Diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome-a comparison of Association of the Medical Scientific Societies in Germany, survey, and Ameri
Häuser, W. Hayo, S. Biewer, W. et al.
Clin J Pain. 2010 Jul-Aug;26(6):505-11.
OBJECTIVES: The survey and the Association of the Medical Scientific Societies in Germany (AWMF) criteria had been developed to overcome problems associated with tender point criterion of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) (lacking validation for clinical diagnosis, inconsistent use by rheumatologists, and nonrheumatologists) for the clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). We compared the concordance between these 3 criteria. METHODS: Consecutive patients of different clinical settings referred for the evaluation of chronic widespread pain or management of established FMS diagnosis were assessed by medical history, a complete physical examination including tender points, and questionnaires [self-constructed symptoms questionnaire, regional pain scale (RPS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ 9 and 15)]. FMS according to AWMF-criteria was diagnosed by the history of widespread pain (axial and all 4 extremities), the symptoms sleep disturbances, fatigue, and feeling of swelling or stiffness of the hands or feet or face (Numeric rating scale >or=1/10 each symptom) and the exclusion of somatic diseases sufficiently explaining the symptoms. FMS according to survey criteria was diagnosed by regional pain scale score >or=8 and fatigue score >or=6/10 on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Out of 310 patients, 292 could be analysed. AWMF and ACR were concordant in 86.6%, AWMF and survey criteria were concordant in 78.8% and survey and ACR-criteria were concordant in 79.5% of the cases. DISCUSSION: AWMF, survey, and ACR criteria were moderately concordant. As AWMF and survey criteria do not require tender point examination, these criteria can be used by nonrheumatologists for the clinical diagnosis of FMS.
The genetics of pain: implications for evaluation and treatment of spinal disease.
Kim, DH. Schwartz, CE.
Spine J. 2010 Sep;10(9):827-840.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Variability in human pain experience appears to be at least partially determined by genetic inheritance. To the extent that awareness of individual pain sensitivity and the tendency to develop chronic pain after injury or surgery would be informative for clinical decision making, development and use of genetic testing for specific pain markers could contribute to improved outcomes in management of spinal disease. PURPOSE: To review important and illustrative results from both classical and modern pain genetics studies and to introduce readers to critical definitions and concepts necessary to interpret the growing body of genetics literature relevant to spinal disease. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Literature review and commentary. METHODS: A review was performed of published English language studies in which genetic techniques were used to analyze the molecular basis of nociceptive signaling or processing with a particular emphasis on studies addressing genetic determinants of interindividual variability in pain sensitivity or predisposition to chronic pain. RESULTS: There is compelling evidence indicating that interindividual differences in pain sensitivity and the risk of developing chronic pain syndromes are genetically determined. Despite a growing list of putative "pain genes," genetic association studies remain plagued with difficulty replicating initial findings in different cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Genome-wide association studies are potentially powerful means of identifying clinically relevant genetic markers predicting disease susceptibility, severity, and treatment response. However, accurate results require rigorous study design with use of large homogeneous populations and precise phenotypes.
A systematic literature review of psychological characteristics as determinants of outcome for spinal cord stimulation therapy.
Sparkes, E. Raphael, JH. Duarte, RV. et al.
Pain. 2010 Aug;150(2):284-9.
Psychological factors are deemed important when considering patients for suitability for Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS). However, there is to date no consensus on which psychological characteristics or tests to undertake. This review analyses the literature to determine findings concerning the psychological characteristics observed and their impact on SCS efficacy for chronic pain. A search in the databases Cochrane, EBSCOhost (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES) and a hand search of reference lists from selected articles were performed, resulting in nine relevant articles. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was the most commonly used tool for assessing psychological factors. Only one study used a semi-structured interview instead of questionnaires. Studies lacked long term followup. Depression was identified in six studies as a factor that reduces efficacy, also as a characteristic that can improve after successful SCS by two studies. One study did not include patients with depression, due to previous research indicating depression as a contra-indication. Hypochondriasis and hysteria had conflicting results for prediction of efficacy. Mania was predicted by only two studies as a positive indicator for success. Further long term studies of psychological factors on outcome from SCS are needed.
Determinants of fentanyl and other potent micro opioid agonist misuse in opioid-dependent individuals.
Cicero, TJ. Ellis, MS. Paradis, A. Ortbal, Z.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010 Jul 1.
