Identifying neuropathic back and leg pain: a cross-sectional study

Multi-Omics Profiles of Chronic Low Back Pain and Fibromyalgia - Study Protocol

Background

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) and fibromyalgia (FM) are leading causes of suffering, disability, and social costs. Current pharmacological treatments do not target molecular mechanisms driving CLBP and FM, and no validated biomarkers are available, hampering the development of effective therapeutics. Omics research has the potential to substantially advance our ability to develop mechanism-specific therapeutics by identifying pathways involved in the pathophysiology of CLBP and FM, and facilitate the development of diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers. We will conduct a blood and urine multi-omics study in comprehensively phenotyped and clinically characterized patients with CLBP and FM. Our aims are to identify molecular pathways potentially involved in the pathophysiology of CLBP and FM that would shift the focus of research to the development of target-specific therapeutics, and identify candidate diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers.

Methods

We are conducting a prospective cohort study of adults ≥18 years of age with CLBP (n=100) and FM (n=100), and pain-free controls (n=200). Phenotyping measures include demographics, medication use, pain-related clinical characteristics, physical function, neuropathiccomponents (quantitative sensory tests and DN4 questionnaire), pain facilitation (temporal summation), and psychosocial function as moderator. Blood and urine samples are collected to analyze metabolomics, lipidomics and proteomics. We will integrate the overall omics data to identify common mechanisms and pathways, and associate multi-omics profiles to pain-related clinical characteristics, physical function, indicators of neuropathic pain, and pain facilitation, with psychosocial variables as moderators.

Discussion

Our study addresses the need for a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying chronic low back pain and fibromyalgia. Using a multi-omics approach, we hope to identify converging evidence for potential targets of future therapeutic developments, as well as promising candidate biomarkers for further investigation by biomarker validation studies. We believe that accurate patient phenotyping will be essential for the discovery process, as both conditions are characterized by high heterogeneity and complexity, likely rendering molecular mechanisms phenotype specific.

In subjects with chronic low back pain, does neuropathia exclusively correlated to neuronal compression? A correlation study of PainDETECT questionnaire and corresponding MRI and X-ray findings

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the complex nature of low back pain (LBP) is crucial for effective management. The PainDETECT questionnaire is a tool that distinguishes between neuropathic (NeP), nociceptive (NoP), and ambiguous pain. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between pain classification and lumbar intervertebral degenerative parameters obtained from imaging.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted involving 279 patients, aged 18 years and above, who completed PainDETECT questionnaires and underwent lumbar MRI and/or X-ray scans.

RESULTS

The study included 102 patients with NoP, 78 with ambiguous pain, and 99 with NeP. The NeP group had lower mean age (58.21 vs. 53.63, p < 0.05) and higher mean numerical rating scale score (7.9 vs. 5.9, p < 0.001) compared to the NoP group. A negative correlation was found between PainDETECT scores and pelvic incidence (τ = - 0.177, p = 0.043). The NeP group exhibited significantly higher severity of foraminal stenosis (U = 18.962, p = 0.002), spinal stenosis (U = 14.481, p = 0.005), and Pfirrmann grade (U = 14.221, p = 0.028) compared to the NoP group. A higher proportion of NeP patients had intervertebral disk bulge (96% vs. 78% vs. 78%, p = 0.002) and high-intensity zones (51% vs. 41% vs. 19%, p < 0.001) compared to those with NoP and ambiguous pain.

CONCLUSION

NeP, as determined by the PainDETECT questionnaire, is associated with more severe neural compression, increased presence of discogenic disease and inflammatory disk severity, and decreased pelvic incidence. This pioneering study establishes a connection between pathological findings and pain categorization, providing clinicians with valuable guidance for formulating tailored management plans and reducing the need for unnecessary pharmacotherapy, imaging, and non-targeted surgical interventions.

Nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic low back pain? The low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium's international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations

The potential to classify low back pain as being characterised by dominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic mechanisms is a clinically relevant issue. Preliminary evidence suggests that these low back pain phenotypes might respond differently to treatments; however, more research must be done before making specific recommendations. Accordingly, the low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium was established as a group of 36 clinicians and researchers from 13 countries (five continents) and 29 institutions, to apply a modified Nominal Group Technique methodology to develop international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations to provide guidance for identifying the dominant pain phenotype in patients with low back pain, and potentially adapt pain management strategies. The BACPAP consortium's recommendations are also intended to provide direction for future clinical research by building on the established clinical criteria for neuropathic and nociplastic pain. The BACPAP consortium's consensus recommendations are a necessary early step in the process to determine if personalised pain medicine based on pain phenotypes is feasible for low back pain management. Therefore, these recommendations are not ready to be implemented in clinical practice until additional evidence is generated that is specific to these low back pain phenotypes.

Nociceptive pain assessed by the PainDETECT questionnaire may predict response to opioid treatment for chronic low back pain

Introduction

The pharmacological management of chronic low back pain (LBP) is complex. The World Health Organisation recommends a laddered approach to pain medication usage. The PainDETECT questionnaire distinguishes between neuropathic pain (NeP), nociceptive pain (NoP), and ambiguous pain. By elucidating the difference in medication efficacy between these groups, clinicians can provide a tailored treatment plan to manage patient's pain. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between pharmacological treatments, pain categorizations, and medication efficacy as reported by patients.

Methods

A secondary retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted involving 318 consecutively recruited patients, aged 18 years and above, who completed PainDETECT, medication history and patient reported medication efficacy questionnaires. Medication history was categorized into four lines of treatment: first line (paracetamol ± non-prescribed anti-inflammatories), second line (prescribed anti-inflammatories), third line (anticonvulsants/neuromodulators) and fourth line (opioids). Medication efficacy was measured using a three-point Likert scale: effective (+2), somewhat effective (+1), no effect (0).

Findings

The study included 120, 50, 54 and 94 patients on first line, second line, third line and fourth line treatment, respectively. The NeP group had higher mean numerical rating scale (NRS) compared to NoP group in all four lines of treatment (8.10 ± 1.59 vs. 5.47± 2.27, p < 0.001, 8.64± 1.43 vs. 5.52± 1.86, p < 0.001, 8.00± 1.07 vs. 6.37± 2.39, p < 0.01, and 8.05± 1.73 vs. 7.2± 1.29, p < 0.05). When confounding for severity of LBP as measured by NRS, the distribution of medication efficacy significantly differed amongst the NeP, ambiguous and NoP groups in patients undergoing fourth line pharmacological treatment (r2 = 8.623, p < 0.05). The NoP group exhibited significantly higher medication efficacy compared to the NeP group (U = 14.038, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in medication efficacy across the pain classifications for first, second- and third-line treatment.

Interpretation

Opioids was the only line of treatment more effective in targeting NoP, as determined by the PainDETECT questionnaire, compared to NeP. This pioneering study illustrates the complex nature of pharmacological management for chronic LBP. It underscores the importance of tailoring pharmacological treatment plans to fit individual pain profiles and expectations instead of adopting a blanket approach to pain management.

A confirmatory factor analysis of an electronic format painDETECT questionnaire for patients with low back pain

BACKGROUND

The substantial burden of low back pain on patients and healthcare systems is exacerbated by unclear pathology and ineffective diagnostic methods, hindering effective management. The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been used to facilitate the evaluation and categorization of low back pain. While preliminary validation and translations of the paper-based format of PD-Q into languages such as Spanish and Dutch have been accomplished, the underlying factor model inherent to the electronic format of the PD-Q remains to be established.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to utilise confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the factor structure of an electronic format PD-Q among patients with neuropathic low back pain.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at a Spinal Clinic in Sydney between November 2020 and October 2022. Eligible participants were adults over 18 with low back pain and no history of lumbar surgery or systemic co-morbidities. Participants completed the electronic format of the PD-Q, and CFA was employed to assess the validity of the suggested two-factor, nine-item structure. Recommended cut-offs for goodness-of-fit indices were used to evaluate the model fit.

RESULTS

Of the 236 patients that visited the clinic during the data collection period, 142 (71, 50% female, mean age 51.26 ± 15.28 years) participated in the study. Median pain severity was 9/10 over 4 weeks. CFA indicated strong model fit, with goodness-of-fit and comparative fit indices over 0.9, and overall internal consistency was 0.77. Construct validity analysis demonstrated the PD-Q's effectiveness in distinguishing neuropathic, mixed, and nociceptive LBP, aiding neuropathic pain evaluation in low back pain patients.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the reliability and two-factor structure of the electronic PD-Q for neuropathic pain assessment in low back pain patients. To enhance comprehension of the clinical applicability of the electronic format PD-Q, future research should conduct clinimetric evaluations.

