ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN FETUSES UNDERGOING ACUTE PAIN: VALIDATION OF THE FETAL-7 SCALE.

Improvements in fetal ultrasound have allowed for the diagnosis and treatment of fetal diseases in the uterus, often though surgery. However, little attention has been drawn to the assessment of fetal pain. To address this gap, a fetal pain scoring system, known as the Fetal-7 scale, was developed. The present study is a full validation of the Fetal-7 scale. The validation involved two steps: i. four fetuses with indication of surgery were evaluated in three conditions perioperatively: acute pain, rest, and under loud sound stimulation. Facial expressions were assessed by 30 raters using screenshots from 4D high-definition ultrasound films; ii., assessment of sensitivity and specificity of the Fetal-7 scale in 54 healthy fetuses and two fetuses undergoing acute pain after preoperative anesthetic intramuscular injection. There was high internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha (α) of 0.99. Intra-rater reliability of the Fetal-7 scale (test-retest) calculated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.95, and inter-rater reliability was 0.99. The scale accurately differentiated between healthy fetuses at rest and those experiencing acute pain (sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 94.4%). The Fetal-7 scale is a valid tool for assessing acute pain-related behavior in third trimester fetuses and may be of value in guiding analgesic procedures efficacy in these patients. Further research is warranted to explore the presence of post-operative pain in fetuses and its effects afterbirth. PERSPECTIVE: Recordings with three-dimension ultrasound of human fetuses undergoing pre-operative anesthetic injections revealed complex facial expressions during acute pain, similar to those collected in newborns. This study presented the validation process and cut-off value of the Fetal-7 scale, paving the way for the study of pain before birth in humans.

Long-Term Environmental Methylmercury Exposure Is Associated with Peripheral Neuropathy and Cognitive Impairment among an Amazon Indigenous Population.

Widespread contamination of the Amazon basin with mercury has been reported to occur since at least the mid-80s due to heavy gold mining activity. Although initial studies have indicated that this may lead to deleterious neurological consequences to the indigenous populations living in the region, further research is needed to better characterize the neurological burden of such long-term exposure. With this aim, a cross-sectional exploratory study has been conducted with the Yanomami indigenous population residing in a northern Amazon region. All participants underwent a structured interview; detailed neurological examination, including assessment for cognitive, motor, coordination, and sensory functions; and laboratorial testing for serum hemoglobin, blood glucose, and methylmercury levels in hair samples. This study enrolled 154 individuals of 30.9 ± 16.8 years of age, of which 56.1% were female. Mean methylmercury levels in hair were 3.9 ± 1.7 µg/g. Methylmercury levels in hair > 6.0 µg/g were found in 10.3%. Among participants with hair methylmercury levels ≥ 6.0 µg/g, the prevalences of peripheral neuropathy and reduced cognitive performance were, respectively, 78.8% (95%CI 15-177%, p = 0.010) and 95.9% (95%CI 16-230.8%, p = 0.012) higher than those of individuals with lower levels. These results suggest that chronic mercury exposure may lead to significant and potentially irreversible neurotoxicity to Yanomami population living in the northern Amazon basin.

Parkinson's Disease-related Pains are Not Equal: Clinical, Somatosensory and Cortical Excitability Findings in Individuals With Nociceptive Pain.

Chronic pain is a frequent and burdensome nonmotor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD). PD-related chronic pain can be classified as nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic, the former being the most frequent subtype. However, differences in neurophysiologic profiles between these pain subtypes, and their potential prognostic and therapeutic implications have not been explored yet. This is a cross-sectional study on patients with PD (PwP)-related chronic pain (ie, started with or was aggravated by PD). Subjects were assessed for clinical and pain characteristics through questionnaires and underwent quantitative sensory tests and motor corticospinal excitability (CE) evaluations. Data were then compared between individuals with nociceptive and non-nociceptive (ie, neuropathic or nociplastic) pains. Thirty-five patients were included (51.4% male, 55.7 ± 11.0 years old), 20 of which had nociceptive pain. Patients with nociceptive PD-related pain had lower warm detection threshold (WDT, 33.34 ± 1.39 vs 34.34 ± 1.72, P = .019) and mechanical detection threshold (MDT, 2.55 ± 1.54 vs 3.86 ± .97, P = .007) compared to those with non-nociceptive pains. They also presented a higher proportion of low rest motor threshold values than the non-nociceptive pain ones (64.7% vs 26.6%, P = .048). In non-nociceptive pain patients, there was a negative correlation between WDT and non-motor symptoms scores (r = -.612, P = .045) and a positive correlation between MDT and average pain intensity (r = .629, P = .038), along with neuropathic pain symptom scores (r = .604, P = .049). It is possible to conclude that PD-related chronic pain subtypes have distinctive somatosensory and CE profiles. These preliminary data may help better frame previous contradictory findings in PwP and may have implications for future trial designs aiming at developing individually-tailored therapies. PERSPECTIVE: This work showed that PwP-related nociceptive chronic pain may have distinctive somatosensory and CE profiles than those with non-nociceptive pain subtypes. These data may help shed light on previous contradictory findings in PwP and guide future trials aiming at developing individually-tailored management strategies.

