Neuropathic pain in leprosy: symptom profile characterization and comparison with neuropathic pain of other etiologies.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies reported a high prevalence of neuropathic pain in leprosy, being especially present in "pharmacologically cured" patients. The presence of neuropathic pain in leprosy poses a supplementary burden in patient's quality of life, daily activities, and mood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether neuropathic pain in leprosy has similar symptom profile as neuropathic pain of other etiologies and to retrospectively assess the efficacy of neuropathic pain medications regularly prescribed to leprosy. METHODS: Leprosy and nonleprosy patients had their neuropathic pain characterized by the neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI, ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 being the maximal neuropathic pain intensity) in a first visit. In a second visit, leprosy patients who had significant pain and received pharmacological treatment in the first evaluation were reassessed (NPSI) and had their pain profile and treatment response further characterized, including information on drugs prescribed for neuropathic pain and their respective pain relief. RESULTS: The pain characteristics based on NPSI did not significantly differ between leprosy and nonleprosy neuropathic pain patients in visit 1 after correction for multiple analyses, and cluster analyses confirmed these findings (ie, no discrimination between leprosy and nonleprosy groups; Pearson χ2 = 0.072, P = 0.788). The assessment of pain relief response and the drugs taken by each patient, linear regression analysis showed that amitriptyline, when effective, had the highest percentage of analgesic relief. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic pain in leprosy is as heterogeneous as neuropathic pain of other etiologies, further supporting the concept that neuropathic pain is a transetiological entity. Neuropathic pain in leprosy may respond to drugs usually used to control pain of neuropathic profile in general, and amitriptiline may constitute a potential candidate drug for future formal clinical trials aimed at controlling neuropathic pain in leprosy.

Neuropathic pain in leprosy.

Nerve impairment is a key clinical aspect of leprosy and may present the distribution of mononeuropathy or multiple nerve trunks, small cutaneous nerve fibers, and free nerve endings. The clinical range of leprosy is determined by individual cell-mediated immune response to infection that also may play a role in different types of pain syndromes in leprosy. Previous studies reported a high prevalence of neuropathic pain in leprosy. In an Ethiopian study with 48 patients, pure nociceptive pain was experienced by 43% of patients and pure neuropathic pain (NeP) by 11% of patients. In an Indian study, 21.8% of leprosy patients had pain with neuropathic characteristics. These rates underlie the need to develop tools for the early diagnosis and detection of infection and its complications, such as nerve damage and pain. In a larger sample with leprosy-associated NeP (n = 90), we have applied the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4) and found sensitivity = 97.1% and specificity = 57.9%. The high sensitivity of this tool in leprosy patients suggests that it could be a valuable tool to screen for neuropathic pain in this population and could be used as part of health care programs aimed at detecting, treating, and rehabilitating leprosy in endemic areas.

Mechanisms and clinical management of pain.

Pain is an unpleasant, sensitive and emotional experience associated with or described in terms of tissue lesion, and may be acute or chronic. It may also be classified as nociceptive, neuropathic or psychogenic. Nociceptive pain involves the transformation of environmental stimuli into action potentials carried to the central nervous system, where they are modulated and integrated up to final interpretation in the cerebral cortex. Neuropathic pain may arise as a consequence of the direct lesion of axons, or of an increase in the production of neurotrophic factors. Chronic pain is always associated with anxiety and some degree of depression. Drug therapy should be selected according to its efficacy; nonetheless, the professional should also consider the tolerability and adverse effects that may occur, for example, in elderly individuals. It is necessary to emphasize the safety-considering the possibility of drug interactions-and define the posology to promote better adherence. However, the treatment of neuropathic pain should not be limited to the use of analgesic drugs, which are just one among several options enabling patients to participate in bio-psycho-social rehabilitation programs.