Diagnostic utility of diagnostic investigations to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain has gained increasing interest in contemporary research. Identification of neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain is essential to inform precision management. Diagnostic investigations are commonly used to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain; yet the diagnostic utility of these investigations is unknown. This systematic review aims to investigate the diagnostic utility of diagnostic investigations to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol has been designed and reported in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy studies, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist, respectively. The search strategy will involve two independent reviewers searching electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, AMED, Pedro), key journals (Spine, The Clinical Journal of Pain, PAIN, European Journal of Pain, The Journal of Pain, Musculoskeletal Science and Practice) and grey literature (British National Bibliography for report literature, OpenGrey, EThOS) from inception to 31 July 2023 to identify studies. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic investigation to identify neuropathic pain in patients with low back-related leg pain will be eligible, studies not written in English will be excluded. The reviewers will extract the data from included studies, assess risk of bias (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and determine confidence in findings (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines). Methodological heterogeneity will be assessed to determine if a meta-analysis is possible. If pooling of data is not possible then a narrative synthesis will be done.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences and shared with the Patient Partner Advisor Group at Western University, Canada.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023438222.

Reliability of PainDETECT for Evaluating Low Back Pain Caused by Cluneal Nerve Entrapment

BACKGROUND

Superior/middle cluneal nerve entrapment (CN-E) is an elicitor of low back pain (LBP). The painDETECT questionnaire is used to characterize CN-E symptoms.

METHODS

Nineteen consecutive patients with LBP caused by CN-E (superior CN-E = 7; middle CN-E = 12) participated in a Japanese language painDETECT questionnaire survey before surgery. A score of 12 or lower was recorded as 'neuropathic component unlikely', a score of 19 or higher as 'neuropathic pain likely', and scores between 13 and 18 as 'neuropathic pain possible'. LBP severity was recorded on a numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level.

RESULTS

The mean painDETECT score was 11.8 and did not significantly differ between the superior CN-E and middle CN-E groups. We classified low back pain as unlikely to have a neuropathic component in 13 patients, as likely to have a neuropathic component in 2 patients, and as possibly neuropathic in 4 patients. There was no significant difference in the pain level of patients with scores of ≤12 and ≥13 on painDETECT. All patients reported trigger pain; the positive rate was high for electric shock pain, radiating pain, and pain attacks and low for a burning or tingling sensation, pain elicited by a light touch, and pain caused by cold or hot stimulation.

CONCLUSION

The painDETECT questionnaire may not reliably identify LBP caused by superior/middle CN-E as neuropathic pain. A diagnosis of LBP due to CN-E must be made carefully because symptoms resemble nociceptive pain.

Pregabalin and gabapentin for chronic low back pain without radiculopathy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

 Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.

METHODS

 We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

 Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

 Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.

Cluneal nerve release: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the heterogeneity of chronic lower back pain aetiologies, cluneal nerve entrapment remains underdiagnosed and poorly understood with few studies discussing the efficacy of its surgical release.

OBJECTIVE

The current study opts to conduct a systematic review reporting on the efficacy of cluneal nerve surgical decompression in patients with an established diagnosis who fail conservative treatment. We aimed to systematically evaluate the literature regarding the clinical outcomes, recurrence of symptoms and revision rates of surgical intervention.

METHODS

A systematic review of the English language literature dating up until May 2022 was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines. Isolated case reports were excluded.

RESULTS

Of a total of 54 articles, 4 studies met the inclusion criteria (three were level IV evidence and one level III evidence) and were analyzed. Overall, 98 patients of mean age 61 years, (range 17-86) underwent cluneal nerve release with a mean follow-up of 25.5 months (6-58 months). There was significant improvement in symptoms post operatively in the 4 studies. No systemic or local complications were encountered during the surgeries. Four articles reported on revision surgery for recurrent symptoms in 8 patients out of 98 with a rate of 8.2%. Of the reoperated patients, 7/8 had new branches released that were not addressed initially and 1 had neurectomy for an adhered pre-released branch.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that cluneal nerve decompression has been performed in a total of 98 patients with significant clinical improvement, zero systemic and local complications and revision rates of 8.2% of the cases.

Neuropathic Pain Component in Patients with Cervical Radicular Pain: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Evidence regarding the prevalence of neuropathic pain in patients with cervical radicular pain is limited. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of neuropathic pain components in patients with cervical radicular pain using established screening tools and identify the relationship between neuropathic pain components and clinical factors. Materials and Methods: Data from 103 patients (aged ≥ 20 years) with cervical radicular pain who visited our pain clinic were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic characteristics, history of neck surgery, pain intensity using numeric rating score, dominant pain site, duration of symptoms, and neck disability index were assessed. The prevalence of neuropathic pain components was defined according to the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions and painDETECT questionnaire tools. Patient characteristics were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and the independent t-test or Mann−Whitney U test for continuous variables. The correlation between neck disability index and other variables was analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: Of the 103 patients, 29 (28.1%) had neuropathic pain components. The neck disability index was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for patients in the neuropathic pain group (23.79 ± 6.35) than that in the non- neuropathic pain group (18.43 ± 7.68). The Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions (r = 0.221, p < 0.025) and painDETECT questionnaire (r = 0.368, p < 0.001) scores positively correlated with the neck disability index score. Conclusions: The prevalence of neuropathic pain components in patients with cervical radicular pain was low. The patients in our study showed a strong correlation between functional deterioration and their neuropathic pain screening score. This study may be useful in understanding the characteristics of cervical radicular pain.

Aloperine: A Potent Modulator of Crucial Biological Mechanisms in Multiple Diseases

Aloperine is an alkaloid found in the seeds and leaves of the medicinal plant Sophora alopecuroides L. It has been used as herbal medicine in China for centuries due to its potent anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antibacterial, and antiviral properties. Recently, aloperine has been widely investigated for its therapeutic activities. Aloperine is proven to be an effective therapeutic agent against many human pathological conditions, including cancer, viral diseases, and cardiovascular and inflammatory disorders. Aloperine is reported to exert therapeutic effects through triggering various biological processes, including cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, autophagy, suppressing cell migration, and invasion. It has also been found to be associated with the modulation of various signaling pathways in different diseases. In this review, we summarize the most recent knowledge on the modulatory effects of aloperine on various critical biological processes and signaling mechanisms, including the PI3K, Akt, NF-κB, Ras, and Nrf2 pathways. These data demonstrate that aloperine is a promising therapeutic candidate. Being a potent modulator of signaling mechanisms, aloperine can be employed in clinical settings to treat various human disorders in the future.

The effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation in treating chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) has been widely used in the clinical treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) in recent years. However, its role remains controversial and it is unclear whether PNF offers more advantages for patients with chronic LBP.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence on the effect of PNF on pain, waist function, pulmonary function and dynamic balance in patients with chronic LBP.

METHODS

Seven English and Chinese electronic databases were searched to identify articles published from 1970 to February 2020. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected by two independent reviewers to investigate PNF in treatment of chronic LBP. Data extraction was performed by the same reviewers.

RESULTS

Twelve eligible trials involving 410 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, the aggregated results suggested that PNF showed beneficial effects in relieving pain (SMD =-1.17; 95% CI: -1.50 to -0.84; p< 0.00001) and improving waist functional disability (MD =-1.63; 95% CI: -1.89 to -1.37; p< 0.00001). In addition, PNF was shown to have a significant effect on pulmonary function (MD = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.03; p= 0.001). However, the results of the study show that PNF could not significantly improve dynamic balance in patients with chronic LBP compared with the control group (MD =-0.04; 95% CI: -2.16 to 2.08; p= 0.97). A high risk of bias occurred in the areas of blinding (i.e., participants/personnel and outcome assessment).

CONCLUSIONS

PNF showed more beneficial effects in pain relief and waist function improvement in patients with chronic LBP in the short term (4 to 8 weeks of intervention) or at 12-week follow-up and also played a positive role in pulmonary function. However, no significant effect of PNF on dynamic balance was found compared with the control group. However, these results have certain limitations, and these conclusions were supported by low-quality data. Therefore, articles that are methodologically reasonable and more authoritative are required to verify the effects. In addition, articles with long-term follow-up and other outcomes are needed to confirm additional findings.

