Glossary of healthcare pathways: a methodological approach involving a transdisciplinary team in public health.

Introduction: The healthcare pathway is at the heart of public health organization concerns, but communication between the various players can be an obstacle. This work, produced by a French transdisciplinary team, offers a methodological approach based on formalized consensus to elaborate a glossary of healthcare pathways. A two-steps procedure was elaborated, including a double rounded Delphi method to formalize expert consensus, and two groups of experts: a workgroup and a review group. Methods: The workgroup provided a list of words or expressions that, in their opinion, described, evaluated or compared the healthcare pathways for patients, caregivers or regulators. The review group checked this list and added or deleted words or expressions. Then, definitions were added by the workgroup based into account three dimensions: official, academic and from the field. The review group validated the definitions and provided complementary proposals if needed. Results: After pooling the list of words proposed by each of the six members of the working group, 417 words/expressions were ranked. After the two rounds of evaluation, 294 words/expressions were rated "appropriate" and were analyzed by the review group. This group, after two rounds of evaluation, agreed on 263 words/expressions that were transmitted to the working group who defined them. These definitions were rated by the review group. The first round of evaluation established 195 definitions as being appropriated whereas 68 definitions were amended by the review group. Conclusion: This glossary supports transdisciplinary communication, reduces the extent of variations in practice and optimizes decision-making. International debate on all aspects might be strengthened by an improved understanding of the concept of health pathway.

Epidemiology and Clinical Burden of Meningococcal Disease in France: Scoping Review.

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) remains a significant health concern due to its unpredictable nature and its rapid progression. Even if occurrence of IMD is strictly monitored by a national surveillance network, no information on long-term sequelae is reported, making it difficult to assess the entire clinical burden of IMD in France. The aim of this scoping review was to analyze the epidemiology and the clinical burden of IMD in France by reporting the main epidemiological parameters, and by describing the clinical consequences and the care pathway of patients. The process of the review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to the Scoping Reviews guidelines. In France, the incidence of IMD cases has been fluctuating over time, characterized by an overall downward trend linked to a decrease in Sg B cases and the introduction of mandatory vaccination against Sg C. Sg W cases increased in recent years (from 5% to 21% in 2019). The case fatality rate remained constant (6-12.9%). The most frequently reported sequelae were severe neurological disorder, epilepsy, and anxiety. However, data on sequelae and care pathways were scarce. Further research should concentrate on providing robust identification of sequelae and the subsequent impact on quality of life, as well as on the organization of optimal care and support for patients and their families.

The relevance of real-world data for the evaluation of neuropathic pain treatments.

Treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) is challenging. Interest in real-world evidence (RWE) for benefit-risk assessments of NP treatments increases given the paucity of drugs showing efficacy in randomized controlled trials and restricted labels of available medicines. To provide further context, a literature review regarding regulatory use of RWE and a clinical trial registry search for randomized controlled trials over the last 10 years was carried out. Taken together, and especially for available NP treatments, there is increasing support to consider RWE when evaluating their benefit-risk profile. Examples are provided in which RWE could be used effectively for updating the product label and informing treatment recommendations. Collected and analyzed according to state-of-the-art standards, RWE can inform treatment recommendations and product label decisions.

Neuropathic pain (NP) is caused by damage to the sensory part of the nervous system and is often described as burning, throbbing or shooting pain. This condition is difficult to treat and may become chronic. Before a new treatment can be approved for use, its effectiveness and safety must be shown in controlled clinical trials. Such trials are difficult to conduct in NP and often fail. Therefore, there is increasing support for the use of real-world data (routinely collected data from e.g., patient registries, electronic medical records, health insurance claims databases) to evaluate the benefits and risks of treatments. This article presents the views of three pain specialists about the value of real-word evidence in general and specifically for the evaluation of pharmacological treatments of NP.

