Screening Tool For Neuropathic Pain Research Articles

Investigation of neuropathic pain in treated leprosy patients in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Pain can be a significant problem for treated leprosy patients. It can be nociceptive due to tissue inflammation occurring during episodes of immune mediated reactions, or neuropathic due to leprosy affecting the somatosensory system. There are sparse epidemiological data on the prevalence and impact of neuropathic pain in treated leprosy patients. Tools for assessing neuropathic pain have not been validated in leprosy. We have examined nature of pain in a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) in 80 recently treated leprosy patients in Ethiopia. Pain and depression were evaluated using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire. The Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) were used as screening tools for NP. Pain of any type was experienced by 60% of the patients. Pure nociceptive pain was experienced by 43%, pure NP by 11%, and mixed pain by 6%. Of the 14 patients who had NP either alone or in combination with nociceptive pain, 12 had high GHQ-12 scores, indicating possible depression. The DN4 had sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 45%, whereas the LANSS had 85% and 42%, respectively. This is the first study to differentiate nociceptive from NP in leprosy patients. The prevalence of NP is high in recently treated Ethiopian leprosy patients. We have validated the use of DN4 in leprosy and it is easier to use than LANSS. Depression is a common co-morbidity in patients with NP. The high prevalence and morbidity of NP in treated leprosy patients warrant clinical trials to assess the efficacy of pain therapies for leprosy-associated NP.

Validation of DN4 as a screening tool for neuropathic pain in painful diabetic polyneuropathy

DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions) is a screening tool for neuropathic pain consisting of interview questions (DN4-interview) and physical tests. It has not formally been validated in diabetes. We evaluated the validity and diagnostic accuracy of DN4 and DN4-interview in identifying neuropathic pain of painful diabetic polyneuropathy. In 158 patients with diabetes, the presence of diabetic polyneuropathy and neuropathic pain was assessed using scoring system for symptoms and signs, quantitative sensory testing, nerve conduction studies, pain history, numerical rating scale, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy was defined as the presence of diabetic polyneuropathy plus chronic neuropathic pain in the same area as neuropathic deficits. A blinded investigator performed DN4. The DN4 score was significantly related to all the neurological and electrophysiological measurements and to Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (ρ = 0.58, P < 0.0001). DN4 and DN4-interview scores showed a high diagnostic accuracy for painful diabetic polyneuropathy with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.94 and 0.93, respectively. At the cut-off of 4, DN4 displayed sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 82%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 91%, and likelihood ratio for a positive result (LR(+) ) of 9.6. At the cut-off of 3, DN4-interview showed sensitivity and specificity of 84%, PPV of 71%, NPV of 92%, and LR(+) of 5.3. This is the first validation study of DN4 for painful diabetic polyneuropathy, which supports its usefulness as both a screening tool for neuropathic pain in diabetes and a reliable component of the diagnostic work up for painful diabetic polyneuropathy.

Consistence and discrepancy of neuropathic pain screening tools DN4 and ID-Pain

Pain is a subjective condition that cannot be objectively measured; for this reason, self patient-perspective is crucial. Recently, several screening tools to discriminate between nociceptive and neuropathic pain have been developed. We aimed at assessing the consistence and discrepancy of two widely used screening tools, The Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) and the 6-item questionnaire (ID-Pain), by comparing their ability in discriminating neuropathic from nociceptive pain. DN4 and ID-Pain were administered to 392 Italian patients attending 16 outpatient services for peripheral nerve diseases. Based on medical history, clinical findings and diagnostic tools, patients were divided into two groups (neuropathic and nociceptive). Globally, ID-Pain identified neuropathic pain in 60 % of patients (38 % probable, 22 % likely). Interestingly also DN4 diagnosed neuropathic pain in 60 % of cases. A discrepancy was observed in 16 % of cases. DN4 and ID-Pain resulted to be highly interrelated in the identification of neuropathic pain. Sensitivity of DN4 was 82 % and specificity was 81 %, while ID-Pain (considering both probable and likely groups) showed sensitivity 78 % and specificity 74 %. Reliable screening tools for neuropathic pain are well related between them; hence, they are available for researchers and clinicians who may choose the most appropriate for their activity. Since the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic pain cannot do without a neurological evaluation, perhaps DN4, that includes physician objective measures, may help reducing the percentage of dubious cases. Conversely, when needing a more agile tool (not needing a physician) ID-Pain may be adopted.