Assessment of the neuropathic component in a chronic low back pain syndrome

Background/Aim. Chronic low back pain syndrome (CLBPS) is the most common cause of functional disability and loss of working ability in developed countries. Some research shows that neuropathic pain (NP) is present in almost 50% of patients with CLPBS. The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics of NP and its impact on quality of life (QoL) in patients with CLBPS. Methods. Patients were tested using three questionnaires for NP: Pain Detect Questionnaire, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, and Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions. Thirty-two patients diagnosed with NP based on current clinical criteria and with positive results for NP on all three NP questionnaires formed an experimental group. A control group consisted of 32 patients with CLBPS who did not fulfill clinical criteria for NP and were negative for NP on all three questionnaires. Hamilton depression and anxiety rating scales (Ham-D and Ham-A, respectively) and Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire were also applied. Results. According to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), disc herniation was typically detected in the experimental group, while degenerative changes were commonly found in the control group. Patients from the experimental group had significantly greater intensity of pain, pain radiation in the legs, and the pain was usually presented as episodes of sudden attacks with mild pain between them. The most distinctive features of NP were allodynia, electric shock sensation, and hypoesthesia to prick. Patients from the experimental group also had significantly higher depression and anxiety scores, as well as worse QoL compared to the control group, especially in mental domains. Predictors of worse QoL in the patients with CLBPS were a higher level of anxiety and depression. Conclusion. The presence of allodynia, electric shock-like sensations, and hypoesthesia to prick in patients with CLBPS suggest NP. CLBPS patients with NP had worse scores in mental domains of QoL compared to CLPBS patients without NP.

Approach to Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain is a common chief complaint encountered by neurologists and primary care providers. It is caused by disorders involving the somatosensory nervous system. The clinical evaluation of neuropathic pain is challenging and requires a multifaceted systematic approach with an emphasis on a thorough history and physical examination to identify characteristic signs and symptoms. Ancillary laboratory investigations, targeted imaging, and electrodiagnostic studies further help identify underlying etiologies to guide specific treatments. Management of neuropathic pain encompasses treating the underlying pathology as well as symptomatic control with nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and interventional therapies. Here, we present an approach to help evaluate patients with neuropathic pain.

Development of a severity discrimination scale based on physical quality of life for patients with chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Deterioration of quality of life in patients with chronic pain is difficult to treat. Chronic pain in patients with low quality of life may be "severe" and require multidisciplinary treatments. This study aimed to develop an objective severity discrimination scale based on quality of life measurements to identify patients with "severely disabling" chronic pain.

METHODS

Subjects were 156 patients with chronic pain whose numerical rating pain score was ≥1 and who had pain for ≥3 months. Diseases associated with chronic pain included spinal diseases, joint diseases, concomitant diseases, complex regional pain syndromes, and other musculoskeletal diseases. Patients were divided into low, middle, and high groups based on physical quality of life summary scores on the Short Form-36. The mental component summary, painDETECT, Japanese version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Brief Scale for Psychiatric Problems in Orthopaedic Patients, and factors related to degree/quality of pain during the past 4 weeks were analyzed to identify components in the low group. The score weighting factor for discriminating between the high and low groups was determined by discriminant analysis.

RESULTS

Factor analysis identified 4 factors representing features of chronic pain patients with low QOL: enhanced perception of pain, pain catastrophic thoughts, depressive sleep disorder, and pain intensity. For discriminant analysis, patients were defined as those with low physical quality of life if each factor's total score multiplied by a factor plus a constant value of 2.6 was ≥0, and high quality of life if it was <0. The receiver operating characteristic curve area used to determine the cut-off value was 0.71, with 67.3% sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a 33-question severity discrimination scale to define "severely disabling" chronic pain based on physical quality of life. "Severely disabling" patients identified on this scale could represent chronic pain patients needing focused multidisciplinary treatment.

Effectiveness, safety and tolerability of nabiximols oromucosal spray versus typical oral long-acting opioid analgesics in patients with severe neuropathic back pain: analysis of 6-month real-world data from the German Pain e-Registry

Objective

To compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of add-on nabiximols (NBX) oromucosal spray vs typical oral long-acting opioid (LAO) analgesics in patients with severe (± chronic) peripheral neuropathic back pain poorly responsive to other treatments.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of anonymized, propensity score–matched data from the German Pain e-Registry of adult outpatients who initiated NBX or LAO between March 2017 and March 2020.

Results

Data were analyzed from propensity score–matched patients treated with NBX (n = 655) or LAO (n = 655): mean age ≈51 years; 57% female; mean pain duration ≈2.6 years; chronic pain 61%; severe dysfunctional pain 93%. At 6 months, NBX was noninferior to LAO for overall symptom relief, based on the least-squares mean difference between cohorts in change from baseline in patient-reported, pain-related aggregated nine-item scale scores (−27.84%; 95% confidence interval [CI] −29.71 to −25.96; P < 0.001) and individual pain-related scale scores. Subsequent prespecified superiority analysis of the primary endpoint showed that NBX was superior to LAO: all secondary endpoints measuring symptoms of pain and physical function improved significantly with NBX and LAO, with between-group differences favoring NBX (all P < 0.001). Fewer patients treated with NBX than LAO experienced treatment-related adverse events (25.5% vs 76.0%; P < 0.001) or discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events (7.9% vs 29.3%; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Within study limitations (e.g., observational design, all potential biases), add-on NBX was superior to and better tolerated than add-on treatment with typical oral LAO analgesics in patients with neuropathic back pain inadequately controlled by recommended/established systemic therapies.

The frequency of neuropathic pain in Turkish patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of neuropathic pain (NP) in patients with low back pain (LBP) and the relationship of NP with demographic characteristics and pain duration. Four hundred and forty patients were evaluated with respect to NP. Demographic data were collected and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire was used to identify NP. Any difference in demographic characteristics or duration of pain was investigated between the patients with and without NP. Sociodemographic factors which are independently associated with NP were analyzed. According to DN4, 43.9% of the patients had NP. Mean age of the patients was 44.8 years (± 13.7). 343 (77.9%) of the patients had chronic LBP (more than 3 months). The patients with NP were older (p < 0.001), had higher BMI (p = 0.005) and longer LBP duration (p < 0.001) and had lower educational level (p 0.018). NP was significantly more common in unemployed patients and less common in high-activity employees (p 0.001). Logistic regression analyses identified that high-active workers' risk of having NP was 1.76 times lesser than other groups (office workers, housewives and retired patients). Nearly half of the patients with LBP were accompanied by NP. It was remarkably more common in sedentary patients and patients with low socioeconomic status. High physical activity at work was found to decrease the risk of having NP. Clinicians should emphasize on exercise training as a therapeutic intervention while LBP is being treated.

Etiology and epidemiology of neuropathic pain

Background: Neuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system either at the peripheral or central level. In most cases, neuropathic pain is associated with poor general health and has a problem of suboptimal response to medical treatment. This review will discuss the neurologic and non-neurologic conditions that cause neuropathic pain and the results of epidemiologic studies on neuropathic pain.Current Concepts: Epidemiology would be a useful clinical tool for designing management and prevention strategies for various neuropathic pain syndromes. Validated neuropathic pain screening questionnaires are widely used as useful tools for the epidemiologic study of neuropathic pain. There are also validated Korean versions of these questionnaires. The overall prevalence of neuropathic pain was estimated at 6.9-10%. Common neuropathic pain syndromes include diabetic neuropathy, herpes zoster, and trigeminal neuralgia. In addition, neuropathic pain can also occur in central nervous system disorders such as spinal cord injury or stroke, and other conditions like cancerous diseases, intervertebral disc disease, and joint diseases.Discussion and Conclusion: Neuropathic pain does not respond well to medical treatment, which leaves both patients and physicians are less satisfied with such treatments. Therefore, physicians must identify the causes of the pain, explain them to the patient, and proceed with the treatment together with patients.

Alpha lipoic acid with pulsed radiofrequency in treatment of chronic lumbosacral radicular pain: A prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

The effect of adding alpha lipoic acid (ALA) to pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for treatment of lumbar-sacral pain was evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the effect of using ALA as an adjuvant therapy with PRF for treatment of chronic lumbosacral radicular pain caused by herniated disc.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients with lumbo-sacral radicular pain allocated into 2 groups. Group I: treated with PRF at 42°C for 120 seconds. Group II: treated as in group I, plus oral ALA 600 mg (Thiotacid 600 mg, EVA PHARMA, Egypt) three times per day (1800 mg/day) for 3 weeks then 600 mg once daily for 2 weeks. The lumbo-sacral radicular pain evaluated using the numerical rating pain score and Oswestry Disability Index.

