Search

Chronic pain is a constantly recurring and persistent illness, presenting a formidable healthcare challenge for patients and physicians alike. Current first‐line analgesics offer only low‐modest efficacy when averaged across populations, further contributing to this debilitating disease burden. Moreover, many recent trials for novel analgesics have not met primary efficacy endpoints, which is particularly striking considering the pharmacological advances have provided a range of highly relevant new drug targets. Heterogeneity within chronic pain cohorts is increasingly understood to play a critical role in these failures of treatment and drug discovery, with some patients deriving substantial benefits from a given intervention while it has little‐to‐no effect on others. As such, current treatment failures may not result from a true lack of efficacy, but rather a failure to target individuals whose pain is driven by mechanisms which it therapeutically modulates. This necessitates a move towards phenotypical stratification of patients to delineate responders and non‐responders in a mechanistically driven manner. In this article, we outline a bench‐to‐bedside roadmap for this transition to mechanistically informed personalised pain medicine. We emphasise how the successful identification of novel analgesics is dependent on rigorous experimental design as well as the validity of models and translatability of outcome measures between the animal model and patients. Subsequently, we discuss general and specific aspects of human trial design to address heterogeneity in patient populations to increase the chance of identifying effective analgesics. Finally, we show how stratification approaches can be brought into clinical routine to the benefit of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective During routine clinical evaluation, it can be challenging to differentiate between lumbar radiculopathy (RAD) and lower back pain with non-radicular somatic referred pain (SRP) or even axial non-radiating low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to characterize patients with RAD, axial LBP (aLBP), and SRP on the basis of somatosensory profiles. Methods Patients with LBP (n = 54) were assessed with quantitative sensory testing in the area of LBP and, in cases of RAD, additionally in the area of projecting pain. Questionnaires (PainDETECT®, EuroQol-5D, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire for Back Pain, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Short Form-12 Health Survey, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were answered by all patients. Results Patients with RAD (n = 12) had higher pain intensity scores (numeric rating scale: 5.7 ± 1.5 vs 4.1 ± 2.2; P  < 0.05) and higher PainDETECT scores (14.6 ± 6.13 vs 9.7 ± 6.2; P  < 0.05) than did patients with aLBP and SRP (n = 42). Patients with RAD had a more pronounced loss of small-fiber function, increased mechanical hyperalgesia, and a trend toward increased sensitivity to thermal pain in the area of LBP compared with patients with aLBP and SRP. Within patients with RAD, sensory profiles of the area of projecting pain and the area of LBP did not differ. Pressure pain hyperalgesia (measured by pressure pain threshold) and loss of mechanical detection (measured by mechanical detection threshold) in combination with the PainDETECT items numbness and prickling reached the best predictive value in detecting a radiculopathy. Conclusions Patients with RAD demonstrated more somatosensory abnormalities than did patients with aLBP and SRP, including increased mechanical hyperalgesia and a loss of mechanical detection. The combination of pressure pain threshold, mechanical detection threshold, numbness, and prickling in the area of LBP can be a time-efficient tool to identify patients with RAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Different pathophysiological mechanisms contribute to the pain development in osteoarthritis (OA). Sensitization mechanisms play an important role in the amplification and chronification of pain and may predict the therapeutic outcome. Stratification of patients according to their pain mechanisms could help to target pain therapy. This study aimed at developing an easy-to-use, bedside tool-kit to assess sensitization in patients with chronic painful knee OA or chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). In total, 100 patients were examined at the most affected knee and extrasegmentally by the use of 4 standardized quantitative sensory testing parameters reflecting sensitization (mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity, dynamic mechanical allodynia, and pressure pain threshold), a bedside testing battery of equivalent parameters including also temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation, and pain questionnaires. Machine learning techniques were applied to identify an appropriate set of bedside screening tools. Approximately half of the patients showed signs of sensitization (46%). Based on machine learning techniques, a composition of tests consisting of 3 modalities was developed. The most adequate bedside tools to detect sensitization were pressure pain sensitivity (pain intensity at 4 mL pressure using a 10-mL blunted syringe), mechanical pinprick pain sensitivity (pain intensity of a 0.7 mm nylon filament) over the most affected knee, and extrasegmental pressure pain sensitivity (pain threshold). This pilot study presents a first attempt to develop an easy-to-use bedside test to probe sensitization in patients with chronic OA knee pain or chronic pain after TKR. This tool may be used to optimize individualized, mechanism-based pain therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The serotonin receptor 2A (HTR2A) has been described as an important facilitation mediator of spinal nociceptive processing leading to central sensitization (CS) in animal models of chronic pain. However, whether HTR2A single nucleotide variants (SNVs) modulate neuropathic pain states in patients has not been investigated so far. The aim of this study was to elucidate the potential association of HTR2A variants with sensory abnormalities or ongoing pain in neuropathic pain patients. Methods: At total of 240 neuropathic pain patients and 253 healthy volunteers were included. Patients were phenotypically characterized using standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST). Patients and controls were genotyped for HTR2A g.‐1438G > A (rs6311) and c.102C > T (rs6313). Genotype‐related differences in QST parameters were assessed considering QST profile clusters, principal somatosensory components and sex. Results: There was an equal distribution of rs6313 and linked rs6311 between patients and controls. However, the rs6313 variant was significantly associated with a principal component of pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia, indicating enhanced CS in patients with sensory loss (−0.34 ± 0.15 vs. +0.31 ± 0.11 vs., p <.001). In this cluster, the variant allele was also associated with single QST parameters of pinprick hyperalgesia (MPT, +0.64 ± 0.18 vs. −0.34 ± 0.23 p =.002; MPS, +0.66 ± 0.17 vs. −0.09 ± 0.23, p =.009) and ongoing pain was increased by 30%. Conclusions: The specific association of the rs6313 variant with pinprick hyperalgesia and increased levels of ongoing pain suggests that the HTR2A receptor might be an important modulator in the development of CS in neuropathic pain. Significance: This article presents new insights into serotonin receptor 2A‐mediating mechanisms of central sensitization in neuropathic pain patients. The rs6313 variant allele was associated with increased mechanical pinprick sensitivity and increased levels of ongoing pain supporting a contribution of central sensitization in the genesis of ongoing pain providing a possible route for mechanism‐based therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this joint guideline of the scientific societies and working groups mentioned in the title, evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain were developed. The systematic literature search and meta-analysis yielded the following results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I‑DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, while S‑LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT received weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic workup of patients with possible neuropathic pain. There was a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials. The role of confocal corneal microscopy is still unclear. Functional imaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in elucidating the pathophysiology, but current literature does not support their use in diagnosing neuropathic pain. In selected cases, genetic testing in specialized centers may be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)