Nociceptive and neuropathic components both contribute to pain. Since these components require different pain management strategies, correct pain diagnosis before and during treatment is highly desirable. As low back pain (LBP) patients constitute an important subgroup of chronic pain patients, we addressed the following issues: (i) to establish a simple, validated screening tool to detect neuropathic pain (NeP) components in chronic LBP patients, (ii) to determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain components in LBP in a large-scale survey, and (iii) to determine whether LBP patients with an NeP component suffer from worse, or different, co-morbidities. In co-operation with the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain we developed and validated the painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) in a prospective, multicentre study and subsequently applied it to approximately 8000 LBP patients. The PD-Q is a reliable screening tool with high sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive accuracy; these were 84% in a palm-top computerised version and 85%, 80% and 83%, respectively, in a corresponding pencil-and-paper questionnaire. In an unselected cohort of chronic LBP patients, 37% were found to have predominantly neuropathic pain. Patients with NeP showed higher ratings of pain intensity, with more (and more severe) co-morbidities such as depression, panic/anxiety and sleep disorders. This also affected functionality and use of health-care resources. On the basis of given prevalence of LBP in the general population, we calculated that 14.5% of all female and 11.4% of all male Germans suffer from LBP with a predominant neuropathic pain component. Simple, patient-based, easy-to-use screening questionnaires can determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain components both in individual LBP patients and in heterogeneous cohorts of such patients. Since NeP correlates with more intense pain, more severe co-morbidity and poorer quality of life, accurate diagnosis is a milestone in choosing appropriate therapy.

Patients with neuropathic pain are heterogeneous in etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical appearance. They exhibit a variety of pain-related sensory symptoms and signs (sensory profile). Different sensory profiles might indicate different classes of neurobiological mechanisms, and hence subgroups with different sensory profiles might respond differently to treatment. The aim of the investigation was to identify subgroups in a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain using hypothesis-free statistical methods on the database of 3 large multinational research networks (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), IMI-Europain, and Neuropain). Standardized quantitative sensory testing was used in 902 (test cohort) and 233 (validation cohort) patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies. For subgrouping, we performed a cluster analysis using 13 quantitative sensory testing parameters. Three distinct subgroups with characteristic sensory profiles were identified and replicated. Cluster 1 (sensory loss, 42%) showed a loss of small and large fiber function in combination with paradoxical heat sensations. Cluster 2 (thermal hyperalgesia, 33%) was characterized by preserved sensory functions in combination with heat and cold hyperalgesia and mild dynamic mechanical allodynia. Cluster 3 (mechanical hyperalgesia, 24%) was characterized by a loss of small fiber function in combination with pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia. All clusters occurred across etiologies but frequencies differed. We present a new approach of subgrouping patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies according to intrinsic sensory profiles. These 3 profiles may be related to pathophysiological mechanisms and may be useful in clinical trial design to enrich the study population for treatment responders.

Patients with neuropathic pain syndromes are heterogeneous. They present with a variety of sensory symptoms and pain qualities. The knowledge of these data and etiology-specific differences is important to optimize clinical trial design and to develop more effective drugs. This investigation uses epidemiological and clinical data on the symptomatology of 2100 patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (DPN) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) from a cross-sectional survey (painDETECT) to (1) describe characteristic epidemiological differences, (2) analyse typical patterns of sensory symptoms in both cohorts and (3) determine whether questionnaires can capture these characteristics. PHN patients suffer more often from clinically relevant sensory disturbances although the average pain intensity is only marginally higher. This difference is particularly obvious with dynamic mechanical allodynia which is present in half of the PHN patients and in 18% of the DPN patients. Thermal hyperalgesia occurs twice as often in PHN. Numbness is described more often in DPN. Age has no influence on sensory symptoms in both entities. A hierarchical cluster analysis revealed five distinct subgroups of patients showing a characteristic sensory profile, a typical constellation and combination of neuropathic symptoms. All subgroups occur in relevant numbers in both entities but the frequencies differ between PHN and DPN. Since sensory symptoms likely translate into pain-generating mechanisms enrichment for potential treatment responders might be possible in clinical trials by assessing the sensory profiles. Patient-Reported Outcomes can be used to obtain a precise sensory characterization of each patient.