EFNS guidelines on neurostimulation therapy for neuropathic pain

Neurostimulation therapy in intractable headaches

A proportion of chronic headache patients become refractory to medical treatment and severely disabled. In such patients various neurostimulation methods have been proposed, ranging from invasive procedures such as deep-brain stimulation to minimally invasive ones like occipital nerve stimulation. They have been applied in single cases or small series of patients affected with varying headache disorders: cervicogenic headache, hemicrania continua, posttraumatic headache, chronic migraine, and cluster headache. Although favorable results were reported overall, it is premature to consider neurostimulation as a treatment with established utility in refractory headaches. At present, the most detailed clinical studies have been performed in intractable chronic cluster headache (iCCH) patients, who represent about 1% of all chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients. Various lesional interventions have been attempted in these patients, none with lasting benefits. In recent years, non-destructive neurostimulation methods have raised new hope. Hypothalamic deep-brain stimulation (hDBS) acts rapidly and has lasting efficacy, but is not without risk. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was studied in two trials on a total of 17 iCCH patients. Clinical efficacy was found to be very satisfactory by most patients and by the investigators. Although slightly less efficacious than hDBS, ONS has the advantage of being rather harmless and reversible. At this stage, it should be preferred as first-line invasive therapy for iCCH. Recent case reports mention the efficacy of supraorbital (SNS) and vagal (VNS) nerve stimulation. Whether these neurostimulation methods have a place in the management of iCCH patients remains to be determined.

Pharmacology and treatment of neuropathic pains

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review briefly discusses the definition and clinical presentation of neuropathic pain and highlights recent advances in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent publications have confirmed the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, pregabalin, opioids, and tramadol for various neuropathic pain conditions. Selective serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors have been found to reduce pain in painful neuropathy. The new anticonvulsant lacosamide may have some effect in painful polyneuropathy, whereas levetiracetam has failed to relieve postmastectomy and spinal cord injury pain. The role of the old anticonvulsant phenytoin is still unsettled. A recent trial has found an effect of cannabinoids also in peripheral neuropathic pain. Various topical treatments such as topical lidocaine, topically applied capsaicin in high concentrations (8%), and botulinum toxin have recently been shown to have a pain-relieving effect in various peripheral neuropathic pain conditions. Spinal cord and transcranial magnetic stimulation are stimulation therapies with some evidence for efficacy.

SUMMARY

Treating neuropathic pain remains a great challenge, and the treatment has to be individualized to the single patient, taking into account side effects, pain type, comorbidities, and drug interactions.

Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation and pain

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are two noninvasive brain stimulation techniques that can modulate activity in specific regions of the cortex. At this point, their use in brain stimulation is primarily investigational; however, there is clear evidence that these tools can reduce pain and modify neurophysiologic correlates of the pain experience. TMS has also been used to predict response to surgically implanted stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain. Furthermore, TMS and tDCS can be applied with other techniques, such as event-related potentials and pharmacologic manipulation, to illuminate the underlying physiologic mechanisms of normal and pathological pain. This review presents a description and overview of the uses of two major brain stimulation techniques and a listing of useful references for further study.

Modulation of neuronal activity after spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain; H(2)15O PET study

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for chronic neuropathic pain. However, the detailed mechanisms underlying its effects are not well understood. Positron emission tomography (PET) with H(2)(15)O was applied to clarify these mechanisms. Nine patients with intractable neuropathic pain in the lower limbs were included in the study. All patients underwent SCS therapy for intractable pain, which was due to failed back surgery syndrome in three patients, complex regional pain syndrome in two, cerebral hemorrhage in two, spinal infarction in one, and spinal cord injury in one. Regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) was measured by H(2)(15)O PET before and after SCS. The images were analyzed with statistical parametric mapping software (SPM2). SCS reduced pain; visual analog scale values for pain decreased from 76.1+/-25.2 before SCS to 40.6+/-4.5 after SCS (mean+/-SE). Significant rCBF increases were identified after SCS in the thalamus contralateral to the painful limb and in the bilateral parietal association area. The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and prefrontal areas were also activated after SCS. These results suggest that SCS modulates supraspinal neuronal activities. The contralateral thalamus and parietal association area would regulate the pain threshold. The ACC and prefrontal areas would control the emotional aspects of intractable pain, resulting in the reduction of neuropathic pain after SCS.

