Stratifying patients with peripheral neuropathic pain based on sensory profiles : algorithm and sample size recommendations

In a recent cluster analysis, it has been shown that patients with peripheral neuropathic pain can be grouped into 3 sensory phenotypes based on quantitative sensory testing profiles, which are mainly characterized by either sensory loss, intact sensory function and mild thermal hyperalgesia and/or allodynia, or loss of thermal detection and mild mechanical hyperalgesia and/or allodynia. Here, we present an algorithm for allocation of individual patients to these subgroups. The algorithm is nondeterministic-ie, a patient can be sorted to more than one phenotype-and can separate patients with neuropathic pain from healthy subjects (sensitivity: 78%, specificity: 94%). We evaluated the frequency of each phenotype in a population of patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (n = 151), painful peripheral nerve injury (n = 335), and postherpetic neuralgia (n = 97) and propose sample sizes of study populations that need to be screened to reach a subpopulation large enough to conduct a phenotype-stratified study. The most common phenotype in diabetic polyneuropathy was sensory loss (83%), followed by mechanical hyperalgesia (75%) and thermal hyperalgesia (34%, note that percentages are overlapping and not additive). In peripheral nerve injury, frequencies were 37%, 59%, and 50%, and in postherpetic neuralgia, frequencies were 31%, 63%, and 46%. For parallel study design, either the estimated effect size of the treatment needs to be high (> 0.7) or only phenotypes that are frequent in the clinical entity under study can realistically be performed. For crossover design, populations under 200 patients screened are sufficient for all phenotypes and clinical entities with a minimum estimated treatment effect size of 0.5.Peer reviewe

Evoked potentials after painful cutaneous electrical stimulation depict pain relief during a conditioned pain modulation

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the pain modulating effect of a noxious conditioning stimulus (CS) on another noxious test stimulus (TS), mostly based solely on subjective pain ratings. We used painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) to induce TS in a novel CPM-model. Additionally, to evaluate a more objective parameter, we recorded the corresponding changes of cortical evoked potentials (PCES-EP). Methods We examined the CPM-effect in 17 healthy subjects in a randomized controlled cross-over design during immersion of the non-dominant hand into 10 °C or 24 °C cold water (CS). Using three custom-built concentric surface electrodes, electrical stimuli were applied on the dominant hand, inducing pain of 40–60 on NRS 0–100 (TS). At baseline, during and after CS we assessed the electrically induced pain intensity and electrically evoked potentials recorded over the central electrode (Cz). Results Only in the 10 °C-condition, both pain (52.6 ± 4.4 (baseline) vs. 30.3 ± 12.5 (during CS)) and amplitudes of PCES-EP (42.1 ± 13.4 μV (baseline) vs. 28.7 ± 10.5 μV (during CS)) attenuated during CS and recovered there after (all p < 0.001). In the 10 °C-condition changes of subjective pain ratings during electrical stimulation and amplitudes of PCES-EP correlated significantly with each other (r = 0.5) and with CS pain intensity (r = 0.5). Conclusions PCES-EPs are a quantitative measure of pain relief, as changes in the electrophysiological response are paralleled by a consistent decrease in subjective pain ratings. This novel CPM paradigm is a feasible method, which could help to evaluate the function of the endogenous pain modulation processes. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012779 , retrospectively registered on 24 July 2017

Who is healthy?:Aspects to consider when including healthy volunteers in QST-based studies- a consensus statement by the EUROPAIN and NEUROPAIN consortia

Clinical and human experimental pain studies often include so-called "healthy" controls in investigations of sensory abnormalities, using quantitative sensory testing (QST) as an outcome measure. However, the criteria for what is considered "healthy" vary among the different studies and between study centers and investigators, partly explaining the high variability of the results. Therefore, several aspects should be considered during inclusion of healthy volunteers in QST-based trials to have homogenous groups of healthy controls with less variability between human experimental studies, so that results are less likely to be false negative or false positive because of subject-related factors. The EUROPAIN and NEUROPAIN consortia aimed to define factors influencing the variability in selection of healthy subjects in QST-based studies before the start of both projects and to give recommendations how to minimize it based on the current literature and expertise of the participants. The present suggestions for inclusion criteria of healthy volunteers into QST-based trials describe a 2-level approach including standardized questionnaires enabling the collection of relevant information on sociodemographic data, medical history, current health status, coping strategies in dealing with pain, and the motivation of the volunteer to participate in the study. These suggestions are believed to help researchers interpret their results in comparison with others and improve the quality of clinical studies including healthy volunteers as controls or in human experimental pain studies. They aim to reduce any confounding factors. Furthermore, the acquired information will allow post hoc analyses of variance for different potential influencing factors

Public health situation of CIDP patients in nine German centers-neuritis network Germany

Background Diagnosis and treatment of patients with immune-mediated neuropathies is challenging due to the heterogeneity of the diseases. Objectives To assess similarities and differences in the current care of patients with immune-mediated polyneuropathies in specialized centers in Germany within the German neuritis network Neuritis Netz. Material and methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of nine neurological departments in Germany that specialize in the care of patients with immune-mediated neuropathies. We assessed the diagnosis, the approach to diagnostic work-up and follow-up, typical symptoms at manifestation and progression of the disease, and treatment data. Results This report includes data from 1529 patients per year treated for immune-mediated neuropathies, of whom 1320 suffered from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Diagnostic work-up almost always included nerve conduction studies, electromyography, and lumbar puncture in accordance with current guidelines. The use of ultrasound, biopsy, and MRI varied. The most important clinical parameter for therapy monitoring in all centers was motor function in the clinical follow-up examinations. A wide range of different immunosuppressants was used for maintenance therapy in about 15% of patients. Conclusions These data provide important epidemiological insights into the care of patients with immune-mediated neuropathies in Germany. The further development of specific recommendations for treatment and follow-up examinations is necessary to ensure a uniform standard of patient care. This effort is greatly facilitated by a structured collaboration between expert centers such as Neuritis Netz

Joint European Academy of Neurology–European Pain Federation–Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment

International audienceBackground and Purpose: In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP). Methods: We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP. Results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I-DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S-LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases. Conclusions: These recommendations provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor-to-moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale, well-designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed