The aim of this paper is to study the quality of verbal description and its diagnostic value in neuropathic pain. The verbal description of pain as assessed by a French adjective list questionnaire (QDSA) is compared between a group of 100 patients with neuropathic pain and a mixed group of 97 chronic benign and cancer non-neuropathic pain patients. Seventeen descriptors of the 61 QDSA descriptors have a significant intergroup frequency difference. By principal component analysis and Varimax rotation of the intercorrelation matrix of descriptors in the neuropathic group. 7 factors accounting for 66.0% of the total variance are derived. Six factors reflect purely sensory or affective aspects of the pain experience. Seven descriptors from the discriminant analysis function correctly assign 77% of neuropathic pain patients and 81% of the non-neuropathic pain patients. In a second neuropathic pain group of 32 patients, the discriminant function coefficient permits correct diagnostic categorization in 66% of the cases. Implications for clinical practice and trials are discussed.

Four different French versions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) have been published: 3 are MPQ translations in Canadian French and 1 (QDSA) is an MPQ reconstruction in (France) French. The aim of our work was to study the validity of these available questionnaires for use in France. The validity was evaluated by 44 French physicians. Various validity criteria were studied: item, dimension, subclass and pain descriptor intensity. A new French MPQ was also developed. Significant validity differences emerged between the different MPQ versions. This study confirms the satisfactory validity of the QDSA. The validity of the newly developed French MPQ was equal but not better than the QDSA. A 15-item short MPQ-QDSA version was also developed. For studies with patients from France, it is recommended that the QDSA or the short MPQ-QDSA versions be used.

This study evaluates (i) the effect of heterotopic chronic pain on various experimental pain measures, (ii) the relationship between experimental pain measures and chronic pain symptomatology assessment, and (iii) the influence of the various pain aetiologies on experimental pain measures. Fifty-three chronic pain patients were compared to 17 pain-free subjects with the following psychophysical and physiological indices: pain threshold (PTh), pain tolerance (PTol), verbal estimation of intensity and unpleasantness (intensity scale, IS; unpleasantness scale, US), threshold for intensity and unpleasantness (ITh and UTh), lower limb RIII nociceptive reflex (RIIITh and RIII frequency of occurrence). Chronic pain syndromes included neuropathic pain (n = 12), iodopathic pain (n = 12), myofascial syndromes (n = 9), headache (n = 9), and miscellaneous pain (n = 11). Chronic pain symptomatology was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS), a French MPQ adaptation (QDSA), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Spielberger State Trait Inventory (STAI) and Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). No significant difference was observed between chronic pain patients and pain-free control groups and between patient subgroups for PTh, PTol and RIIITh. No significant correlation was found between experimental pain measures and clinical pain, anxiety or depression scores. However, the chronic pain patients had a higher threshold for unpleasantness and judged the suprathreshold stimuli significantly less intense and less unpleasant than the control group. These results are discussed in relation to diffuse noxious inhibitory controls and the adaptation level theory of chronic pain experience.

The emergence of the SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) has created great global distress. This variant of concern shows multiple sublineages, importantly B.1.1.529.1 (BA.1), BA.1 + R346K (BA.1.1), and B.1.1.529.2 (BA.2), each with unique properties. However, little is known about this new variant, specifically its sub‐variants. A narrative review was conducted to summarise the latest findings on transmissibility, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and efficacy of current vaccines and treatments. Omicron has shown two times higher transmission rates than Delta and above ten times more infectious than other variants over a similar period. With more than 30 mutations in the spike protein's receptor‐binding domain, there is reduced detection by conventional RT‐PCR and rapid antigen tests. Moreover, the two‐dose vaccine effectiveness against Delta and Omicron variants was found to be approximately 21%, suggesting an urgent need for a booster dose to prevent the possibility of breakthrough infections. However, the current vaccines remain highly efficacious against severe disease, hospitalisation, and mortality. Japanese preliminary lab data elucidated that the Omicron sublineage BA.2 shows a higher illness severity than BA.1. To date, the clinical management of Omicron remains unchanged, except for monoclonal antibodies. Thus far, only Bebtelovimab could sufficiently treat all three sub‐variants of Omicron. Further studies are warranted to understand the complexity of Omicron and its sub‐variants. Such research is necessary to improve the management and prevention of Omicron infection.

Background Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been concerns related to the preparedness of healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aimed to describe the level of awareness and preparedness of hospital HCWs at the time of the first wave. Methods This multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted among hospital HCWs from February to May 2020. We used a hierarchical logistic regression multivariate analysis to adjust the influence of variables based on awareness and preparedness. We then used association rule mining to identify relationships between HCW confidence in handling suspected COVID-19 patients and prior COVID-19 case-management training. Results We surveyed 24,653 HCWs from 371 hospitals across 57 countries and received 17,302 responses from 70.2% HCWs overall. The median COVID-19 preparedness score was 11.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6.0–14.0) and the median awareness score was 29.6 (IQR = 26.6–32.6). HCWs at COVID-19 designated facilities with previous outbreak experience, or HCWs who were trained for dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, had significantly higher levels of preparedness and awareness (p<0.001). Association rule mining suggests that nurses and doctors who had a ’great-extent-of-confidence’ in handling suspected COVID-19 patients had participated in COVID-19 training courses. Male participants (mean difference = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.46; p<0.001) and nurses (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.81; p<0.001) had higher preparedness scores compared to women participants and doctors. Interpretation There was an unsurprising high level of awareness and preparedness among HCWs who participated in COVID-19 training courses. However, disparity existed along the lines of gender and type of HCW. It is unknown whether the difference in COVID-19 preparedness that we detected early in the pandemic may have translated into disproportionate SARS-CoV-2 burden of disease by gender or HCW type.