[Practice-oriented pain therapy in dermatology : Concept with special emphasis on pain quality]. / Praxisorientierte Schmerztherapie in der Dermatologie : Konzept mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schmerzqualität.

In order to avoid chronification of pain, appropriate treatment has to be started as early as possible. Inpatient dermatology patients not only suffer from old age and associated multimorbidities but also from characteristic pain due to distinct dermatological diseases. In many cases clinicians have little experience with specific pain treatment but instead have many concerns about how to deal with analgesics. So far chronic pain has been treated according to the pain ladder of the World Health Organization (WHO), which prioritizes the intensity of pain. This article presents an easily implementable concept of pain therapy with special emphasis on the quality of pain. This provides information on whether it is neuropathic or nociceptive pain, which can ultimately be differentially treated. The primary aim is to provide treating dermatologists with a concept to assist in the initiation of an efficient and correct pain therapy. This brief introduction of an individualized pain treatment can reduce the risk of chronification of pain, which can severely impair the quality of life particularly in dermatology patients and also the frequent stigmatization due to the dermatosis.

Pain following cancer treatment: Guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive and central sensitization pain.

BACKGROUND: In addition to fatigue, pain is the most frequent persistent symptom in cancer survivors. Clear guidelines for both the diagnosis and treatment of pain in cancer survivors are lacking. Classification of pain is important as it may facilitate more specific targeting of treatment. In this paper we present an overview of nociceptive, neuropathic and central sensitization pain following cancer treatment, as well as the rationale, criteria and process for stratifying pain classification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Recently, a clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain was developed, based on a large body of research evidence and international expert opinion. We, a team of 15 authors from 13 different centers, four countries and two continents have applied this classification algorithm to the cancer survivor population. RESULTS: The classification of pain following cancer treatment entails two steps: (1) examining the presence of neuropathic pain; and (2) using an algorithm for differentiating predominant nociceptive and central sensitization pain. Step 1 builds on the established criteria for neuropathic pain diagnosis, while Step 2 applies a recently developed clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain to the cancer survivor population. CONCLUSION: The classification criteria allow identifying central sensitization pain following cancer treatment. The recognition of central sensitization pain in practice is an important development in the integration of pain neuroscience into the clinic, and one that is relevant for people undergoing and following cancer treatment.

Low back pain: guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive, or central sensitization pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a heterogeneous disorder including patients with dominant nociceptive (e.g., myofascial low back pain), neuropathic (e.g., lumbar radiculopathy), and central sensitization pain. In order to select an effective and preferably also efficient treatment in daily clinical practice, LBP patients should be classified clinically as either predominantly nociceptive, neuropathic, or central sensitization pain. OBJECTIVE: To explain how clinicians can differentiate between nociceptive, neuropathic, and central sensitization pain in patients with LBP. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review and expert opinion SETTING: Universities, university hospitals and private practices METHODS: Recently, a clinical method for the classification of central sensitization pain versus neuropathic and nociceptive pain was developed. It is based on a body of evidence of original research papers and expert opinion of 18 pain experts from 7 different countries. Here we apply this classification algorithm to the LBP population. RESULTS: The first step implies examining the presence of neuropathic low back pain. Next, the differential diagnosis between predominant nociceptive and central sensitization pain is done using a clinical algorithm. LIMITATIONS: The classification criteria are substantiated by several original research findings including a Delphi survey, a study of a large group of LBP patients, and validation studies of the Central Sensitization Inventory. Nevertheless, these criteria require validation in clinical settings. CONCLUSION: The pain classification system for LBP should be an addition to available classification systems and diagnostic procedures for LBP, as it is focussed on pain mechanisms solely.

The pain and movement reasoning model: introduction to a simple tool for integrated pain assessment.

Pain is no longer considered to be simply the transmission of nociception, but rather an output subsequent to the complex interactions of homeostatic systems. Manual therapists' clinical reasoning needs to incorporate this complexity in order to develop individualised effective treatment plans. Pain classification strategies attempting to assist clinical reasoning traditionally define multiple types of pain - nociceptive, neuropathic, centrally sensitised - potentially fitting elements of the pain experience to linear independent systems, rather than embracing the multiple dimensions. It is our contention that pain should not be classified unidimensionally. In all pain states consideration should be given to the combined influence of physiological, cognitive, emotional and social inputs, all of which have the potential to influence nociception. The Pain and Movement Reasoning Model presented in this paper attempts to capture the complexity of the human pain experience by integrating these multiple dimensions into a decision making process. Three categories have been created to facilitate this - central modulation, regional influences, and local stimulation. The Model allows for the identification of a predominant element to become the focus of treatment but also for the identification of changes to clinical presentation, where new treatment targets can emerge.

Can the LANSS scale be used to classify pain in chronic cancer pain trials?

PURPOSE: The Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) scale was developed to differentiate pain of predominantly neuropathic or nociceptive origin. The aim of this study was to determine whether the LANSS scale was an appropriate tool to classify pain in a trial of patients with advanced cancer and chronic refractory pain. METHODS: Clinician assessment of pain type (neuropathic or nociceptive) was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of LANSS scores in 112 trial participants. Those classified as "mixed" or of uncertain aetiology were excluded. We undertook several analyses in an attempt to improve the LANSS scale and better diagnose pain type for our specific dataset. RESULTS: There was strong association between the LANSS score and a diagnosis of neuropathic versus nociceptive pain, p < 0.001. When the clinical assessment was compared with the LANSS scale, the overall accuracy was 94 % (79/84). The 5 false negatives and no false positives resulted in a sensitivity of 0.86 (0.70, 0.95), specificity of 1 (0.93, 1), positive predictive value of 1 (0.88, 1) and negative predictive value of 0.91 (0.80, 0.97). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.14 (0, 0.32). The scale had good discriminant and construct validity. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency with Cronbach's α = 0.76, similar to that of the original validation study (α = 0.74). None of the new scales developed was better at differentiating pain type. CONCLUSIONS: The LANSS scale predicted well for pain type in a cancer population and is a useful tool for classifying pain in cancer pain trials.

