G. Cruccu

Neuropathic pain: redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes.

Pain usually results from activation of nociceptive afferents by actually or potentially tissue-damaging stimuli. Pain may also arise by activity generated within the nervous system without adequate stimulation of its peripheral sensory endings. For this type of pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain introduced the term neuropathic pain, defined as “pain initiated or caused by a primary lesion or dysfunction in the nervous system.” While this definition has been useful in distinguishing some characteristics of neuropathic and nociceptive types of pain, it lacks defined boundaries. Since the sensitivity of the nociceptive system is modulated by its adequate activation (e.g., by central sensitization), it has been difficult to distinguish neuropathic dysfunction from physiologic neuroplasticity. We present a more precise definition developed by a group of experts from the neurologic and pain community: pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system. This revised definition fits into the nosology of neurologic disorders. The reference to the somatosensory system was derived from a wide range of neuropathic pain conditions ranging from painful neuropathy to central poststroke pain. Because of the lack of a specific diagnostic tool for neuropathic pain, a grading system of definite, probable, and possible neuropathic pain is proposed. The grade possible can only be regarded as a working hypothesis, which does not exclude but does not diagnose neuropathic pain. The grades probable and definite require confirmatory evidence from a neurologic examination. This grading system is proposed for clinical and research purposes. GLOSSARY: IASP = International Association for the Study of Pain; MS = multiple sclerosis; NeuPSIG = IASP Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain.

EFNS guidelines on the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain: 2010 revision

Background and objectives:  This second European Federation of Neurological Societies Task Force aimed at updating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain since 2005.

EFNS guidelines on pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain treatment remains unsatisfactory despite a substantial increase in the number of trials. This EFNS Task Force aimed at evaluating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Studies were identified using first the Cochrane Database then Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II controlled trials (according to EFNS classification of evidence) were assessed, but lower‐class studies were considered in conditions that had no top level studies. Only treatments feasible in an outpatient setting were evaluated. Effects on pain symptoms/signs, quality of life and comorbidities were particularly searched for. Most of the randomized controlled trials included patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful polyneuropathies (PPN) mainly caused by diabetes. These trials provide level A evidence for the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, pregabalin and opioids, with a large number of class I trials, followed by topical lidocaine (in PHN) and the newer antidepressants venlafaxine and duloxetine (in PPN). A small number of controlled trials were performed in central pain, trigeminal neuralgia, other peripheral neuropathic pain states and multiple‐aetiology neuropathic pains. The main peripheral pain conditions respond similarly well to tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, and pregabalin, but some conditions, such as HIV‐associated polyneuropathy, are more refractory. There are too few studies on central pain, combination therapy, and head‐to‐head comparison. For future trials, we recommend to assess quality of life and pain symptoms or signs with standardized tools.

Silent period evoked by transcranial stimulation of the human cortex and cervicomedullary junction.

1. The silent period evoked in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle after electrical and magnetic transcranial stimulation (TCS), electrical stimulation of the cervicomedullary junction and ulnar nerve stimulation was studied in ten healthy subjects. 2. With maximum‐intensity shocks, the average duration of the silent period was 200 ms after electrical TCS, 300 ms after magnetic TCS, 43 ms after stimulation at the cervicomedullary junction and 100 ms after peripheral nerve stimulation. 3. The duration of the silent period, the amplitude of the motor‐evoked potential, and the twitch force produced in the muscle were compared at increasing intensities of magnetic TCS. When the stimulus strength was increased from 30 to 70% of the stimulator output, the duration of the silent period lengthened as the amplitude of the motor potential and force of the muscle twitch increased. At 70 to 100% of the output, the amplitude of the motor potential and force of the muscle twitch saturated, whereas the duration of the silent period continued to increase. 4. Proximal arm muscle twitches induced by direct electrical stimulation of the biceps and extensor wrist muscles produced no inhibition of voluntary activity in the contracting FDI muscle. 5. The level of background activation had no effect on the duration of the silent period recorded in the FDI muscle after magnetic TCS. 6. Corticomotoneurone excitability after TCS was studied by means of a single magnetic conditioning shock and a test stimulus consisting either of one single magnetic shock or single and double electrical shocks (interstimulus interval 1.8 ms) in the relaxed muscle. A conditioning magnetic shock completely suppressed the response evoked by a second magnetic shock, reduced the size of the response evoked by a single electrical shock but did not affect the response evoked by double electrical shocks. Inhibition of the test magnetic shock was also present during muscle contraction. 7. Our findings indicate that the first 50 ms of the silent period after TCS are produced mainly by spinal mechanisms such as after‐hyperpolarization and recurrent inhibition of the spinal motoneurones. If descending inhibitory fibres contribute, their contribution is small. Changes in proprioceptive input probably have a minor influence. From 50 ms onwards the silent period is produced mainly by cortical inhibitory mechanisms.

NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment

&NA; This is a revision of guidelines, originally published in 2004, for the assessment of patients with neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system either at peripheral or central level. Screening questionnaires are suitable for identifying potential patients with neuropathic pain, but further validation of them is needed for epidemiological purposes. Clinical examination, including accurate sensory examination, is the basis of neuropathic pain diagnosis. For more accurate sensory profiling, quantitative sensory testing is recommended for selected cases in clinic, including the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathies and for research purposes. Measurement of trigeminal reflexes mediated by A‐beta fibers can be used to differentiate symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia from classical trigeminal neuralgia. Measurement of laser‐evoked potentials is useful for assessing function of the A‐delta fiber pathways in patients with neuropathic pain. Functional brain imaging is not currently useful for individual patients in clinical practice, but is an interesting research tool. Skin biopsy to measure the intraepidermal nerve fiber density should be performed in patients with clinical signs of small fiber dysfunction. The intensity of pain and treatment effect (both in clinic and trials) should be assessed with numerical rating scale or visual analog scale. For future neuropathic pain trials, pain relief scales, patient and clinician global impression of change, the proportion of responders (50% and 30% pain relief), validated neuropathic pain quality measures and assessment of sleep, mood, functional capacity and quality of life are recommended.

EFNS guidelines on neurostimulation therapy for neuropathic pain.

Pharmacological relief of neuropathic pain is often insufficient. Electrical neurostimulation is efficacious in chronic neuropathic pain and other neurological diseases. European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) launched a Task Force to evaluate the evidence for these techniques and to produce relevant recommendations. We searched the literature from 1968 to 2006, looking for neurostimulation in neuropathic pain conditions, and classified the trials according to the EFNS scheme of evidence for therapeutic interventions. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is efficacious in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I (level B recommendation). High‐frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may be better than placebo (level C) although worse than electro‐acupuncture (level B). One kind of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has transient efficacy in central and peripheral neuropathic pains (level B). Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is efficacious in central post‐stroke and facial pain (level C). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) should only be performed in experienced centres. Evidence for implanted peripheral stimulations is inadequate. TENS and r‐TMS are non‐invasive and suitable as preliminary or add‐on therapies. Further controlled trials are warranted for SCS in conditions other than failed back surgery syndrome and CRPS and for MCS and DBS in general. These chronically implanted techniques provide satisfactory pain relief in many patients, including those resistant to medication or other means.

