Mirror peripheral neuropathy and unilateral chronic neuropathic pain: insights from asymmetric neurological patterns in leprosy.

ABSTRACT: Leprosy-related multiple mononeuropathy offers a pattern of impairment where neuropathy with and without neuropathic pain (NeP) are present in the same individual, thus allowing to investigate peripheral sensory and innervation in both conditions. This cross-sectional study collected data on clinical and neurological examination, pain assessment questionnaires, quantitative sensory test, and intraepidermal nerve fiber density of patients with leprosy and divided the cohort into 2 groups: with NeP (P+) and without NeP (P-). Furthermore, we assessed mirror body areas in the same NeP individuals with bilateral neuropathy also presenting unilateral NeP. Pain-free patients having unilateral neuropathy were controls. A total of 37 P+ and 22 P- patients were evaluated. Limb areas with NeP had signs of C-fiber dysfunction and hyperesthesia on quantitative sensory testing compared with limb areas having neuropathy without NeP. Skin denervation was found in all patients with leprosy. Comparisons of limbs with and without neuropathy and with and without NeP revealed that higher heat pain thresholds (HPTs) were associated with neuropathic pain areas, whereas less altered HPT was correlated with higher fiber density. Furthermore, a relationship was found between time of leprosy treatment termination and more intense neuropathy, expressed by HPT increasing 0.03°C each month. As expected, interindividual comparisons failed to show differences in intraepidermal nerve fiber density and subepidermal plexus areas between P+ and P- patients ( P = 0.2980, P = 0.9044; respectively). Higher HPT and lower mechanical detection threshold were related to NeP. This study pointed out the relevance of intraindividual comparisons including mirror areas when assessing local changes in peripheral NeP.

Sorting pain out of salience: assessment of pain facial expressions in the human fetus.

INTRODUCTION: The question of whether the human fetus experiences pain has received substantial attention in recent times. With the advent of high-definition 4-dimensional ultrasound (4D-US), it is possible to record fetal body and facial expressions. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether human fetuses demonstrate discriminative acute behavioral responses to nociceptive input. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 5 fetuses with diaphragmatic hernia with indication of intrauterine surgery (fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion) and 8 healthy fetuses, who were scanned with 4D-US in 1 of 3 conditions: (1) acute pain group: Fetuses undergoing intrauterine surgery were assessed in the preoperative period during the anesthetic injection into the thigh; (2) control group at rest: Facial expressions at rest were recorded during scheduled ultrasound examinations; and (3) control group acoustic startle: Fetal facial expressions were recorded during acoustic stimulus (500-4000 Hz; 60-115 dB). RESULTS: Raters blinded to the fetuses' groups scored 65 pictures of fetal facial expressions based on the presence of 12 items (facial movements). Analyses of redundancy and usefulness excluded 5 items for being of low discrimination capacity (P>0.2). The final version of the pain assessment tool consisted of a total of 7 items: brow lowering/eyes squeezed shut/deepening of the nasolabial furrow/open lips/horizontal mouth stretch/vertical mouth stretch/neck deflection. Odd ratios for a facial expression to be detected in acute pain compared with control conditions ranged from 11 (neck deflection) to 1,400 (horizontal mouth stretch). Using the seven-item final tool, we showed that 5 is the cutoff value discriminating pain from nonpainful startle and rest. CONCLUSIONS: This study inaugurates the possibility to study pain responses during the intrauterine life, which may have implications for the postoperative management of pain after intrauterine surgical interventions.

COVID-19 associated with diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases led to a global health crisis.

COVID-19 has gravely threatened high-risk populations, such as people with diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases, leading to disproportionate hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. It is well documented from previous outbreaks that diabetes increases the risk for poor outcomes due to SARS infection. In the present review, we bring evidence that the country and global level health crisis caused by COVID-19 could have been avoided or extremely minimized if measures to protect high-risk populations were implemented timely. In addition to general lockdowns, testing, tracing, isolation and hygiene measures, other specific interventions for diabetes and comorbidities management were shown crucial to allow the continuation of care services during the pandemic. These interventions included: teleconsultation, digital remote education andmonitoring, e-prescriptions, medicine delivery options, mobile clinics, and home point-of-care tests. In conclusion, we recommend prompt actions to protect the most vulnerable groups, valuing knowledge and experiences from previous outbreaks and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to shield communities, health systems and the global economy.

Decentralized COVID-19 measures in Brazil were ineffective to protect people with diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: COVID-19 severity and mortality are elevated in individuals with diabetes. During the pandemic, interventions recommended globally for people with diabetes were to keep blood glucose on target whilst staying at home to curb the spread of the virus. In Brazil, similar measures were proposed. The aim of our observational study was to assess whether these measures achieved their objectives. METHODS: An anonymous and untraceable survey was shared from April 22nd to May 4th. States with more than 30 respondents were included in the analysis and Fisher's exact test was performed to identify associations, with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Type 1 diabetes and female participants were prevalent, 60.76% and 76.12% respectively. 10 out of 26 states were included, in addition to the Federal District (1562 responses). Only in three states (Bahia, Goiás and Pernambuco) less than 50% of the respondents experienced higher glycemia or higher variability during the pandemic. Goiás state, where almost half of the respondents (49.12%) have private insurance, presented the highest percentage of individuals receiving medicines for three months (35.48%) and one of the lowest percentages of blood glucose deterioration (47.17%). In the large states of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, consultations and/or lab exams were postponed by 37.14%, 34.33% and 40.88%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The decentralized measures implemented by states in Brazil left most people with diabetes unprotected. Many were forced to venture outside to collect or to purchase their medical supplies monthly and reported increased glycemic levels and/or variability.

COVID-19 impact on people with diabetes in South and Central America (SACA region).

