Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions) questionnaire for differential diagnosis of pain syndromes associated to a neuropathic or somatic component

BACKGROUND This study assesses the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of DN4 questionnaire as a tool for differential diagnosis of pain syndromes associated to a neuropathic (NP) or somatic component (non-neuropathic pain, NNP). METHODS A study was conducted consisting of two phases: cultural adaptation into the Spanish language by means of conceptual equivalence, including forward and backward translations in duplicate and cognitive debriefing, and testing of psychometric properties in patients with NP (peripheral, central and mixed) and NNP. The analysis of psychometric properties included reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater agreement and test-retest reliability) and validity (ROC curve analysis, agreement with the reference diagnosis and determination of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in different subsamples according to type of NP). RESULTS A sample of 164 subjects (99 women, 60.4%; age: 60.4 +/- 16.0 years), 94 (57.3%) with NP (36 with peripheral, 32 with central, and 26 with mixed pain) and 70 with NNP was enrolled. The questionnaire was reliable [Cronbach's alpha coefficient: 0.71, inter-rater agreement coefficient: 0.80 (0.71-0.89), and test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.95 (0.92-0.97)] and valid for a cut-off value > or = 4 points, which was the best value to discriminate between NP and NNP subjects. DISCUSSION This study, representing the first validation of the DN4 questionnaire into another language different than the original, not only supported its high discriminatory value for identification of neuropathic pain, but also provided supplemental psychometric validation (i.e. test-retest reliability, influence of educational level and pain intensity) and showed its validity in mixed pain syndromes.

Effectiveness of glatiramer acetate compared to other multiple sclerosis therapies.

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of glatiramer acetate (GA) compared to other multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational cohort study carried out in MS patients treated with GA (GA cohort) or other MS therapies -switched from GA- (non-GA cohort). Study data were obtained through review of our MS patient database. The primary endpoint was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores reached at the end of treatment/last check-up. RESULTS A total of 180 patients were included: GA cohort n = 120, non-GA cohort n = 60. Patients in the GA cohort showed better EDSS scores at the end of treatment/last check-up (mean ± SD, 2.8 ± 1.8 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2; P = 0.001) and were 1.65 times more likely to show better EDSS scores compared to the non-GA cohort (odds ratio, 0.606; 95%CI, 0.436-0.843; P = 0.003). Patients in the GA cohort showed longer mean time to reach EDSS scores of 6 (209.1 [95%CI, 187.6-230.6] vs. 164.3 [95% CI, 137.0-191.6] months; P = 0.004) and slower disability progression (hazard ratio, 0.415 [95%CI, 0.286-0.603]; P < 0.001). The annualized relapse rate was lower in the GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 0.5 vs. 0.8 ± 0.5; P = 0.001) and patients' quality of life was improved in this study cohort compared to the non-GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS GA may slow down the progression of EDSS scores to a greater extent than other MS therapies, as well as achieving a greater reduction in relapses and a greater improvement in patients' quality of life. Switching from GA to other MS therapies has not proved to entail a better response to treatment.