Central sensitisation is assumed to be one of the underlying mechanisms for chronic low back pain. Because central sensitisation is not directly assessable in humans, the term ‘human assumed central sensitisation’ (HACS) is suggested. The objectives were to investigate what definitions for HACS have been used, to evaluate the methods to assess HACS, to assess the validity of those methods, and to estimate the prevalence of HACS. Database search resulted in 34 included studies. Forty different definition references were used to define HACS. This review uncovered twenty quantitative methods to assess HACS, including four questionnaires and sixteen quantitative sensory testing measures. The prevalence of HACS in patients with chronic low back pain was estimated in three studies. The current systematic review highlights that multiple definitions, assessment methods, and prevalence estimates are stated in the literature regarding HACS in patients with chronic low back pain. Most of the assessment methods of HACS are not validated but have been tested for reliability and repeatability. Given the lack of a gold standard to assess HACS, an initial grading system is proposed to standardize clinical and research assessments of HACS in patients with a chronic low back.

Central sensitization cannot be directly demonstrated in humans and thus a gold standard is missing. Therefore, we used human assumed central sensitization (HACS) when associated with humans. The central sensitization inventory (CSI) is a screening questionnaire for addressing symptoms that are associated with HACS. This cross-sectional study compared patients with chronic pain and at least one central sensitivity syndrome with healthy, pain-free controls via ROC analyses. Analyses were performed for all participants together and for each sex separately. Regression analyses were performed on patients with chronic pain with and without central sensitivity syndromes. Based on 1730 patients and 250 healthy controls, cutoff values for the CSI for the total group were established at 30 points: women: 33 points; men: 25 points. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify possible predictors for the CSI score in 2890 patients with chronic pain. The CSI score is associated with all independent factors and has a low association with pain severity in women and a low association with pain severity, age, and body mass index in men. The newly established CSI cutoff values are lower than in previous studies and different per sex, which might be of clinical relevance in daily practice and importance in research.

Background: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) patient anecdotes and case reports indicate that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBMs) may alleviate pain and pruritus and improve wound healing. CBM use has not been characterized in the EB patient population. Objectives: To evaluate CBM use among EB patients, including CBM types, effects on symptoms (e.g., pain and pruritus), disease process (e.g., blistering, wounds, and inflammation), well-being (e.g., sleep, appetite) and concomitant medications. Methods: English-speaking EB patients or caregivers completed an online international, anonymous, cross-sectional survey regarding CBM use. Respondents reported the types of CBMs, subsequent effects including perceived EB symptom alteration, changes in medication use, and side effects. Results: Seventy-one EB patients from five continents reported using or having used CBMs to treat their EB. Missing question responses ranged between 0 (0%) and 33 (46%). Most used more than one CBM preparation (mean: 2.4 ± 1.5) and route of administration (mean: 2.1 ± 1.1). Topical and ingested were the most common routes. Pain and pruritus were reported retrospectively to decrease by 3 points (scale: 0–10; p < 0.001 for both) after CBM use. Most reported that CBM use improved their overall EB symptoms (95%), pain (94%), pruritus (91%) and wound healing (81%). Most participants (79%) reported decreased use of pain medications. The most common side-effect was dry mouth (44%). Conclusions: CBMs improve the perception of pain, pruritus, wound healing, and well-being in EB patients and reduced concomitant medication use. Nevertheless, a direct relation between the use of CBMs and reduction of the above-mentioned symptoms cannot be proven by these data. Therefore, future controlled studies using pharmaceutically standardised CBM preparations in EB are warranted to delineate the risks and benefits of CBMs.

Background: The assessment of a neuropathic pain component (NePC) to establish the neurological criteria required to comply with the clinical description is based on history taking, clinical examination, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) and includes bedside examination (BSE). The objective of this study was to assess the potential association between the clinically diagnosed presence or absence of an NePC, BSE, and the Nijmegen–Aalborg screening QST (NASQ) paradigm in patients with chronic (≥3 months) low back and leg pain or with neck shoulder arm pain or in patients with chronic pain due to suspected peripheral nerve damage. Methods: A total of 291 patients participated in the study. Pain (absence or presence of neuropathic pain) was assessed independently by two physicians and compared with BSE (measurements of touch [finger, brush], heat, cold, pricking [safety pin, von Frey hair], and vibration). The NASQ paradigm (pressure algometry, electrical pain thresholds, and conditioned pain modulation) was assessed in 58 patients to generate new insights. Results: BSE revealed a low association of differences between patients with either absent or present NePC: heat, cold, and pricking sensations with a von Frey hair were statistically significantly less common in patients with present NePC. NASQ did not reveal any differences between patients with and without an NePC. Conclusion: Currently, a standardized BSE appears to be more useful than the NASQ paradigm when distinguishing between patients with and without an NePC.

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a genetic blistering skin condition for which no cure exists. Symptom alleviation and quality of life are therefore central to EB care. This study aimed to gain insight into EB patient needs and benefits from current clinical care. Two questionnaires were administered cross-sectionally to adult EB patients at the Dutch expertise centre for blistering diseases. Patient needs and benefits were analyzed using the patient benefit index survey (PBI-S). Ancillary data were compiled pertaining to self-reported EB severity, pain and pruritus, as well as current and previous treatments. In total, 104 participants were included (response rate 69.8%). Sixty-eight participants comprised the analyzed cohort (n = 36 omitted from analysis). The needs given the highest importance were to get better skin quickly (64.7%) and to be healed of all skin alterations (61.8%). A positive correlation between pain and EB severity and the importance of most needs was observed. Minimal clinically important differences within the PBI-S, relating to reported benefits from clinical care, were reported by 60.3% of the cohort. This study highlights a discrepancy between patient needs and feasible treatment outcomes. Utilizing the PBI-S in conjunction with well-established multidisciplinary care may catalyze the process of tailoring treatments to the needs of individual patients.