Impact of postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy on health care costs

Knowledge of the health care costs associated with neuropathic pain is limited. Existing studies have not directly compared the health care costs of different neuropathic pain conditions, and patients with neuropathic pain have not been compared with control subjects with the same underlying conditions (for example, diabetes). To determine health care costs associated with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), patients with these conditions were selected from 2 different administrative databases of health care claims and respectively matched to control subjects who had a diagnosis of herpes zoster without persisting pain or a diagnosis of diabetes without neurological complications using propensity scores for demographic and clinical factors. Total excess health care costs attributable to PHN and painful DPN and excess costs for inpatient care, outpatient/professional services, and pharmacy expenses were calculated. The results indicated that the annual excess health care costs associated with peripheral neuropathic pain in patients of all ages range from approximately $1600 to $7000, depending on the specific pain condition. Total excess health care costs associated with painful DPN were substantially greater than those associated with PHN, which might reflect the great medical comorbidity associated with DPN.

PERSPECTIVE

The data demonstrate that the health care costs associated with 1 peripheral neuropathic pain condition cannot be extrapolated to other neuropathic pain conditions. The results also increase understanding of the economic burden of PHN and painful DPN and provide a basis for evaluating the impact on health care costs of new interventions for their treatment and prevention.

Analgesia in conjunction with normalisation of thermal sensation following deep brain stimulation for central post-stroke pain

The aetiology of central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is poorly understood and such pains are often refractory to treatment. We report the case of a 56-year-old man, who, following a temporo-parietal infarct, suffered from debilitating and refractory hemi-body cold dysaesthesia and severe tactile allodynia. This was associated with thermal and tactile hypoaesthesia and hypoalgesia on his affected side. Implantation of a deep brain stimulating electrode in his periventricular gray (PVG) region produced an improvement in his pain that was associated with a striking normalisation of his deficits in somatosensory perception. This improvement in pain and thermal sensibility was reversed as stimulation became less effective, because of increased electrode impedance. Therefore, we postulate that the analgesic benefit may have occurred as a consequence of the normalisation of somatosensory function and we discuss these findings in relation to the theories of central pain generation and the potential to engage useful plasticity in central circuits.

Treatment of neuropathic pain: an overview of recent guidelines

A number of different treatments for neuropathic pain have been studied, but the literature is sizable, rapidly evolving, and lacks important information about practical aspects of patient management. Under the auspices of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG), a consensus process was used to develop evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain that take into account clinical efficacy, adverse effects, impact on health-related quality of life, convenience, and costs. On the basis of randomized clinical trials, medications recommended as first-line treatments for neuropathic pain included certain antidepressants (i.e., tricyclic antidepressants and dual reuptake inhibitors of both serotonin and norepinephrine), calcium channel alpha(2)-delta ligands (i.e., gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine. Opioid analgesics and tramadol were recommended as second-line treatments that can be considered for first-line use in selected clinical circumstances. Other medications that generally would be used as third-line treatments include certain other antidepressant and antiepileptic medications, topical capsaicin, mexiletine, and N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists. Two other national and international associations recently published pharmacologic treatment guidelines for neuropathic pain, which are summarized and contrasted with the NeuPSIG recommendations. Recent guidelines for the use of neurostimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain also are summarized. For all treatments for neuropathic pain, long-term studies, head-to-head comparisons, and studies of treatment combinations are a priority for future research.

What do general neurologists need to know about neuropathic pain?

Neuropathic pain (NP) is defined as pain caused by lesion or dysfunction of the somatosensory system, as a result of abnormal activation of the nociceptive pathway (small fibers and spinothalamic tracts). The most common causes of this syndrome are the following: diabetes, post-herpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, HIV infection, cancer. In the last few years, the NP has been receiving special attention for two main reasons: (1) therapeutical refractoriness of a variety of pain syndromes with predominant neuropathic characteristics and (2) the development of diagnostic tools for neuropathic pain complaints. The present review article provides relevant information on the understanding and recognition of NP, as well as evidence-based therapeutic approaches.

Managing chronic neuropathic pain: the role of spinal cord stimulation

In October 2008 the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence issued guidance supporting the use of spinal cord stimulation for people with chronic neuropathic pain, considering it to be a cost-effective use of resources within the NHS. This paper will provide an overview of chronic neuropathic pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) will be explained, including the physiological mechanism and technology behind this treatment. The recent NICE guidance will be discussed along with information relating to the potential impact the guidance will have on Primary Care Trusts, GPs and community practitioners. A guide is provided for clinicians in primary care regarding access to this treatment and routes for referral.

Spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation techniques for neuropathic pain

When comprehensive medical pharmacological therapy titrated to maximum doses fails to provide an appropriate level of analgesia, or side effects associated with these therapies impair the ability to increase the doses to obtain appropriate therapeutic effects in patients with a variety of chronic neuropathic pain conditions, alternative methods, such as spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation, are effective alternative options. This article discusses important concepts to consider when implementing spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation therapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions other than failed back surgery syndrome. The focus is primarily on post-surgical pain syndromes, which are frequently encountered in daily clinical practice.

rTMS for suppressing neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis

This pooled individual data (PID)-based meta-analysis collectively assessed the analgesic effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on various neuropathic pain states based on their neuroanatomical hierarchy. Available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened. PID was coded for age, gender, pain neuroanatomical origins, pain duration, and treatment parameters analyses. Coded pain neuroanatomical origins consist of peripheral nerve (PN); nerve root (NR); spinal cord (SC); trigeminal nerve or ganglion (TGN); and post-stroke supraspinal related pain (PSP). Raw data of 149 patients were extracted from 5 (1 parallel, 4 cross-over) selected (from 235 articles) RCTs. A significant (P < .001) overall analgesic effect (mean percent difference in pain visual analog scale (VAS) score reduction with 95% confidence interval) was detected with greater reduction in VAS with rTMS in comparison to sham. Including the parallel study (Khedr et al), the TGN subgroup was found to have the greatest analgesic effect (28.8%), followed by PSP (16.7%), SC (14.7%), NR (10.0%), and PN (1.5%). The results were similar when we excluded the parallel study with the greatest analgesic effect observed in TGN (33.0%), followed by SC (14.7%), PSP (10.5%), NR (10.0%), and PN (1.5%). In addition, multiple (vs single, P = .003) sessions and lower (>1 and < or =10 Hz) treatment frequency range (vs >10 Hz) appears to generate better analgesic outcome. In short, rTMS appears to be more effective in suppressing centrally than peripherally originated neuropathic pain states.

PERSPECTIVE

This is the first PID-based meta-analysis to assess the differential analgesic effect of rTMS on neuropathic pain based on the neuroanatomical origins of the pain pathophysiology and treatment parameters. The derived information serves as a useful resource in regards to treatment parameters and patient population selection for future rTMS-pain studies.

Motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of refractory peripheral neuropathic pain

Epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been proposed as a treatment for chronic, drug-resistant neuropathic pain of various origins. Regarding pain syndromes due to peripheral nerve lesion, only case series have previously been reported. We present the results of the first randomized controlled trial using chronic MCS in this indication. Sixteen patients were included with pain origin as follows: trigeminal neuralgia (n = 4), brachial plexus lesion (n = 4), neurofibromatosis type-1 (n = 3), upper limb amputation (n = 2), herpes zoster ophthalmicus (n = 1), atypical orofacial pain secondary to dental extraction (n = 1) and traumatic nerve trunk transection in a lower limb (n = 1). A quadripolar lead was implanted, under radiological and electrophysiological guidance, for epidural cortical stimulation. A randomized crossover trial was performed between 1 and 3 months postoperative, during which the stimulator was alternatively switched 'on' and 'off' for 1 month, followed by an open phase during which the stimulator was switched 'on' in all patients. Clinical assessment was performed up to 1 year after implantation and was based on the following evaluations: visual analogue scale (VAS), brief pain inventory, McGill Pain questionnaire, sickness impact profile and medication quantification scale. The crossover trial included 13 patients and showed a reduction of the McGill Pain questionnaire-pain rating index (P = 0.0166, Wilcoxon test) and McGill Pain questionnaire sensory subscore (P = 0.01) when the stimulator was switched 'on' compared to the 'off-stimulation' condition. However, these differences did not persist after adjustment for multiple comparisons. In the 12 patients who completed the open study, the VAS and sickness impact profile scores varied significantly in the follow-up and were reduced at 9-12 months postoperative, compared to the preoperative baseline. At final examination, the mean rate of pain relief on VAS scores was 48% (individual results ranging from 0% to 95%) and MCS efficacy was considered as good or satisfactory in 60% of the patients. Pain relief after 1 year tended to correlate with pain scores at 1 month postoperative, but not with age, pain duration or location, preoperative pain scores or sensory-motor status. Although the results of the crossover trial were slightly negative, which may have been due to carry-over effects from the operative and immediate postoperative phases, observations made during the open trial were in favour of a real efficacy of MCS in peripheral neuropathic pain. Analgesic effects were obtained on the sensory-discriminative rather than on the affective aspect of pain. These results suggest that the indication of MCS might be extended to various types of refractory, chronic peripheral pain beyond trigeminal neuropathic pain.

The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation

OBJECTIVE

After randomizing 100 failed back surgery syndrome patients to receive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) plus conventional medical management (CMM) or CMM alone, the results of the 6-month Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial of the Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation (i.e., PROCESS) showed that SCS offered superior pain relief, health-related quality of life, and functional capacity. Because the rate of crossover favoring SCS beyond 6 months would bias a long-term randomized group comparison, we present all outcomes in patients who continued SCS from randomization to 24 months and, for illustrative purposes, the primary outcome (>50% leg pain relief) per randomization and final treatment.