Long-term prophylactic efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic migraine. A randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prophylactic effect of anodal tDCS of the left motor cortex in patients with resistant chronic migraine (CM) and its long-term maintenance. METHODS: In a patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial, 36 patients were randomized to receive anodal tDCS (active group, n = 18) or sham tDCS (sham group, n = 18). The studied population was characterized by a previous failure of at least 3 classes of preventive drugs and a mean duration of migraine history of 26 years. The tDCS procedure consisted of an induction phase of 5 consecutive daily sessions (week 1) followed by a maintenance phase of 1 weekly session during the next 4 weeks and two bimonthly sessions in the next month, for a total of 11 sessions during 2 months. Anodal tDCS was delivered at 2 mA intensity for 20 min over the left motor cortex. The primary endpoint was the reduction in the monthly number of migraine attacks from baseline to each period of follow-up (months 1, 2, 3, 5) between the active and sham groups. RESULTS: The monthly number of migraine attacks expressed as the percentage of reduction from baseline was significantly reduced in the active versus the sham group, from the end of first month (-21% ± 22 vs. -2% ±25, p = 0.019) to the end of follow-up (3-month post-treatment) (-32% ± 33 vs. -6% ±39, p = 0.011). At this time, the rate of responders, defined as a reduction of the monthly number of migraine attacks ≥30% from baseline, was significantly higher in the active group than in the sham group (50% vs. 14%, p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: Our results show a marked prophylactic effect of anodal tDCS of the left motor cortex in resistant CM extending several months after the stimulation period, and suggest that this neuromodulatory approach may be part of the prophylactic alternatives available for CM.

Localised neuropathic pain in the primary care setting: a cross-sectional study of prevalence, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, quality of life and sleep performance.

BACKGROUND: Localised Neuropathic Pain (LNP) is challenging to diagnose and manage in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, quality of life and sleep performance of patients with LNP and estimate its prevalence in primary care. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 4 European countries. Patients were identified using a screening tool for LNP. Patients completed the EQ-5D VAS score and Chronic Pain Sleep Inventory (CPSI). RESULTS: There were 1030 LNP patients for analysis. They presented a median pain intensity of 6.0 (IQR 4.0-7.0) with a median duration of 30.9 months (IQR 12.0-75.3), despite 97% receiving pain treatment. Main sites affected were the limbs (62% upper/58% lower) and spine (41%). Main aetiologies were neuropathic low back pain (47%), post-surgical neuropathic pain (17%), and diabetic poly-neuropathy (12%). Thirty percent received a single analgesic (2% topical), while combinations comprised 43% systemic-systemic, 24% topical-systemic, 1% topical-topical. Medications included NSAIDs (45%), anticonvulsants (38%), WHO step 2 opioids (35%), and topical analgesics (27%). In the previous 6 months, 40% had switched treatment. The mean (SD) EQ-5D VAS score was 58 (22.3) and the mean (SD) EQ-5D summary score (UK tariff) was 0.62 (0.25). Patients had a CPSI mean index of 41/100, and sleeping pills were used by 33% of patients. The standardized prevalence of LNP by age and sex was 2.01% in the general population and 43.3% among chronic pain patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many LNP patients reported pain intensities of six on a ten-point scale in average for durations longer than 2.5 years, with quality of life and sleep performance affected, with frequent treatment combinations and switches, suggesting suboptimal pain management.

Localized neuropathic pain: an expert consensus on local treatments.

BACKGROUND: Pain localization is one of the hallmarks for the choice of first-line treatment in neuropathic pain. This literature review has been conducted to provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding the etiology and pathophysiology of localized neuropathic pain (LNP), its assessment and the existing topical pharmacological treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review was performed using Medline from 2010 to December 2016, and all studies involving LNP and treatments were examined. A multidisciplinary expert panel of five pain specialists in this article reports a consensus on topical approaches that may be recommended to alleviate LNP and on their advantages in clinical practice. RESULTS: Successive international recommendations have included topical 5% lidocaine and 8% capsaicin for LNP treatment. The expert panel considers that these compounds can be a first-line treatment for LNP, especially in elderly patients and patients with comorbidities and polypharmacy. Regulatory LNP indications should cover the whole range of LNP and not be restricted to specific etiologies or sites. Precautions for the use of plasters must be followed cautiously. CONCLUSION: Although there is a real need for more randomized controlled trials for both drugs, publications clearly demonstrate excellent risk/benefit ratios, safety, tolerance and continued efficacy throughout long-term treatment. A major advantage of both plasters is that they have proven efficacy and may reduce the risk of adverse events such as cognitive impairment, confusion, somnolence, dizziness and constipation that are often associated with systemic neuropathic pain treatment and reduce the quality of life. Topical modalities also may be used in combination with other drugs and analgesics with limited drug-drug interactions.

