Neuropathic Pain: From Mechanisms to Treatment.

Neuropathic pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system is a common chronic pain condition with major impact on quality of life. Examples include trigeminal neuralgia, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and central poststroke pain. Most patients complain of an ongoing or intermittent spontaneous pain of, for example, burning, pricking, squeezing quality, which may be accompanied by evoked pain, particular to light touch and cold. Ectopic activity in, for example, nerve-end neuroma, compressed nerves or nerve roots, dorsal root ganglia, and the thalamus may in different conditions underlie the spontaneous pain. Evoked pain may spread to neighboring areas, and the underlying pathophysiology involves peripheral and central sensitization. Maladaptive structural changes and a number of cell-cell interactions and molecular signaling underlie the sensitization of nociceptive pathways. These include alteration in ion channels, activation of immune cells, glial-derived mediators, and epigenetic regulation. The major classes of therapeutics include drugs acting on α2δ subunits of calcium channels, sodium channels, and descending modulatory inhibitory pathways.

Structural changes in Schwann cells and nerve fibres in type 1 diabetes: relationship with diabetic polyneuropathy.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to investigate structural changes of cutaneous Schwann cells (SCs), including nociceptive Schwann cells (nSCs) and axons, in individuals with diabetic polyneuropathy. We also aimed to investigate the relationship between these changes and peripheral neuropathic symptoms in type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Skin biopsies (3 mm) taken from carefully phenotyped participants with type 1 diabetes without polyneuropathy (T1D, n=25), type 1 diabetes with painless diabetic polyneuropathy (T1DPN, n=30) and type 1 diabetes with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (P-T1DPN, n=27), and from healthy control individuals (n=25) were immunostained with relevant antibodies to visualise SCs and nerve fibres. Stereological methods were used to quantify the expression of cutaneous SCs and nerve fibres. RESULTS: There was a difference in the number density of nSCs not abutting to nerve fibres between the groups (p=0.004) but not in the number density of nSCs abutting to nerve fibres, nor in solitary or total subepidermal SC soma number density. The overall dermal SC expression (measured by dermal SC area fraction and subepidermal SC process density) and peripheral nerve fibre expression (measured by intraepidermal nerve fibre density, dermal nerve fibre area fraction and subepidermal nerve fibre density) differed between the groups (all p<0.05): significant differences were seen in participants with T1DPN and P-T1DPN compared with those without diabetic polyneuropathy (healthy control and T1D groups) (all p<0.05). No difference was found between participants in the T1DPN and P-T1DPN group, nor between participants in the T1D and healthy control group (all p>0.05). Correlational analysis showed that cutaneous SC processes and nerve fibres were highly associated, and they were weakly negatively correlated with different neuropathy measures. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Cutaneous SC processes and nerves, but not SC soma, are degenerated and interdependent in individuals with diabetic polyneuropathy. However, an increase in structurally damaged nSCs was seen in individuals with diabetic polyneuropathy. Furthermore, dermal SC processes and nerve fibres correlate weakly with clinical measures of neuropathy and may play a partial role in the pathophysiology of diabetic polyneuropathy in type 1 diabetes.

Small and large fiber sensory polyneuropathy in type 2 diabetes: Influence of diagnostic criteria on neuropathy subtypes.

Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) can be classified based on fiber diameter into three subtypes: small fiber neuropathy (SFN), large fiber neuropathy (LFN), and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN). We examined the effect of different diagnostic models on the frequency of polyneuropathy subtypes in type 2 diabetes patients with DPN. This study was based on patients from the Danish Center for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort. We defined DPN as probable or definite DPN according to the Toronto Consensus Criteria. DPN was then subtyped according to four distinct diagnostic models. A total of 277 diabetes patients (214 with DPN and 63 with no DPN) were included in the study. We found a considerable variation in polyneuropathy subtypes by applying different diagnostic models independent of the degree of certainty of DPN diagnosis. For probable and definite DPN, the frequency of subtypes across diagnostic models varied from: 1.4% to 13.1% for SFN, 9.3% to 21.5% for LFN, 51.4% to 83.2% for MFN, and 0.5% to 14.5% for non-classifiable neuropathy (NCN). For the definite DPN group, the frequency of subtypes varied from: 1.6% to 13.5% for SFN, 5.6% to 20.6% for LFN, 61.9% to 89.7% for MFN, and 0.0% to 6.3% for NCN. The frequency of polyneuropathy subtypes depends on the type and number of criteria applied in a diagnostic model. Future consensus criteria should clearly define sensory functions to be tested, methods of testing, and how findings should be interpreted for both clinical practice and research purpose.

Delta and gamma oscillations in operculo-insular cortex underlie innocuous cold thermosensation.