The contribution of concentric electrode-evoked potentials and nociceptive withdrawal reflex to the routine neurophysiological assessment of neuropathic pain: cross-sectional study / A contribuição dos potenciais evocados por eletrodo concêntrico e reflexo de retirada nociceptiva para a avaliação neurofisiológica de rotina da dor neuropática: estudo observacional transversal

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conventional electrodiagnostic studies (EDX) are frequently used to support the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathic pain. However, routine EDX has poor diagnostic yield for identifying small fiber neuropathy, which may be cause of neuropathic pain in some patients. This study aimed to assess the gain in diagnostic yield brought by adding pain-related evoked potentials with concentric electrode (CN-PREP) and nociceptive withdrawal reflex (NWR) assessments to EDX. METHODS: Transversal observational accuracy study which included patients referred to routine EDX in a tertiary-care hospital who reported chronic neuropathic pain in their lower limbs. Besides routine EDX, subjects underwent CN-PREP and NWR assessments. Diagnostic yield and tolerability were examined and compared between test studies. RESULTS: The study enrolled 100 patients (54% female), with 57 ± 12 years. EDX was altered in 47% of all patients. The addition of CN-PREP alone, and NWR combined with CN-PREP increased diagnostic yield to 69% and 72%, respectively. CN-PREP proved to be well tolerable, while NWR was associated with higher test-related pain intensity and discontinuation rate (9% vs. 0%). Considering EDX as the reference test, CN-PREP sensitivity was 85.1% and specificity 58.5%. CONCLUSION: Combining CN-PREP with the routine EDX for patients with neuropathic pain is feasible and results in increased diagnostic yield. Conversely, the addition of NWR to the aforementioned tests provides little improvement to this yield and is less tolerable to the patient. Further studies are needed to determine the actual sensitivity and specificity of CN-PREP when compared to the gold-standard for small fiber neuropathy diagnosis, i.e. intraepidermal nerve fiber density assessment.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Estudos convencionais de eletrodiagnóstico (EDX) são frequentemente usados para apoiar o diagnóstico de dor neuropática periférica. No entanto, o EDX de rotina tem baixo rendimento diagnóstico para identificar neuropatia de pequenas fibras. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o ganho no rendimento diagnóstico pela adição de avaliações de potenciais evocados relacionados à dor com eletrodo concêntrico (CN-PREP) e reflexo de retirada nociceptiva (NWR) ao EDX. MÉTODOS: Estudo de precisão observacional transversal que incluiu pacientes encaminhados para EDX de rotina com dor neuropática crônica em membros inferiores. Além do EDX de rotina, os indivíduos foram submetidos às avaliações CN-PREP e NWR. O rendimento diagnóstico e a tolerabilidade foram examinados e comparados entre os estudos de teste. RESULTADOS: O estudo envolveu 100 pacientes (54% mulheres), com 57 ± 12 anos. O EDX estava alterado em 47%. A adição de CN-PREP sozinho e NWR combinado com CN-PREP aumentou o rendimento diagnóstico para 69% e 72%, respectivamente. O CN-PREP provou ser bem tolerável, enquanto o NWR foi associado a maior intensidade de dor relacionada ao teste e taxa de descontinuação (9% vs. 0%). Considerando o EDX como teste de referência, a sensibilidade do CN-PREP foi de 85,1% e a especificidade de 58,5%. CONCLUSÃO: A combinação do CN-PREP com o EDX de rotina para pacientes com dor neuropática é viável e resulta em maior rendimento diagnóstico. Já a adição de NWR aos testes mencionados fornece pouca melhora nesse rendimento e é menos tolerável para o paciente. Mais estudos são necessários para determinar a real sensibilidade e especificidade do CN-PREP quando comparado ao padrão-ouro para diagnóstico de neuropatia de pequenas fibras, ou seja, a avaliação da densidade de fibras nervosas intraepidérmicas.

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.