Agreement and Correlation Between the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions Neuropathic Pain Screening Tools in Subjects With Low Back–Related Leg Pain

ObjectiveThe self-report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) neuropathic pain screening tools have been shown to be reliable, valid, and able to differentiate neuropathic pain from inflammatory or mixed pain syndromes. However, no studies have compared these tools to determine whether their outcomes are similar. This study evaluated agreement and correlation between the S-LANSS and DN4 in the identification of neuropathic pain in subjects with low back–related leg pain. MethodsThis observational study compared S-LANSS and DN4 scores in 45 patients with low back–related leg pain. The S-LANSS and DN4 cutoff scores of 12 and 4, respectively, were used to classify subjects as positive or negative for the presence of neuropathic pain for each screening tool. The κ statistic was used to determine whether there was agreement in classification of neuropathic pain between the 2 screening tools. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation between scores of the 2 screening tools. ResultsNeuropathic pain was identified in 15 subjects (33%) using the S-LANSS and in 19 subjects (42%) using the DN4. Agreement on neuropathic pain classification was fair, with a κ value of 0.34. There was moderate to good correlation (r = 0.62; P < .001) between scores obtained from the 2 tools. ConclusionsThe finding of fair agreement suggests that despite the moderate to good correlation between scores, the cutoff points for the classification of neuropathic pain of the 2 tools may not be congruent.

Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Summaries and Analyses

ABSTRACTTimely and important studies are reviewed and commentaries provided by leading palliative care clinicians. Symptoms, interventions, and treatment-related adverse events addressed in this issue are regimens for multiple medications; oral feeding interventions for people with dementia; screening tools for neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injuries; and functional and symptom trajectories in cancer care.

PC-FACS

PC-FACS (Fast Article Critical Summaries for Clinicians in Palliative Care), an electronic publication of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, provides palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 50 medical and scientific journals. Each month, structured summaries and insightful commentaries on 6-10 articles help palliative care clinicians stay on top of the research that is critical to contemporary practice. PC-FACS is free to AAHPM members and members can earn up to 3 CME credits quarterly. Following are excerpts from recent issues, and comments from readers are welcomed at resources@aahpm.org.

Anesthesia Literature Review

Anesthesia Literature Review

Neuropathic Pain and Psychological Morbidity in Patients with Treated Leprosy: A Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study in Mumbai

BackgroundNeuropathic pain has been little studied in leprosy. We assessed the prevalence and clinical characteristics of neuropathic pain and the validity of the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire as a screening tool for neuropathic pain in patients with treated leprosy. The association of neuropathic pain with psychological morbidity was also evaluated.Methodology/Principal FindingsAdult patients who had completed multi-drug therapy for leprosy were recruited from several Bombay Leprosy Project clinics. Clinical neurological examination, assessment of leprosy affected skin and nerves and pain evaluation were performed for all patients. Patients completed the Douleur Neuropathique 4 and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire to identify neuropathic pain and psychological morbidity.Conclusions/SignificanceOne hundred and one patients were recruited, and 22 (21.8%) had neuropathic pain. The main sensory symptoms were numbness (86.4%), tingling (68.2%), hypoesthesia to touch (81.2%) and pinprick (72.7%). Neuropathic pain was associated with nerve enlargement and tenderness, painful skin lesions and with psychological morbidity. The Douleur Neuropathique 4 had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 92% in diagnosing neuropathic pain. The Douleur Neuropathique 4 is a simple tool for the screening of neuropathic pain in leprosy patients. Psychological morbidity was detected in 15% of the patients and 41% of the patients with neuropathic pain had psychological morbidity.

Screening tools for neuropathic pain: Can they be of use in individuals with spinal cord injury?

