Immunotherapy-Responsive Neuropathic Pain and Allodynia in a Patient With Glycine Receptor Autoantibodies: A Case Report.

OBJECTIVES: Neuropathic pain is common and distressing. Improved mechanistic understanding and pharmacotherapies are urgently needed. Molecularly specific pain syndromes may provide insights with translational relevance. Glycine receptors are known to play a key role in inhibitory neurotransmission in the spinal dorsal horn and have therefore been considered as targets for analgesic development. While autoantibodies directed against glycine receptors may rarely arise spontaneously in humans, a detailed phenotype of neuropathic pain and allodynia in association with these autoantibodies has not been described. METHODS: We describe the case of a previously well adult presenting with severe neuropathic pain and allodynia as part of an autoimmune brainstem and spinal syndrome with glycine receptor autoantibodies. RESULTS: Our patient experienced a severe illness, including marked neuropathic pain and allodynia, hypoventilation, tetraparesis, and ophthalmoplegia. A diagnosis of progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus was made. Neuropathic pain was characterized with validated instruments and responded promptly to cause-directed immunotherapy. DISCUSSION: A detailed longitudinal phenotyping, using validated pain measurement instruments, of severe neuropathic pain and allodynia associated with likely pathogenic glycine receptor autoantibodies is reported. This case may have relevance for translational development of analgesics targeting glycinergic neurotransmission.

Fluoxetine for stroke recovery: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluoxetine, at any dose, given within the first year after stroke to patients who did not have to have mood disorders at randomization reduced disability, dependency, neurological deficits and fatigue; improved motor function, mood, and cognition at the end of treatment and follow-up, with the same number or fewer adverse effects. METHODS: Searches (from 2012) in July 2018 included databases, trials registers, reference lists, and contact with experts. Co-primary outcomes were dependence and disability. Dichotomous data were synthesized using risk ratios (RR) and continuous data using standardized mean differences (SMD). Quality was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias methods. Sensitivity analyses explored influence of study quality. RESULTS: The searches identified 3414 references of which 499 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Six new completed RCTs (n = 3710) were eligible, and were added to the seven trials identified in a 2012 Cochrane review (total: 13 trials, n = 4145). There was no difference in the proportion independent (3 trials, n = 3249, 36.6% fluoxetine vs. 36.7% control; RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.09, p = 0.99, I2 = 78%) nor in disability (7 trials n = 3404, SMD 0.05, -0.02 to 0.12 p = 0.15, I2 = 81%) at end of treatment. Fluoxetine was associated with better neurological scores and less depression. Among the four (n = 3283) high-quality RCTs, the only difference between groups was lower depression scores with fluoxetine. CONCLUSION: This class I evidence demonstrates that fluoxetine does not reduce disability and dependency after stroke but improves depression.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression and other mood disorders after stroke. The 2012 Cochrane Review of SSRIs for stroke recovery demonstrated positive effects on recovery, even in people who were not depressed at randomisation. A large trial of fluoxetine for stroke recovery (fluoxetine versus placebo under supervision) has recently been published, and it is now appropriate to update the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 16 July 2018), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, July 2018), MEDLINE (1946 to July 2018), Embase (1974 to July 2018), CINAHL (1982 July 2018), PsycINFO (1985 to July 2018), AMED (1985 to July 2018), and PsycBITE March 2012 to July 2018). We also searched grey literature and clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke survivors at any time within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, given at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. We excluded drugs with mixed pharmacological effects. The comparator was usual care or placebo. To be included, trials had to collect data on at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the trial early). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data from each trial. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 63 eligible trials recruiting 9168 participants, most of which provided data only at end of treatment and not at follow-up. There was a wide age range. About half the trials required participants to have depression to enter the trial. The duration, drug, and dose varied between trials. Only three of the included trials were at low risk of bias across the key 'Risk of bias' domains. A meta-analysis of these three trials found little or no effect of SSRI on either disability score: SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; P = 0.75; 2 studies, 2829 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or independence: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; P = 0.99; 3 studies, 3249 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We downgraded both these outcomes for imprecision. SSRIs reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.11 lower, 0.19 lower to 0.04 lower; 2 trials, 2861 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was a higher observed number of gastrointestinal side effects among participants treated with SSRIs compared to placebo (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.76; P = 0.05; 2 studies, 148 participants; moderate-quality evidence), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). For seizures there was no evidence of a substantial difference. When we included all trials in a sensitivity analysis, irrespective of risk of bias, SSRIs appeared to reduce disability scores but not dependence. One large trial (FOCUS) dominated the results. We identified several ongoing trials, including two large trials that together will recruit more than 3000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no reliable evidence that SSRIs should be used routinely to promote recovery after stroke. Meta-analysis of the trials at low risk of bias indicate that SSRIs do not improve recovery from stroke. We identified potential improvements in disability only in the analyses which included trials at high risk of bias. A further meta-analysis of large ongoing trials will be required to determine the generalisability of these findings.

Established and Emerging Immunological Complications of Biological Therapeutics in Multiple Sclerosis.

Biologic immunotherapies have transformed the treatment landscape of multiple sclerosis. Such therapies include recombinant proteins (interferon beta), as well as monoclonal antibodies (natalizumab, alemtuzumab, daclizumab, rituximab and ocrelizumab). Monoclonal antibodies show particular efficacy in the treatment of the inflammatory phase of multiple sclerosis. However, the immunological perturbations caused by biologic therapies are associated with significant immunological adverse reactions. These include development of neutralising immunogenicity, secondary immunodeficiency and secondary autoimmunity. These complications can affect the balance of risks and benefits of biologic agents, and 2018 saw the withdrawal from the market of daclizumab, an anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody, due to concerns about the development of severe, unpredictable autoimmunity. Here we review established and emerging risks associated with multiple sclerosis biologic agents, with an emphasis on their immunological adverse effects. We also discuss the specific challenges that multiple sclerosis biologics pose to drug safety systems, and the potential for improvements in safety frameworks.