Motor corticospinal excitability abnormalities differ between distinct chronic low back pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: It is not known whether cortical plastic changes reported in low-back pain (LBP) are present in all etiologies of LBP. Here we report on the assessment of patients with three LBP conditions: non-specific-LBP (ns-LBP), failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and sciatica (Sc). METHODS: Patients underwent a standardized assessment of clinical pain, conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and measures of motor evoked potential (MEPs)-based motor corticospinal excitability (CE) by transcranial magnetic stimulation, including short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), and intracortical facilitation (ICF). Comparisons were also made with normative data from sex- and age-matched healthy volunteers. RESULTS: 60 patients (42 women, 55.1±9.1 years old) with LBP were included (20 in each group). Pain intensity was higher in patients with neuropathic pain [FBSS (6.8±1.3), and Sc (6.4±1.4)] than in those with ns-LBP (4.7±1.0, P<0.001). The same was shown for pain interference (5.9±2.0, 5.9±1.8, 3.2±1.9, P<0.001), disability (16.4±3.3, 16.3±4.3, 10.4±4.3, P<0.001), and catastrophism (31.1±12.3, 33.0±10.4, 17.4±10.7, P<0.001) scores for FBSS, Sc, and ns-LBP groups, respectively. Patients with neuropathic pain (FBSS, Sc) had lower CPM (-14.8±1.9, -14.1±16.7, respectively) compared to ns-LBP (-25.4±16.6; P<0.02). 80.0% of the FBSS group had defective ICF compared to the other two groups (52.5% for ns-LBP, P=0.025 and 52.5% for Sc, P=0.046). MEPs (140%-rest motor threshold) were low in 50.0% of patients in the FBSS group compared to 20.0% of ns-LBP (P=0.018) and 15.0% of Sc (P=0.001) groups. Higher MEPs were correlated with mood scores (r=0.489), and with lower neuropathic pain symptom scores(r=-0.415) in FBSS. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of LBP were associated with different clinical, CPM and CE profiles, which were not uniquely related to the presence of neuropathic pain. These results highlight the need to further characterize patients with LBP in psychophysics and cortical neurophysiology studies.

Pain paths among post-COVID-19 condition subjects: A prospective cross-sectional study with in-person evaluation.

BACKGROUND: New-onset chronic pain has been acknowledged as part of the post-COVID-19 condition. However, available fine-grained data about its clinical phenotype, trajectories and main associated characteristics remain scarce. We described the distinct temporal evolutions of post-COVID-19 pain and their epidemiological and phenotypical features. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study enrolled post-COVID-19 condition patients (i.e. who had persisting COVID-19-related symptoms over 30 days since their first positive laboratory test), whose COVID-19 diagnosis had been supported by RT-PCR of oral/nasopharyngeal swab or serology. They underwent in-person evaluations with a structured interview, pain and quality-of-life-related questionnaires and thorough physical examination. Chronic pain (CP) and probable neuropathic pain (NP) were defined according to IASP criteria. RESULTS: The present study included 226 individuals, 177 (78.3%) of whom presented over 3 months since their first COVID-19 symptom. New-onset pain occurred in 170 (75.2%) participants and was chronic in 116 (68.2%). A chronic course was associated with COVID-19-related hospitalization, new-onset fatigue, lower cognitive performance, motor and thermal sensory deficits, mood and sleep impairments and overall lower quality-of-life levels. Probable NP occurred in only 7.6% new-onset pain patients, and was associated with pain chronification, new-onset fatigue, motor and thermal sensory deficits, mechanical allodynia and lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Previous CP was reported by 86 (38.1%) individuals and had aggravated after the infection in 66 (76.7%) of them, which was associated with orthostatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Post-COVID pain phenomena follow different paths, which are associated with specific clinical and epidemiological features, and possibly distinct underlying mechanisms, prognostic and therapeutic implications. SIGNIFICANCE: COVID-19-related pain usually follows a chronic course and is non-neuropathic. Its possible courses and phenotypes are associated with distinct clinical and epidemiological features. This suggests differing underlying mechanisms, which may have significant prognostic and therapeutic implications.

Trayectorias del dolor en sujetos con afección post-COVID-19: estudio prospectivo y transversal con evaluación presencial / Pain paths among post-COVID-19 condition subjects: a prospective cross-sectional study with in-person evaluation

