Site matters: Central neuropathic pain characteristics and somatosensory findings after brain and spinal cord lesions.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if different etiologies or lesion topographies influence central neuropathic pain (CNP) clinical manifestation. METHODS: We explored the symptom-somatosensory profile relationships in CNP patients with different types of lesions to the central nervous system to gain insight into CNP mechanisms. We compared the CNP profile through pain descriptors, standardized bedside examination, and quantitative sensory test in two different etiologies with segregated lesion locations: the brain, central poststroke pain (CPSP, n = 39), and the spinal cord central pain due to spinal cord injury (CPSCI, n = 40) in neuromyelitis optica. RESULTS: Results are expressed as median (25th to 75th percentiles). CPSP presented higher evoked and paroxysmal pain scores compared to CPSCI (p < 0.001), and lower cold thermal limen (5.6°C [0.0-12.9]) compared to CPSCI (20.0°C [4.2-22.9]; p = 0.004). CPSCI also had higher mechanical pain thresholds (784.5 mN [255.0-1078.0]) compared to CPSP (235.2 mN [81.4-1078.0], p = 0.006) and higher mechanical detection threshold compared to control areas (2.7 [1.5-6.2] vs. 1.0 [1.0-3.3], p = 0.007). Evoked pain scores negatively correlated with mechanical pain thresholds (r = -0.38, p < 0.001) and wind-up ratio (r = -0.57, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CNP of different etiologies may present different pain descriptors and somatosensory profiles, which is likely due to injury site differences within the neuroaxis. This information may help better design phenotype mechanism correlations and impact trial designs for the main etiologies of CNP, namely stroke and spinal cord lesions. This study provides evidence that topography may influence pain symptoms and sensory profile. The findings suggest that CNP mechanisms might vary according to pain etiology or lesion topography, impacting future mechanism-based treatment choices.

Dissecting central post-stroke pain: a controlled symptom-psychophysical characterization.

Central post-stroke pain affects up to 12% of stroke survivors and is notoriously refractory to treatment. However, stroke patients often suffer from other types of pain of non-neuropathic nature (musculoskeletal, inflammatory, complex regional) and no head-to-head comparison of their respective clinical and somatosensory profiles has been performed so far. We compared 39 patients with definite central neuropathic post-stroke pain with two matched control groups: 32 patients with exclusively non-neuropathic pain developed after stroke and 31 stroke patients not complaining of pain. Patients underwent deep phenotyping via a comprehensive assessment including clinical exam, questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing to dissect central post-stroke pain from chronic pain in general and stroke. While central post-stroke pain was mostly located in the face and limbs, non-neuropathic pain was predominantly axial and located in neck, shoulders and knees (P < 0.05). Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory clusters burning (82.1%, n = 32, P < 0.001), tingling (66.7%, n = 26, P < 0.001) and evoked by cold (64.1%, n = 25, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently in central post-stroke pain. Hyperpathia, thermal and mechanical allodynia also occurred more commonly in this group (P < 0.001), which also presented higher levels of deafferentation (P < 0.012) with more asymmetric cold and warm detection thresholds compared with controls. In particular, cold hypoesthesia (considered when the threshold of the affected side was <41% of the contralateral threshold) odds ratio (OR) was 12 (95% CI: 3.8-41.6) for neuropathic pain. Additionally, cold detection threshold/warm detection threshold ratio correlated with the presence of neuropathic pain (ρ = -0.4, P < 0.001). Correlations were found between specific neuropathic pain symptom clusters and quantitative sensory testing: paroxysmal pain with cold (ρ = -0.4; P = 0.008) and heat pain thresholds (ρ = 0.5; P = 0.003), burning pain with mechanical detection (ρ = -0.4; P = 0.015) and mechanical pain thresholds (ρ = -0.4, P < 0.013), evoked pain with mechanical pain threshold (ρ = -0.3; P = 0.047). Logistic regression showed that the combination of cold hypoesthesia on quantitative sensory testing, the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and the allodynia intensity on bedside examination explained 77% of the occurrence of neuropathic pain. These findings provide insights into the clinical-psychophysics relationships in central post-stroke pain and may assist more precise distinction of neuropathic from non-neuropathic post-stroke pain in clinical practice and in future trials.

Insular and anterior cingulate cortex deep stimulation for central neuropathic pain: Disassembling the percept of pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic effects of stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) or the posterior superior insula (PSI) against sham deep (d) repetitive (r) transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in patients with central neuropathic pain (CNP) after stroke or spinal cord injury in a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, 3-arm parallel study. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated into the active PSI-rTMS, ACC-rTMS, sham-PSI-rTMS, or sham-ACC-rTMS arms. Stimulations were performed for 12 weeks, and a comprehensive clinical and pain assessment, psychophysics, and cortical excitability measurements were performed at baseline and during treatment. The main outcome of the study was pain intensity (numeric rating scale [NRS]) after the last stimulation session. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients (age 55.02 ± 12.13 years) completed the study. NRS score was not significantly different between groups at the end of the study. Active rTMS treatments had no significant effects on pain interference with daily activities, pain dimensions, neuropathic pain symptoms, mood, medication use, cortical excitability measurements, or quality of life. Heat pain threshold was significantly increased after treatment in the PSI-dTMS group from baseline (1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-3.06]) compared to sham-dTMS (-1.02, 95% CI -2.10 to 0.04, p = 0.014), and ACC-dTMS caused a significant decrease in anxiety scores (-2.96, 95% CI -4.1 to -1.7]) compared to sham-dTMS (-0.78, 95% CI -1.9 to 0.3; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: ACC- and PSI-dTMS were not different from sham-dTMS for pain relief in CNP despite a significant antinociceptive effect after insular stimulation and anxiolytic effects of ACC-dTMS. These results showed that the different dimensions of pain can be modulated in humans noninvasively by directly stimulating deeper SNC cortical structures without necessarily affecting clinical pain per se. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01932905.