4.4 Article

Pain and Quality of Life in the Early Stages After Multiple Sclerosis Diagnosis A 2-year Longitudinal Study

Journal

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 211-217

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181891347

Keywords

pain; multiple sclerosis; quality of life; neuropathic pain; central pain; disability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Pain is a frequent symptom during the course of multiple sclerosis (MS) but its frequency and impact at the early clinical stages remain unknown. Objectives: The aim or this study was to establish prevalence and severity of pain in a cohort of patients recently diagnosed with MS and to determine file evolution of pain prevalence over 2 years. Other objectives were to investigate file presence of baseline clinical predictors of pain after 2 years and to establish its impact on quality of life (QOL). Methods: In a population-based sample of 69 patients recently diagnosed with MS (< 6 mo), pain was measured using questions from the SEP-59 QOL questionnaire. A standardized bedside neurologic examination was performed to establish sensory function, sensory Kurtzke functional system score, and disability scales. Patients were reassessed after 1 and 2 years. Results: Pain was reported by 73.5% of MS patients at baseline and by 70.69% and 61.8% at 1 and 2-year follow-ups, respectively. Clinically significant pain (grades between 3 and 6 using a 6-graded verbal settle) was reported by 63.2% of patients at baseline and by 51.5% and 45.6%, at 1 and 2-year follow-ups, respectively. Pain significantly altered daily activities in 44% of patients. Low overall QOL scores were significantly associated with pain. At 2 years time point, occurrence of pain was associated with baseline depressive symptoms after controlling for the presence of pain at baseline. Conclusions: Pain is frequent in the early stages of MS and affects the daily QOL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available