Cold-sensitive and nociceptive neural pathways interact to shape the quality and intensity of thermal and pain perception. Yet the central processing of cold thermosensation in the human brain has not been extensively studied. Here, we used magnetoencephalography and EEG in healthy volunteers to investigate the time course (evoked fields and potentials) and oscillatory activity associated with the perception of cold temperature changes. Nonnoxious cold stimuli consisting of Δ3°C and Δ5°C decrements from an adapting temperature of 35°C were delivered on the dorsum of the left hand via a contact thermode. Cold-evoked fields peaked at around 240 and 500 ms, at peak latencies similar to the N1 and P2 cold-evoked potentials. Importantly, cold-related changes in oscillatory power indicated that innocuous thermosensation is mediated by oscillatory activity in the range of delta (1-4 Hz) and gamma (55-90 Hz) rhythms, originating in operculo-insular cortical regions. We suggest that delta rhythms coordinate functional integration between operculo-insular and frontoparietal regions, while gamma rhythms reflect local sensory processing in operculo-insular areas.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Using magnetoencephalography, we identified spatiotemporal features of central cold processing, with respect to the time course, oscillatory profile, and neural generators of cold-evoked responses in healthy human volunteers. Cold thermosensation was associated with low- and high-frequency oscillatory rhythms, both originating in operculo-insular regions. These results support further investigations of central cold processing using magnetoencephalography or EEG and the clinical utility of cold-evoked potentials for neurophysiological assessment of cold-related small-fiber function and damage.

Effects of Pregabalin in Patients with Neuropathic Pain Previously Treated with Gabapentin: A Pooled Analysis of Parallel-Group, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis compared the therapeutic response of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) who had been previously treated with gabapentin to the therapeutic response in patients who had not received gabapentin previously. METHODS: Data were pooled from 18 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin in patients with NeP. Pregabalin-mediated changes in pain and pain-related sleep interference scores, patient global impression of change scores at endpoint, and the occurrence of adverse events were compared between patients who had received gabapentin previously (+GBN) and patients who had not received gabapentin previously (-GBN). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts with regard to the extent of pain relief and relief of pain-related sleep interference for any dose of pregabalin (150, 300, 600, or 150 to 600 mg/day) at any time point (6, 8, or 12 weeks). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the distribution of patient global impression of change scores at study endpoint, or the occurrence of adverse events, between the -GBN and +GBN cohorts. DISCUSSION: The findings presented here support the idea that pregabalin may be used successfully to treat patients with NeP who may be refractory, respond inadequately, or are intolerant to gabapentin. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring treatment of NeP based on individual patient response to different treatments, including the trial of multiple agents within the same mechanistic class.

Contact Heat Evoked Potentials (CHEPs) in Patients with Mild-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease and Matched Control--A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical studies have found that patients with Alzheimer's disease report pain of less intensity and with a lower affective response, which has been thought to be due to altered pain processing. The authors wished to examine the cerebral processing of non-painful and painful stimuli using somatosensory evoked potentials and contact heat evoked potentials in patients with Alzheimer's disease and in healthy elderly controls. DESIGN: Case-control study SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Twenty outpatients with mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease and in 17 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were included METHOD: Contact heat evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials were recorded in all subjects. Furthermore, warmth detection threshold and heat pain threshold were assessed. Patients and controls also rated quality and intensity of the stimuli. RESULTS: The authors found no difference on contact heat evoked potential amplitude (P = 0.59) or latency of N2 or P2 wave (P = 0.62 and P = 0.75, respectively) between patients and controls. In addition, there was no difference in regard to pain intensity scores or pain quality. The patients and controls had similar warmth detection threshold and heat pain threshold. Somatosensory evoked potentials, amplitude, and latency were within normal range and similar for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the processing of non-painful and painful stimuli is preserved in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.

Effects of deep brain stimulation and verbal suggestions on pain in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, verbal suggestions have been shown to modulate motor and clinical outcomes in treatment with subthalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS). Furthermore, DBS may alleviate pain in PD. However, it is unknown if verbal suggestions influence DBS' effects on pain. METHODS: Twenty-four people with PD and DBS had stimulation downregulated (80-60 to 20%) and upregulated (from 20-60 to 80%) in a blinded manner on randomized test days: (1) with negative and positive suggestions of pain for down- and upregulation, respectively, and (2) with no suggestions to effect (control). Effects of DBS and verbal suggestions were assessed on ongoing and evoked pain (hypertonic saline injections) via 0-10 numerical rating scales along with motor symptoms, expectations, and blinding. RESULTS: Stimulation did not influence ongoing and evoked pain but influenced motor symptoms in the expected direction. Baseline and experimental pain measures showed no patterns in degree of pain. There was a trend toward negative suggestions increasing pain and positive suggestions decreasing pain. Results show significant differences in identical stimulation with negative vs positive suggestions (60% conditions AUC 38.75 vs 23.32, t(13) = 3.10, p < 0.001). Expectations to pain had small to moderate effects on evoked pain. Patients estimated stimulation level correctly within 10 points. CONCLUSION: Stimulation does not seem to influence ongoing and evoked pain, but verbal suggestions may influence pain levels. Patients appear to be unblinded to stimulation level which is an important consideration for future studies testing DBS in an attempted blind fashion.

Placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia in patients with Alzheimer disease and healthy participants.

ABSTRACT: The role of placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) is largely unknown, with only few studies in the area. Therefore, this study aims to investigate to which extent placebo analgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia effects are present in patients experiencing mild-to-moderate AD. Twenty-one patients with AD (test population) and 26 healthy participants (HP; design validation) were exposed to thermal pain stimulation on 3 test days: Lidocaine condition (open/hidden lidocaine administration), capsaicin condition (open/hidden capsaicin administration), and natural history (no treatment), in a randomized, within-subject design. Open lidocaine and open capsaicin were accompanied by verbal suggestions for pain relief and pain increase, respectively. Expected pain and actual pain intensity were measured on a numerical rating scale (0-10). Placebo and nocebo effects were calculated as pain differences in open-hidden lidocaine and capsaicin, respectively, controlled for no treatment. Healthy participants obtained a placebo effect ( P = 0.01) and a trend for a nocebo effect ( P = 0.07). Patients with AD did not obtain a placebo effect ( P = 0.44) nor a significant nocebo effect ( P = 0.86). Healthy participants expected lower and higher pain with open vs hidden lidocaine and capsaicin, respectively ( P < 0.001). The same expectation effects were seen in patients with AD (open vs hidden lidocaine, P = 0.008; open vs hidden capsaicin, P < 0.001). With a well-controlled experimental setting, this study suggests that patients with AD may not experience placebo analgesia effects. Nocebo hyperalgesia effects in patients with AD needs further research. These findings may have implications for the conduction of clinical trials and the treatment of patients with AD in clinical practice.

The effect of lacosamide in peripheral neuropathic pain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phenotype-stratified trial.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is common and difficult to treat. The sodium channel blocker lacosamide is efficacious in animal models of pain, but its effect on neuropathic pain in humans is inconclusive. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled phenotype stratified trial, we examined if lacosamide produced better pain relief in patients with the irritable nociceptor phenotype compared to those without. The primary outcome was the change in daily average pain from baseline to last week of 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included pain relief, patient global impression of change and presence of 30% and 50% pain reduction. RESULTS: The study was prematurely closed with 93 patients included and 63 randomized to lacosamide or placebo in a 2:1 ratio, of which 49 fulfilled the per protocol criteria and was used for the primary objective. We did not find a better effect of lacosamide in patients with the irritable nociceptor phenotype, the 95% CI for the primary objective was 0.41 (-1.2 to 2.0). For all patients randomized, lacosamide had no effect on the primary outcome, but significantly more patients were responders to lacosamide than during placebo, with an NNT of 4.0 (95% CI 2.3-16.1) and 5.0 (95% CI 2.8-24.5) for 30% and 50% pain reduction respectively. We did not identify any predictors for response. Lacosamide was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: We could not confirm that lacosamide was more efficacious in patients with the irritable nociceptor type, but the study was prematurely closed, so we cannot exclude a small difference. SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment of neuropathic pain is often a trial and error process. Little is known about which patient benefit from which kind of medication. The sodium channel blocker lacosamide shows variable effect on neuropathic pain. Pain sensory phenotype, as defined by quantitative sensory testing, did not predict response to treatment with lacosamide.

What is associated with painful polyneuropathy? A cross-sectional analysis of symptoms and signs in patients with painful and painless polyneuropathy.

ABSTRACT: It is still unclear how and why some patients develop painful and others painless polyneuropathy. The aim of this study was to identify multiple factors associated with painful polyneuropathies (NeuP). A total of 1181 patients of the multicenter DOLORISK database with painful (probable or definite NeuP) or painless (unlikely NeuP) probable or confirmed neuropathy were investigated clinically, with questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing. Multivariate logistic regression including all variables (demographics, medical history, psychological symptoms, personality items, pain-related worrying, life-style factors, as well as results from clinical examination and quantitative sensory testing) and machine learning was used for the identification of predictors and final risk prediction of painful neuropathy. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that severity and idiopathic etiology of neuropathy, presence of chronic pain in family, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Fatigue and Depression T-Score, as well as Pain Catastrophizing Scale total score are the most important features associated with the presence of pain in neuropathy. Machine learning (random forest) identified the same variables. Multivariate logistic regression archived an accuracy above 78%, random forest of 76%; thus, almost 4 out of 5 subjects can be classified correctly. This multicenter analysis shows that pain-related worrying, emotional well-being, and clinical phenotype are factors associated with painful (vs painless) neuropathy. Results may help in the future to identify patients at risk of developing painful neuropathy and identify consequences of pain in longitudinal studies.