Comparison of the analgesic effects of "superficial" and "deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized sham-controlled multicenter international crossover study.

ABSTRACT: We directly compared the analgesic effects of "superficial" and 'deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex in patients with central neuropathic pain. Fifty-nine consecutive patients were randomly assigned to active or sham "superficial" (using a figure-of-8 [F8]-coil) or "deep" (using a Hesed [H]-coil) stimulation according to a double-blind crossover design. Each treatment period consisted of 5 daily stimulation sessions and 2 follow-up visits at 1 and 3 weeks after the last stimulation session. The primary outcome was the comparison of the mean change in average pain intensity over the course of the treatment (group × time interaction). Secondary outcomes included neuropathic symptoms (NPSI), pain interference, patient global impression of change (PGIC), anxiety, depression, and catastrophizing. In total, 51 patients participated in at least one session of both treatments. There was a significant interaction between "treatment" and "time" (F = 2.7; P = 0.0024), indicating that both figure-8 (F8-coil) and H-coil active stimulation induced significantly higher analgesic effects than sham stimulation. The analgesic effects of both types of coils had a similar magnitude but were only moderately correlated ( r = 0.39, P = 0.02). The effects of F8-coil stimulation appeared earlier, whereas the effects of H-coil stimulation were delayed, but tended to last longer (up to 3 weeks) as regards to several secondary outcomes (PGIC and total NPSI score). In conclusion, "deep" and "superficial" rTMS induced analgesic effects of similar magnitude in patients with central pain, which may involve different mechanisms of action.

Efficacy and safety of eliapixant in diabetic neuropathic pain and prediction of placebo responders with an exploratory novel algorithm: results from the randomized controlled phase 2a PUCCINI study.

ABSTRACT: Phase 2a of the PUCCINI study was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, proof-of-concept study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the selective P2X3 antagonist eliapixant in patients with diabetic neuropathic pain (DNP) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04641273). Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus with painful distal symmetric sensorimotor neuropathy of >6 months' duration and neuropathic pain were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 150 mg oral eliapixant twice daily or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in weekly mean 24-hour average pain intensity score at week 8. In total, 135 participants completed treatment, 67 in the eliapixant group and 68 in the placebo group. At week 8, the change from baseline in posterior mean 24-hour average pain intensity score (90% credible interval) in the eliapixant group was -1.56 (-1.95, -1.18) compared with -2.17 (-2.54, -1.80) for the placebo group. The mean treatment difference was 0.60 (0.06, 1.14) in favor of placebo. The use of a model-based framework suggests that various factors may contribute to the placebo-responder profile. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and occurred in 51% of the eliapixant group and 48% of the placebo group. As the primary endpoint was not met, the PUCCINI study was terminated after completion of phase 2a and did not proceed to phase 2b. In conclusion, selective P2X3 antagonism in patients with DNP did not translate to any relevant improvement in different pain intensity outcomes compared with placebo. Funding: Bayer AG.

Paradoxical heat sensation as a manifestation of thermal hypesthesia: a study of 1090 patients with lesions of the somatosensory system.

ABSTRACT: Paradoxical heat sensation (PHS) is the perception of warmth when the skin is cooled. Paradoxical heat sensation rarely occurs in healthy individuals but more frequently in patients suffering from lesions or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. To further understand mechanisms and epidemiology of PHS, we evaluated the occurrence of PHS in relation to disease aetiology, pain levels, quantitative sensory testing parameters, and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) items in patients with nervous system lesions. Data of 1090 patients, including NPSI scores from 404 patients, were included in the analysis. We tested 11 quantitative sensory testing parameters for thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds, and 10 NPSI items in a multivariate generalised linear model with PHS, aetiology, and pain (yes or no) as fixed effects. In total, 30% of the neuropathic patients reported PHS in contrast to 2% of healthy individuals. The frequency of PHS was not linked to the presence or intensity of pain. Paradoxical heat sensation was more frequent in patients living with polyneuropathy compared with central or unilateral peripheral nerve lesions. Patients who reported PHS demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to thermal perception, with lower sensitivity to normally painful heat and cold stimuli. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were lower for burning and electric shock-like pain quality for patients with PHS. Our findings suggest that PHS is associated with loss of small thermosensory fibre function normally involved in cold and warm perception. Clinically, presence of PHS could help screening for loss of small fibre function as it is straightforward to measure or self-reported by patients.

Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process.

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.

Pain in Parkinson disease: mechanistic substrates, main classification systems, and how to make sense out of them.

