AAAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Neuropathic Pain

Pain quality patterns in delayed onset muscle soreness of the lower back suggest sensitization of fascia rather than muscle afferents: a secondary analysis study

Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) of the lower back is considered a surrogate for acute low back pain (aLBP) in experimental studies. Of note, it is often unquestioningly assumed to be muscle pain. To date, there has not been a study analyzing lumbar DOMS in terms of its pain origin, which was the aim of this study. Sixteen healthy individuals (L-DOMS) were enrolled for the present study and matched to participants from a previous study (n = 16, L-PAIN) who had undergone selective electrical stimulation of the thoracolumbar fascia and the multifidus muscle. DOMS was induced in the lower back of the L-DOMS group using eccentric trunk extensions performed until exhaustion. On subsequent days, pain on palpation (100-mm analogue scale), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and the Pain Sensation Scale (SES) were used to examine the sensory characteristics of DOMS. Pain on palpation showed a significant increase 24 and 48 h after eccentric training, whereas PPT was not affected (p > 0.05). Factor analysis of L-DOMS and L-PAIN sensory descriptors (SES) yielded a stable three-factor solution distinguishing superficial thermal ("heat pain ") from superficial mechanical pain ("sharp pain") and "deep pain." "Heat pain " and "deep pain" in L-DOMS were almost identical to sensory descriptors from electrical stimulation of fascial tissue (L-PAIN, all p > 0.679) but significantly different from muscle pain (all p < 0.029). The differences in sensory description patterns as well as in PPT and self-reported DOMS for palpation pain scores suggest that DOMS has a fascial rather than a muscular origin.

Assessment of the concordance between DN4 scores performed by the patient (self-assessment) or by the physician (hetero-assessment) to detect subacute neuropathic postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Centres dedicated to chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) have been developed, but delays for accessing to it are generally long. Teleconsultation might be a means to facilitate access to care by allowing an initial triage. CPSPs are neuropathic pain in around half of the cases and their diagnosis is mainly based on the score obtained from validated questionnaires. Among them, those requiring a neurological examination (i.e. the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions [DN4]) have a better sensitivity and specificity, and should be preferred. However, effectiveness of a remote neurological examination remains to be established. The aim of this observational study is to check during a face-to-face consultation if, after a short training, a naïve patient is capable to self-assess the clinical signs of neuropathic sensations.

METHODS

Thirty patients with suspected neuropathic pain were seen in a face-to-face postoperative pain consultation. Before examination, the patient was instructed to fill the DN4 questionnaire, including the neurological examination. Once explanations were given and checked, the patient was left and completed it alone. Then, the pain physician performed the DN4 questionnaire. Inter-rater reliability between patient and pain physician was assessed for each item and for DN4 score with the Kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

For each item of the DN4 questionnaire, Kappa coefficients were between 0.74 and 1, and could be considered as excellent. For DN4 ≥ 4, the Kappa coefficient was 0.86.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that after a short training, a naïve patient is capable of recognizing and diagnosing symptoms of neuropathic pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results suggest that self-assessment, carried out after brief training and using a simple tool, provides results comparable to those obtained by a specialist physician to diagnose symptoms of neuropathic pain. If the results of the current study are confirmed on a larger scale, self-assessment will help improve access to specialized chronic pain care by better orienting patients and opening up access to teleconsultations.

Neuropathic Pain in the Emergency Setting: Diagnosis and Management

Neuropathic pain, traditionally considered a chronic condition, is increasingly encountered in the emergency department (ED), accounting for approximately 20% of patients presenting with pain. Understanding the physiology and key clinical presentations of neuropathic pain is crucial for ED physicians to provide optimal treatment. While diagnosing neuropathic pain can be challenging, emphasis should be placed on obtaining a comprehensive medical history and conducting a thorough clinical examination. Patients often describe neuropathic pain as a burning or shock-like sensation, leading them to seek care in the ED after ineffective relief from common analgesics such as paracetamol and NSAIDs. Collaboration between emergency medicine specialists, neurologists, and pain management experts can contribute to the development of evidence-based guidelines specifically tailored for the emergency department setting. This article provides a concise overview of the common clinical manifestations of neuropathic pain that may prompt patients to seek emergency care.

Advances and challenges in neuropathic pain: a narrative review and future directions

Over the past few decades, substantial advances have been made in neuropathic pain clinical research. An updated definition and classification have been agreed. Validated questionnaires have improved the detection and assessment of acute and chronic neuropathic pain; and newer neuropathic pain syndromes associated with COVID-19 have been described. The management of neuropathic pain has moved from empirical to evidence-based medicine. However, appropriately targeting current medications and the successful clinical development of drugs acting on new targets remain challenging. Innovative approaches to improving therapeutic strategies are required. These mainly encompass rational combination therapy, drug repurposing, non-pharmacological approaches (such as neurostimulation techniques), and personalised therapeutic management. This narrative review reports historical and current perspectives regarding the definitions, classification, assessment, and management of neuropathic pain and explores potential avenues for future research.