RESULTS

Success rate was significantly higher in group II at 3 and 6 months after intervention. The median values of the numerical rating pain score and the Oswestry Disability Index were significantly lower in group II with no significant difference in Epworth Sleepiness Scale. No major complications were reported in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The current study supports the use of ALA with PRF on the dorsal root ganglion for treating lumbosacral radicular pain.

Resveratrol-enhanced SIRT1-mediated osteogenesis in porous endplates attenuates low back pain and anxiety behaviors

Low back pain (LBP) is a major clinical problem that lacks effective treatments. The sensory innervation in porous vertebral endplates and anxiety contributes to spinal hyperalgesia. We hypothesized that SIRT1 activator resveratrol alleviates LBP and anxiety via promotion of osteogenesis in the porous endplates. The hyperalgesia and anxiety-related behaviors; sensory innervation, inflammation and porosity of endplates; and osteogenic/osteoclastic factors expression were measured following resveratrol treatment after lumbar spine instability (LSI) surgery. To explore whether resveratrol promotes endplates osteogenesis and thus alleviates LBP through activation of SIRT1 in the osteoprogenitor cells of endplates, SIRT1OSX-/- mice were employed. Additionally, the levels of inflammation markers, phosphorylation of cAMP response element-binding protein (pCREB), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in hippocampus were evaluated. After 4 or 8 weeks LSI surgery, the mice suffered from hyperalgesia and anxiety, which were efficiently attenuated by resveratrol at 8 weeks. Resveratrol treatment-enhanced osteogenesis and decreased endplates porosities accompanied with the reduction of TNFα, IL-1β, and COX2 levels and CGRP+ nerve fibers innervation in porous endplates. Resveratrol-mediated endplates osteogenesis, decreased endplates porosities, and analgesic and antianxiety effects were abrogated in SIRT1OSX-/- mice. Furthermore, resveratrol relieved inflammation and increased pCREB and BDNF expression in the hippocampus after 8 weeks, which alleviate anxiety-related behaviors. This study provides that resveratrol-mediated porous endplates osteogenesis via the activation of SIRT1 markedly blocked sensory innervation and inflammation in endplates, therefore, alleviating LSI surgery-induced LBP and hippocampus-related anxiety.

The Clinical Difference between Gabapentin and Pregabalin: Data from a Pilot Comparative Trial

BACKGROUND

Similar anticonvulsants, such as gabapentin and pregabalin are recommended in neuropathic pain management, however little is known about their clinical differences in cases of low back pain. This paper aims to highlight some of the possible clinical differences between gabapentin and pregabalin in low back pain.

METHODS

Patients with moderate to severe low back pain were recruited. Eligible patients were randomised to receive either pregabalin (300 mg/day)or gabapentin (800 mg/day) for six weeks. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity according to the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) at baseline and at six weeks. The secondary outcome measures were: anxiety, insomnia, fatigue and the self-rated (GCI), measured at baseline, second, fourth, and the sixth week.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients, pregabalin group (n=28), gabapentin group (n=36) completed the study. While pregabalin group showed a significantly lower pain score (p=0.039). The gabapentin group showed significant improvement in anxiety (p=0.001), insomnia (p=0.001), general fatigue (p=0.009), physical fatigue (p=0.001), reduce activity (p=0.001), and mental fatigue (p=0.014) higher than that of pregabalin. No difference in (GCI) was seen at six weeks.

CONCLUSION

This is the first trial aimed at comparing gabapentin with pregabalin in NLBP. Although the results are preliminary, in our pilot study pregabalin was found to be superior in pain reduction, gabapentin demonstrated better effect on anxiety, insomnia and fatigue symptoms. The results are preliminary and studies with a larger sample size are still required.

Efficacy of abdominal trunk muscles-strengthening exercise using an innovative device in treating chronic low back pain: a controlled clinical trial

Exercise is the most common conservative intervention for chronic low back pain (CLBP). We have developed an innovative exercise device for the abdominal trunk muscles that also measures muscle strength in a sitting position. The device, which is easy for patients with CLBP to use, allows for lumbar stabilization exercise under pressure. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of abdominal trunk muscle strengthening using the device in improving CLBP. We conducted a two-group non-randomized controlled clinical trial. CLBP patients were allocated into two groups. The strengthening group underwent a 12-week exercise program that included abdominal trunk muscle strengthening using our device and stretching exercises, while the control group received a 12-week stretching exercise program. The outcome measures included the improvement of the abdominal trunk muscle strength measured by the device, pain intensity of CLBP, physical function, and quality of life (QOL). A total of 40 participants (20 in each group) were analyzed. The strengthening group showed better improvement in the abdominal trunk muscle strength, CLBP, physical function, and QOL than in the control group. In conclusion, the strengthening exercise using the device with easy stretching was effective in improving the strength of the abdominal trunk muscles, pain intensity of CLBP, physical function, and QOL.

Validation of the Questionnaire for Symptom Assessment in Pain disorders for Back pain patients (Q-SAP)

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that not only pain intensity but also impairment of quality of life and functionality are important parameters for the evaluation of treatment of chronic low back pain patients. The aim of the study was to validate a specific self-questionnaire for symptom assessment and their influence on quality of life and functionality of chronic low back pain patients (Questionnaire for Symptom Assessment in Pain disorders for back pain patients, Q-SAP).

METHODS

The self-questionnaire consists of two parts (for back and if applicable leg symptoms) and was tested in 152 chronic low back pain patients with and without radiculopathy. Test-retest reliability, exploratory factor analysis, convergent validity, criterion-related validity and the sensitivity to detect patient reported changes were investigated.

RESULTS

The questionnaire showed a good to excellent test-retest reliability. In the factor analysis nociceptive and neuropathic pain components could be separated and the highest convergent validities were shown for the painDETECT, EQ-5D-3L and the FFbH-R. The criterion-related validity showed concordance of QST and the Q-SAP Back for warmth induced pain and numbness. Regarding the sensitivity to patient-reported changes, a moderate correlation was found for both parts of the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The Q-SAP was tested as a useful, valid and reliable tool. This new questionnaire records classical nociceptive and neuropathic pain symptoms of chronic low back pain patients depending on their local distribution. Furthermore, the questionnaire records the intensity of these symptoms and their influence on quality of life and functionality and can be used for the evaluation of treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

The Q-SAP Back/Leg is a new self-questionnaire for CLBP patients with or without radiating leg pain that precisely assesses neuropathic and nociceptive symptoms. In contrast to other questionnaires, the Q-SAP Back/Leg evaluates not only symptom intensities but also their impact on the patient's quality of life and functionality. Furthermore, this questionnaire requests the symptoms depending on their anatomical distribution.

Clinical indicators to identify neuropathic pain in low back related leg pain: a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NP) is common in patients presenting with low back related leg pain. Accurate diagnosis of NP is fundamental to ensure appropriate intervention. In the absence of a clear gold standard, expert opinion provides a useful methodology to progress research and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on a list of clinical indicators to identify NP in low back related leg pain.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method consisting of three rounds was designed in accordance with the Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies recommendations. Recruitment involved contacting experts directly and through expressions of interest on social media. Experts were identified using pre-defined eligibility criteria. Priori consensus criteria were defined for each round through descriptive statistics. Following completion of round 3 a list of clinical indicators that achieved consensus were generated.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight participants were recruited across 11 countries. Thirty-five participants completed round 1 (92.1%), 32 (84.2%) round 2 and 30 (78.9%) round 3. Round 1 identified consensus (Kendall's W coefficient of concordance 0.456; p < 0.001) for 10 clinical indicators out of the original 14, and 9 additional indicators were added to round 2 following content analysis of qualitative data. Round 2 identified consensus (Kendall's W coefficient of concordance 0.749; p < 0.001) for 10 clinical indicators out of 19, and 1 additional indicator was added to round 3. Round 3 identified consensus for 8 indicators (Kendall's W coefficient of concordance 0.648; p < 0.001). Following completion of the third round, an expert derived consensus list of 8 items was generated. Two indicators; pain variously described a burning, electric shock like and/or shooting into leg and pain in association with other neurological symptoms (e.g. pins and needles, numbness, weakness), were found to have complete agreement amongst expert participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Good agreement was found for the consensus derived list of 8 clinical indicators to identify NP in low back related leg pain. This list of indicators provide some indication of the criteria upon which clinicians can identify a NP component to low back related leg pain; further research is needed for stronger recommendations to be made.

