessment Scale Revised, Revised Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Low Back Pain Impact Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, Pain Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form, Musculoskeletal Outcomes Data Evaluation and Management System Spine Module, Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire, and the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory Interference Scale. The instruments varied in the aspects of pain and/or impacts that they assessed, and none of the instruments fulfilled all criteria for use in clinical trials to support labeling claims based on recommendations outlined in the FDA PRO guidance. Conclusions: There is an unmet need for a validated PRO instrument to evaluate cLBP-related symptoms and impacts for use in clinical trials.

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.

A comprehensive drug safety evaluation of pregabalin in peripheral neuropathic pain.

Pregabalin is a commonly used therapy currently recommended as first-line treatment for a number of neuropathic pain (NeP) conditions. Since licensure, a number of clinical trials of pregabalin in different NeP conditions have been completed from which additional data on safety and tolerability can be drawn. In this analysis, patient-level data from 31 randomized clinical trials of pregabalin in peripheral NeP sponsored by Pfizer were pooled and assessed for incidence of adverse events (AEs). Incidence by age, disease condition, and race, together with risk differences and time to onset and resolution of AEs, was assessed. In total, 7,510 patients were included: 4,884 on pregabalin (representing 805 patient-years treatment) and 2,626 on placebo. Pregabalin vs. placebo risk analysis identified 9 AEs with a risk difference, for which the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was > 1%: dizziness (risk difference [95% CI]: (17.0 [15.4 to 18.6]), somnolence (10.8 [9.5 to 12.1]), peripheral edema (5.4 [4.3 to 6.4]), weight increase (4.7 [3.9 to 5.5]), dry mouth (2.9 [2.1 to 3.8]), constipation (2.3 [1.5 to 3.2]), blurred vision (2.2 [1.6 to 2.9]), balance disorder (2.0 [1.5 to 2.5]), and euphoric mood (1.6 [1.2 to 2.0]). The most common AEs, dizziness and somnolence, typically emerged within the first 1 to 2 weeks of treatment and resolved 1 to 2 weeks later, without resulting in cessation of treatment. The data from this review provide information, indicating which AEs may be expected in patients treated with pregabalin, and suggest that careful dose titration to the highest tolerable dose is the most appropriate approach in clinical practice.

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.

Cross-cultural adaptation to the Dutch language of the PainDETECT-Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The PainDETECT-Questionnaire (PDQ) helps to identify neuropathic components in patients suffering from pain. It can be used by clinicians in daily practice and in clinical trials. AIM: The aim of this study is to perform a translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PDQ for use in the Netherlands and Belgium. METHODS: The first phase was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PDQ to Dutch. The second phase was to assess the face validity in the Netherlands and Belgium using qualitative and quantitative data collection. RESULTS: The length, the readability, and the clarity of the questionnaire were good for all patients. The questionnaire was judged to have a good layout and to be clearly organized. CONCLUSION: The PDQ Dutch language Version is a well translated and cross-culturally adapted questionnaire, which might be useful for screening for neuropathic components of pain in the Netherlands and Belgium.

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.

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.

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.

Ziconotide for treatment of severe chronic pain.

Pharmacological management of severe chronic pain is difficult to achieve with currently available analgesic drugs, and remains a large unmet therapeutic need. The synthetic peptide ziconotide has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for intrathecal treatment of patients with severe chronic pain that is refractory to other treatment modalities. Ziconotide is the first member in the new drug class of selective N-type voltage-sensitive calcium-channel blockers. The ziconotide-induced blockade of N-type calcium channels in the spinal cord inhibits release of pain-relevant neurotransmitters from central terminals of primary afferent neurons. By this mechanism, ziconotide can effectively reduce pain. However, ziconotide has a narrow therapeutic window because of substantial CNS side-effects, and thus treatment with ziconotide is appropriate for only a small subset of patients with severe chronic pain. We provide an overview of the benefits and limitations of intrathecal ziconotide treatment and review potential future developments in this new drug class.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Higher pain scores, similar opioid doses and side effects associated with antipyretic analgesics in specialised tertiary pain care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether non-opioid antipyretic analgesics are associated with lower pain scores, opioid doses and side effects in pain patients in tertiary care. METHODS: In a cross-sectional observational study, data from 519 Caucasians (197 men, 322 women; mean age 55.6 ± 15 years) who had undertaken pain therapy for various causes for 77.5 ± 90.8 months, obtained in three separate study centres, was analysed for actual 24-h pain scores, daily opioid doses and the occurrence of side effects. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients, 352 received opioids and 260 antipyretic analgesics, from whom 154 received both classes and 304 only either class. The administration of non-opioid antipyretic analgesics was associated with higher average pain scores (4.6 ± 2.5 vs 3.9 ± 2.6; P = 0.01), tendentially higher average oral morphine equivalent doses (121.8 ± 162.2 vs 146.7 ± 242.4 mg/d; P = 0.25) and a similar incidence of side effects (P = 0.21). These results were correspondingly seen when analysing the three study centres separately as independent cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: With the caution advised for cross-sectional data, the results dispute a clinical benefit of non-opioid antipyretic analgesics for most chronic pain patients in tertiary care and draw attention towards prospectively re-evaluating the utility of non-opioid antipyretic analgesics in tertiary pain care in a randomised placebo controlled trial.