Gary M. Franklin

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: A definition for clinical research: Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

The objective of this report was to develop a case definition of distal symmetric polyneuropathy to standardize and facilitate clinical research and epidemiologic studies. A formalized consensus process was employed to reach agreement after a systematic review and classification of evidence from the literature. The literature indicates that symptoms alone have relatively poor diagnostic accuracy in predicting the presence of polyneuropathy; signs are better predictors of polyneuropathy than symptoms; and single abnormalities on examination are less sensitive than multiple abnormalities in predicting the presence of polyneuropathy. The combination of neuropathic symptoms, signs, and electrodiagnostic findings provides the most accurate diagnosis of distal symmetric polyneuropathy. A set of case definitions was rank ordered by likelihood of disease. The highest likelihood of polyneuropathy (useful for clinical trials) occurs with a combination of multiple symptoms, multiple signs, and abnormal electrodiagnostic studies. A modest likelihood of polyneuropathy (useful for field or epidemiologic studies) occurs with a combination of multiple symptoms and multiple signs when the results of electrodiagnostic studies are not available. A lower likelihood of polyneuropathy occurs when electrodiagnostic studies and signs are discordant. For research purposes, the best approach to defining distal symmetric polyneuropathy is a set of case definitions rank ordered by estimated likelihood of disease. The inclusion of this formalized case definition in clinical and epidemiologic research studies will ensure greater consistency of case selection.

Evidence-based guideline: Treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Objective: To develop a scientifically sound and clinically relevant evidence-based guideline for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1960 to August 2008 and classified the studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence scheme for a therapeutic article, and recommendations were linked to the strength of the evidence. The basic question asked was: “What is the efficacy of a given treatment (pharmacologic: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, opioids, others; and nonpharmacologic: electrical stimulation, magnetic field treatment, low-intensity laser treatment, Reiki massage, others) to reduce pain and improve physical function and quality of life (QOL) in patients with PDN?” Results and Recommendations: Pregabalin is established as effective and should be offered for relief of PDN (Level A). Venlafaxine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, gabapentin, valproate, opioids (morphine sulfate, tramadol, and oxycodone controlled-release), and capsaicin are probably effective and should be considered for treatment of PDN (Level B). Other treatments have less robust evidence or the evidence is negative. Effective treatments for PDN are available, but many have side effects that limit their usefulness, and few studies have sufficient information on treatment effects on function and QOL.

Practice Parameter: Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: Role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review) Report of the American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Background: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy. Methods: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. Results and Recommendations: 1) Autonomic testing should be considered in the evaluation of patients with polyneuropathy to document autonomic nervous system dysfunction (Level B). Such testing should be considered especially for the evaluation of suspected autonomic neuropathy (Level B) and distal small fiber sensory polyneuropathy (SFSN) (Level C). A battery of validated tests is recommended to achieve the highest diagnostic accuracy (Level B). 2) Nerve biopsy is generally accepted as useful in the evaluation of certain neuropathies as in patients with suspected amyloid neuropathy, mononeuropathy multiplex due to vasculitis, or with atypical forms of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). However, the literature is insufficient to provide a recommendation regarding when a nerve biopsy may be useful in the evaluation of DSP (Level U). 3) Skin biopsy is a validated technique for determining intraepidermal nerve fiber density and may be considered for the diagnosis of DSP, particularly SFSN (Level C). There is a need for additional prospective studies to define more exact guidelines for the evaluation of polyneuropathy. AAN = American Academy of Neurology; AANEM = American Academy of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; AAPM&R = American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; ART = autonomic reflex testing; BRSI = baroreflex sensitivity index; CASS = composite autonomic scoring scale; CIDP = chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy; DSFN = distal small fiber neuropathy; DSP = distal symmetric polyneuropathy; EDx = electrodiagnosis; EFNS = European Federation of Neurological Societies; HRV = heart rate variability; IAN = idiopathic autonomic neuropathy; IENF = intraepidermal nerve fibers; MSNA = muscle sympathetic nerve activity; NCSs = nerve conduction studies; PGP 9.5 = protein-gene-product 9.5; PN = peripheral neuropathy; PRT = blood pressure recovery time; QAE = quantitative autonomic examination; QSART = quantitative sudomotor axon reflex test; QSS = Quality Standards Subcommittee; QST = quantitative sensory testing; SFSN = small fiber sensory polyneuropathy; TST = thermoregulatory sweat testing.