Mechanisms-based classifications of musculoskeletal pain: part 3 of 3: symptoms and signs of nociceptive pain in patients with low back (± leg) pain.

As a mechanisms-based classification of pain 'nociceptive pain' (NP) refers to pain attributable to the activation of the peripheral receptive terminals of primary afferent neurones in response to noxious chemical, mechanical or thermal stimuli. The symptoms and signs associated with clinical classifications of NP have not been extensively studied. The purpose of this study was to identify symptoms and signs associated with a clinical classification of NP in patients with low back (± leg) pain. Using a cross-sectional, between-subjects design; four hundred and sixty-four patients with low back (± leg) pain were assessed using a standardised assessment protocol after which their pain was assigned a mechanisms-based classification based on experienced clinical judgement. Clinicians then completed a clinical criteria checklist indicating the presence/absence of various symptoms and signs. A regression analysis identified a cluster of seven clinical criteria predictive of NP, including: 'Pain localised to the area of injury/dysfunction', 'Clear, proportionate mechanical/anatomical nature to aggravating and easing factors', 'Usually intermittent and sharp with movement/mechanical provocation; may be a more constant dull ache or throb at rest', and the absence of 'Pain in association with other dysesthesias', 'Night pain/disturbed sleep', 'Antalgic postures/movement patterns' and 'Pain variously described as burning, shooting, sharp or electric-shock-like'. This cluster was found to have high levels of classification accuracy (sensitivity 90.9%, 95% CI: 86.6-94.1; specificity 91.0%, 95% CI: 86.1-94.6). Pattern recognition of this empirically-derived cluster of symptoms and signs may help clinicians identify an assumed dominance of NP mechanisms in patients with low back pain disorders.

Mechanisms-based classifications of musculoskeletal pain: part 2 of 3: symptoms and signs of peripheral neuropathic pain in patients with low back (± leg) pain.

As a mechanisms-based classification of pain 'peripheral neuropathic pain' (PNP) refers to pain arising from a primary lesion or dysfunction in the peripheral nervous system. Symptoms and signs associated with an assumed dominance of PNP in patients attending for physiotherapy have not been extensively studied. The purpose of this study was to identify symptoms and signs associated with a clinical classification of PNP in patients with low back (± leg) pain. Using a cross-sectional, between-subjects design; four hundred and sixty-four patients with low back (± leg) pain were assessed using a standardised assessment protocol. Patients' pain was assigned a mechanisms-based classification based on experienced clinical judgement. Clinicians then completed a clinical criteria checklist specifying the presence or absence of various clinical criteria. A binary logistic regression analysis with Bayesian model averaging identified a cluster of two symptoms and one sign predictive of PNP, including: 'Pain referred in a dermatomal or cutaneous distribution', 'History of nerve injury, pathology or mechanical compromise' and 'Pain/symptom provocation with mechanical/movement tests (e.g. Active/Passive, Neurodynamic) that move/load/compress neural tissue'. This cluster was found to have high levels of classification accuracy (sensitivity 86.3%, 95% CI: 78.0-92.3; specificity 96.0%, 95% CI: 93.4-97.8; diagnostic odds ratio 150.9, 95% CI: 69.4-328.1). Pattern recognition of this empirically-derived cluster of symptoms and signs may help clinicians identify an assumed dominance of PNP mechanisms in patients with low back pain disorders in a way that might usefully inform subsequent patient management.

The Analgesia Nociception Index: a pilot study to evaluation of a new pain parameter during labor.

BACKGROUND: Objective pain assessment that is not subject to influences from either cultural or comprehension issues is desirable. Analysis of heart rate variability has been proposed as a potential method. This pilot study aimed to assess the performance of the PhysioDoloris™ analgesia monitor which calculates an Analgesia Nociception Index derived from heart rate variability. It was compared with visual analogical pain scores. METHODS: Forty-five parturients who requested epidural analgesia were recruited. Simultaneous couplets of pain scores and Analgesia Nociception Index values were recorded every 5 min regardless of the presence or absence of uterine contractions. The relationship between indices was characterized, and a cut-off value of Analgesia Nociception Index corresponding to a visual analogical score >30 (range 0-100) was used to determine the positive and negative predictive value of the Analgesia Nociception Index. RESULTS: There was a negative linear relationship between visual analogical pain scores and Analgesia Nociception Index values regardless of the presence of uterine contractions (regression coefficient ± SEM=-0.18 ± 0.032 for entire dataset). Uterine contraction significantly reduced the Analgesia Nociception Index (P<0.0001). Using a visual analogical pain score >30 to define a painful sensation, the lower 95% confidence limit for the Analgesia Nociception Index score was 49. CONCLUSION: The Analgesia Nociception Index has an inverse linear relationship with visual analogical pain scores. Further studies are necessary to confirm the results of this pilot study and to look at the influence of epidural analgesia on the Analgesia Nociception Index.