Pain of both neuropathic and nociceptive aetiology is common after spinal cord injury (SCI), and classifying pain is sometimes a challenge. The objective of this study was to test the usefulness of the Swedish version of the screening tools Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions (DN4), the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS), the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and the painDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q) in individuals with SCI and pain. A further objective was to define pain descriptors able to discriminate neuropathic pain from nonneuropathic pain. Forty individuals with SCI ⩾1year and pain ⩾6months were examined by a specialised physician and assessed twice using the 4 screening tools. The analysis included tests of reliability (test–retest) and validity (calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and overall agreement), an explorative analysis of the cutoff scores and regression analysis for identifying predictors of diagnostic accuracy. Our results indicate that reliability was good to very good for 3 of the screening tools, DN4, LANSS, and NPQ with a Cohen’s kappa coefficient between 0.70 and 1.00. DN4 showed the highest sensitivity (93%), followed by PD-Q (68%), NPQ (50%), and LANSS (36%). LANSS and NPQ demonstrated the highest specificity (100%), followed by PD-Q (83%) and DN4 (75%). Diagnostic accuracy for the tools was for DN4 88%, PD-Q 78%, NPQ 65%, and LANSS 55%. A final model showed that 3 items, hypoesthesia to touch, burning pain, and numbness, could discriminate pain in this cohort of individuals with SCI with a high goodness of fit.This study indicates that the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (Swedish version) has high reliability and validity and can be used as screening tool for neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury.

Screening Tools for Neuropathic Pain: Are They Adaptable in Different Languages and Cultures?

Despite being related to a large variety of nerve lesions, neuropathic pain syndromes share common clinical symptoms and signs that are the result of particular mechanisms and necessitate specific management [1]. It therefore makes sense to examine the value of verbal descriptors and pain qualities as a basis for distinguishing neuropathic pain from other types of chronic pain. Pionneer work by Dubuisson and Melzack (1976) and later by Boureau et al. (1990) initially suggested that pain quality descriptors might be discriminatory for neuropathic pain [2,3]. In the last 5 years, extensive research has been undertaken to develop screening tools for this purpose. These tools are all based on verbal pain description with or without limited bedside testing and include: the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) and its self-administered version called …

Neuropathic Pain in Breast Cancer Survivors: Using the ID Pain as a Screening Tool

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a debilitating symptom experienced by a number of patients with cancer. We evaluated the validity of ID Pain as a screening tool for NP in breast cancer survivors using the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) and a reported diagnosis of NP as criterion measures. Two hundred forty breast cancer survivors with a mean age of 58 years (standard deviation=16) participated in this survey. Forty-five percent of the sample reported having pain in the past week. Of those reporting pain, 33% reported that they had been diagnosed by their health care provider with NP, 39% had a positive ID Pain (> or = 2) score, and 19% had a positive S-LANSS score. The most commonly endorsed ID Pain item was "hot/burning" (n=48) followed by feeling "numb" (n=47) and "pins and needles" (n=45). Total ID Pain score was significantly associated with a clinical diagnosis of NP (r=0.41; P<0.001) and the S-LANSS total score (r=0.54; P<0.001). Receiver operating curve analysis demonstrated that ID Pain has a predictive validity of 0.72 and 0.70 for diagnosis of NP as made by clinicians and the S-LANSS, respectively. We also found that an ID Pain score greater than or equal to 2 corresponded with the likelihood of NP in this sample, consistent with the original ID Pain development study. This study provides evidence for ID Pain as a valid screening measure for NP in breast cancer survivors.

A Novel Tool for the Assessment of Pain: Validation in Low Back Pain

Adequate pain assessment is critical for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic treatment in clinical practice and during the development of new therapies. Yet the currently used scores of global pain intensity fail to reflect the diversity of pain manifestations and the complexity of underlying biological mechanisms. We have developed a tool for a standardized assessment of pain-related symptoms and signs that differentiates pain phenotypes independent of etiology. Using a structured interview (16 questions) and a standardized bedside examination (23 tests), we prospectively assessed symptoms and signs in 130 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain caused by diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or radicular low back pain (LBP), and in 57 patients with non-neuropathic (axial) LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis revealed distinct association patterns of symptoms and signs (pain subtypes) that characterized six subgroups of patients with neuropathic pain and two subgroups of patients with non-neuropathic pain. Using a classification tree analysis, we identified the most discriminatory assessment items for the identification of pain subtypes. We combined these six interview questions and ten physical tests in a pain assessment tool that we named Standardized Evaluation of Pain (StEP). We validated StEP for the distinction between radicular and axial LBP in an independent group of 137 patients. StEP identified patients with radicular pain with high sensitivity (92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83%-97%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI 89%-100%). The diagnostic accuracy of StEP exceeded that of a dedicated screening tool for neuropathic pain and spinal magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, we were able to reproduce subtypes of radicular and axial LBP, underscoring the utility of StEP for discerning distinct constellations of symptoms and signs. We present a novel method of identifying pain subtypes that we believe reflect underlying pain mechanisms. We demonstrate that this new approach to pain assessment helps separate radicular from axial back pain. Beyond diagnostic utility, a standardized differentiation of pain subtypes that is independent of disease etiology may offer a unique opportunity to improve targeted analgesic treatment.