ABSTRACT: Parkinson disease (PD) affects up to 2% of the general population older than 65 years and is a major cause of functional loss. Chronic pain is a common nonmotor symptom that affects up to 80% of patients with (Pw) PD both in prodromal phases and during the subsequent stages of the disease, negatively affecting patient's quality of life and function. Pain in PwPD is rather heterogeneous and may occur because of different mechanisms. Targeting motor symptoms by dopamine replacement or with neuromodulatory approaches may only partially control PD-related pain. Pain in general has been classified in PwPD according to the motor signs, pain dimensions, or pain subtypes. Recently, a new classification framework focusing on chronic pain was introduced to group different types of PD pains according to mechanistic descriptors: nociceptive, neuropathic, or neither nociceptive nor neuropathic. This is also in line with the International Classification of Disease-11 , which acknowledges the possibility of chronic secondary musculoskeletal or nociceptive pain due to disease of the CNS. In this narrative review and opinion article, a group of basic and clinical scientists revise the mechanism of pain in PD and the challenges faced when classifying it as a stepping stone to discuss an integrative view of the current classification approaches and how clinical practice can be influenced by them. Knowledge gaps to be tackled by coming classification and therapeutic efforts are presented, as well as a potential framework to address them in a patient-oriented manner.

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.

BACKGROUND 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.

Advances and challenges in neuropathic pain: a narrative review and future directions.

Over the past few decades, substantial advances have been made in neuropathic pain clinical research. An updated definition and classification have been agreed. Validated questionnaires have improved the detection and assessment of acute and chronic neuropathic pain; and newer neuropathic pain syndromes associated with COVID-19 have been described. The management of neuropathic pain has moved from empirical to evidence-based medicine. However, appropriately targeting current medications and the successful clinical development of drugs acting on new targets remain challenging. Innovative approaches to improving therapeutic strategies are required. These mainly encompass rational combination therapy, drug repurposing, non-pharmacological approaches (such as neurostimulation techniques), and personalised therapeutic management. This narrative review reports historical and current perspectives regarding the definitions, classification, assessment, and management of neuropathic pain and explores potential avenues for future research.

Personalized treatment of neuropathic pain: Where are we now?

BACKGROUND: The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major unmet need that the development of personalized and refined treatment strategies may contribute to address. DATABASE: In this narrative review, we summarize the various approaches based on objective biomarkers or clinical markers that could be used. RESULTS: In principle, the validation of objective biomarkers would be the most robust approach. However, although promising results have been reported demonstrating a potential value of genomics, anatomical or functional markers, the clinical validation of these markers has only just begun. Thus, most of the strategies documented to date have been based on the development of clinical markers. In particular, many studies have suggested that the identification of specific subgroups of patients presenting with specific combinations of symptoms and signs would be a relevant approach. Two main approaches have been used to identify relevant sensory profiles: quantitative sensory testing and specific patients reported outcomes based on description of pain qualities. CONCLUSION: We discuss here the advantages and limitations of these approaches, which are not mutually exclusive. SIGNIFICANCE: Recent data indicate that various new treatment strategies based on predictive biological and/or clinical markers could be helpful to better personalized and therefore improve the management of neuropathic pain.

Three dimensions of pain in osteoarthritis: development and validation of the Osteoarthritis Symptom Inventory Scale.

ABSTRACT: We describe here the development and validation of the Osteoarthritis Symptom Inventory Scale (OASIS), a new self-administered questionnaire specifically designed to evaluate the various osteoarthritis (OA) pain symptoms with different dimensions related to OA pain mechanisms. The initial development phase and qualitative study generated a list of 17 descriptors reflecting OA pain and other associated symptoms, leading to the first version of the questionnaire (OASIS17). Each item was quantified on a 0 to 10 Numerical Scale. Validation was performed using 123 consecutive patients with OA pain recruited at 28 centers in France, mainly general practitioner offices. Validation involved (1) determining the questionnaire's factorial structure through exploratory and confirmatory analyses, (2) analyzing convergent and divergent validities (ie, construct validity), (3) assessing each item's test-retest reliability, and (4) evaluating OASIS ability to detect treatment effects (ie, sensitivity to change). The final OASIS version includes 9 items discriminating and quantifying 3 distinct, clinically relevant OA pain dimensions sensitive to treatment. OASIS9 psychometric properties suggest that it could improve the characterization of OA pain profiles for 3 clinically relevant domains: localized, neuropathic-like, and deep pain. The OASIS9 questionnaire could be used to phenotype OA pain patients and identify responders to various therapeutic interventions as a function of OA pain dimensions.