PURPOSE: Based on preclinical and clinical abuse liability assessments, fentanyl and other potent micro opioid agonists (e.g., hydromorphone and morphine) should be the most misused opioids if accessibility in the real world were not an issue. Since the latter is seldom true, we postulated that there would be a significant mismatch between actual and predicted rates of misuse. METHODS: We recruited 1818 prescription-opioid dependent patients entering drug treatment programs to complete an anonymous survey, covering drug use and health related issues. RESULTS: Hydrocodone and oxycodone products were the drugs of choice in 75% of patients, whereas potent micro opioid agonists (fentanyl, hydromorphone, and morphine), with the greatest predicted abuse potential, were very rarely chosen (<5% each). Most unexpectedly, the rank order of the actual drug of choice and the preferred drug in an ideal world were highly correlated. The reason most commonly given for the failure to endorse fentanyl, for example, as an actual or preferred drug, was fear of toxicity and overdose. We found few differences in drug use patterns between a subset of high-risk, impaired health care professionals (N = 196), and all other patients other than source of drug (forged prescriptions and doctors more common and dealers much less common in the HC sample). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that it should not be assumed - particularly for new drug formulations - that a high potential for abuse will result in actual abuse; and, most importantly, that the hesitancy to use potent opioids because of fears of abuse may be misguided. Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 pati
Maier, C. Baron, R. Tölle, TR. et al.
Pain. 2010 Sep;150(3):439-50.
Neuropathic pain is accompanied by both positive and negative sensory signs. To explore the spectrum of sensory abnormalities, 1236 patients with a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain were assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) following the protocol of DFNS (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain), using both thermal and mechanical nociceptive as well as non-nociceptive stimuli. Data distributions showed a systematic shift to hyperalgesia for nociceptive, and to hypoesthesia for non-nociceptive parameters. Across all parameters, 92% of the patients presented at least one abnormality. Thermosensory or mechanical hypoesthesia (up to 41%) was more frequent than hypoalgesia (up to 18% for mechanical stimuli). Mechanical hyperalgesias occurred more often (blunt pressure: 36%, pinprick: 29%) than thermal hyperalgesias (cold: 19%, heat: 24%), dynamic mechanical allodynia (20%), paradoxical heat sensations (18%) or enhanced wind-up (13%). Hyperesthesia was less than 5%. Every single sensory abnormality occurred in each neurological syndrome, but with different frequencies: thermal and mechanical hyperalgesias were most frequent in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injury, allodynia in postherpetic neuralgia. In postherpetic neuralgia and in central pain, subgroups showed either mechanical hyperalgesia or mechanical hypoalgesia. The most frequent combinations of gain and loss were mixed thermal/mechanical loss without hyperalgesia (central pain and polyneuropathy), mixed loss with mechanical hyperalgesia in peripheral neuropathies, mechanical hyperalgesia without any loss in trigeminal neuralgia. Thus, somatosensory profiles with different combinations of loss and gain are shared across the major neuropathic pain syndromes. The characterization of underlying mechanisms will be needed to make a mechanism-based classification feasible.
Pain Quality Predicts Lidocaine Analgesia among Patients with Suspected Neuropathic Pain
Carroll IR, Younger JW, Mackey SC.
Pain Med. 2010 Mar 4.
Abstract Objective. Oral sodium channel blockers have shown mixed results in randomized controlled trials despite the known importance of sodium channels in generating pain. We hypothesized that differing baseline pain qualities (e.g. "stabbing" vs "dull") might define specific subgroups responsive to intravenous (IV) lidocaine-a potent sodium channel blocker. Design. A prospective cohort study of 71 patient with chronic pain suspected of being neuropathic were recruited between January 2003 and July 2007 and underwent lidocaine infusions at Stanford University Hospital in a single-blind nonrandomized fashion. Baseline sensory pain qualities were measured with the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). Pain intensity was measured with a visual analog scale (VAS). Results. Factor analysis demonstrated two underlying pain quality factors among SF-MPQ sensory items: a heavy pain and a stabbing pain. Baseline heavy pain quality, but not stabbing quality predicted subsequent relief of pain intensity in response to lidocaine. In contrast, these factors did not predict divergent analgesic responses to placebo infusions. In response to each 1 mcg/mL increase in lidocaine plasma level, patients with high heavy pain quality drop their VAS 0.24 (95% CI 0.05-0.43) more points than those with low heavy pain quality (P < 0.013). Conclusions. "Heavy" pain quality may indentify patients with enhanced lidocaine responsiveness. Pain quality may identify subgroups among patients with suspected neuropathic pain responsive to IV lidocaine. Further investigation is warranted to validate and extend these findings.
Experience and management of chronic pain among patients with other complex chronic conditions.
Butchart A, Kerr EA, Heisler M, et al.
Clin J Pain. 2009 May;25(4):293-8.
OBJECTIVE: Managing multiple chronic health conditions is a significant challenge. The purpose of this study was to examine the experience and management of chronic pain among adult patients with other complex chronic conditions, specifically diabetes and heart failure (HF). METHODS: We surveyed 624 US Department of Veterans Affairs primary care patients in 3 study groups: 184 with HF, 221 with diabetes, and 219 general primary care users. We compared health status and function between those with and without chronic pain within the 3 study groups. Among those with chronic pain, we compared pain location, severity, and treatment across groups. RESULTS: More than 60% in each group reported chronic pain, with the majority reporting pain in the back, hip, or knee. In all groups, patients with chronic pain were more likely to report fair or poor health than those without pain (P<0.05). In the HF and diabetes groups, a higher percentage of patients with pain were not working because of health reasons. Of those with pain, more than 70% in each group took medications for pain; more than one-half managed pain with rest or sedentary activities; and less than 50% used exercise for managing their pain. DISCUSSION: Chronic pain is a prevalent problem that is associated with poor functioning among multimorbid patients. Better management of chronic pain among complex patients could lead to significant improvements in health status, functioning, and quality of life and possibly also improve the management of their other major chronic health conditions.