Rehabilitation for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review for Managing Pain and Improving Function in Acute and Chronic Conditions

Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent and may transition into chronic LBP (cLBP) with associated reduced quality of life, pain, and disability. Because cLBP affects a heterogenous population, rehabilitation efforts must be individualized to meet the needs of various patient populations as well as individuals. This narrative review evaluated the many approaches to LBP rehabilitation including treatment-based classifications and specific types of rehabilitation efforts from exercise and physical therapy to spinal manipulation and bracing. Clinicians caring for patients with LBP or cLBP must be aware of the various options to find the right treatment course for each patient. In many cases, with proper patient expectations and care, nonpharmacological options may suffice to manage cLBP. While there is a rightful role for analgesics in the management of LBP, nonpharmacological options should be seriously considered, as they can play an important and health-sustaining role in patient management.

Psychological factors can cause false pain classification on painDETECT

Background and aims The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been widely used as a screening tool for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP) as well as a tool for the characterization of patients' pain profile. In contrast to other NeP screening tools, the PD-Q is the only screening tool with weighted sensory descriptors. It is possible that responses to the PD-Q sensory descriptors are influenced by psychological factors, such as catastrophizing or anxiety, which potentially might contribute to an overall higher score of PD-Q and a false positive identification of NeP. This study aimed to explore (i) the relationship between psychological factors (catastrophizing, anxiety, depression and stress) and the total PD-Q score and (ii) if psychological factors are associated with false positive identifications of NeP on the PD-Q compared to clinically diagnosed NeP. Methods The study was a retrospective review of 1,101 patients attending an outpatient pain centre. Patients were asked to complete the PD-Q, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). For patients who were identified by PD-Q as having NeP, their medical records were reviewed to establish if they had a clinical diagnosis of NeP. Results Accounting for missing data, complete datasets of 652 patients (mean age 51 (SD14) years, range 18-88; 57% females) were available for analysis. Based on PD-Q scoring, NeP was likely present in 285 (44%) patients. Depression, anxiety, stress, catastrophizing, BPI pain and BPI interference were all significantly related to each other (p < 0.0001) and patients displaying these traits were significantly more likely to have a positive PD-Q score (p < 0.0001). For patients classified by PD-Q as having NeP, only 50% of patients had a clinical diagnosis of NeP. Anxiety was significantly associated with a false positive classification of NeP on PD-Q (p = 0.0036). Conclusions Our retrospective study showed that psychological factors including catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and stress were all influential in producing a higher score on the PD-Q. We observed a high rate of false positive NeP classification which was associated with the presence of anxiety. Implications Clinicians and researchers should be aware that a patient's psychological state may influence the responses to PD-Q and consequently the final PD-Q score and its NeP classification.

Clinical indicators to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain: protocol for a modified Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can be a challenge to healthcare providers to diagnose and treat. Accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is fundamental to ensure appropriate intervention is given. However, to date there is no gold standard to diagnose neuropathic LBLP. A Delphi study will therefore be conducted to obtain an expert-derived consensus list of clinical indicators to identify a neuropathic component to LBLP.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

Included participants will be considered experts within the field as measured against a predefined eligibility criterion. Through an iterative multistage process, participants will rate their agreement with a list of clinical indicators and suggest any missing clinical indicators during each round. Agreement will be measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics will be used to measure agreement; median, IQR and percentage of agreement. A priori consensus criteria will be defined for each round. Data analysis at the end of round three will enable a list of clinical indicators to be derived.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was gained from the University of Birmingham (ERN_19-1142). On completion of the study, findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.

Diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can be a challenge to healthcare providers to diagnose and treat. Accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is fundamental to ensure appropriate intervention is given. However, to date there is no gold standard to diagnose neuropathic LBLP. Patient examination guidelines and screening tools have been developed and validated for the purpose of diagnosing neuropathic pain in LBLP; however, there has been no systematic review conducted to compare the diagnostic validity of these methods. Therefore, this systematic review will investigate the diagnostic utility of patient history, clinical examination and screening tool data to identify neuropathic pain in LBLP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol is informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Protocols. CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, AMED, Pedro, PubMed, key journals and grey literature will be searched rigorously to find diagnostic accuracy studies investigating patient examination data to identify neuropathic pain in LBLP patients. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, extract the data and assess risk of bias for included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The overall quality of included studies will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. A meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed appropriate. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No research ethics is required for this systematic review since patient data will not be collected. This review will help to inform healthcare professionals and researchers on the most effective means in which to diagnose neuropathic pain in LBLP. Results of this review will be submitted for publication in a peer-review journal and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140861.

Neuropathic Pain Component in Axial Spondyloarthritis and the Influence on Disease Burden

OBJECTIVES

Patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and radiographic axSpA/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) have similar burden of disease; however, the potential influence of pain characteristics including the neuropathic pain (NeP) component has not been assessed yet. The aim of this study was first to assess frequency of NeP component in patients with axSpA and second to assess the potential influence of NeP on burden of disease.

METHODS

Adult patients who met the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society classification criteria for axSpA were consecutively recruited. Patients were evaluated using the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions interview and painDETECT questionnaire and subgrouped as patients with and without NeP.

RESULTS

Neuropathic pain component was present in 31.4% of patients with axSpA categorized according to Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (31.6% in nr-axSpA vs 31.3% in AS, P = 0.964) and in 33.5% of patients categorized according to painDETECT (35.1% in nr-axSpA vs 32.8% in AS, P = 0.762). Pain characteristics were quite similar between patients with nr-axSpA and AS. Women tented to have more frequent NeP. Patients with NeP component had significantly higher scores in visual analog scale of pain, patient and physician global, fatigue, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein, depression, anxiety scores, and physical functions; poorer quality of life (QoL); and similar frequency of fibromyalgia compared with patients without NeP component. In multivariable analysis, having NeP was associated with QoL measures (Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life and Short-Form 36 physical component score) and visual analog scale of fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one third of patients with axSpA may have NeP component regardless of having nr-axSpA or AS. Neuropathic pain component may contribute worsened QoL and poorer patient-reported outcome data and should be kept in mind during patient evaluation.

Effectiveness and tolerability of THC:CBD oromucosal spray as add-on measure in patients with severe chronic pain: analysis of 12-week open-label real-world data provided by the German Pain e-Registry

Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, tolerability and safety of an oromucosal spray containing Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), as add-on treatment in patients with severe chronic pain (SCP).

Methods: Exploratory analysis of anonymized 12-week routine/open-label data provided by the German Pain e-Registry (GPR) on adult SCP patients treated with THC:CBD oromucosal spray in 2017.

Results: Among those 30.228 cases documented in the GPR in 2017, 800 (2.6%; 57% female, mean ± SD age: 46.3±9.7 years) received a treatment with THC:CBD. All patients fulfilled the legislative preconditions for a treatment with cannabis as medicine as defined by the German Act Amending Narcotics and Other Regulations. THC:CBD-treatment was followed by an aggregated nine-factor symptom relief (ASR-9) improvement at end of week 12 vs baseline of 39.0±26.5% (95%-CI: 36.9–41.1, median: 42, range −41 to 85). A full ASR-9 response (ie, a 50%-improvement in all 9 factors) was found for 123 patients (15.4%), while 488 patients (56.0%) presented with an ≥50% improvement in at least 5 of 9 ASR factors. With a 54.9±17.2% (median: 56%, range: −6 to 85) improvement was significantly superior in the neuropathic pain subgroup (n=497, 62.1%) vs those with mixed (n=249, 31.1%; ASR-9: 18.2±12.0, median: 19, range: −12 to 42%) or nociceptive pain (n=54, 6.8%; ASR-9: −11.9±10.5, median: −11, range: −41% to 12%; p<0.001 for each). 159 patients (19.9%) reported at least one of 206 TEAEs, most of them of mild intensity (n=81.6%). Most frequently reported TEAEs were increased appetite (n=50, 6.3%) and dysgeusia (n=23, 2.9%). TEAE-related discontinuations were reported for 32 patients (4.0%). 113 (14.1%) patients discontinued due to inadequate pain relief, most of them with nociceptive pain (n=40, 74.1%), least with neuropathic pain (n=1, 0.2%; p<0.001).

Conclusion: THC:CBD oromucosal spray proved to be an effective and well-tolerated add-on treatment for patients with elsewhere refractory chronic pain – especially of neuropathic origin.

Characteristics of patients with neuropathic pain syndromes screened by the painDETECT questionnaire and diagnosed by physician exam

Background

The aim of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics, treatment usage, and health outcomes of US adults diagnosed with neuropathic pain (NeP) by experienced physicians.

