Rolf-Detlef Treede

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.

Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: evidence-based recommendations.

Abstract Patients with neuropathic pain (NP) are challenging to manage and evidence‐based clinical recommendations for pharmacologic management are needed. Systematic literature reviews, randomized clinical trials, and existing guidelines were evaluated at a consensus meeting. Medications were considered for recommendation if their efficacy was supported by at least one methodologically‐sound, randomized clinical trial (RCT) demonstrating superiority to placebo or a relevant comparison treatment. Recommendations were based on the amount and consistency of evidence, degree of efficacy, safety, and clinical experience of the authors. Available RCTs typically evaluated chronic NP of moderate to severe intensity. Recommended first‐line treatments include certain antidepressants (i.e., tricyclic antidepressants and dual reuptake inhibitors of both serotonin and norepinephrine), calcium channel α2‐δ ligands (i.e., gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine. Opioid analgesics and tramadol are recommended as generally second‐line treatments that can be considered for first‐line use in select clinical circumstances. Other medications that would generally be used as third‐line treatments but that could also be used as second‐line treatments in some circumstances include certain antiepileptic and antidepressant medications, mexiletine, N‐methyl‐d‐aspartate receptor antagonists, and topical capsaicin. Medication selection should be individualized, considering side effects, potential beneficial or deleterious effects on comorbidities, and whether prompt onset of pain relief is necessary. To date, no medications have demonstrated efficacy in lumbosacral radiculopathy, which is probably the most common type of NP. Long‐term studies, head‐to‐head comparisons between medications, studies involving combinations of medications, and RCTs examining treatment of central NP are lacking and should be a priority for future research.

Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): standardized protocol and reference values.

Abstract The nationwide multicenter trials of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) aim to characterize the somatosensory phenotype of patients with neuropathic pain. For this purpose, we have implemented a standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol giving a complete profile for one region within 30 min. To judge plus or minus signs in patients we have now established age‐ and gender‐matched absolute and relative QST reference values from 180 healthy subjects, assessed bilaterally over face, hand and foot. We determined thermal detection and pain thresholds including a test for paradoxical heat sensations, mechanical detection thresholds to von Frey filaments and a 64 Hz tuning fork, mechanical pain thresholds to pinprick stimuli and blunt pressure, stimulus/response‐functions for pinprick and dynamic mechanical allodynia, and pain summation (wind‐up ratio). QST parameters were region specific and age dependent. Pain thresholds were significantly lower in women than men. Detection thresholds were generally independent of gender. Reference data were normalized to the specific group means and variances (region, age, gender) by calculating z‐scores. Due to confidence limits close to the respective limits of the possible data range, heat hypoalgesia, cold hypoalgesia, and mechanical hyperesthesia can hardly be diagnosed. Nevertheless, these parameters can be used for group comparisons. Sensitivity is enhanced by side‐to‐side comparisons by a factor ranging from 1.1 to 2.5. Relative comparisons across body regions do not offer advantages over absolute reference values. Application of this standardized QST protocol in patients and human surrogate models will allow to infer underlying mechanisms from somatosensory phenotypes.

Peripheral and central mechanisms of cutaneous hyperalgesia

Hyperalgesia after cutaneous injury can be divided into two phenomena: Primary hyperalgesia occurs at the site of injury and is characterized by hyperalgesia to mechanical and heat stimuli. Secondary hyperalgesia occurs outside the injury site and is characterized by mechanical hyperalgesia only. Hyperalgesia in inflammatory processes corresponds to primary hyperalgesia. Hyperalgesia in referred pain and neuropathic pain resembles secondary hyperalgesia (Table 3). Evidence for the latter would be strengthened if hyperalgesia to cooling stimuli, which is observed in neuropathic pain, was also demonstrated in referred pain and in secondary hyperalgesia. Some of the more likely neural mechanisms to explain primary and secondary hyperalgesia are illustrated in Fig. 8. Primary hyperalgesia to heat stimuli has a counterpart in the sensitization of peripheral nociceptors to heat stimuli (Fig. 8A), leading to similar changes in central neurons. In addition, the enlargement of the mechanical receptive field of primary afferent nociceptors to include the site of injury may account for the primary hyperalgesia to mechanical stimuli (Fig. 8B). In the literature, there are some contradictions with respect to the stimulus modalities to which hyperalgesia and sensitization occur. In spite of the well-documented sensitization of primary afferent nociceptors to heat stimuli, there are few studies on its molecular mechanisms. On the other hand, there is pharmacological evidence for a peripheral mechanism of primary mechanical hyperalgesia, but little direct evidence that nociceptors can be sensitized to mechanical stimuli by injury. This contradiction should spawn further investigations into the mechanical response properties of nociceptors and into the molecular mechanisms of heat sensitization. Secondary hyperalgesia to mechanical stimuli is likely due to the sensitization of central pain signalling neurons (CPSNs). This sensitization could involve only input from nociceptors (Fig. 8C), since mechanical pain thresholds after a cutaneous injury are of the same order as those of nociceptors. Central sensitization could also be the result of enhanced connectivity between low-threshold mechanoreceptors and CPSNs (Fig. 8D). This form of sensitization may account for the pain to light touch associated with neuropathic pain. Receptive field plasticity is a prevalent property of dorsal horn neurons and probably plays a vital role with regard to hyperalgesia. The molecular mechanisms of synaptic plasticity are currently subject to intense experimental investigation and may provide new insights on the mechanisms of pain and hyperalgesia.

Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Neuropathic Pain: An Overview and Literature Update

The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain recently sponsored the development of evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, dual reuptake inhibitors of serotonin and norepinephrine, calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (ie, gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine were recommended as first-line treatment options on the basis of the results of randomized clinical trials. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in certain clinical circumstances. Results of several recent clinical trials have become available since the development of these guidelines. These studies have examined botulinum toxin, high-concentration capsaicin patch, lacosamide, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and combination therapies in various neuropathic pain conditions. The increasing number of negative clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain and ambiguities in the interpretation of these negative trials must also be considered in developing treatment guidelines. The objectives of the current article are to review the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group guidelines for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain and to provide a brief overview of these recent studies.

Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials

We have compiled a comprehensive QST protocol as part of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) using well established tests for nearly all aspects of somatosensation. This protocol encompasses thermal as well as mechanical testing procedures. Our rationale was to test for patterns of sensory loss (small and large nerve fiber functions) or gain (hyperalgesia, allodynia, hyperpathia), and to assess both cutaneous and deep pain sensitivity. The practicality of the QST protocol was tested in 18 healthy subjects, 21–58 years, half of them female. All subjects were tested bilaterally over face, hand and foot. We determined thermal detection and pain thresholds including a test for the presence of paradoxical heat sensations, mechanical detection thresholds to von Frey filaments and a 64‐Hz tuning fork, mechanical pain thresholds to pinprick stimuli and blunt pressure, stimulus‐response‐functions for pinprick and dynamic mechanical allodynia (pain to light touch), and pain summation (wind‐up ratio) using repetitive pinprick stimulation.

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.

Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): Somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes

&NA; Neuropathic pain is accompanied by both positive and negative sensory signs. To explore the spectrum of sensory abnormalities, 1236 patients with a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain were assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) following the protocol of DFNS (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain), using both thermal and mechanical nociceptive as well as non‐nociceptive stimuli. Data distributions showed a systematic shift to hyperalgesia for nociceptive, and to hypoesthesia for non‐nociceptive parameters. Across all parameters, 92% of the patients presented at least one abnormality. Thermosensory or mechanical hypoesthesia (up to 41%) was more frequent than hypoalgesia (up to 18% for mechanical stimuli). Mechanical hyperalgesias occurred more often (blunt pressure: 36%, pinprick: 29%) than thermal hyperalgesias (cold: 19%, heat: 24%), dynamic mechanical allodynia (20%), paradoxical heat sensations (18%) or enhanced wind‐up (13%). Hyperesthesia was less than 5%. Every single sensory abnormality occurred in each neurological syndrome, but with different frequencies: thermal and mechanical hyperalgesias were most frequent in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injury, allodynia in postherpetic neuralgia. In postherpetic neuralgia and in central pain, subgroups showed either mechanical hyperalgesia or mechanical hypoalgesia. The most frequent combinations of gain and loss were mixed thermal/mechanical loss without hyperalgesia (central pain and polyneuropathy), mixed loss with mechanical hyperalgesia in peripheral neuropathies, mechanical hyperalgesia without any loss in trigeminal neuralgia. Thus, somatosensory profiles with different combinations of loss and gain are shared across the major neuropathic pain syndromes. The characterization of underlying mechanisms will be needed to make a mechanism‐based classification feasible.

The Kyoto protocol of IASP Basic Pain Terminology

Around the same time that representatives of national governments met in Bali to discuss the world climate and the Kyoto protocol on carbon dioxide emissions, IASP council, at its annual meeting held in Kyoto in November 2007, approved the publication of modifications to the IASP Basic Pain Terminology on its website. These modifications were prepared by the IASP Task Force on Taxonomy and were reviewed by the entire Editorial Board of the journal, Pain. The debate at IASP council was less heated than the political one that addressed the earth’s climate, but like its predecessors, the 2008 IASP Pain Terminology is likely to provoke a continuing debate among clinicians and researchers. In this Topical review, we briefly outline the rationale for the modifications in terminology.

A new definition of neuropathic pain

1. IntroductionIASP has recently published a new definition of neuropathic pain according to which neuropathic pain is defined as “pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system” (www.iasp-pain.org/resources/painDefinition). This definition replaces the 17-year old definition that ap