Quantitative Sensory Testing and Mapping: Nonautomated Quantitative Methods for Examination of the Patient With Neuropathic Pain
Walk D, Sehgal N, Moeller-Bertram T, et al.
Clin J Pain. 2009 Sep;25(7):632-40.
OBJECTIVES: Despite a growing interest in neuropathic pain, neurologists and pain specialists do not have a standard, validated, office examination for the evaluation of neuropathic pain signs to complement the neurologic, musculoskeletal, and general physical examinations. An office neuropathic pain examination focused on quantifying sensory features of neuropathic pain, ranging from deficits to allodynia and hyperalgesia, and evoked by a physiologically representative array of stimuli, will be an essential tool to monitor treatment effectiveness and for clinical investigation into the mechanisms and management of neuropathic pain. Such an examination should include mapping of areas of stimulus-evoked neuropathic pain and standardized, reproducible quantitative sensory testing (QST) of tactile, punctuate, pressure, and thermal modalities. METHODS: We review quantitative sensory testing methodology in general and specific tests for the evaluation of neuropathic pain phenomena. RESULTS: Numerous quantitative sensory testing techniques for dynamic mechanical, pressure, vibration, and thermal sensory testing and mapping have been described. We propose a comprehensive neuropathic pain evaluation protocol that is based upon these available techniques. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive neuropathic pain evaluation protocol is essential for further advancement of clinical research in neuropathic pain. A protocol that uses tools readily available in clinical practice, when established and validated, can be used widely and thus accelerate data collection for clinical research and increase clinical awareness of the features of neuropathic pain.
Systematic review: treatment agreements and urine drug testing to reduce opioid misuse in patients with chronic pain.
Starrels JL, Becker WC, Alford DP, et al.
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):712-20.
BACKGROUND: Experts recommend opioid treatment agreements and urine drug testing to reduce opioid analgesia misuse, but evidence of their effectiveness has not been systematically reviewed. PURPOSE: To synthesize studies of the association of treatment agreements and urine drug testing with opioid misuse outcomes in outpatients with chronic noncancer pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (January 1966 to June 2009), reference lists, and expert contacts. STUDY SELECTION: Original research addressing opioid medications, chronic pain, and treatment agreements or urine drug testing, with a sample size of 50 participants or more and published in English, Spanish, or French. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. The outcome of opioid misuse was defined as drug abuse, drug misuse, aberrant drug-related behavior, diversion, or addiction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 102 eligible studies, 11 met inclusion criteria; 6 were in pain clinics and 5 were in primary care settings. Four primary care studies examined multicomponent strategies that included interdisciplinary support. All studies were observational and rated as poor to fair quality. In 4 studies with comparison groups, opioid misuse was modestly reduced (7% to 23%) after treatment agreements with or without urine drug testing. In the other 7 studies, the proportion of patients with opioid misuse after treatment agreements, urine drug testing, or both varied widely (3% to 43%). LIMITATIONS: Diversity of interventions and opioid misuse measures precluded meta-analysis. Most studies evaluated combinations of interventions. CONCLUSION: Relatively weak evidence supports the effectiveness of opioid treatment agreements and urine drug testing in reducing opioid misuse by patients with chronic pain. Further research on effective ways to monitor and reduce opioid misuse is needed, especially in primary care settings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
EFNS Guidelines on the Pharmacological Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: 2009 Revision.
Attal N, Cruccu G, Baron R, et al.
Eur J Neurol. 2010 Apr 9.
Background and objectives: This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005. Methods: Studies were identified using the Cochrane Database and Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed; lower class studies were considered only in conditions that had no top-level studies. Treatments administered using repeated or single administrations were considered, provided they are feasible in an outpatient setting. Results: Most large RCTs included patients with diabetic polyneuropathies and post-herpetic neuralgia, while an increasing number of smaller studies explored other conditions. Drugs generally have similar efficacy in various conditions, except in trigeminal neuralgia, chronic radiculopathy and HIV neuropathy, with level A evidence in support of tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), pregabalin, gabapentin, tramadol and opioids (in various conditions), duloxetine, venlafaxine, topical lidocaine and capsaicin patches (in restricted conditions). Combination therapy appears useful for TCA-gabapentin and gabapentin-opioids (level A). Conclusions: There are still too few large-scale comparative studies. For future trials, we recommend to assess comorbidities, quality of life, symptoms and signs with standardized tools and attempt to better define responder profiles to specific drug treatments.
|
Association Links
|
e-Newsletter
|