Methods

Adults with scores exceeding the threshold for probable NeP (painDETECT ≥19) and diagnosed with NeP by a qualified physician completed a questionnaire that included comorbid conditions, pain symptoms and experiences, medication use, health status (3-level EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-3L]: health utilities index and visual analog scale), pain severity and interference with functioning (Brief Pain Inventory), and work and activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire). Descriptive analyses were performed for each NeP subtype.

Results

Participants (n=295) were predominantly female (64.4%), middle-aged (53.9%), and white (51.5%). Chronic low back pain was the most frequently diagnosed major NeP syndrome (n=166), followed by diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n=58), post-trauma neuropathy (n=47), post-surgical neuropathy (n=28), and central NeP (n=23). An additional 45 participants were diagnosed, but did not meet the criteria for the aforementioned subtypes. Participants could be diagnosed with multiple subtypes. Across each NeP subtype, patients reported high rates of comorbid disease, including arthritis (range: 39.1%–64.3%) and high blood pressure (range: 26.1%–69.0%), as well as symptomology that included numbness (range: 68.1%–91.4%) and changes in muscular strength (range: 24.1%–65.2%). The majority of patients reported back pain (range: 77.8%–95.7%) and arthritis/joint pain (range: 68.1%–78.6%). The most commonly reported types of NeP pain medication were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (range: 43.1%–70.2%), weak opioids (range: 22.2%–39.3%), and strong opioids (range: 8.7%–28.6%). All six NeP groups generally reported similar levels of dysfunction on all self-report measures. The most notable finding was that the EuroQol-5D-3L health utilities index scores for each of the six groups were lower than the US norms by a clinically important amount.

Conclusion

These exploratory findings indicate that patients with NeP across different etiologies are medically complex and experience impaired function across multiple domains.

Difference between subjects in early chronic phase of low back pain with and without neuropathic component: observational cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain in early chronic low back pain is insufficiently recognized and treated.

AIM

The aim of this study was to establish if there is a difference among chronic low back pain subjects with and without neuropathic pain and healthy subjects, in clinical characteristic and the level of trunk muscle activation.

DESIGN

Cross sectional observational study.

SETTING

Rehabilitation clinic, inpatient and outpatient.

POPULATION

Thirty-three subjects in early chronic phase of low back pain and 26 healthy subjects were included in this research.

METHODS

Clinical characteristics and relative thickness change of lumbar multifidus and transversal abdominal muscle, measured by ultrasound, in neuropathic, non-neuropathic chronic low back pain and healthy subjects were analyzed.

RESULTS

Chronic low back pain subjects with neuropathic pain reported higher level of pain on Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (back pain P=0.016, leg pain P=0.006), had higher Oswestry Disability Score (P=0.029), had lower motor (P=0.001) and sensory leg scores (P=0.000), and decreased level of activation of transversal abdominal muscle (P=0.000) comparing to chronic low back pain group without neuropathic pain. Low back pain subjects with leg pain ≥5 on VAS were 11.2 times more prone to develop neuropathic pain. Motor leg score ≤47 increases this chance 35 times. Sensory leg score ≤25 increases this chance 14 times. Reduced activation of transversal abdominal muscle for 40-50% increases this chance 7-24 times.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic low back pain subjects with neuropathic pain were more painful and disabled, had lower motor and sensory scores, and lower relative thickness change of transversal abdominal muscle comparing to the low back pain group without neuropathic pain. Self -reported leg pain intensity of 5 or more on VAS, motor score of 47 and less, sensory scores of 25 and less and diminished activation of transversal abdominal muscle significantly increase the chance that chronic low back pain subject has neuropathic component of pain.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

Neuropathic pain in early chronic low back pain subjects might be more readily recognized if patients with radiculopathy and diminished activation of transversal abdominal muscle were regularly screened for neuropathic pain.

Pharmacological target therapy of neuropathic pain and patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain in Korea: Results from the NLBP Outcomes Research

A number of studies have demonstrated an association of neuropathic pain and chronic low back pain (CLBP), but the outcome difference in each medical management is poorly understood. This study is aimed to investigate treatment patterns of neuropathic pain in CLBP patients and to explore patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including quality of life (QoL) and functional disability by treatment patterns.Data were extracted from the neuropathic low back pain (NLBP) outcomes research. It was a multicenter and cross-sectional study in which 1200 patients were enrolled at 27 general hospitals, from 2014 to 2015. Of total, 478 patients classified as neuropathic pain were used for this subgroup analysis. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to treatment patterns (with vs. without the targeted therapy [TT] of neuropathic pain). Demographic and clinical features were collected by chart reviews and PROs were measured by patient's survey. QoL was assessed by EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Functional disability was measured by the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to compare the PROs between TT group and non-targeted therapy (nTT) group.Among the NLBP patients (mean age 63years, female 62%), EQ-5D index, EuroQoL-Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), and QBPDS Scores (mean ± standard deviation) were 0.40 ± 0.28, 54.98 ± 19.98, and 46.03 ± 21.24, respectively. Only 142 (29.7%) patients had pharmacological TT of neuropathic pain. Univariate analyses revealed no significant mean differences between TT group and nTT group in the EQ-5D index (0.41 ± 0.27 and 0.39 ± 0.28), EQ-VAS (56.43 ± 18.17 and 54.37 ± 20.69), and QBPDS (45.31 ± 21.32 and 46.31 ± 21.24). After adjustment with covariates, TT group had higher scores of EQ-5D index (β = 0.07; P < 0.01) and EQ-VAS (β = 4.59; P < 0.05) than the nTT group. The TT group's QBPDS score was lower than the nTT group, although its statistical significance still has not been reached (β = -4.13; P = 0.07).We found that considerable proportion of the NLBP patients remains untreated or undertreated. Although TT group had significantly better QoL than nTT group, only 29.7% of NLBP patients had pharmacological TT. Therefore, clinicians should consider using TT for better QoL of neuropathic pain patients.

The Pharmacological Therapy of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic neuropathic pain, including painful peripheral polyneuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia, affects 6.9-10% of the general population.

METHODS

In this article, we present current treatment recommendations on the basis of a selective review of the literature.

RESULTS

Neuropathic pain does not respond consistently to classic non-opioid analgesic drugs and is better treated with co-analgesic, antidepressant, and anticonvulsant drugs and topical agents. Under certain conditions, however, neuropathic pain can be treated with opioids, even chronically. It was concluded in a large-scale m eta- analysis that tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin- norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and calcium-channel anticonvulsants are the drugs of first choice, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 3.5-7.7 for a 50% reduction of pain. An analysis of all studies yielded an estimated publication bias of 10%. Treatment planning must include adequate consideration of the patient's age and comorbidities, concomitant medication, and potential side effects.

CONCLUSION

Drugs are now chosen to treat neuropathic pain independently of the cause and symptoms of the pain. Topical agents are used only to treat peripheral neuropathy. The utility of a treatment approach based on the patient's symptoms and pathological mechanisms was recently demonstrated for the first time in a randomized trial. The goal of current research is to facilitate treatment planning on the basis of the clinical phenotype.

Rapid, Objective and Non-invasive Diagnosis of Sudomotor Dysfunction in Patients With Lower Extremity Dysesthesia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

To determine whether patients with lumbosacral (LS) radiculopathy and peripheral polyneuropathy (PPNP) exhibit sudomotor abnormalities and whether SUDOSCAN (Impeto Medical, Paris, France) can complement nerve conduction study (NCS) and electromyography (EMG).

Methods

Outpatients with lower extremity dysesthesia underwent electrophysiologic studies and SUDOSCAN. They were classified as normal (group A), LS radiculopathy (group B), or PPNP (group C). Pain severity was measured by the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Demographic features, electrochemical skin conductance (ESC) values on hands and feet, and SUDOSCAN-risk scores were analyzed.

Results

There were no statistical differences in MNSI and VAS among the three groups. Feet-ESC and hands-ESC values in group C were lower than group A and B. SUDOSCAN-risk score in group B and C was higher than group A. With a cut-off at 48 microSiemens of feet-ESC, PPNP was detected with 57.1% sensitivity and 94.2% specificity (area under the curve [AUC]=0.780; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0646-0.915). With a SUDOSCAN-risk score cut-off at 29%, NCS and EMG abnormalities related to LS radiculopathy and PPNP were detected with 64.1% sensitivity and 84.2% specificity (AUC=0.750; 95% CI, 0.674-0.886).

Conclusion

SUDOSCAN can discriminate outpatients with abnormal electrophysiological findings and sudomotor dysfunction. This technology may be a complementary tool to NCS and EMG in outpatients with lower extremity dysesthesia.