Parkinson’s disease risks associated with dietary iron, manganese, and other nutrient intakes

Background: Dietary influences on oxidative stress have been thought to play important role in the etiology of PD. Objective: To examine associations of PD with dietary nutrients, including minerals, vitamins, and fats. Methods: A population-based case-control study was conducted among newly diagnosed case (n = 250) and control subjects (n = 388) identified between 1992 and 2002 from enrollees of the Group Health Cooperative health maintenance organization in western Washington state. Controls were frequency matched to cases on sex and age. In-person interviews elicited data on food frequency habits during most of adult life. Nutrient intakes were calculated and analyzed by adjusting each person’s nutrient intake by their total energy intake (the nutrient density technique). Results: Subjects with an iron intake in the highest quartile compared with those in the lowest quartile had an increased risk of PD (odds ratio = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0, 2.7, trend p = 0.016). There was an apparent joint effect of iron and manganese; dietary intake above median levels of both together conferred a nearly doubled risk compared with lower intakes of each nutrient (odds ratio = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9). No strong associations were found for either antioxidants or fats. Conclusion: A high intake of iron, especially in combination with high manganese intake, may be related to risk for PD.

Opioids for chronic noncancer pain A position paper of the American Academy of Neurology

The Patient Safety Subcommittee requested a review of the science and policy issues regarding the rapidly emerging public health epidemic of prescription opioid-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. Over 100,000 persons have died, directly or indirectly, from prescribed opioids in the United States since policies changed in the late 1990s. In the highest-risk group (age 35–54 years), these deaths have exceeded mortality from both firearms and motor vehicle accidents. Whereas there is evidence for significant short-term pain relief, there is no substantial evidence for maintenance of pain relief or improved function over long periods of time without incurring serious risk of overdose, dependence, or addiction. The objectives of the article are to review the following: (1) the key initiating causes of the epidemic; (2) the evidence for safety and effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain; (3) federal and state policy responses; and (4) recommendations for neurologists in practice to increase use of best practices/universal precautions most likely to improve effective and safe use of opioids and to reduce the likelihood of severe adverse and overdose events.

Practice parameter: the evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy, and skin biopsy (an evidence-based review). Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence‐based guidelines regarding the role of autonomic testing, nerve biopsy and skin biopsy for the assessment of polyneuropathy.

Worker recovery expectations and fear-avoidance predict work disability in a population-based workers' compensation back pain sample

Study Design. Prospective, population-based cohort study. Objectives. To examine whether worker demographic, pain, disability, and psychosocial variables, assessed soon after work-related back pain disability onset, predict 6-month work disability. Summary of Background Data. Greater age, pain, and physical disability, and certain psychosocial characteristics may be risk factors for prolonged back pain-related work disability, although many studies have been small, findings have been inconsistent, and some psychosocial variables have not been examined prospectively. Methods. Workers (N = 1,068) completed telephone interviews assessing demographic, pain, disability, and psychosocial variables 18 days (median) after submitting Workers’ Compensation back pain disability claims. Administrative measures of work disability 6 months after claim submission were obtained. Results. At 6 months, 196 workers (18.4%) were receiving work disability compensation. Age, race, education, and baseline pain and disability were significant predictors of 6-month disability. Adjusting for baseline demographics, pain, disability, and other psychosocial variables, high work fear-avoidance (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–13.7) and very low recovery expectations (odds ratio, 3.1, 95% confidence interval, 1.5–6.5) were significant independent predictors. Conclusions. Among individuals with acute work-related back pain, high pain and disability, low recovery expectations, and fears that work may increase pain or cause harm are risk factors for chronic work disability.