Antecedentes: El dolor crónico de nueva aparición se considera que forma parte de la condición o afección post-COVID-19. Sin embargo, los datos detallados existentes sobre el fenotipo clínico, las trayectorias y las principales características asociadas siguen siendo escasos. Describimos las distintas evoluciones temporales del dolor post-COVID-19 y sus rasgos epidemiológicos y fenotípicos. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo y transversal de pacientes con afección post-COVID-19 (es decir, con síntomas persistentes relacionados con la COVID-19 durante 30 días desde la primera prueba positiva de laboratorio) cuyo diagnóstico de COVID-19 estuviera basado en la RT-PCR de un frotis oral/nasofaríngeo o una serología. Se sometieron a evaluaciones presenciales mediante una entrevista estructurada, cuestionarios de dolor y calidad de vida y una exploración física exhaustiva. El dolor crónico (DC) y el dolor neuropático (DN) probablemente se definieron conforme a los criterios IASP.Resultados: El presente estudio incluyó 226 individuos, 177 (78,3 %) de los cuales se presentaron pasados más de 3 meses desde el primer síntoma de COVID-19. Tenían dolor de nueva aparición 170 (75,2 %) de los participantes y dolor crónico 116 (68,2 %). El curso crónico se asociaba a hospitalización por COVID-19, fatiga de nueva aparición, menor rendimiento cognitivo, déficits motores y sensitivos térmicos, alteraciones del ánimo y el sueño, y niveles generalmente inferiores de calidad de vida. El DN probable afectaba a solo el 7,6 % de los pacientes con dolor de nueva aparición y se asociaba a cronificación del dolor, fatiga de nueva aparición, déficits motores y de sensación térmica, alodinia mecánica y tasas menores de vacunación frente al SARS-CoV-2. Referían DC previo 86 (38,1 %) individuos, y este había empeorado tras la infección en 66 (76,7 %) de ellos, lo que se asociaba a hipotensión ortostática...(AU)

Background: New-onset chronic pain has been acknowledged as part of the post-COVID-19 condition. However, available fine-grained data about its clinical phenotype, trajectories and main associated characteristics remain scarce. We described the distinct temporal evolutions of post-COVID-19 pain and their epidemiological and phenotypical features.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study enrolled post-COVID-19 condition patients (i.e. who had persisting COVID-19-related symptoms over 30 days since their first positive laboratory test), whose COVID-19 diagnosis had been supported by RT-PCR of oral/nasopharyngeal swab or serology. They underwent in-person evaluations with a structured interview, pain and quality-of-life-related questionnaires and thorough physical examination. Chronic pain (CP) and probable neuropathic pain (NP) were defined according to IASP criteria.Results: The present study included 226 individuals, 177 (78.3 %) of whom presented over 3 months since their first COVID-19 symptom. Newonset pain occurred in 170 (75.2 %) participants and was chronic in 116 (68.2 %). A chronic course was associated with COVID-19-related hospitalization, new-onset fatigue, lower cognitive performance, motor and thermal sensory deficits, mood and sleep impairments and overall lower quality-of-life levels. Probable NP occurred in only 7.6 % new-onset pain patients, and was associated with pain chronification, new-onset fatigue, motor and thermal sensory deficits, mechanical allodynia and lower rates of SARSCoV-2 vaccination. Previous CP was reported by 86 (38.1 %) individuals and had aggravated after the infection in 66 (76.7 %) of them, which was associated with orthostatic hypotension.Conclusions: Post-COVID pain phenomena follow different paths, which are associated with specific clinical and epidemiological features, and possibly distinct underlying mechanisms, prognostic and therapeutic implications...(AU)

It is time anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies be considered first-line prophylaxis for migraine.

The result of more than thirty years of research, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are currently the state of the art for migraine preventive therapy. Their efficacy and safety, supported by an already large and growing body of evidence, are added by many other advantages: an early onset of action, favorable posology, negligible pharmacological interaction, and a broad-reaching efficacy in many challenging clinical contexts. When compared to standard prophylactics, these novel medications seem at least as efficacious, clearly more tolerable and, consequently, with a superior adherence profile. Furthermore, recently published analyses indicate that they are cost-effective, especially among those with chronic migraine. Yet, current guidelines endorse their use only after multiple other preventives have failed or have been deemed not tolerable. Although this recommendation may have been sensible at first, the now available data strongly point that time has come for anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies to be acknowledged as first-line treatments for migraine patients with severe disability. For these individuals, delaying treatment until several other alternatives have failed incurs in significant losses, both economically and to many relevant aspects of their lives.

It is time anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies be considered first-line prophylaxis for migraine / Já é tempo de os anticorpos monoclonais anti-CGRP serem reconhecidos como profilaxia de primeira linha para a migrânea

ABSTRACT The result of more than thirty years of research, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are currently the state of the art for migraine preventive therapy. Their efficacy and safety, supported by an already large and growing body of evidence, are added by many other advantages: an early onset of action, favorable posology, negligible pharmacological interaction, and a broad-reaching efficacy in many challenging clinical contexts. When compared to standard prophylactics, these novel medications seem at least as efficacious, clearly more tolerable and, consequently, with a superior adherence profile. Furthermore, recently published analyses indicate that they are cost-effective, especially among those with chronic migraine. Yet, current guidelines endorse their use only after multiple other preventives have failed or have been deemed not tolerable. Although this recommendation may have been sensible at first, the now available data strongly point that time has come for anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies to be acknowledged as first-line treatments for migraine patients with severe disability. For these individuals, delaying treatment until several other alternatives have failed incurs in significant losses, both economically and to many relevant aspects of their lives.