The 5% Lidocaine-Medicated Plaster: Its Inclusion in International Treatment Guidelines for Treating Localized Neuropathic Pain, and Clinical Evidence Supporting its Use.

When peripheral neuropathic pain affects a specific, clearly demarcated area of the body, it may be described as localized neuropathic pain (LNP). Examples include postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, as well as post-surgical and post-traumatic pain. These conditions may respond to topical treatment, i.e., pharmaceutical agents acting locally on the peripheral nervous system, and the topical route offers advantages over systemic administration. Notably, only a small fraction of the dose reaches the systemic circulation, thereby reducing the risk of systemic adverse effects, drug-drug interactions and overdose. From the patient's perspective, the analgesic agent is easily applied to the most painful area(s). The 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster has been used for several years to treat LNP and is registered in approximately 50 countries. Many clinical guidelines recommend this treatment modality as a first-line option for treating LNP, particularly in frail and/or elderly patients and those receiving multiple medications, because the benefit-to-risk ratios are far better than those of systemic analgesics. However, some guidelines make only a weak recommendation for its use. This paper considers the positioning of the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in international treatment guidelines and how they may be influenced by the specific criteria used in developing them, such as the methodology employed by randomized, placebo-controlled trials. It then examines the body of evidence supporting use of the plaster in some prevalent LNP conditions. Common themes that emerge from clinical studies are: (1) the excellent tolerability and safety of the plaster, which can increase patients' adherence to treatment, (2) continued efficacy over long-term treatment, and (3) significant reduction in the size of the painful area. On this basis, it is felt that the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster should be more strongly recommended for treating LNP, either as one component of a multimodal approach or as monotherapy.

A pharmacological treatment algorithm for localized neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system and is difficult to manage, often proving refractory to existing treatments. In more than half of cases, it is localized and affects a specific, clearly circumscribed area of the body (localized neuropathic pain, or LNP). A recently developed screening tool enables patients with probable neuropathic pain/LNP to be identified quickly and easily. In view of the conflicting current treatment recommendations, an advisory board of pain specialists met in June 2015 to develop a complementary treatment guidance algorithm, for use in the primary care setting and by non-pain specialists. The starting point of the algorithm is a diagnosis of LNP and there was consensus that first-line treatment should be a topical analgesic agent, because the benefit/risk ratios are far better than for systemic agents. Topical application offers site-specific delivery, a lower total systemic dose and avoidance of first-pass metabolism, reducing the risk of adverse events and drug/drug interactions. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster has most evidence supporting its use in LNP, producing effective analgesia and reducing the associated area of allodynia, but other topical agents include capsaicin, clonidine and botulinum toxin type A. Treatment should be commenced with the topical agent of choice, and the patient re-assessed after an appropriate period. Where the response is good the topical agent is continued, with a re-evaluation after 3-6 months. A systemic agent (e.g. gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine, venlafaxine) is added if there is only a partial response, or substituted if there is no response, and the patient re-assessed after a month. If there is poor or no response to the systemic agent the patient should be switched to an alternative one and, if this also proves ineffective, referred to a pain specialist.

Effects of Listening to Music versus Environmental Sounds in Passive and Active Situations on Levels of Pain and Fatigue in Fibromyalgia.

