Postherpetic neuralgia: topical lidocaine is effective in nociceptor-deprived skin

Personalized treatment of neuropathic pain: Where are we now?

BACKGROUND

The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major unmet need that the development of personalized and refined treatment strategies may contribute to address.

DATABASE

In this narrative review, we summarize the various approaches based on objective biomarkers or clinical markers that could be used.

RESULTS

In principle, the validation of objective biomarkers would be the most robust approach. However, although promising results have been reported demonstrating a potential value of genomics, anatomical or functional markers, the clinical validation of these markers has only just begun. Thus, most of the strategies documented to date have been based on the development of clinical markers. In particular, many studies have suggested that the identification of specific subgroups of patients presenting with specific combinations of symptoms and signs would be a relevant approach. Two main approaches have been used to identify relevant sensory profiles: quantitative sensory testing and specific patients reported outcomes based on description of pain qualities.

CONCLUSION

We discuss here the advantages and limitations of these approaches, which are not mutually exclusive.

SIGNIFICANCE

Recent data indicate that various new treatment strategies based on predictive biological and/or clinical markers could be helpful to better personalized and therefore improve the management of neuropathic pain.

Phenotypes and Genotypes in Postherpetic Neuralgia Drug Therapy: A Narrative Mini-review

Neuropathic pain is a debilitating symptom reported by patients presenting with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Efforts to alleviate this pain have been projected to lie in individualization of pharmacological treatment through pain phenotyping and subsequent investigations into the genetic basis of PHN therapy. Understanding the various mechanisms related to these phenotypes can aid in improvement of available treatment options and discovery of new ones. Knowledge and application of genetic variations in PHN, structural proteins, and genes can aid in ascertaining risk, susceptibility to, severity of, and protection from PHN. This review summarizes the most recent information that has been published on phenotypes and genotypes with possible clinical applications and directions for future research.

A Review of the Clinical and Therapeutic Implications of Neuropathic Pain

Understanding neuropathic pain presents several challenges, given the various mechanisms underlying its pathophysiological classification and the lack of suitable tools to assess its diagnosis. Furthermore, the response of this pathology to available drugs is still often unpredictable, leaving the treatment of neuropathic pain still questionable. In addition, the rise of personalized treatments further extends the ramified classification of neuropathic pain. While a few authors have focused on neuropathic pain clustering, by analyzing, for example, the presence of specific TRP channels, others have evaluated the presence of alterations in microRNAs to find tailored therapies. Thus, this review aims to synthesize the available evidence on the topic from a clinical perspective and provide a list of current demonstrations on the treatment of this disease.

α2δ-1 Upregulation in Primary Sensory Neurons Promotes NMDA Receptor-Mediated Glutamatergic Input in Resiniferatoxin-Induced Neuropathy

Systemic treatment with resiniferatoxin (RTX) induces small-fiber sensory neuropathy by damaging TRPV1-expressing primary sensory neurons and causes distinct thermal sensory impairment and tactile allodynia, which resemble the unique clinical features of postherpetic neuralgia. However, the synaptic plasticity associated with RTX-induced tactile allodynia remains unknown. In this study, we found that RTX-induced neuropathy is associated with α2δ-1 upregulation in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and increased physical interaction between α2δ-1 and GluN1 in the spinal cord synaptosomes. RNAscope in situ hybridization showed that RTX treatment significantly increased α2δ-1 expression in DRG neurons labeled with calcitonin gene-related peptide, isolectin B4, NF200, and tyrosine hydroxylase. Electrophysiological recordings revealed that RTX treatment augmented the frequency of miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents (mEPSCs) and the amplitude of evoked EPSCs in spinal dorsal horn neurons, and these effects were reversed by blocking NMDA receptors with AP-5. Inhibiting α2δ-1 with gabapentin, genetically ablating α2δ-1, or targeting α2δ-1-bound NMDA receptors with α2δ-1Tat peptide largely normalized the baseline frequency of mEPSCs and the amplitude of evoked EPSCs potentiated by RTX treatment. Furthermore, systemic treatment with memantine or gabapentin and intrathecal injection of AP-5 or Tat-fused α2δ-1 C terminus peptide reversed allodynia in RTX-treated rats and mice. In addition, RTX-induced tactile allodynia was attenuated in α2δ-1 knock-out mice and in mice in which GluN1 was conditionally knocked out in DRG neurons. Collectively, our findings indicate that α2δ-1-bound NMDA receptors at presynaptic terminals of sprouting myelinated afferent nerves contribute to RTX-induced potentiation of nociceptive input to the spinal cord and tactile allodynia.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), associated with shingles, is a distinct form of neuropathic pain commonly seen in elderly and immunocompromised patients. The synaptic plasticity underlying touch-induced pain hypersensitivity in PHN remains unclear. Using a nonviral animal model of PHN, we found that glutamatergic input from primary sensory nerves to the spinal cord is increased via tonic activation of glutamate NMDA receptors. Also, we showed that α2δ-1 (encoded by Cacna2d1), originally considered a calcium channel subunit, serves as an auxiliary protein that promotes activation of presynaptic NMDA receptors and pain hypersensitivity. This new information advances our understanding of the molecular mechanism underlying PHN and suggests new strategies for treating this painful condition.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for “precision medicine” or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Static mechanical allodynia in post-surgical neuropathic pain after breast cancer treatments