RESUMO Frutos de mais de 30 anos de pesquisa, os anticorpos monoclonais anti-CGRP são atualmente o que há de mais moderno no tratamento preventivo da migrânea. À sua eficácia e segurança, já bem estabelecidos por um grande corpo de evidências, acrescentam-se outras vantagens: um início precoce de ação, posologia favorável, mínima interação farmacológica, e eficácia comprovada em uma variedade de contextos clínicos frequentemente desafiadores. Quando comparados a outros profiláticos, estas medicações aparentam ser ao menos tão eficazes, evidentemente mais toleráveis e, portanto, com melhor perfil de adesão. Ademais, estudos recentemente publicados indicam que elas são custo-efetivas, especialmente entre pacientes com migrânea crônica. Ainda assim, as diretrizes atuais orientam o seu uso apenas caso haja refratariedade ou intolerância a múltiplos outros preventivos. Apesar de esta recomendação poder ter sido sensata a priori, os dados disponíveis atualmente corroboram que já é tempo de estes anticorpos monoclonais serem reconhecidos como tratamentos de primeira linha para a migrânea associada à incapacidade grave. Para estes pacientes, demorar a oferecer este tratamento até que outras múltiplas alternativas tenham falhado, leva a perdas significativas, tanto economicamente quanto em múltiplos outros aspectos relevantes das suas vidas.

Posterior-superior insular deep transcranial magnetic stimulation alleviates peripheral neuropathic pain - A pilot double-blind, randomized cross-over study.

OBJECTIVES: Peripheral neuropathic pain (pNeP) is prevalent, and current treatments, including drugs and motor cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) leave a substantial proportion of patients with suboptimal pain relief. METHODS: We explored the intensity and short-term duration of the analgesic effects produced in pNeP patients by 5 days of neuronavigated deep rTMS targeting the posterior superior insula (PSI) with a double-cone coil in a sham-controlled randomized cross-over trial. RESULTS: Thirty-one pNeP patients received induction series of five active or sham consecutive sessions of daily deep-rTMS to the PSI in a randomized sequence, with a washout period of at least 21 days between series. The primary outcome [number of responders (>50% pain intensity reduction from baseline in a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10)] was significantly higher after real (58.1%) compared to sham (19.4%) stimulation (p = 0.002). The number needed to treat was 2.6, and the effect size was 0.97 [95% CI (0.6; 1.3)]. One week after the 5th stimulation day, pain scores were no longer different between groups, and no difference in neuropathic pain characteristics and interference with daily living were present. No major side effects occurred, and milder adverse events (i.e., short-lived headaches after stimulation) were reported in both groups. Blinding was effective, and analgesic effects were not affected by sequence of the stimulation series (active-first or sham-first), age, sex or pain duration of participants. DISCUSSION: PSI deep-rTMS was safe in refractory pNeP and was able to provide significant pain intensity reduction after a five-day induction series of treatments. Post-hoc assessment of neuronavigation targeting confirmed deep-rTMS was delivered within the boundaries of the PSI in all participants. CONCLUSION: PSI deep-rTMS provided significant pain relief during 5-day induction sessions compared to sham stimulation.

Prevalence and characteristics of new-onset pain in COVID-19 survivours, a controlled study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed whether COVID-19 is associated with de novo pain and de novo chronic pain (CP). METHODS: This controlled cross-sectional study was based on phone interviews of patients discharged from hospital after COVID-19 compared to the control group composed of individuals hospitalized during the same period due to non-COVID-19 causes. Patients were classified as having previous CP based on the ICD-11/IASP criteria, de novo pain (i.e. any new type of pain, irrespective of the pain status before hospital stay), and de novo CP (i.e. persistent or recurring de novo pain, lasting more than 3 months) after COVID-19. We assessed pain prevalence and its characteristics, including headache profile, pain location, intensity, interference, and its relationship with fatigue, and persistent anosmia. Forty-six COVID-19 and 73 control patients were included. Both groups had similar sociodemographic characteristics and past medical history. RESULTS: Length of in-hospital-stay and ICU admission rates were significantly higher amongst COVID-19 survivours, while mechanical ventilation requirement was similar between groups. Pre-hospitalisation pain was lower in COVID-19 compared to control group (10.9% vs. 42.5%; p = 0.001). However, the COVID-19 group had a significantly higher prevalence of de novo pain (65.2% vs. 11.0%, p = 0.001), as well as more de novo headache (39.1%) compared to controls (2.7%, p = 0.001). New-onset CP was 19.6% in COVID-19 patients and 1.4% (p = 0.002) in controls. These differences remained significant (p = 0.001) even after analysing exclusively (COVID: n = 40; controls: n = 34) patients who did not report previous pain before the hospital stay. No statistically significant differences were found for mean new-onset pain intensity and interference with daily activities between both groups. COVID-19 pain was more frequently located in the head/neck and lower limbs (p < 0.05). New-onset fatigue was more common in COVID-19 survivours necessitating inpatient hospital care (66.8%) compared to controls (2.5%, p = 0.001). COVID-19 patients who reported anosmia had more new-onset pain (83.3%) compared to those who did not (48.0%, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher prevalence of de novo CP, chronic daily headache, and new-onset pain in general, which was associated with persistent anosmia. SIGNIFICANCE: There exists de novo pain in a substantial number of COVID-19 survivours, and some develop chronic pain. New-onset pain after the infection was more common in patients who reported anosmia after hospital discharge.

