Turo Nurmikko

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.

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.

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.

Analgesic Therapy in Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Quantitative Systematic Review

Background Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a complication of acute herpes zoster, which is emerging as a preferred clinical trial model for chronic neuropathic pain. Although there are published meta-analyses of analgesic therapy in PHN, and neuropathic pain in general, the evidence base has been substantially enhanced by the recent publication of several major trials. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for both efficacy and adverse events of analgesic therapy for PHN. Methods and Findings We systematically searched databases (MEDLINE 1966–2004, EMBASE 1988–2004, CINAHL 1982–2002, and PubMed [29 October 2004]) for trials of PHN. We also searched references of retrieved studies and review articles for further trials. We included trials that examined adult patients with PHN of greater duration than 3 mo, that were blinded, randomised, and had at least one measure of pain outcome. Dichotomous pain outcome data were extracted for 50% decrease in baseline pain using a hierarchy of pain/pain-relief measurement tools. Where available, dichotomous data were also collected for adverse events. Calculated estimates of efficacy included relative benefit and number needed to treat. Of 62 studies identified, 35 were randomised controlled trials. Of these, 31 were placebo controlled and suitable for meta-analysis, from which it was possible to extract dichotomous efficacy outcome data from 25. This meta-analysis revealed that there is evidence to support the use of the following orally administered therapies: tricyclic antidepressants, “strong” opioids, gabapentin, tramadol, and pregabalin. Topical therapies associated with efficacy were lidocaine 5% patch and capsaicin. Finally, a single study of spinal intrathecal administration of lidocaine and methyl prednisolone demonstrated efficacy, although this has yet to be replicated. Data suggest that the following therapies are not associated with efficacy in PHN: certain NMDA receptor antagonists (e.g., oral memantine, oral dextromethorphan, intravenous ketamine), codeine, ibuprofen, lorazepam, certain 5HT1 receptor agonists, and acyclovir. Topical administration of benzydamine, diclofenac/diethyl ether, and vincristine (iontophoresis) are similarly not associated with efficacy, nor are intrathecal administration of lidocaine alone or epidural administration of lidocaine and methylprednisolone, intravenous therapy with lidocaine, subcutaneous injection of Cronassial, or acupuncture. However, many of the trials that demonstrated a lack of efficacy represented comparatively low numbers of patient episodes or were single-dose studies, so it may be appropriate to regard such interventions as “not yet adequately tested” rather than demonstrating “no evidence of efficacy.” Topical aspirin/diethyl ether has not been adequately tested. Conclusion The evidence base supports the oral use of tricyclic antidepressants, certain opioids, and gabapentinoids in PHN. Topical therapy with lidocaine patches and capsaicin is similarly supported. Intrathecal administration of methylprednisolone appears to be associated with high efficacy, but its safety requires further evaluation.

fMRI of thermal pain: Effects of stimulus laterality and attention

Brain activity was studied by fMRI in 18 healthy subjects during stimulation of the thenar eminence of the hand with either warm (non-painful, 40 degrees C) or hot (painful, 46-49 degrees C) stimuli using a contact thermode. Experiments were performed on the right and left hand independently and with two attentional contexts: subjects either attended to pain or attended to a visual global motion discrimination task (to distract them from pain). Group analysis demonstrated that attended warm stimulation of the right hand did not produce any significantly activated clusters. Painful thermal stimulation of either hand elicited significant activity over a large network of brain regions, including insula, inferior frontal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, secondary somatosensory cortex, cerebellum, and medial frontal gyrus (corrected P < 0.05). Insula activity was distributed along its anterior-posterior axis and depended on the hand stimulated and attentional context. In particular, activity within the posterior insula was contralateral to the site of stimulation, tested using regions of interest (ROI) analysis: significant side x site interaction (P = 0.001). With attention diverted from the painful stimulus bilateral anterior insula activity moved posteriorly to midinsula and decreased in extent (ROI analysis: significant main effect of attention (P = 0.03)). The role of the insula in thermosensation and attention is discussed.

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.

Chronic painful peripheral neuropathy in an urban community: a controlled comparison of people with and without diabetes

Aims  A cross‐sectional study has been performed in order to estimate the prevalence, severity, and current treatment of chronic painful peripheral neuropathy (CPPN) in people with diabetes in the community.