AIMS: The present observational study aims to describe political actions in place to combat COVID-19 in the South and Central America region (SACA) while protecting individuals with diabetes. METHODS: A survey with 12 questions was shared with all IDF-SACA member organizations, in 18 countries. A descriptive analysis was performed and a multivariate cluster analysis technique pam (partitioning around medoids) was applied. RESULTS: Two groups of countries were identified. The first group, mostly countries with stricter measures to contain the spread of the virus, reported more difficulties (limitations in accessing basic or health needs) and fears (concerns regarding the impact of the pandemic); whereas most of the second group consisted of countries with less restrictive measures, and reported fewer difficulties. Only 37% responded that a policy was put into place to protect individuals with diabetes, either delivering their medicines and supplies at home (16%) or providing them at once enough for 2-3 months (21%). All respondents reported that one of the main fear was to "be infected and not to receive adequate treatment" and/or "getting infected if going to the hospital or medical appointments". CONCLUSION: Most of the SACA countries failed to implement timely measures to protect individuals with diabetes, which may severely impact individuals, health systems and economies.

The impact of COVID-19 on people with diabetes in Brazil.

The present study aims at identifying main barriers faced by people living with diabetes in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In a convenience sampling study, data were collected from 1701 individuals, aged 18 or above; 75.54% female participants; 60.73% T1D and 30.75% T2D, between April 22nd and May 4th, using an anonymous and untraceable survey containing 20 multiple choice questions (socio-demographic; health status and habits of life during COVID-19 pandemic). Relationship between variables was established using the multiple correspondence analysis technique. RESULTS: 95.1% of respondents reduced their frequency of going outside of their homes; among those who monitored blood glucose at home during the pandemic (91.5%), the majority (59.4%) experienced an increase, a decrease or a higher variability in glucose levels; 38.4% postponed their medical appointments and/or routine examinations; and 59.5% reduced their physical activity. T1D, the youngest group, was more susceptible to presenting COVID-19 symptoms despite not being testing; whilst the T2D group had higher frequency of comorbidities that are additional risk factors for COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a first hand revelation of the severity of COVID-19 on individuals with diabetes in Brazil. Their habits were altered, which impacted their glycemia, potentially increasing the risk of poor outcomes and mortality if infected by SARS-CoV-2, and of acute and chronic diabetes complications.

Neuropathic pain in leprosy: symptom profile characterization and comparison with neuropathic pain of other etiologies.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies reported a high prevalence of neuropathic pain in leprosy, being especially present in "pharmacologically cured" patients. The presence of neuropathic pain in leprosy poses a supplementary burden in patient's quality of life, daily activities, and mood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether neuropathic pain in leprosy has similar symptom profile as neuropathic pain of other etiologies and to retrospectively assess the efficacy of neuropathic pain medications regularly prescribed to leprosy. METHODS: Leprosy and nonleprosy patients had their neuropathic pain characterized by the neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI, ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 being the maximal neuropathic pain intensity) in a first visit. In a second visit, leprosy patients who had significant pain and received pharmacological treatment in the first evaluation were reassessed (NPSI) and had their pain profile and treatment response further characterized, including information on drugs prescribed for neuropathic pain and their respective pain relief. RESULTS: The pain characteristics based on NPSI did not significantly differ between leprosy and nonleprosy neuropathic pain patients in visit 1 after correction for multiple analyses, and cluster analyses confirmed these findings (ie, no discrimination between leprosy and nonleprosy groups; Pearson χ2 = 0.072, P = 0.788). The assessment of pain relief response and the drugs taken by each patient, linear regression analysis showed that amitriptyline, when effective, had the highest percentage of analgesic relief. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic pain in leprosy is as heterogeneous as neuropathic pain of other etiologies, further supporting the concept that neuropathic pain is a transetiological entity. Neuropathic pain in leprosy may respond to drugs usually used to control pain of neuropathic profile in general, and amitriptiline may constitute a potential candidate drug for future formal clinical trials aimed at controlling neuropathic pain in leprosy.

Neuropathic pain in leprosy: symptom profile characterization and comparison with neuropathic pain of other etiologies

Introduction: Previous studies reported a high prevalence of neuropathic pain in leprosy, being especially present in "pharmacologically cured" patients. The presence of neuropathic pain in leprosy poses a supplementary burden in patient's quality of life, daily activities, and mood.Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess whether neuropathic pain in leprosy has similar symptom profile as neuropathic pain of other etiologies and to retrospectively assess the efficacy of neuropathic pain medications regularly prescribed to leprosy. Methods: Leprosy and nonleprosy patients had their neuropathic pain characterized by the neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI, ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 being the maximal neuropathic pain intensity) in a first visit. In a second visit, leprosy patients who had significant pain and received pharmacological treatment in the first evaluation were reassessed (NPSI) and had their pain profile and treatment response further characterized, including information on drugs prescribed for neuropathic pain and their respective pain relief. Results: The pain characteristics based on NPSI did not significantly differ between leprosy and nonleprosy neuropathic pain patients in visit 1 after correction for multiple analyses, and cluster analyses confirmed these findings (ie, no discrimination between leprosy and nonleprosy groups; Pearson x2 5 0.072, P 5 0.788). The assessment of pain relief response and the drugs taken by each patient, linear regression analysis showed that amitriptyline, when effective, had the highest percentage of analgesic relief. Conclusions: Neuropathic pain in leprosy is as heterogeneous as neuropathic pain of other etiologies, further supporting the concept that neuropathic pain is a transetiological entity. Neuropathic pain in leprosy may respond to drugs usually used to control pain of neuropathic profile in general, and amitriptiline may constitute a potential candidate drug for future formal clinical trials aimed at controlling neuropathic pain in leprosy.