BRS, JDM, and JTF were investigators for the study. methods Adult respondents were recruited from a combination of Internet panels, telephone lists, address lists, mall-based interviews, and store-receipt invitations using a random stratified-sampling framework, with strata defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Older persons and minorities were oversampled to improve prevalence estimates. Results were weighted to match the total adult US populace using US Census data. Demographic information was collected, and respondents who experienced physical pain in the past 12 months completed the PainDetect and provided additional pain history. A cutoff score of 19 or greater around the PainDetect was used to define probable NeP. Results A total of 24,925 respondents (common response rate 2.5%) provided demographic data (52.2% female, mean age 51.5 years); 15,751 respondents reported pain (63.7%), of which 2,548 (15.7%, 95% confidence interval 14.9%C16.5%) had probable NeP based on the PainDetect, which was 10% (95% confidence interval 9.5%C10.5%) of all respondents. Among those reporting pain, the prevalence of probable NeP among Blacks and Hispanics was consistently higher than Whites in each age- and sex group. The highest prevalence among those with pain was among male Hispanics 35C44 years (32.4%) and 45C54 years (24.2%) aged. The most commonly used medications reported by those with probable NeP were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (44.2%), followed by weak opioids (31.7%), antiepileptics (10.9%), and strong opioids (10.9%). Conclusion This is the first study to provide an estimate of the prevalence of probable NeP in the US, showing significant variance by age and ethnicity. strong class=”kwd-title” Keywords: neuropathic pain, prevalence, pain types, epidemiology Introduction According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, neuropathic pain (NeP) is characterized by a pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system.1 However, identification of NeP is challenging, given its association with other pain processes and the absence of a platinum standard diagnostic test. Not surprisingly, it can be difficult to treat effectively and is associated with significant impairments in health-related quality of life along with a substantial economic burden.2,3 The existing literature has primarily investigated the epidemiology of NeP within the context of specific diseases, such as cancer, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and chronic low-back pain (CLBP). For example, systematic reviews of patients with cancer have reported PF-06263276 prevalence rates of NeP at 19%,4 with comparable estimates (20%) among patients with type 2 diabetes.5C9 However, as obesity rates and associated comorbid conditions, such as diabetes and CLBP (resulting from lumbar surgery interventions), continue to increase in the US, the total number of people going through NeP is likely to continue to grow.10C13 These styles highlight the need to examine the prevalence of NeP broadly, rather than from a disease-specific perspective. In spite of the difficulties associated with defining NeP, estimating the population prevalence is critical PF-06263276 for a number of reasons, including but not limited to quantifying the potential societal burden, calculating the potential health care requires of this populace, and guiding health policies. This is particularly pertinent, given that the majority of patients with NeP are treated by main care physicians in the community, who do not necessarily specialize in the diagnosis or management of NeP.14 To date, the largest NeP-prevalence study conducted in the US, using data from a survey, phone, and clinical examinations, found a prevalence rate of 9.8% among adult Minnesotans.15 The current exploratory study estimates the prevalence of PF-06263276 NeP, both overall and among those with pain, using data collected from a nationwide survey. Materials and methods Sampling Data for this study were collected using a cross-sectional survey of adults in the US (aged 18 years and older). The sample size was calculated to ensure a level of precision in each sex-by-age-by ethnicity stratum (the smallest anticipated unit for prevalence calculations) that would not exceed 2.5%. Subsequently, there is a 95% probability that the true populace prevalence resides within 2.5% of the reported-prevalence.The proportion of people reporting pain in this study was higher than other studies, such as the National Health Interview Survey, which found that 56% of adults reported pain,34 and the GallupCHealthways survey, which found that 47% RAC2 of adults reported pain.35 These disparities may be related to methodological differences. to improve prevalence estimates. Results were weighted to match the total adult US populace using US Census data. Demographic information was collected, and respondents who experienced physical pain in the past 12 months completed the PainDetect and provided additional pain history. A cutoff score of 19 or greater around the PainDetect was used to define probable NeP. Results A total of 24,925 respondents (common response rate 2.5%) provided demographic data (52.2% female, mean age 51.5 years); 15,751 respondents reported pain (63.7%), of which 2,548 (15.7%, 95% confidence interval 14.9%C16.5%) had probable NeP based on the PainDetect, which was 10% (95% confidence interval 9.5%C10.5%) of all respondents. Among those reporting pain, the prevalence of probable NeP among Blacks and Hispanics was consistently higher than Whites in each age- and sex group. The highest prevalence among those with pain was among male Hispanics 35C44 years (32.4%) and 45C54 years (24.2%) old. The most commonly used medications reported by those with probable NeP were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (44.2%), followed by weak opioids (31.7%), antiepileptics (10.9%), and strong opioids (10.9%). Conclusion This is the first study to provide an estimate of the prevalence of probable NeP in the US, showing significant variation by age and ethnicity. strong class=”kwd-title” Keywords: neuropathic pain, prevalence, pain types, epidemiology Introduction According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, neuropathic pain (NeP) is characterized by a pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system.1 However, identification of NeP is challenging, given its association with other pain processes and the absence of a gold standard diagnostic test. Not surprisingly, it can be difficult to treat effectively and is associated with significant impairments in health-related quality of life along with a substantial economic burden.2,3 The existing literature has primarily investigated the epidemiology of NeP within the context of specific diseases, such as cancer, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and chronic low-back pain (CLBP). For example, systematic reviews of patients with cancer have reported prevalence rates of NeP at 19%,4 with similar estimates (20%) among patients with type 2 diabetes.5C9 However, as obesity rates and associated comorbid conditions, such as diabetes and CLBP (resulting from lumbar surgery interventions), continue to increase in the US, the total number of people experiencing NeP is likely to continue to grow.10C13 These trends highlight the need to examine the prevalence of NeP broadly, rather than from a disease-specific perspective. In spite of the challenges associated with defining NeP, estimating the population prevalence is critical for a number of reasons, including but not limited to quantifying the potential societal burden, calculating the potential health care needs of this population, and guiding health policies. This is particularly pertinent, given that the majority of patients with NeP are treated by primary care physicians in the community, who do not necessarily specialize in the diagnosis or management of NeP.14 To date, the largest NeP-prevalence study conducted in the US, using data from a survey, phone, and clinical examinations, found a prevalence rate of 9.8% among adult Minnesotans.15 The current exploratory study estimates the prevalence of NeP, both overall and among those with pain, using data collected from a nationwide survey. Materials and methods Sampling Data for this study were collected using a cross-sectional survey of adults in the US (aged 18 years and older). The sample size was calculated to ensure a level of precision in each sex-by-age-by ethnicity stratum (the smallest anticipated unit for prevalence calculations) that would not exceed 2.5%. Subsequently, there is a 95% probability that the true population prevalence resides within 2.5% of the reported-prevalence estimate from our sample. This sample size was larger than what would be required if the true prevalence was around 20%. Participants were recruited via Internet, mail, telephone, shopping-mall interception, and retail store-receipt solicitation. This multimodal approach was used to maximize external validity and avoid potential biases that could occur if only a single approach were used. The frequency of each method was selected to enhance study feasibility and minimize recruiting time (eg, fewer respondents were recruited via mailing lists, because it requires more time and effort to receive responses than other modalities, such as the Internet). The sampling frame was designed to ensure adequate numbers of participants were.