Search

Introduction: The Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) was developed to assess general pain sensitivity. Objective: This study aimed to validate the Greek version of PSQ. Methods: The questionnaire was translated into Greek (PSQ‐GR) and piloted in a small sample of patients with chronic pain (n = 35). A total of 146 chronic pain patients and healthy volunteers completed the PSQ‐GR, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI). To evaluate the test‐retest reliability, 36 volunteers completed the PSQ‐GR twice over 7 ± 2 days. Results: Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha 0.90–0.96) for PSQ‐total, PSQ‐minor, and PSQ‐moderate. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was estimated at 0.90–0.96 for PSQ‐total, PSQ‐minor and PSQ‐moderate and the SEM was 0.59–0.90 for PSQ‐total, PSQ‐minor and PSQ‐moderate approximately. The smallest detectable change was 0.48 for PSQ‐total, 0.47 for PSQ‐minor and 0.44 for PSQ‐moderate. Positive and significant correlations were observed between PSQ‐GR and HADS (r = 0.38, p < 0.01), PCS (r = 0.41, p < 0.01) and CSI (r = 0.30, p < 0.01). Statistically significant differences in PSQ‐GR scores were identified between the healthy volunteers and the chronic pain patients. Conclusion: The PSQ‐GR is a reliable and valid tool that can assess pain sensitivity in healthy individuals and chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Schmerz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) is widely used. However, there are limited data on how much a reduction in the MIDAS score indicates a change that matters to the patient. Methods: Data from the DMKG (i.e. German Migraine and Headache Society) Headache Registry were used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) of the MIDAS, using the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as anchor and applying average change and receiver operating characteristic curve methods. Results: In total, 1218 adult migraine patients (85.6% female, 40.2 ± 12.8 years, baseline MIDAS 44.2 ± 47.4, follow-up MIDAS 36.5 ± 45.3) were included. For patients with baseline MIDAS >20 (MIDAS grade IV, n = 757), different methods using PGIC "somewhat improved" as anchor yielded percent change MIDs of the MIDAS between −29.4% and −33.2%. For baseline MIDAS between 6 and 20 (grades II and III, n = 334), using PGIC "much improved" as anchor, difference change MIDs were between −3.5 and −4.5 points. Conclusions: Based on the above results, we estimated the MID of the MIDAS at −30% for patients with a baseline MIDAS >20, and at −4 points for those with a baseline MIDAS of 6–20, for a tertiary headache care population. Trial Registration: The DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) is a reliable and valid selfreported tool for the assessment of pain sensitivity in clinical practice. The PSQ has been translated, validated, and cross-culturally adapted into multiple languages. However, a validated Arabic version of the PSQ is not available. Thus, this study aims to translate, validate, and cross-culturally adapt the English version of the PSQ into the Arabic language. Methods and materials: The English version of the PSQ was translated and culturally adapted into Arabic following international guidelines. The psychometric properties of the final version of the PSQ-Arabic (PSQ-A) were tested among 119 patients with different persistent musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. Findings: The Cronbach's a for the PSQ-A-total, PSQ-A-moderate, and PSQ-Cminor were 0.81, 0.79, and 0.76, respectively. The means for the PSQ-A-total, PSQ-A-moderate, and PSQ-C-minor scores were 5.07 (±1.28), 5.64 (±2.07), and 4.50 (±0.50). The test-retest reliability measured with the interclass correlation coefficient for 68 subjects was 0.80 for the PSQ-A-total, 0.74 for the PSQ-Amoderate, and 0.77 for the PSQ-A-minor. The PSQ-A-total and the PSQ-Aminor showed positive significant correlations with pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) (r = 0.15, 0.17); P = 0.05), respectively. The PSQ-A-total, PSQ-A-moderate, and PSQ-A-minor showed positive significant correlations with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-pain scores (r = 0.47, 0.43, 0.45; P = 0.01), respectively and with the BPI-pain interference scores (r = 0.37, 0.33, 0.34; P = 0.01), respectively. Conclusions: This study shows that the PSQ-A is a reliable and valid tool to assess individuals with pain sensitivity in Arabic populations. Further studies are recommended to examine the concurrent validity of the PSQ-A against experimental pain sensitivity measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide. Main body: Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies. Conclusions: Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most migraine patients need an effective acute medication. Real-world data can provide important information on the performance of acute migraine medication in clinical practice. Methods: We used data from the German Migraine and Headache Society Headache Registry, where patients rate efficacy and tolerability of and satisfaction with each of their acute headache medications. Results: A total of 1756 adult migraine patients (females: 85%, age: 39.5 ± 12.8 years, headache days per month: 13.5 ± 8.1) were included. Of these, 93% used acute medication, most frequently triptans (59.3%) and/or non-opioid analgesics (56.4%), and 58.5% rated efficacy as good or very good. This was more frequent for triptans (75.4%) than for non-opioid analgesics (43.6%, p < 0.001). Among non-opioid analgesics, naproxen was rated most effective (61.9% very good or good, p < 0.001 compared to ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid and paracetamol). Patient-rated efficacy significantly declined with higher headache frequencies (p < 0.001), and this effect remained significant after omitting patients overusing acute medication. Conclusion: In the present population recruited at specialized headache centers, patients rated triptans as more effective than non-opioid analgesics, naproxen as more effective than ibuprofen, and acute medication efficacy decreased with increasing headache frequency. Trial registration: The German Migraine and Headache Society Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Nervenarzt is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Headache is among the most frequent symptoms persisting or newly developing after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as part of the so-called long COVID syndrome. The knowledge on long COVID headache is still limited, however growing evidence is defining the features of this novel condition, in particular regarding clinical characteristics, some pathophysiological mechanisms and first treatment recommendations. Long COVID headache can present in the form of worsening of a preexisting primary headache, or, more specifically, in the form of a new (intermittent or daily) headache starting during the acute infection or after a delay. It often presents together with other long COVID symptoms, most frequently with hyposmia. It can manifest with a migrainous or, more frequently, with a tension-type-like phenotype. Persistent activation of the immune system and trigeminovascular activation are thought to play a role. As there are virtually no treatment studies, treatment currently is largely guided by the existing guidelines for primary headaches with the corresponding phenotype. The present report, a collaborative work of the international group of the Junior Editorial Board of The Journal of Headache and Pain aims to summarize the most recent evidence about long COVID headache and suggests approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of this disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]