Jornada do paciente com lombalgia crônica no Brasil: uma revisão semi-sistemática sobre a melhor abordagem / Patient journey for those with chronic low back pain in Brazil: a semi-systematic review on the best approach

Histórico -O tratamento de pacientes com lombalgia crônica (LC) em muitos países, incluindo o Brasil, é um grande desafio no nível de atendimento primário e especializado. Além disso, as informações sobre epidemiologia e tratamento de pacientes com LC são escassas. O objetivo principal desta revisão semi-sistemática foi a construção de evidências locais sobre a prevalência e o padrão de tratamento da LC. Métodos: Esta revisão semi-sistemática utilizou Medline, Embase e Biosis via plataforma Ovid e recursos adicionais (Google, Google Scholar, Banco de dados de incidência e prevalência, Organização Mundial da Saúde, Ministério da Saúde do Brasil e informações anedóticas de especialistas locais) para identificar literatura relevante entre 2002 e 2020 para mapear a jornada do paciente. Artigos de texto completos e originais do Brasil em inglês contendo dados sobre pontos de contato predefinidos na jornada do paciente (conscientização, triagem, diagnóstico, tratamento, adesão e controle) foram selecionados. Os dados foram obtidos usando uma média simples ou ponderada, conforme aplicável para os componentes da jornada do paciente. Resultados: De 297 registros, incluindo os fornecidos por especialistas locais, oito estudos foram incluídos para análise. A conscientização da LC e da LC-NeP foi de 30,4% e 12%, respetivamente. De acordo com estudos publicados, a adesão e o controle dos sintomas dos pacientes foram estimados com percentual semelhante de 38% e 18%, respetivamente para a LC e a LC-NeP. A prevalência de LC-NeP (3,6%) foi menor que a de LC (20,6%). Com exceção de uma porcentagem comparável da população tratada, para LC (39,1%) e LC-NeP (38%), a porcentagem de pontos de contato restantes foi maior no caso de LC do que no LC-NeP, o que implicava uma melhora no trajeto do paciente para a LC. Conclusão: O estudo destaca a necessidade de melhorar os resultados dos pacientes em nível nacional, medindo esses pontos de contato da jornada do paciente. O resultado deste estudo baseado em evidências é importante para preencher a lacuna de conhecimento do paciente com LC. Portanto, recomenda-se garantir a educação médica contínua, a conscientização do paciente e a restruturação do sistema de saúde brasileiro, ao mesmo tempo em que adota novas práticas sobre o gerenciamento da dor. [au]

Background: Managing patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) in many countries, including Brazil, is a major challenge at the primary and specialty care level. Moreover, the information about epidemiology and patient management with CLBP is sparse. The primary objective of this semi-systematic review was to build local evidence about the prevalence and management pattern of CLBP. Methods: This semi-systematic review used Medline, Embase, and Biosis via Ovid the platform and additional resources (Google, Google Scholar, Incidence and Prevalence Database, World Health Organization, Brazilian Ministry of Health, and anecdotal information from local experts) to identify relevant literature between 2002­2020 to map the patient journey. Original full-text articles from Brazil in English containing data on pre-defined patient journey touchpoints (awareness, screening, diagnosis, treatment, adherence, and control) were screened. Data were synthesized using a simple or weighted mean, as applicable for patient journey components. Results. Of 297 records including those provided by local experts, eight studies were included for analysis. Awareness of CLBP and CLBP-NeP was 30.4% and 12%, respectively. According to published studies, adherence and symptoms control of patients was estimated with a similar percentage of 38% and 18%, respectively for CLBP and CLBP-NeP. CLBP-NeP prevalence (3.6%) was lower than that of CLBP (20.6%). Except for a comparable percentage of the treated population, for CLBP (39.1%) and CLBP-NeP (38%), the percentage of remaining touchpoints are higher in the case of CLBP than in CLBP-NeP, implying an improved patient journey for CLBP. Conclusion: The study highlights the usefulness to improve patient outcomes at the national level by measuring these mapping patient journey touchpoints. The outcome of this evidence-based study was fruitful to bridges the know-do gap in CLBP patients. Therefore, it is recommended to ensure continuing medical education, patient awareness, and health system preparedness while embracing the emerging insights on pain management. [au]