Neuropathic Pain in Low Back-Related Leg Pain Patients: What Is the Evidence of Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prognosis in Primary Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

This systematic review synthesizes literature describing prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) patients with neuropathic pain in primary care and/or similar settings. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and used by independent reviewers to screen citations for eligibility. The initial search yielded 24,948 citations; after screening 12 studies were included. Neuropathic pain was identified using case ascertainment tools (n = 5), clinical history with examination (n = 4), and using LBLP samples assumed neuropathic (n = 3). Neuropathic pain prevalence varied from 19% to 80%. There was consistent evidence for higher back-related disability (n = 3), poorer health-related quality of life (n = 2), and some evidence for more severe depression (n = 2), anxiety (n = 3), and pain intensity (n = 4) in patients with neuropathic pain. Results were less consistent when cases were identified through clinical history with examination than those identified using case ascertainment tools. Prognosis (n = 1) of LBLP patients with neuropathic pain was worse compared with those without, in all outcomes (leg pain intensity, leg and back-related disability, self-reported general health) except back pain intensity. No studies described prognostic factors. This systematic review highlights the evidence gap in neuropathic pain in LBLP in primary care, especially with respect to prognosis.

PERSPECTIVE

Patients with LBLP may have neuropathic pain. This systematic review emphasizes the paucity of evidence describing the characteristics and prognosis of neuropathic pain in this patient population. Future research investigating prognosis of these patients with neuropathic pain is likely to contribute to better understanding and management.

Classification and Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neck pain exerts a steep personal and socioeconomic toll, ranking as the fourth leading cause of disability. The principal determinant in treatment decisions is whether pain is neuropathic or nonneuropathic, as this affects treatment at all levels. Yet, no study has sought to classify neck pain in this manner.

METHODS

One hundred participants referred to an urban, academic military treatment facility with a primary diagnosis of neck pain were enrolled and followed up for 6 months. Pain was classified as neuropathic, possible neuropathic, or nonneuropathic using painDETECT and as neuropathic, mixed, or nociceptive by s-LANSS (self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale) and physician designation. Based on previous studies, the intermediate possible neuropathic pain category was considered to be a mixed condition. The final classification was based on a metric combining all 3 systems, slightly weighted toward physician's judgment, which is considered the reference standard.

RESULTS

Fifty percent of participants were classified as having possible neuropathic pain, 43% as having nonneuropathic pain, and 7% with primarily neuropathic pain. Concordance was high between the various classification schemes, ranging from a low of 62% between painDETECT and physician designation for possible neuropathic pain, to 83% concordance between s-LANSS and the 2 other systems for neuropathic pain. Individuals with neuropathic pain reported higher levels of baseline disability, were more likely to have a coexisting psychiatric illness, and underwent surgery more frequently than other pain categories, but were also more likely to report greater reductions in disability after 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pure neuropathic pain comprised a small percentage of our cohort, 50% of our population consisted of mixed pain conditions containing a possible neuropathic component. There was significant overlap between the various classification schemes.

Diagnostic accuracy of standardised qualitative sensory test in the detection of lumbar lateral stenosis involving the L5 nerve root

Misdiagnosis of symptomatic lumbar lateral stenosis (LS) may result in an unfavourable prognosis after surgical treatment. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a standardised qualitative sensory test (SQST) in the detection of symptomatic LS in patients who had degenerative spinal disorders involving the L5 spinal nerve. We prospectively identified 75 patients, of which 60 met the inclusion criteria. Lateral recess stenosis at the L5 level or foraminal stenosis at the L5/S1 level on MRI was identified and graded by a neurosurgeon blinded to any clinical information. The reference criteria for the diagnosis of symptomatic LS were grade III LS on MRI and relevant clinical symptoms. Cutaneous sensory functions of the L5 dermatome on the symptomatic side were evaluated using the SQST. Each item of the SQST showed a satisfactory performance in the diagnosis of LS (sensitivity = 0.455-0.727, specificity = 0.868-1.0). A stepwise selection model identified low-strength von-Frey, high-strength von-Frey, and vibration as the most accurate predictors of symptomatic LS with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.9563 (95% confidence interval = 0.9003-1.0). In combination with MRI, the SQST is a promising diagnostic tool for detecting symptomatic LS involving L5 nerve roots.

Anatomical study of middle cluneal nerve entrapment

Object

Entrapment of the middle cluneal nerve (MCN) under the long posterior sacroiliac ligament (LPSL) is a possible, and underdiagnosed, cause of low-back and/or leg symptoms. To date, detailed anatomical studies of MCN entrapment are few. The purpose of this study was to ascertain, using cadavers, the relationship between the MCN and LPSL and to investigate MCN entrapment.

Methods

A total of 30 hemipelves from 20 cadaveric donors (15 female, 5 male) designated for education or research, were studied by gross anatomical dissection. The age range of the donors at death was 71–101 years with a mean of 88 years. Branches of the MCN were identified under or over the gluteus maximus fascia caudal to the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) and traced laterally as far as their finest ramification. Special attention was paid to the relationship between the MCN and LPSL. The distance from the branch of the MCN to the PSIS and to the midline and the diameter of the MCN were measured.

Results

A total of 64 MCN branches were identified in the 30 hemipelves. Of 64 branches, 10 (16%) penetrated the LPSL. The average cephalocaudal distance from the PSIS to where the MCN penetrated the LPSL was 28.5±11.2 mm (9.1–53.7 mm). The distance from the midline was 36.0±6.4 mm (23.5–45.2 mm). The diameter of the MCN branch traversing the LPSL averaged 1.6±0.5 mm (0.5–3.1 mm). Four of the 10 branches penetrating the LPSL had obvious constriction under the ligament.

Conclusion

This is the first anatomical study illustrating MCN entrapment. It is likely that MCN entrapment is not a rare clinical entity.

Diagnostic triage for low back pain: a practical approach for primary care

Diagnostic triage is an essential guideline recommendation for low back pain (LBP), which is the most frequent musculoskeletal condition that general practitioners encounter in Australia. Clinical diagnosis of LBP - informed by a focused history and clinical examination - is the key initial step for GPs, and determines subsequent diagnostic workup and allied health and medical specialist referral. The goal of diagnostic triage of LBP is to exclude non-spinal causes and to allocate patients to one of three broad categories: specific spinal pathology (< 1% of cases), radicular syndrome (∼ 5-10% of cases) or non-specific LBP (NSLBP), which represents 90-95% of cases and is diagnosed by exclusion of the first two categories. For specific spinal pathologies (eg, vertebral fracture, malignancy, infection, axial spondyloarthritis or cauda equina syndrome), a clinical assessment may reveal the key alerting features. For radicular syndrome, clinical features distinguish three subsets of nerve root involvement: radicular pain, radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Differential diagnosis of back-related leg pain is complex and clinical manifestations are highly variable. However, distinctive clusters of characteristic history cues and positive clinical examination signs, particularly from neurological examination, guide differential diagnosis within this triage category. A diagnosis of NSLBP presumes exclusion of specific pathologies and nerve root involvement. A biopsychosocial model of care underpins NSLBP; this includes managing pain intensity and considering risk for disability, which directs matched pathways of care. Back pain is a symptom and not a diagnosis. Careful diagnostic differentiation is required and, in primary care, diagnostic triage of LBP is the anchor for a diagnosis.

Reliability of the English version of the painDETECT questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been used widely for the identification of neuropathic pain (NeP); however, the reliability of the English version of the PD-Q has never been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the reliability of the PD-Q pre- (T0) and immediately post- (T1) clinical consultation and at one-week follow-up (T2).

METHODS

We recruited 157 patients attending a Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic and Pain Management Department. Minor changes to PD-Q instructions were made to facilitate patient understanding; however, no changes to individual items or scoring were made. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the reliability of PD-Q total scores between T0-T1 and T0-T2; weighted kappa (κ) was used to assess the agreement of PD-Q classifications (unlikely NeP, ambiguous, likely NeP) between all time-points. To ensure stability of clinical pain, patients scoring ≤2 or ≥6 on the Patient Global Impression Scale (PGIC) at T2 were excluded from the T0-T2 analysis.

RESULTS

Accounting for missing data and exclusions (change in PGIC score), data for 136 individuals (mean [SD] age: 56.8 [15.2]; 54% male) was available, of whom n = 129 were included in the T0-T1 and n = 69 in the T0-T2 comparisons. There was almost perfect agreement between the PD-Q total scores at T0-T1 time-points (ICC 0.911; 95% CI: 0.882-0.941) and substantial agreement at T0-T2 (ICC 0.792; 95% CI: 0.703-0.880). PD-Q classifications demonstrated substantial agreement for T0-T1 (weighted κ: 0.771; 95% CI: 0.683-0.858) and for T0-T2 (weighted κ: 0.691; 95% CI: 0.553-0.830). Missing data was accounted in 13% of our cohort and over 42% of our patients drew multiple pain areas on the PD-Q body chart.