Pain Quality After Pediatric Pectus Excavatum Repair

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain medications are included in multimodal postoperative analgesic strategies, but quality of perioperative pain is rarely assessed.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to describe adolescents' pain experiences after thoracoscopic pectus excavatum repair (Nuss procedure) using the Adolescent Pediatric Pain Tool.

DESIGN

This prospective descriptive longitudinal study was designed to test the hypothesis that pain quality descriptors reported are consistent with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 23 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years from a single urban, university affiliated, nonprofit children's hospital consented to self-report pain using the Adolescent Pediatric Pain Tool before and during hospitalization, and up to 14 months after Nuss procedure. Visual analytic techniques were used to analyze reported pain intensity, location, and affective, evaluative, sensory, and temporal qualities.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain quality, intensity, number of sites, and surface area decreased over time. Word clouds illustrated that neuropathic sensory and temporal pain quality descriptors increased in frequency 2 to 6 weeks after surgery and were the predominant descriptors 2 to 4 months after surgery. Dot matrix charts illustrated an inconsistent relationship of pain quality and intensity with pain surface area.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain quality should be assessed with valid, reliable, and developmentally appropriate tools. Visual analytics help illustrate pain quality at single points in time and longitudinally and may be helpful in guiding postoperative pain treatment.

Novel Therapies for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: Potential and Pitfalls

Neuropathic pain affects more than one million people across the globe. The quality of life of people suffering from neuropathic pain has been considerably declining due to the unavailability of appropriate therapeutics. Currently, available treatment options can only treat patients symptomatically, but they are associated with severe adverse side effects and the development of tolerance over prolonged use. In the past decade, researchers were able to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in neuropathic pain; thus, continuous efforts are evident, aiming to develop novel interventions with better efficacy instead of symptomatic treatment. The current review discusses the latest interventional strategies used in the treatment and management of neuropathic pain. This review also provides insights into the present scenario of pain research, particularly various interventional techniques such as spinal cord stimulation, steroid injection, neural blockade, transcranial/epidural stimulation, deep brain stimulation, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, neuroablative procedures, opto/chemogenetics, gene therapy, etc. In a nutshell, most of the above techniques are at preclinical stage and facing difficulty in translation to clinical studies due to the non-availability of appropriate methodologies. Therefore, continuing research on these interventional strategies may help in the development of promising novel therapies that can improve the quality of life of patients suffering from neuropathic pain.

Chronic pain and infection: mechanisms, causes, conditions, treatments, and controversies

Throughout human history, infection has been the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with pain being one of the cardinal warning signs. However, in a substantial percentage of cases, pain can persist after resolution of acute illness, manifesting as neuropathic, nociplastic (eg, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome), or nociceptive pain. Mechanisms by which acute infectious pain becomes chronic are variable and can include immunological phenomena (eg, bystander activation, molecular mimicry), direct microbe invasion, central sensitization from physical or psychological triggers, and complications from treatment. Microbes resulting in a high incidence of chronic pain include bacteria such as the Borrelia species and Mycobacterium leprae, as well as viruses such as HIV, SARS-CoV-2 and herpeses. Emerging evidence also supports an infectious cause in a subset of patients with discogenic low back pain and inflammatory bowel disease. Although antimicrobial treatment might have a role in treating chronic pain states that involve active infectious inflammatory processes, their use in chronic pain conditions resulting from autoimmune mechanisms, central sensitization and irrevocable tissue (eg, arthropathy, vasculitis) or nerve injury, are likely to cause more harm than benefit. This review focuses on the relation between infection and chronic pain, with an emphasis on common viral and bacterial causes.

Insight into pain syndromes in acute phase of mild-to-moderate COVID-19: Frequency, clinical characteristics, and associated factors

Background

Pain has been frequently described as a clinical feature of COVID‐19, and the main pain syndromes that have been associated with the acute phase of this disease so far are headache, myalgia, arthralgia, and neuropathic pain. Understanding the characteristics of pain symptoms is crucial for a better clinical approach.

Methods

Patients who were diagnosed as having COVID‐19 using reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction were included in the study. Patients were asked to complete a 51‐item questionnaire via a phone interview, which included questions on demographics, acute COVID‐19 symptoms, the presence of pain symptoms, and their characteristics in the acute phase of COVID‐19.

Results

A total of 222 out of 266 patients with COVID‐19 participated in the study, yielding a response rate of 83.5%. A total of 159 patients reported at least one kind of pain syndrome with a prevalence of 71.6%. Myalgia was reported in 110 (49.6%) patients, headache in 109 (49.1%), neuropathic pain symptoms in 55 (24.8%), and polyarthralgia in 30 (13.5%) patients. A total of 66 patients reported only one type of pain, 46 reported two types, 42 reported three types, and five patients reported all four types of pain. Logistic regression analysis showed that there were significant associations between these pain syndromes and a strong association was found between neuropathic pain and headache.

Conclusion

Pain is a frequently observed symptom of mild‐to‐moderate COVID‐19. There are significant relationships between pain syndromes in COVID‐19, which may be due to a sequence of common etiologic factors.

Significance

This study described the main pain syndromes associated acute phase of mild‐to‐moderate COVID‐19 and its associated features. Headaches and pain of neuropathic characteristics were prevalent in this sample.