In fibromyalgia, pain symptoms such as hyperalgesia and allodynia are associated with fatigue. Mechanisms underlying such symptoms can be modulated by listening to pleasant music. We expected that listening to music, because of its emotional impact, would have a greater modulating effect on the perception of pain and fatigue in patients with fibromyalgia than listening to nonmusical sounds. To investigate this hypothesis, we carried out a 4-week study in which patients with fibromyalgia listened to either preselected musical pieces or environmental sounds when they experienced pain in active (while carrying out a physical activity) or passive (at rest) situations. Concomitant changes of pain and fatigue levels were evaluated. When patients listened to music or environmental sounds at rest, pain and fatigue levels were significantly reduced after 20 minutes of listening, with no difference of effect magnitude between the two stimuli. This improvement persisted 10 minutes after the end of the listening session. In active situations, pain did not increase in presence of the two stimuli. Contrary to our expectations, music and environmental sounds produced a similar relieving effect on pain and fatigue, with no benefit gained by listening to pleasant music over environmental sounds.

Is an easy and reliable diagnosis of localized neuropathic pain (LNP) possible in general practice? Development of a screening tool based on IASP criteria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Neuropathic pain (NP) is a common type of chronic pain in which 60% of patients present with localized symptoms. Early diagnosis of NP is often a challenge in primary care. Moreover, so far no standard diagnostic procedure for localized NP (LNP) is available. To help general practitioners, a screening tool was developed and evaluated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The development of the screening tool was based on the grading system principles for NP proposed by the IASP, focusing on medical history and distribution of painful symptoms and sensory signs. It was tested by 31 general practitioners and evaluated against the NP diagnosis of three pain specialists as reference in a single center prospective study in Spain using a cohort study design including an adult population of chronic pain patients. This design avoids spectrum bias where the spectrum of disease is not correctly reflected in the study population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: General practitioners rated usefulness, simplicity, and time requirements of the tool. Diagnostic accuracy was expressed by sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. RESULTS: General practitioners consecutively screened 2079 chronic pain patients (mean age 60.7 ± 11.1 years, 69.9% female). Using the tool, 394 patients were diagnosed with LNP. Screening including sensory examination took 7 min (median). General practitioners rated the tool as useful (24/31; 77.4%) or very useful (7/31; 22.6%) for diagnosing LNP and facilitating clinical practice (30/31; 96.8%). Under daily practice conditions, sensitivity and specificity of the tool for detecting LNP was 46.7% and 86.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed screening tool was shown to be easy and useful for detecting NP and LNP in chronic pain patients as a fast first assessment tool in primary care, thus facilitating the choice of a topical treatment. LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS: The drop-out rate was high but was accounted for by using correction factors in the diagnostic accuracy calculations. A strength is the unselected chronic patient population: spectrum of disease correctly reflects day-to-day clinical practice and is not biased. Diagnostic accuracy of the tool therefore appears to be realistic.

Value of quantitative sensory testing in neurological and pain disorders: NeuPSIG consensus.

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a psychophysical method used to quantify somatosensory function in response to controlled stimuli in healthy subjects and patients. Although QST shares similarities with the quantitative assessment of hearing or vision, which is extensively used in clinical practice and research, it has not gained a large acceptance among clinicians for many reasons, and in significant part because of the lack of information about standards for performing QST, its potential utility, and interpretation of results. A consensus meeting was convened by the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (NeuPSIG) to formulate recommendations for conducting QST in clinical practice and research. Research studies have confirmed the utility of QST for the assessment and monitoring of somatosensory deficits, particularly in diabetic and small fiber neuropathies; the assessment of evoked pains (mechanical and thermal allodynia or hyperalgesia); and the diagnosis of sensory neuropathies. Promising applications include the assessment of evoked pains in large-scale clinical trials and the study of conditioned pain modulation. In clinical practice, we recommend the use QST for screening for small and large fiber neuropathies; monitoring of somatosensory deficits; and monitoring of evoked pains, allodynia, and hyperalgesia. QST is not recommended as a stand-alone test for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. For the conduct of QST in healthy subjects and in patients, we recommend use of predefined standardized stimuli and instructions, validated algorithms of testing, and reference values corrected for anatomical site, age, and gender. Interpretation of results should always take into account the clinical context, and patients with language and cognitive difficulties, anxiety, or litigation should not be considered eligible for QST. When appropriate standards, as discussed here, are applied, QST can provide important and unique information about the functional status of somatosensory system, which would be complementary to already existing clinical methods.

[Challenges and future perspectives of healthcare networks]. / Enjeux et perspectives autour de l'avenir des réseaux de santé.

Healthcare networks play a central role in the French healthcare system. A reflection on their future and the evolutions to be envisaged is currently in progress. Moreover, the French Directorate General for Healthcare Provision should soon publish a methodological guide concerning these networks. Three players in healthcare networks review the current status of the networks and consider their development.

Topical pain management with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster--a review.

BACKGROUND: The topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is recommended as first-line treatment for localized peripheral neuropathic pain. SCOPE: In order to provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of the lidocaine plaster in the treatment of different neuropathic pain conditions, all efficacy and safety studies (randomized, controlled, or open-label with well described methodology), case reports, and pharmacological studies on the lidocaine plaster retrieved from a PubMed literature research (1960-March 2012) plus additional references identified from retrieved articles were included. FINDINGS: The lidocaine plaster is efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain symptoms associated with previous herpes zoster infection. Results from a large open-label controlled study suggest that the lidocaine plaster could be at least as effective as systemic pregabalin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic polyneuropathy. Open-label studies indicate efficacy in the treatment of other localized neuropathic pain conditions, such as painful idiopathic sensory polyneuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome sequelae, postsurgical and posttraumatic pain. Quality of life markedly improved in a variety of neuropathic pain conditions and long-term treatment provided sustained relief in patients with neuropathic pain who are responsive to lidocaine plaster. The lidocaine plaster is usually well tolerated. The risk of systemic adverse events and pharmacokinetic interactions with concomitant medication is minimal owing to low systemic exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of several, primarily neuropathic and mixed-pain conditions with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster was found efficacious and safe. Further controlled studies, in particular where only small open-label studies or case reports are available, should be considered.

What is localized neuropathic pain? A first proposal to characterize and define a widely used term.

SUMMARY According to several guidelines, topical agents should be considered for the pharmacological management of localized neuropathic pain. As a definition for the term 'localized neuropathic pain' that might facilitate easier identification of patients who are putatively responsive to topical treatments could not be found in the literature, six pain specialists met in 2010 to address this challenging issue. The following nucleus of a definition that is based on the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) definition of neuropathic pain, is the most detailed that can currently be proposed: 'Localized neuropathic pain is a type of neuropathic pain that is characterized by consistent and circumscribed area(s) of maximum pain'. An extended version of this core definition and the difficulties in covering all aspects of localized neuropathic pain are presented, and discussions within the scientific community are encouraged to develop a definition that might help to identify patients who could benefit most from topical treatment.

A prospective study of neuropathic pain induced by thoracotomy: incidence, clinical description, and diagnosis.

This study evaluated prospectively the incidence of neuropathic pain after thoracotomy, described its clinical characteristics, and delineated landmarks for its diagnosis in daily practice. We evaluated clinically painful symptoms and sensory deficits in 54 patients after lateral/posterolateral thoracotomy for broncho-pulmonary carcinoma with standardized surgical and analgesic procedures. At 2months, 49 patients suffered from non malignant thoracic pain, and at 6months 38 patients (loss to follow-up for 7) reported persisting pain. In 35 patients, painful symptoms and sensory deficits could be evaluated using a standardized clinical bedside procedure. According to the grading system proposed by Treede et al. [41], neuropathic pain was considered probable in 21 patients, while use of the DN4 questionnaire concluded that neuropathic pain was probable in 17 patients. The two diagnostic procedures provided similar conclusions in 16 patients. Morphine consumption during the early post-operative period (mean 111.3±30.8mg/day) and pain intensity (VAS: mean 5.71±2.1) were significantly higher in patients suffering from neuropathic pain than in other patients with pain (mean 80±21.4mg/day; VAS: mean 3.9±2.4). The clinical picture in most patients with neuropathic pain included electric shocks and severe multimodal hypoesthesia in the sensory area of 5th/6th intercostal nerves. Thus, our results indicate a minimal incidence of chronic post-thoracotomy pain at 70% and that of neuropathic pain at 29%, this latter being clinically suggested by a combination of certain symptoms and reinforced by the DN4 questionnaire when sensory deficit at scar is present.