Only Half of the Chronic Pain After Thoracic Surgery Shows a Neuropathic Component

Chronic pain is a common complication after thoracic surgery. The cause of chronic post-thoracotomy pain is often suggested to be intercostal nerve damage. Thus chronic pain after thoracic surgery should have an important neuropathic component. The present study investigated the prevalence of the neuropathic component in chronic pain after thoracic surgery. Furthermore, we looked for predictive factors for prevalence and intensity of chronic pain. We contacted 243 patients who underwent a video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) or thoracotomy in the period between January 2004 and September 2006 by mail. Patients retrospectively received a questionnaire with the Dutch version of the PainDETECT Questionnaire, a validated screening tool for neuropathic pain. Results were analyzed from 204 patients (144 thoracotomies, 60 VATS). The prevalence of chronic pain was 40% after thoracotomy and 47% after VATS. Definite chronic neuropathic pain was present in 23% of the patients with chronic pain, with an additional 30% having probable neuropathic pain. Greater probability of neuropathic pain (ie, a higher total score of the PainDETECT) correlated with more intense chronic pain. Predictive factors for chronic pain were younger age (P = .01), radiotherapy (P = .043), pleurectomy (P = .04) and more extensive surgery (P < .001). Up to half the chronic pain after thoracic surgery is not associated with a neuropathic component, which has not been reported to date. More extensive surgery and pleurectomy are predictive factors for chronic pain after thoracic surgery, suggesting a visceral component apart from nerve injury.

Assessment and diagnosis of neuropathic pain

Classification of neuropathic pain has been based on disease entities, anatomical localization or histological observations. There is now recognition from clinical investigations that neuropathic pain is not a monolithic entity, but instead presents as a composite of pain and other sensory symptoms. Attempts are underway to supplement the traditional classification with a classification that links pain and sensory symptoms with neurobiological mechanisms. This mechanism or symptom-based classification takes negative and positive sensory symptoms into account. By using a battery of standardized quantitative sensory tests the characteristic profile of sensory symptoms can be elucidated in each patient with a bedside assessment. These procedures can be fostered by apparative neurophysiological analysis, imaging techniques and biopsies. Moreover, in questionnaires verbal descriptors can depict the quality and intensity of the individual pain. They have proven to be sensible screening tools for neuropathic pain components. Application of quantitative sensory testing and questionnaires can aid in more versatile descriptions of neuropathic pain symptoms. If it were possible to characterize the concert of the distinct mechanisms and symptoms that operate in one individual patient, an optimal polypharmacotherapy that addresses the specific combinations of mechanisms may be established for each patient.

Poster 157: A New Validated Patient-Completed Neuropathic Pain Screening Tool for Use in the Primary Care Setting

Poster 157: A New Validated Patient-Completed Neuropathic Pain Screening Tool for Use in the Primary Care Setting

A new validated patient-completed neuropathic pain screening tool for use in the primary care setting

Identifying whether the cause of chronic pain is nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed is often difficult. Despite advances in pain management, neuropathic pain (NeP) and mixed pain with a neuropathic component (e.g. radiculopathy) remain under-diagnosed and sub-optimally treated. Studies have shown that primary care practitioners and certain medical specialists find it challenging to properly diagnose complex conditions like NeP. In order to facilitate the correct diagnosis of chronic pain in primary care settings, a screening tool designed to differentiate between nociceptive and neuropathic pain was developed.