Bilateral Sensory Abnormalities in Patients with Unilateral Neuropathic Pain; A Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) Study

In patients who experience unilateral chronic pain, abnormal sensory perception at the non-painful side has been reported. Contralateral sensory changes in these patients have been given little attention, possibly because they are regarded as clinically irrelevant. Still, bilateral sensory changes in these patients could become clinically relevant if they challenge the correct identification of their sensory dysfunction in terms of hyperalgesia and allodynia. Therefore, we have used the standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) to investigate somatosensory function at the painful side and the corresponding non-painful side in unilateral neuropathic pain patients using gender- and age-matched healthy volunteers as a reference cohort. Sensory abnormalities were observed across all QST parameters at the painful side, but also, to a lesser extent, at the contralateral, non-painful side. Similar relative distributions regarding sensory loss/gain for non-nociceptive and nociceptive stimuli were found for both sides. Once a sensory abnormality for a QST parameter at the affected side was observed, the prevalence of an abnormality for the same parameter at the non-affected side was as high as 57% (for Pressure Pain Threshold). Our results show that bilateral sensory dysfunction in patients with unilateral neuropathic pain is more rule than exception. Therefore, this phenomenon should be taken into account for appropriate diagnostic evaluation in clinical practice. This is particularly true for mechanical stimuli where the 95% Confidence Interval for the prevalence of sensory abnormalities at the non-painful side ranges between 33% and 50%

Clinical autonomic nervous system laboratories in Europe. A joint survey of the European Academy of Neurology and the European Federation of Autonomic Societies

Background and purpose: Disorders of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) are common conditions, but it is unclear whether access to ANS healthcare provision is homogeneous across European countries. The aim of this study was to identify neurology-driven or interdisciplinary clinical ANS laboratories in Europe, describe their characteristics and explore regional differences. Methods: We contacted the European national ANS and neurological societies, as well as members of our professional network, to identify clinical ANS laboratories in each country and invite them to answer a web-based survey. Results: We identified 84 laboratories in 22 countries and 46 (55%) answered the survey. All laboratories perform cardiovascular autonomic function tests, and 83% also perform sweat tests. Testing for catecholamines and autoantibodies are performed in 63% and 56% of laboratories, and epidermal nerve fiber density analysis in 63%. Each laboratory is staffed by a median of two consultants, one resident, one technician and one nurse. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of head-up tilt tests/laboratory/year is 105 (49–251). Reflex syncope and neurogenic orthostatic hypotension are the most frequently diagnosed cardiovascular ANS disorders. Thirty-five centers (76%) have an ANS outpatient clinic, with a median (IQR) of 200 (100–360) outpatient visits/year; 42 centers (91%) also offer inpatient care (median 20 [IQR 4–110] inpatient stays/year). Forty-one laboratories (89%) are involved in research activities. We observed a significant difference in the geographical distribution of ANS services among European regions: 11 out of 12 countries from North/West Europe have at least one ANS laboratory versus 11 out of 21 from South/East/Greater Europe (p = 0.021). Conclusions: This survey highlights disparities in the availability of healthcare services for people with ANS disorders across European countries, stressing the need for improved access to specialized care in South, East and Greater Europe

Complex regional pain syndrome - phenotypic characteristics and potential biomarkers

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a pain condition that usually affects a single limb, often following an injury. The underlying pathophysiology seems to be complex and probably varies between patients. Clinical diagnosis is based on internationally agreed-upon criteria, which consider the reported symptoms, presence of signs and exclusion of alternative causes. Research into CRPS biomarkers to support patient stratification and improve diagnostic certainty is an important scientific focus, and recent progress in this area provides an opportunity for an up-to-date topical review of measurable disease-predictive, diagnostic and prognostic parameters. Clinical and biochemical attributes of CRPS that may aid diagnosis and determination of appropriate treatment are delineated. Findings that predict the development of CRPS and support the diagnosis include trauma-related factors, neurocognitive peculiarities, psychological markers, and local and systemic changes that indicate activation of the immune system. Analysis of signatures of non-coding microRNAs that could predict the treatment response represents a new line of research. Results from the past 5 years of CRPS research indicate that a single marker for CRPS will probably never be found; however, a range of biomarkers might assist in clinical diagnosis and guide prognosis and treatment

Highlighting the Role of Biomarkers of Inflammation in the Diagnosis and Management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by continuous pain that is often accompanied by sensory, motor, vasomotor, sudomotor, and trophic disturbances. If left untreated, it can have a significant impact on the quality of life of patients. The diagnosis of CRPS is currently based on a set of relatively subjective clinical criteria: the New International Association for the Study of Pain clinical diagnostic criteria for CRPS. There are still no objective laboratory tests to diagnose CRPS and there is a great need for simple, objective, and easily measurable biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of this disease. In this review, we discuss the role of inflammation in the multi-mechanism pathophysiology of CRPS and highlight the application of potential biomarkers of inflammation in the diagnosis and management of this disease

Denying the Truth Does Not Change the Facts: A Systematic Analysis of Pseudoscientific Denial of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Purpose: Several articles have claimed that complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) does not exist. Although a minority view, it is important to understand the arguments presented in these articles. We conducted a systematic literature search to evaluate the methodological quality of articles that claim CRPS does not exist. We then examined and refuted the arguments supporting this claim using up-to-date scientific literature on CRPS. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Inclusion criteria for articles were (a) a claim made that CRPS does not exist or that CRPS is not a distinct diagnostic entity and (b) support of these claims with subsequent argument(s). The methodological quality of articles was assessed if possible. Results: Nine articles were included for analysis: 4 narrative reviews, 2 personal views, 1 letter, 1 editorial and 1 case report. Seven points of controversy were used in these articles to argue that CRPS does not exist: 1) disagreement with the label “CRPS”; 2) the “unclear” pathophysiology; 3) the validity of the diagnostic criteria; 4) CRPS as a normal consequence of immobilization; 5) the role of psychological factors; 6) other identifiable causes for CRPS symptoms; and 7) the methodological quality of CRPS research. Conclusion: The level of evidence for the claim that CRPS does not exist is very weak. Published accounts concluding that CRPS does not exist, in the absence of primary evidence to underpin them, can harm patients by encouraging dismissal of patients’ signs and symptoms