Vaccination: a new option to reduce the burden of herpes zoster.

There is a strong correlation between the incidence of herpes zoster (HZ) and increasing age, with a marked rise in incidence from approximately the age of 50-60 years. The lifetime risk is approximately 25% and the disease is associated with acute and sometimes persistent pain, which substantially reduces the day-to-day functioning and quality of life of affected individuals, particularly older adults. The disease most commonly occurs as a result of an age-related decline in cell-mediated immunity. A live attenuated zoster vaccine has been developed to boost the varicella-zoster virus-specific cell-mediated immunity of older adults and, via this mechanism, protect the individual against HZ and its complications. Evidence that the vaccine is effective in older patients comes from the pivotal Shingles Prevention Study. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving approximately 40,000 adults aged 60 years or more. The HZ vaccinated group had a 51% lower incidence of HZ, a 67% reduction in postherpetic neuralgia (defined as pain rated at three or more on a scale ranging from zero [no pain] to ten [pain as bad as you can imagine], persisting or occurring 3 months or more after rash onset), and a 61% lower burden of illness (a composite measure of the incidence, severity and duration of pain and discomfort caused by HZ), indicating that the vaccine decreased both the incidence of HZ and the average severity of HZ in vaccinees who developed HZ. Moreover, there was a 73% reduction in the number of cases of HZ with severe and long-lasting pain. Overall, the vaccine was well-tolerated with the most common adverse events being mild injection site reactions and headache. A continuation trial from the Shingles Prevention Study involving over 14,000 patients approximately 7000 in the HZ vaccine and placebo groups) confirmed that the efficacy of vaccination against HZ is durable through 7 years in terms of a significantly reduced incidence of HZ, a reduced incidence of postherpetic neuralgia and a markedly lower burden of illness. Although significant improvements have been made, available treatment options are only partially effective, and once postherpetic neuralgia is established, management is difficult. Therefore, the introduction of the zoster vaccine is a promising strategy to reduce morbidity associated with HZ, a particular concern in older adults.

One or several types of triptan overuse headaches?

BACKGROUND: Whereas the clinical features of pure triptan overuse headache (TOH) are well known, there are insufficient data regarding the semiological pattern of headaches when triptan overuse is associated with other types of medication overuse. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the clinical characteristics of patients with pure TOH and those with medication overuse headaches associating triptan and other medication overuses (combined TOH). METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in 7 tertiary-care headache centers participating in the French Observatory of Migraine and Headaches. From 2004 to 2006, data from 163 patients with TOH were collected in face-to-face structured interviews (according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition criteria). RESULTS: Eighty-two patients fulfilled criteria for pure TOH (pTOH patients) and 81 for combined TOH (cTOH) patients. Continuous headaches were reported in 76% of cTOH patients compared with 32% of pTOH patients. Significantly more frequent and severe headaches and more intense phono-/photophobia between attacks were noted in cTOH patients. More cTOH than pTOH patients reported a history of tension-type headaches and a long-standing history of chronic headaches. Finally, compared with pTOH patients, cTOH patients were characterized by stronger dependence on acute treatments of headaches according to the DSM-IV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Combined therapy with analgesics and/or the total number of drug units taken per day may cause a shift from a pattern of clear-cut headache attacks in patients with pTOH toward more severe clinical presentation in patients with cTOH. These patients should receive more intensive prophylactic therapy and specific behavioral management.

[Non pharmacologic treatment of neuropathic pain]. / Traitements non médicamenteux de la douleur neuropathique.

Nondrug treatments of neuropathic pain should always begin at the same time as pharmacologic treatment. There are three types of nondrug treatment for neuropathic pain: physical, surgical, and "psychocorporal" and psychotherapeutic treatment. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a simple physical treatment that strengthens local inhibitory controls and is indicated in focal neuropathic pain when upstream stimulation is possible for a superficial sensitive nerve trunk. Destructive surgery is represented today by "DREZotomy", destruction of nociceptive fibers and their dorsal root entry zones. It is indicated essentially in intractable pain due to plexus avulsion. Functional surgery is implanted electric stimulation--either spinal or central (encephalic)--of structures that exert inhibitory control on the pain pathways. Spinal stimulation is performed at the level of the posterior spinal cord and is indicated essentially in segmental mononeuropathies refractory to drug treatment. Central stimulation is performed at the motor cortex and is indicated for refractory central pain. "Psychocorporal" techniques (relaxation, sophrology, hypnosis) are useful to reduce anxiety and neurovegetative hypertonicity, both factors that aggravate neuropathic pain.

Behavioral dependence in patients with medication overuse headache: a cross-sectional study in consulting patients using the DSM-IV criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess behavioral dependence on migraine abortive drugs in medication-overuse headache (MOH) patients and identify the predisposing factors. BACKGROUND: It is common occurrence that MOH patients relapse after medication withdrawal. Behavioral determinants of medication overuse should therefore be identified in MOH patients. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study that included 247 MOH patients (according to International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition criteria) consulting in French headache specialty centers. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by senior neurologists using a structured questionnaire including the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria for the evaluation of dependence, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for the evaluation of anxiety and depression, and 6-item short-form Headache Impact Test scale for the determination of functional impact. RESULTS: Most MOH patients had pre-existing primary migraine (87.4%) and current migraine-type headaches (83.0%). Treatments overused included triptans (45.8%), opioid analgesics alone or in combination (43.3% of patients), and analgesics (27.9%). Nonmigraine abortive substances (tobacco, caffeine, sedatives/anxiolytics) were overused by 13.8% of patients. Two-thirds of MOH patients (66.8%) were considered dependent on acute treatments of headaches according to the DSM-IV criteria. Most dependent MOH patients had migraine as pre-existing primary headache (85.7%) and current migraine-type headaches (87.9%), and most of them overused opioid analgesics. More dependent than nondependent MOH patients were dependent on psychoactive substances (17.6% vs 6.1%). Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that risk factors of dependence on acute treatments of headaches pertained both to the underlying disease (history of migraine, unilateral headaches) and to drug addiction (opioid overuse, previous withdrawal). Affective symptoms did not appear among the predictive factors of dependence. CONCLUSION: In some cases, MOH thus appears to belong to the spectrum of addictive behaviors. In clinical practice, behavioral management of MOH should be undertaken besides pharmacological management.

Do strong opioids have a role in the early management of back pain? Recommendations from a European expert panel.

BACKGROUND: Since chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a complex biopsychosocial problem the ideal treatment is multimodal and multidisciplinary. However, in many countries, primary-care physicians care for many people with CLBP and have a pivotal role in selecting patients for more intensive treatments when these are available. Guidelines on the general use of strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain have been published but, until now, no specific guidelines were available on their use in chronic low back pain. Given the prevalence of CLBP, and the complex nature of this multifactorial condition, it was felt that specific, evidence-based recommendations, with a focus on primary-care treatment, would be helpful. METHODS: An expert panel drawn from across Europe including pain specialists, anaesthetists, neurologists, rheumatologists, a general practitioner, an epidemiologist and the chairman of a pain charity was therefore convened. The aim of the group was to develop evidence-based recommendations that could be used as a framework for more specific guidelines to reflect local differences in the availability of specialist pain services and in the legal status and availability of strong opioids. Statements were based on published evidence (identified by a literature search) wherever possible, and supported by clinical experience when suitable evidence was lacking. RECOMMENDATIONS: Strong opioids have a role in the treatment of low back pain when other treatments have failed. They should be prescribed as part of a multimodal, and ideally interdisciplinary, treatment plan. The aim of treatment should be to relieve pain and facilitate rehabilitation.