Clinical, cerebrospinal fluid, and neuroimaging findings in COVID-19 encephalopathy: a case series.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical, neurological, neuroimaging, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings associated with encephalopathy in patients admitted to a COVID-19 tertiary reference center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of consecutive patients with COVID-19 evaluated by a consulting neurology team from March 30, 2020 through May 15, 2020. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included, 43 of whom showed encephalopathy, and were further divided into mild, moderate, and severe encephalopathy groups. Nineteen patients (44%) had undergone mechanical ventilation and received intravenous sedatives. Eleven (26%) patients were on dialysis. Laboratory markers of COVID-19 severity were very common in encephalopathy patients, but did not correlate with the severity of encephalopathy. Thirty-nine patients underwent neuroimaging studies, which showed mostly non-specific changes. One patient showed lesions possibly related to CNS demyelination. Four had suffered an acute stroke. SARS-CoV-2 was detected by RT-PCR in only one of 21 CSF samples. Two CSF samples showed elevated white blood cell count and all were negative for oligoclonal bands. In our case series, the severity of encephalopathy correlated with higher probability of death during hospitalization (OR = 5.5 for each increment in the degree of encephalopathy, from absent (0) to mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3), p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our consecutive series with 43 encephalopathy cases, neuroimaging and CSF analysis did not support the role of direct viral CNS invasion or CNS inflammation as the cause of encephalopathy.

Spinal Cord Stimulation as a Treatment Option for Refractory Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: Case Report

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common oncological diseases. Chemotherapy is usually recommended as an adjuvant treatment for stage-II, -III, and -IV tumors. Approximately 10% of the patients develop neuropathic pain after chemotherapy, and they may remain refractory despite the administration of drugs that are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Spinal cord stimulation is a good treatment option for neuropathic pain of the lower limbs, and it should be trialed in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. We report the case of a patient with oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy and neuropathic pain refractory to oral medication who was successfully treated by spinal cord stimulation.

Neurological consultations and diagnoses in a large, dedicated COVID-19 university hospital.

BACKGROUND: More than one-third of COVID-19 patients present neurological symptoms ranging from anosmia to stroke and encephalopathy. Furthermore, pre-existing neurological conditions may require special treatment and may be associated with worse outcomes. Notwithstanding, the role of neurologists in COVID-19 is probably underrecognized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the reasons for requesting neurological consultations by internists and intensivists in a COVID-19-dedicated hospital. METHODS: This retrospective study was carried out at Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, a 900-bed COVID-19 dedicated center (including 300 intensive care unit beds). COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR in nasal swabs. All inpatient neurology consultations between March 23rd and May 23rd, 2020 were analyzed. Neurologists performed the neurological exam, assessed all available data to diagnose the neurological condition, and requested additional tests deemed necessary. Difficult diagnoses were established in consensus meetings. After diagnosis, neurologists were involved in the treatment. RESULTS: Neurological consultations were requested for 89 out of 1,208 (7.4%) inpatient COVID admissions during that period. Main neurological diagnoses included: encephalopathy (44.4%), stroke (16.7%), previous neurological diseases (9.0%), seizures (9.0%), neuromuscular disorders (5.6%), other acute brain lesions (3.4%), and other mild nonspecific symptoms (11.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Most neurological consultations in a COVID-19-dedicated hospital were requested for severe conditions that could have an impact on the outcome. First-line doctors should be able to recognize neurological symptoms; neurologists are important members of the medical team in COVID-19 hospital care.