METHODS

Patients provided data on pain, quality of life, function, pain medication use, treatment satisfaction, and employment status. Investigators documented adverse events. Data analysis included inferential comparisons and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

The 42 patients continuing SCS (of 52 randomized to SCS) reported significantly improved leg pain relief (P < 0.0001), quality of life (P <or= 0.01), and functional capacity (P = 0.0002); and 13 patients (31%) required a device-related surgical revision. At 24 months, of 46 of 52 patients randomized to SCS and 41 of 48 randomized to CMM who were available, the primary outcome was achieved by 17 (37%) randomized to SCS versus 1 (2%) to CMM (P = 0.003) and by 34 (47%) of 72 patients who received SCS as final treatment versus 1 (7%) of 15 for CMM (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

At 24 months of SCS treatment, selected failed back surgery syndrome patients reported sustained pain relief, clinically important improvements in functional capacity and health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment.

Future treatment strategies for neuropathic pain

The prevalence of people suffering from chronic pain is extremely high and pain affects millions of people worldwide. As such, persistent pain represents a major health problem and an unmet clinical need. The reason for the high incidence of chronic pain patients is in a large part due to a paucity of effective pain control. An important reason for poor pain control is undoubtedly a deficit in our understanding of the underlying causes of chronic pain and as a consequence our arsenal of analgesic therapies is limited. However, there is considerable hope for the development of new classes of analgesic drugs by targeting novel processes contributing to clinically relevant pain. In this chapter we highlight a number of molecular species which are potential therapeutic targets for future neuropathic pain treatments. In particular, the roles of voltage-gated ion channels, neuroinflammation, protein kinases and neurotrophins are discussed in relation to the generation of neuropathic pain and how by targeting these molecules it may be possible to provide better pain control than is currently available.

Neuropathic pain: quality-of-life impact, costs and cost effectiveness of therapy

A number of different diseases or injuries can damage the central or peripheral nervous system and produce neuropathic pain (NP), which seems to be more difficult to treat than many other types of chronic pain. As a group, patients with NP have greater medical co-morbidity burden than age- and sex-adjusted controls, which makes determining the humanistic and economic burden attributable to NP challenging. Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) is substantially impaired among patients with NP. Patients describe pain-related interference in multiple HR-QOL and functional domains, as well as reduced ability to work and reduced mobility due to their pain. In addition, the spouses of NP patients have been shown to experience adverse social consequences related to NP. In randomized controlled trials, several medications have been shown to improve various measures of HR-QOL. Changes in HR-QOL appear to be tightly linked to pain relief, but not to the development of adverse effects. However, in cross-sectional studies, many patients continue to have moderate or severe pain and markedly impaired HR-QOL, despite taking medications prescribed for NP. The quality of NP treatment appears to be poor, with few patients receiving recommended medications in efficacious dosages. The substantial costs to society of NP derive from direct medical costs, loss of the ability to work, loss of caregivers' ability to work and possibly greater need for institutionalization or other living assistance. No single study has measured all of these costs to society for chronic NP. The cost effectiveness of various interventions for the treatment or prevention of different types of NP has been assessed in several different studies. The most-studied diseases are post-herpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, for which tricyclic antidepressants (both amitriptyline and desipramine) have been found to be either cost effective or dominant relative to other strategies. Increasing the use of cost-effective therapies such as tricyclic antidepressants for post-herpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy may improve the HR-QOL of patients and decrease societal costs. Head-to-head clinical trials comparing NP therapies are needed to help assess the relative clinical efficacy of treatments, ideally using HR-QOL and utility outcomes. The full costs to society of NP, including productivity loss costs, have not been determined for chronic NP. Improved relative efficacy, utility and cost estimates would facilitate future cost-effectiveness research in NP.

Use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in pain relief

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the cerebral cortex is a noninvasive strategy that could have the potential to relieve severe chronic pain, at least partially and transiently. The most studied target of stimulation is the precentral (motor) cortex, but other targets, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or the parietal cortex, could be of interest. Analgesic effects have been produced by rTMS in patients with neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia or visceral pain. Therapeutic applications of rTMS in pain syndromes are limited by the short duration of the induced effects, but prolonged pain relief can be obtained by performing rTMS sessions every day for several weeks. In patients who respond to rTMS but relapse, surgical implantation of epidural cortical electrodes and a pulse generator can be proposed to make clinical effects more permanent. The rate of improvement produced by rTMS may be predictive for the outcome of the implanted procedure. The place of rTMS as a therapeutic tool in the management of chronic pain remains to be determined.