Low back pain / Lombociatalgia

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neuropathic pain is present in 37 to 55% of cases of low back pain. Neuropathic pain is associated with more intense pain, more severe comorbidities and worse quality of life. In addition, costs are 67% higher when compared to other etiologies. The purpose of this article is to review this issue that has significant impact on quality of life. CONTENTS: Pain radiating to the lower limb may be radicular or referred pain. Radiation paths of lumbar roots and myofascial trigger points may be very similar, as the root of L5 and gluteus minimus trigger point. Thus, it is essential to use a tool for neuropathic pain assessment, such as: Douleur neuropathique 4 questionnaire, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale e painDETECT. Clinical history and physical evaluation should formulate diagnostic hypotheses, which should be confirmed with complementary tests when necessary. Guidelines for the treatment of neuropathic pain consider as the first line drugs: anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin), tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline, imipramine, clomipramine and nortriptyline), selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (duloxetine and venlafaxine). Second line drugs are: 5% lidocaine patches in localized neuropathic pain and opioids. Surgical treatment of lumbar radiculopathy should be indicated when there is limited or low efficacy of multimodal conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: In low back pain, diagnosis of neuropathic component is critical. Multimodal treatment is imperative, as well as other strategies to rehabilitate and improve the patient's quality of life.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS A dor neuropática está presente em 37 a 55% dos casos de lombociatalgia, a dor neuropática está relacionada com dor mais intensa, comorbidades mais graves e piora da qualidade de vida. Além disso, os custos são 67% maiores quando comparada a outras etiologias. O objetivo deste artigo foi fazer uma revisão sobre este tema que causa impacto importante na qualidade de vida dos pacientes. CONTEÚDO A dor irradiada para o membro inferior pode ser de origem radicular ou referida. Os trajetos de irradiação para o membro inferior de raízes lombares e de pontos-gatilhos miofasciais podem ser muito parecidos, como a raiz L5 e ponto-gatilho do glúteo mínimo. Assim, é essencial a utilização de um instrumento para avaliação da dor neuropática, como: Douleur neuropathique 4 questionnaire, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale e Pain DETECT. Os dados da anamnese e do exame físico devem formular hipóteses diagnósticas, que devem ser confirmadas com os exames complementares quando necessário. As diretrizes para o tratamento da dor neuropática consideram como primeira linha: anticonvulsivantes (gabapentina e pregabalina), antidepressivos tricíclicos (amitriptilina, imipramina, clomipramina e nortriptilina), inibidores seletivos da receptação de serotonina e de noradrenalina (duloxetina e venlafaxina). As medicações de segunda linha são: emplastros de lidocaína a 5% em dor neuropática localizada e os opioides. O tratamento cirúrgico da radiculopatia lombar deve ser indicado quando existir limitação ou baixa eficácia no tratamento conservador multimodal. CONCLUSÃO Na lombalgia o diagnóstico do componente neuropático é fundamental. O tratamento multimodal é imperativo, assim como outras estratégias para reabilitar e melhorar a qualidade de vida do paciente.

Mechanisms and clinical management of pain

Pain is an unpleasant, sensitive and emotional experience associated with or described in terms of tissue lesion, and may be acute or chronic. It may also be classified as nociceptive, neuropathic or psychogenic. Nociceptive pain involves the transformation of environmental stimuli into action potentials carried to the central nervous system, where they are modulated and integrated up to final interpretation in the cerebral cortex. Neuropathic pain may arise as a consequence of the direct lesion of axons, or of an increase in the production of neurotrophic factors. Chronic pain is always associated with anxiety and some degree of depression. Drug therapy should be selected according to its efficacy; nonetheless, the professional should also consider the tolerability and adverse effects that may occur, for example, in elderly individuals. It is necessary to emphasize the safety-considering the possibility of drug interactions-and define the posology to promote better adherence. However, the treatment of neuropathic pain should not be limited to the use of analgesic drugs, which are just one among several options enabling patients to participate in bio-psycho-social rehabilitation programs.