Neurological consultations and diagnoses in a large, dedicated COVID-19 university hospital / Consultas neurológicas e diagnósticos em um grande hospital universitário dedicado a COVID-19

ABSTRACT Background: More than one-third of COVID-19 patients present neurological symptoms ranging from anosmia to stroke and encephalopathy. Furthermore, pre-existing neurological conditions may require special treatment and may be associated with worse outcomes. Notwithstanding, the role of neurologists in COVID-19 is probably underrecognized. Objective: The aim of this study was to report the reasons for requesting neurological consultations by internists and intensivists in a COVID-19-dedicated hospital. Methods: This retrospective study was carried out at Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, a 900-bed COVID-19 dedicated center (including 300 intensive care unit beds). COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR in nasal swabs. All inpatient neurology consultations between March 23rd and May 23rd, 2020 were analyzed. Neurologists performed the neurological exam, assessed all available data to diagnose the neurological condition, and requested additional tests deemed necessary. Difficult diagnoses were established in consensus meetings. After diagnosis, neurologists were involved in the treatment. Results: Neurological consultations were requested for 89 out of 1,208 (7.4%) inpatient COVID admissions during that period. Main neurological diagnoses included: encephalopathy (44.4%), stroke (16.7%), previous neurological diseases (9.0%), seizures (9.0%), neuromuscular disorders (5.6%), other acute brain lesions (3.4%), and other mild nonspecific symptoms (11.2%). Conclusions: Most neurological consultations in a COVID-19-dedicated hospital were requested for severe conditions that could have an impact on the outcome. First-line doctors should be able to recognize neurological symptoms; neurologists are important members of the medical team in COVID-19 hospital care.

RESUMO Introdução: Mais de um terço dos pacientes com COVID-19 apresentam sintomas neurológicos que variam de anosmia a AVC e encefalopatia. Além disso, doenças neurológicas prévias podem exigir tratamento especial e estar associadas a piores desfechos. Não obstante, o papel dos neurologistas na COVID-19 é provavelmente pouco reconhecido. Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi relatar os motivos para solicitar consultas neurológicas por clínicos e intensivistas em um hospital dedicado à COVID-19. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo realizado no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil, um centro dedicado à COVID-19 com 900 leitos (incluindo 300 leitos para unidades de terapia intensiva). O diagnóstico de COVID-19 foi confirmado por SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR em swabs nasais. Todas as interconsultas de neurologia hospitalar entre 23 de março e 23 de maio de 2020 foram analisadas. Os neurologistas realizaram o exame neurológico, avaliaram todos os dados disponíveis para diagnosticar a patologia neurológica e solicitaram exames adicionais conforme necessidade. Diagnósticos difíceis foram estabelecidos em reuniões de consenso. Após o diagnóstico, os neurologistas participaram da condução dos casos. Resultados: Foram solicitadas consultas neurológicas para 89 de 1.208 (7,4%) em pacientes internados por COVID-19 durante o período. Os principais diagnósticos neurológicos incluíram: encefalopatia (44,4%), acidente vascular cerebral (16,7%), doenças neurológicas prévias (9,0%), crises epilépticas (9,0%), transtornos neuromusculares (5,6%), outras lesões encefálicas agudas (3,4%) e outros sintomas leves inespecíficos (11,2%). Conclusões: A maioria das consultas neurológicas em um hospital dedicado à COVID-19 foi solicitada para condições graves que poderiam afetar o desfecho clínico. Os médicos na linha de frente devem ser capazes de reconhecer sintomas neurológicos. Os neurologistas são membros importantes da equipe médica no atendimento hospitalar à COVID-19.

Neurological consultations and diagnoses in a large, dedicated COVID-19 university hospital / Consultas neurológicas e diagnósticos em um grande hospital universitário dedicado a COVID-19

Background: More than one-third of COVID-19 patients present neurological symptomsranging from anosmia to stroke and encephalopathy. Furthermore, pre-existingneurological conditions may require special treatment and may be associated with worseoutcomes. Notwithstanding, the role of neurologists in COVID-19 is probablyunderrecognized. Objective: The aim of this study was to report the reasons forrequesting neurological consultations by internists and intensivists in a COVID-19-dedicated hospital. Methods: This retrospective study was carried out at Hospital dasClínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, a 900-bedCOVID-19 dedicated center (including 300 intensive care unit beds). COVID-19 diagnosiswas confirmed by SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR in nasal swabs. All inpatient neurologyconsultations between March 23rd and May 23rd, 2020 were analyzed. Neurologistsperformed the neurological exam, assessed all available data to diagnose theneurological condition, and requested additional tests deemed necessary. Difficultdiagnoses were established in consensus meetings. After diagnosis, neurologists wereinvolved in the treatment. Results: Neurological consultations were requested for 89 outof 1,208 (7.4%) inpatient COVID admissions during that period. Main neurologicaldiagnoses included: encephalopathy (44.4%), stroke (16.7%), previous neurologicaldiseases (9.0%), seizures (9.0%), neuromuscular disorders (5.6%), other acute brainlesions (3.4%), and other mild nonspecific symptoms (11.2%). Conclusions: Mostneurological consultations in a COVID-19-dedicated hospital were requested for severeconditions that could have an impact on the outcome. First-line doctors should be able torecognize neurological symptoms; neurologists are important members of the medicalteam in COVID-19 hospital care.