Correlation of neuropsychological and MRI findings in chronic/progressive multiple sclerosis

Sixty patients with chronic/progressive MS received a newly assembled neuropsychological screening battery (NSB) and a brain MRI. A neuroradiologist blinded to NSB findings quantified cerebral lesions on MRI. We developed weighted brain area lesion scores according to number and size of cerebral lesions. Patients who were impaired on NSB testing had a significantly higher mean bihemispheric lesion score (X = 26.1) than those who were unimpaired (X = 17.4); this MRI lesion rating score correlated significantly with the cognitive summary score of the NSB (r = 0.35,p < 0.01). However, we did not find a significant correlation between the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale and any MRI or NSB summary measures. Compared with the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), the NSB cognitive summary score yielded a prevalence estimate for cognitive impairment that is more consistent with previous findings in chronic/progressive MS. The NSB is a useful screening test for cognitive dysfunction in chronic/progressive MS because of its relationship to cerebral lesions on MRI and its greater sensitivity than the frequently used MMSE.

Practice Parameter: Evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: Role of laboratory and genetic testing (an evidence-based review) Report of the American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Background: Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) is the most common variety of neuropathy. Since the evaluation of this disorder is not standardized, the available literature was reviewed to provide evidence-based guidelines regarding the role of laboratory and genetic tests for the assessment of DSP. Methods: A literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents was performed to identify the best evidence regarding the evaluation of polyneuropathy published between 1980 and March 2007. Articles were classified according to a four-tiered level of evidence scheme and recommendations were based upon the level of evidence. Results and Recommendations: 1) Screening laboratory tests may be considered for all patients with polyneuropathy (Level C). Those tests that provide the highest yield of abnormality are blood glucose, serum B12 with metabolites (methylmalonic acid with or without homocysteine), and serum protein immunofixation electrophoresis (Level C). If there is no definite evidence of diabetes mellitus by routine testing of blood glucose, testing for impaired glucose tolerance may be considered in distal symmetric sensory polyneuropathy (Level C). 2) Genetic testing should be conducted for the accurate diagnosis and classification of hereditary neuropathies (Level A). Genetic testing may be considered in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level C). Initial genetic testing should be guided by the clinical phenotype, inheritance pattern, and electrodiagnostic features and should focus on the most common abnormalities which are CMT1A duplication/HNPP deletion, Cx32 (GJB1), and MFN2 mutation screening. There is insufficient evidence to determine the usefulness of routine genetic testing in patients with cryptogenic polyneuropathy who do not exhibit a hereditary neuropathy phenotype (Level U). AAN = American Academy of Neurology; AANEM = American Academy of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine; AAPM&R = American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; CMT = Charcot-Marie-Tooth; DSP = distal symmetric polyneuropathy; EDX = electrodiagnostic; GTT = glucose tolerance testing; IFE = immunofixation electrophoresis; QSS = Quality Standards Subcommittee; SPEP = serum protein electrophoresis.

MR nerve imaging in a prospective cohort of patients with suspected carpal tunnel syndrome

Objectives To evaluate the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI of the median nerve in a prospectively assembled cohort of subjects with clinically suspected carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods The authors prospectively identified 120 subjects with clinically suspected CTS from five Seattle-area clinics. All subjects completed a hand-pain diagram and underwent a standardized nerve conduction study (NCS). The reference standard for determining CTS status was a classic or probable hand pain diagram and NCS with a difference >0.3 ms between the 8-cm median and ulnar peak latencies. Readers graded multiple imaging parameters of the MRI on four-point scales. The authors also performed quantitative measurements of both the median nerve and carpal tunnel cross-sectional areas. NCS and MRI were interpreted without knowledge of the other study or the hand pain diagram. Results Intrareader reliability was substantial to near perfect (kappa = 0.76 to 0.88). Interreader agreement was lower but still substantial (kappa = 0.60 to 0.67). Sensitivity of MRI was greatest for the overall impression of the images (96%) followed by increased median nerve signal (91%); however, specificities were low (33 to 38%). The length of abnormal signal on T2-weighted images was significantly correlated with nerve conduction latency, and median nerve area was larger at the distal radioulnar joint (15.8 vs 11.8 mm2) in patients with CTS. A logistic regression model combining these two MR variables had a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.85. Conclusions The reliability of MRI is high but the diagnostic accuracy is only moderate compared with a research-definition reference standard.