The lower limb flexion reflex in humans

The flexion or flexor reflex (FR) recorded in the lower limbs in humans (LLFR) is a widely investigated neurophysiological tool. It is a polysynaptic and multisegmental spinal response that produces a withdrawal of the stimulated limb and resembles (having several features in common) the hind-paw FR in animals. The FR, in both animals and humans, is mediated by a complex circuitry modulated at spinal and supraspinal level. At rest, the LLFR (usually obtained by stimulating the sural/tibial nerve and by recording from the biceps femoris/tibial anterior muscle) appears as a double burst composed of an early, inconstantly present component, called the RII reflex, and a late, larger and stable component, called the RIII reflex. Numerous studies have shown that the afferents mediating the RII reflex are conveyed by large-diameter, low-threshold, non-nociceptive A-beta fibers, and those mediating the RIII reflex by small-diameter, high-threshold nociceptive A-delta fibers. However, several afferents, including nociceptive and non-nociceptive fibers from skin and muscles, have been found to contribute to LLFR activation. Since the threshold of the RIII reflex has been shown to correspond to the pain threshold and the size of the reflex to be related to the level of pain perception, it has been suggested that the RIII reflex might constitute a useful tool to investigate pain processing at spinal and supraspinal level, pharmacological modulation and pathological pain conditions. As stated in EFNS guidelines, the RIII reflex is the most widely used of all the nociceptive reflexes, and appears to be the most reliable in the assessment of treatment efficacy. However, the RIII reflex use in the clinical evaluation of neuropathic pain is still limited. In addition to its nocifensive function, the LLFR seems to be linked to posture and locomotion. This may be explained by the fact that its neuronal circuitry, made up of a complex pool of interneurons, is interposed in motor control and, during movements, receives both peripheral afferents (flexion reflex afferents, FRAs) and descending commands, forming a multisensorial feedback mechanism and projecting the output to motoneurons. LLFR excitability, mediated by this complex circuitry, is finely modulated in a state- and phase-dependent manner, rather as we observe in the FR in animal models. Several studies have demonstrated that LLFR excitability may be influenced by numerous physiological conditions (menstrual cycle, stress, attention, sleep and so on) and pathological states (spinal lesions, spasticity, Wallenbergs syndrome, fibromyalgia, headaches and so on). Finally, the LLFR is modulated by several drugs and neurotransmitters. In summary, study of the LLFR in humans has proved to be an interesting functional window onto the spinal and supraspinal mechanisms of pain processing and onto the spinal neural control mechanisms operating during posture and locomotion.

EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment: revised 2009

Background and purpose:  We have revised the previous EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain (NP) assessment, which aimed to provide recommendations for the diagnostic process, screening tools and questionnaires, quantitative sensory testing (QST), microneurography, pain‐related reflexes and evoked potentials, functional neuroimaging and skin biopsy.

AAN-EFNS guidelines on trigeminal neuralgia management.

Several issues regarding diagnosis, pharmacological treatment, and surgical treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) are still unsettled. The American Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Neurological Societies launched a joint Task Force to prepare general guidelines for the management of this condition. After systematic review of the literature the Task Force came to a series of evidence‐based recommendations. In patients with TN MRI may be considered to identify patients with structural causes. The presence of trigeminal sensory deficits, bilateral involvement, and abnormal trigeminal reflexes should be considered useful to disclose symptomatic TN, whereas younger age of onset, involvement of the first division, unresponsiveness to treatment and abnormal trigeminal evoked potentials are not useful in distinguishing symptomatic from classic TN. Carbamazepine (stronger evidence) or oxcarbazepine (better tolerability) should be offered as first‐line treatment for pain control. For patients with TN refractory to medical therapy early surgical therapy may be considered. Gasserian ganglion percutaneous techniques, gamma knife and microvascular decompression may be considered. Microvascular decompression may be considered over other surgical techniques to provide the longest duration of pain freedom. The role of surgery versus pharmacotherapy in the management of TN in patients with multiple sclerosis remains uncertain.

Practice Parameter: The diagnostic evaluation and treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (an evidence-based review): Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Neurological Societies

Background: Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a common cause of facial pain. Purpose: To answer the following questions: 1) In patients with TN, how often does routine neuroimaging (CT, MRI) identify a cause? 2) Which features identify patients at increased risk for symptomatic TN (STN; i.e., a structural cause such as a tumor)? 3) Does high-resolution MRI accurately identify patients with neurovascular compression? 4) Which drugs effectively treat classic and symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia? 5) When should surgery be offered? 6) Which surgical technique gives the longest pain-free period with the fewest complications and good quality of life? Methods: Systematic review of the literature by a panel of experts. Conclusions: In patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN), routine head imaging identifies structural causes in up to 15% of patients and may be considered useful (Level C). Trigeminal sensory deficits, bilateral involvement of the trigeminal nerve, and abnormal trigeminal reflexes are associated with an increased risk of symptomatic TN (STN) and should be considered useful in distinguishing STN from classic trigeminal neuralgia (Level B). There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the usefulness of MRI to identify neurovascular compression of the trigeminal nerve (Level U). Carbamazepine (Level A) or oxcarbazepine (Level B) should be offered for pain control while baclofen and lamotrigine (Level C) may be considered useful. For patients with TN refractory to medical therapy, Gasserian ganglion percutaneous techniques, gamma knife, and microvascular decompression may be considered (Level C). The role of surgery vs pharmacotherapy in the management of TN in patients with MS remains uncertain.