Introdução: Mais de um terço dos pacientes com COVID-19 apresentam sintomasneurológicos que variam de anosmia a AVC e encefalopatia. Além disso, doençasneurológicas prévias podem exigir tratamento especial e estar associadas a pioresdesfechos. Não obstante, o papel dos neurologistas na COVID-19 é provavelmentepouco reconhecido. Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo foi relatar os motivos para solicitarconsultas neurológicas por clínicos e intensivistas em um hospital dedicado à COVID-19. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo realizado no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade deMedicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil, um centro dedicado à COVID-19 com900 leitos (incluindo 300 leitos para unidades de terapia intensiva). O diagnóstico deCOVID-19 foi confirmado por SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR em swabs nasais. Todas asinterconsultas de neurologia hospitalar entre 23 de março e 23 de maio de 2020 foramanalisadas. Os neurologistas realizaram o exame neurológico, avaliaram todos os dadosdisponíveis para diagnosticar a patologia neurológica e solicitaram exames adicionaisconforme necessidade. Diagnósticos difíceis foram estabelecidos em reuniões deconsenso. Após o diagnóstico, os neurologistas participaram da condução dos casos.Resultados: Foram solicitadas consultas neurológicas para 89 de 1.208 (7,4%) empacientes internados por COVID-19 durante o período. Os principais diagnósticosneurológicos incluíram: encefalopatia (44,4%), acidente vascular cerebral (16,7%),doenças neurológicas prévias (9,0%), crises epilépticas (9,0%), transtornosneuromusculares (5,6%), outras lesões encefálicas agudas (3,4%) e outros sintomasleves inespecíficos (11,2%). Conclusões: A maioria das consultas neurológicas em umhospital dedicado à COVID-19 foi solicitada para condições graves que poderiam afetaro desfecho clínico. Os médicos na linha de frente devem ser capazes de reconhecersintomas neurológicos. Os neurologistas são membros importantes da equipe médica noatendimento hospitalar à COVID-19.

Popular stroke knowledge in Brazil: A multicenter survey during "World Stroke Day".

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Cerebrovascular disease is one of the most important causes of death and disability worldwide. The patient's inability to identify the warning signs of stroke substantially delays the search for emergency services, which is related directly to a worse outcome. Thus, during the 2011 Stroke Campaign in Brazil, a survey was conducted to identify the lay population's knowledge with regard to the recognition, treatment, and prevention of stroke. DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study was held in cities throughout southeastern Brazil. METHODS: The campaign was conducted by students of several medical schools under the guidance of neurologists (assistants and professors). The students traveled to various public areas in Sao Paulo, Campinas, Sorocaba, Taubaté, and Pouso Alegre, where information about stroke was distributed and a specific questionnaire was administered. RESULTS: A total of 1304 people answered the questionnaire: 43.9% claimed to know what a stroke was, 65% knew someone who has had the disease, 35% knew > 3 risk factors for stroke, and 28.8% knew a preventive measure. Further, 17.9% was able to list at least 3 signs or symptoms of a stroke, 33.6% was aware that they should activate the emergency service, and 3.1% would have checked the time at which the signs and symptoms had developed. CONCLUSION: Despite the severity of stroke, the population that we analyzed has a low level of knowledge. Campaigns should increase the lay population's understanding of this disease, thus improving its prevention and treatment and contributing to public health politics.

Gerstmann's syndrome and unilateral optic ataxia in the emergency department / Síndrome de gerstmann e ataxia óptica unilateral na sala de emergência

ABSTRACT. A 75-year-old right-handed woman presented to the emergency department with simultanagnosia and right unilateral optic ataxia. Moreover, the patient had agraphia, acalculia, digital agnosia and right-left disorientation, consistent with complete Gerstmann's syndrome. This case highlights the concurrence of Gerstmann's syndrome and unilateral optic ataxia in the acute phase of a left middle cerebral artery stroke.

RESUMO. Uma paciente de 75 anos e destra se apresentou à sala de emergência com quadro de simultanagnosia e ataxia óptica unilateral à direita. Além disso, a paciente tinha agrafia, acalculia, agnosia digital e desorientação direita-esquerda, compatíveis com a síndrome de Gerstmann. O presente caso destaca a ocorrência simultânea da síndrome de Gerstmann com ataxia óptica unilateral na fase aguda do acidente vascular cerebral da artéria cerebral média esquerda.