Objectives Static mechanical allodynia (SMA), i. e., pain caused by normally non-painful static pressure, is a prevalent manifestation of neuropathic pain (NP). Although SMA may significantly affect the patient's daily life, it is less well studied in the clinical context. We aimed to characterize SMA in women with chronic post-surgical NP (CPSNP) after breast cancer surgery. Our objective was to improve understanding of the clinical picture of this prevalent pain condition. This is a substudy of a previously published larger cohort of patients with intercostobrachial nerve injury after breast cancer surgery (Mustonen et al. Pain. 2019;160:246-56). Methods We studied SMA in 132 patients with CPSNP after breast cancer surgery. The presence, location, and intensity of SMA were assessed at clinical sensory examination. The patients gave self-reports of pain with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). We studied the association of SMA to type of surgery, oncological treatments, BMI, other pains, and psychological factors. General pain sensitivity was assessed by the cold pressor test. Results SMA was prevalent (84%) in this cohort whereas other forms of allodynia were scarce (6%). Moderate-to-severe SMA was frequently observed even in patients who reported mild pain in BPI. Breast and the side of chest were the most common locations of SMA. SMA was associated with breast surgery type, but not with psychological factors. Severe SMA, but not self-reported pain, was associated with lower cold pain tolerance. Conclusions SMA is prevalent in post-surgical NP after breast cancer surgery and it may represent a distinct NP phenotype. High intensities of SMA may signal the presence of central sensitization. Implications SMA should be considered when examining and treating patients with post-surgical NP after breast cancer surgery.

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.

Sensory bedside testing: a simple stratification approach for sensory phenotyping

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Stratification of patients according to the individual sensory phenotype has been suggested a promising method to identify responders for pain treatment. However, many state-of-the-art sensory testing procedures are expensive or time-consuming.

Objectives:

Therefore, this study aimed to present a selection of easy-to-use bedside devices.

Methods:

In total, 73 patients (39 m/34 f) and 20 controls (11 m/9 f) received a standardized laboratory quantitative sensory testing (QST) and a bedside-QST. In addition, 50 patients were tested by a group of nonexperienced investigators to address the impact of training. The sensitivity, specificity, and receiver-operating characteristics were analyzed for each bedside-QST parameter as compared to laboratory QST. Furthermore, the patients' individual sensory phenotype (ie, cluster) was determined using laboratory QST, to select bedside-QST parameters most indicative for a correct cluster allocation.

Results:

The bedside-QST parameters “loss of cold perception to 22°C metal,” “hypersensitivity towards 45°C metal,” “loss of tactile perception to Q-tip and 0.7 mm CMS hair,” as well as “the allodynia sum score” indicated good sensitivity and specificity (ie, ≳70%). Results of interrater variability indicated that training is necessary for individual parameters (ie, CMS 0.7). For the cluster assessment, the respective bedside quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameter combination indicated the following agreements as compared to laboratory QST stratification: excellent for “sensory loss” (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.91), good for “thermal hyperalgesia” (AUC = 0.83), and fair for “mechanical hyperalgesia” (AUC = 0.75).

Conclusion:

This study presents a selection of bedside parameters to identify the individual sensory phenotype as cost and time efficient as possible.

Stratification of neuropathic pain patients: the road to mechanism-based therapy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It has been demonstrated that within one pain entity, patients may report highly heterogenic sensory signs and symptoms. Although mechanism might differ fundamentally between those patients, yet the treatment recommendations are uniform throughout all phenotypes. Therefore, the introduction of new stratification tools could pave the way to an individualized pain treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past, retrospective stratifications of patients successfully identified responders to certain pharmacological treatments. This indicated predictive validity and reliability of this classification tool in those patient subgroups. Further on, these observations have been confirmed in prospective studies.

SUMMARY

This review focusses on recent achievements in neuropathic pain and suggests a promising implementation of an individualized pharmacological therapy in the future.