CONCLUSION

The English version of the PD-Q is reliable as a screening tool for NeP. The validity of the questionnaire is still in question and has to be investigated in future studies.

Risk factors for low back pain and sciatica in elderly men-the MrOS Sweden study

Introduction

The aim of this study was to identify whether factors beyond anatomical abnormalities are associated with low back pain (LBP) and LBP with sciatica (SCI) in older men.

Material and Methods

Mister Osteoporosis Sweden includes 3,014 men aged 69–81 years. They answered questionnaires on lifestyle and whether they had experienced LBP and SCI during the preceding 12 months. About 3,007 men answered the back pain (BP) questions, 258 reported BP without specified region. We identified 1,388 with no BP, 1,361 with any LBP (regardless of SCI), 1,074 of those with LBP also indicated if they had experienced LBP (n = 615), LBP+SCI (n = 459).

Results

About 49% of those with LBP and 54% of those with LBP+SCI rated their health as poor/very poor (P < 0.001). Men with any LBP to a greater extent than those without BP had poor self-estimated health, depressive symptoms, dizziness, fall tendency, serious comorbidity (diabetes, stroke, coronary heart disease, pulmonary disease and/or cancer) (all P < 0.001), foreign background, were smokers (all P < 0.01), had low physical activity and used walking aids (all P < 0.05). Men with LBP+SCI to a greater extent than those with LBP had lower education, lower self-estimated health, comorbidity, dizziness and used walking aids (all P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In older men with LBP and SCI, anatomical abnormalities such as vertebral fractures, metastases, central or lateral spinal stenosis or degenerative conditions may only in part explain prevalent symptoms and disability. Social and lifestyle factors must also be evaluated since they are associated not only with unspecific LBP but also with LBP with SCI.

Prevalence and associations of neuropathic pain in a cohort of multi-ethnic Asian low back pain patients

The prevalence of neuropathic low back pain differs in different ethnic populations. The aims of the study are to determine its frequency and associations in a multi-ethnic cohort of Asian low back pain patients. This was a cross-sectional study of low back patients seen at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Neuropathic low back pain patients were identified using the painDETECT questionnaire and compared with non-neuropathic (unclear or nociceptive) low back pain patients, in terms of socio-demographic and clinical factors, pain severity (numerical pain rating scale, NPRS), disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMDQ), as well as anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). Of 210 patients, 26 (12.4%) have neuropathic low back pain. Neuropathic pain is associated with non-Chinese ethnicity, higher body mass index and pain radiation below the knee. Patients with neuropathic pain have significantly higher NPRS and RMDQ scores, and there are more subjects with anxiety on HADS. However, there are no differences between the groups in age, gender, pain duration or underlying diagnosis of low back pain. The prevalence of neuropathic low back pain in a multi-ethnic Malaysian cohort is lower than previously reported in other populations with possible differences between ethnic groups. It is associated with greater pain severity, disability and anxiety.

Differences in Neural Mechanosensitivity Between Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain With and Without Neuropathic Features. A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in neural mechanosensitivity between patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain with and without neuropathic features (NF and No-NF, respectively).

DESIGN

Descriptive, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A primary care center, a hospital physiotherapy outpatient department, and a university campus.

SUBJECTS

Chronic nonspecific neck pain patients classified by the self-completed leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs pain scale (S-LANSS; 49 patients with NF [S-LANSS ≥ 12] and 50 patients with No-NF [S-LANSS < 12]) and a healthy control group (n = 48).

METHODS

The primary measurements were the mechanosensitivity of the median nerve and cervical region, specifically the assessment of the onset of symptoms and submaximal pain intensity according to the upper limb neural test 1 (ULNT1) for the median nerve and the modified passive neck flexion test (MPNFT) for the cervical region; secondary measurements included pain intensity, neck disability, kinesiophobia, and pain catastrophizing.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences between the NF and No-NF groups were found with respect to the onset of symptoms of ULNT1 (-15.11 [-23.19 to -7.03]) and MPNFT (-6.58 [-11.54 to -1.62]), as well as the outcomes of the visual analogue scale (Mean difference [95% Confidence Interval]; 7.12 [1.81-12.42]) and neck disability index (3.72 [1.72-5.71]). Both chronic nonspecific neck pain groups showed statistically significant differences compared with the control group for all outcomes assessed (P < 0.01) except for the onset of symptoms of ULNT1 in the No-NF group.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that chronic nonspecific neck pain patients with NF have greater neural mechanosensitivity, pain intensity, and neck disability than those with No-NF.

Neuropathic pain may be common in chronic lower limb tendinopathy: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To identify the prevalence of neuropathic pain, through the use of the painDETECT questionnaire, in a cohort of patients with chronic lower limb tendinopathy conditions.

METHODS

Patients with chronic lower limb tendinopathy conditions treated within a Sport and Exercise Medicine hospital clinic were identified from clinical records. At the time of the clinical consultation, pain and painDETECT scores were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 282 suitable patients with chronic lower limb tendinopathy conditions were identified who had completed a painDETECT questionnaire. There was a median age of 51.9 years, 35% of patients were male and a median duration of symptoms of 24.0 months. There was a median score of 7.0/10 for self-reported 'average' pain and 8.0/10 for self-reported 'worst' pain. There was a median painDETECT score of 14.0, 28% of respondents scored 19 or higher with painDETECT (neuropathic component to pain may be likely), 29% scored 13-18 (equivocal result) and 43% of respondents scored 12 or less (neuropathic pain component was unlikely).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that neuropathic pain as identified by the painDETECT questionnaire may be common in patients with chronic lower limb tendinopathy conditions. It is unclear if patients with tendinopathy who have neuropathic pain may have poorer outcomes from initial treatments, contributing to the high proportion seen in secondary care. These are results from a single hospital clinic, and comparison with a control group is currently lacking. However, on the results to date, neuropathic pain should be considered in management strategies in patients with chronic tendinopathy.

Efficacy and tolerability balance of oxycodone/naloxone and tapentadol in chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component: a blinded end point analysis of randomly selected routine data from 12-week prospective open-label observations

Objective

To evaluate the benefit–risk profile (BRP) of oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) and tapentadol (TAP) in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) with a neuropathic component (NC) in routine clinical practice.

Methods

This was a blinded end point analysis of randomly selected 12-week routine/open-label data of the German Pain Registry on adult patients with cLBP-NC who initiated an index treatment in compliance with the current German prescribing information between 1st January and 31st October 2015 (OXN/TAP, n=128/133). Primary end point was defined as a composite of three efficacy components (≥30% improvement of pain, pain-related disability, and quality of life each at the end of observation vs baseline) and three tolerability components (normal bowel function, absence of either central nervous system side effects, and treatment-emergent adverse event [TEAE]-related treatment discontinuation during the observation period) adopted to reflect BRP assessments under real-life conditions.

Results

Demographic as well as baseline and pretreatment characteristics were comparable for the randomly selected data sets of both index groups without any indicators for critical selection biases. Treatment with OXN resulted formally in a BRP noninferior to that of TAP and showed a significantly higher primary end point response vs TAP (39.8% vs 25.6%, odds ratio: 1.93; P=0.014), due to superior analgesic effects. Between-group differences increased with stricter response definitions for all three efficacy components in favor of OXN: ≥30%/≥50%/≥70% response rates for OXN vs TAP were seen for pain intensity in 85.2%/67.2%/39.1% vs 83.5%/54.1%/15.8% (P= ns/0.031/<0.001), for pain-related disability in 78.1%/64.8%/43.8% vs 66.9%/50.4%/24.8% (P=0.043/0.018/0.001), and for quality of life in 76.6%/68.0%/50.0% vs 63.9%/54.1%/34.6% (P=0.026/0.022/0.017). Overall, OXN vs TAP treatments were well tolerated, and proportions of patients who either maintained a normal bowel function (68.0% vs 72.2%), reported no central nervous system side effects (91.4% vs 89.5%), or completed the 12-week evaluation period without any TEAE-related treatment discontinuations (93.0% vs 92.5%) were similar for both index medications (P= ns for each comparison).

Conclusion

In daily practice, the BRP of OXN proved to be noninferior to that of TAP in patients with cLBP-NC, but showed a superior efficacy if stricter analgesic response definitions were evaluated.