Rethinking the causes of pain in herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia: the ectopic pacemaker hypothesis

INTRODUCTION

Pain in herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is traditionally explained in terms of 2 processes: irritable nociceptors in the rash-inflamed skin and, later, deafferentation due to destruction of sensory neurons in one virally infected dorsal root ganglion.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Consideration of the evidence supporting this explanation in light of contemporary understanding of the pain system finds it wanting. An alternative hypothesis is proposed as a replacement.

RESULTS

This model, the ectopic pacemaker hypothesis of HZ and PHN, proposes that pain in both conditions is driven by hyperexcitable ectopic pacemaker sites at various locations in primary sensory neurons affected by the causative varicella zoster virus infection. This peripheral input is exacerbated by central sensitization induced and maintained by the ectopic activity.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift in perspective regarding the pain mechanism in HZ/PHN has specific implications for clinical management.

Stratifying patients with peripheral neuropathic pain based on sensory profiles: algorithm and sample size recommendations

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Phenotype stratification of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain can be conducted with a novel algorithm based on sensory profiles.

In a recent cluster analysis, it has been shown that patients with peripheral neuropathic pain can be grouped into 3 sensory phenotypes based on quantitative sensory testing profiles, which are mainly characterized by either sensory loss, intact sensory function and mild thermal hyperalgesia and/or allodynia, or loss of thermal detection and mild mechanical hyperalgesia and/or allodynia. Here, we present an algorithm for allocation of individual patients to these subgroups. The algorithm is nondeterministic—ie, a patient can be sorted to more than one phenotype—and can separate patients with neuropathic pain from healthy subjects (sensitivity: 78%, specificity: 94%). We evaluated the frequency of each phenotype in a population of patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (n = 151), painful peripheral nerve injury (n = 335), and postherpetic neuralgia (n = 97) and propose sample sizes of study populations that need to be screened to reach a subpopulation large enough to conduct a phenotype-stratified study. The most common phenotype in diabetic polyneuropathy was sensory loss (83%), followed by mechanical hyperalgesia (75%) and thermal hyperalgesia (34%, note that percentages are overlapping and not additive). In peripheral nerve injury, frequencies were 37%, 59%, and 50%, and in postherpetic neuralgia, frequencies were 31%, 63%, and 46%. For parallel study design, either the estimated effect size of the treatment needs to be high (>0.7) or only phenotypes that are frequent in the clinical entity under study can realistically be performed. For crossover design, populations under 200 patients screened are sufficient for all phenotypes and clinical entities with a minimum estimated treatment effect size of 0.5.

Postherpetic Neuralgia and Trigeminal Neuralgia

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is an unpredictable complication of varicella zoster virus- (VZV-) induced herpes zoster (HZ) which often occurs in elderly and immunocompromised persons and which can induce psychosocial dysfunction and can negatively impact on quality of life. Preventive options for PHN include vaccination of high-risk persons against HZ, early use of antiviral agents, and robust management of pain during the early stage of acute herpes zoster. If it does occur, PHN may persist for months or even years after resolution of the HZ mucocutaneous eruptions, and treatment is often only partially effective. Classical trigeminal neuralgia is a severe orofacial neuropathic pain condition characterized by unilateral, brief but recurrent, lancinating paroxysmal pain confined to the distribution of one or more of the branches of the trigeminal nerve. It may be idiopathic or causally associated with vascular compression of the trigeminal nerve root. The anticonvulsive agents, carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine, constitute the first-line treatment. Microvascular decompression or ablative procedures should be considered when pharmacotherapy is ineffective or intolerable. The aim of this short review is briefly to discuss the etiopathogenesis, clinical features, and treatment of PHN and classical trigeminal neuralgia.

Peripheral neuropathic pain: a mechanism-related organizing principle based on sensory profiles

More than 1100 patients with neuropathic pain were examined using quantitative sensory testing. Independent of the etiology, 3 subtypes with distinct sensory profiles were identified and replicated.

Patients with neuropathic pain are heterogeneous in etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical appearance. They exhibit a variety of pain-related sensory symptoms and signs (sensory profile). Different sensory profiles might indicate different classes of neurobiological mechanisms, and hence subgroups with different sensory profiles might respond differently to treatment. The aim of the investigation was to identify subgroups in a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain using hypothesis-free statistical methods on the database of 3 large multinational research networks (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), IMI-Europain, and Neuropain). Standardized quantitative sensory testing was used in 902 (test cohort) and 233 (validation cohort) patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies. For subgrouping, we performed a cluster analysis using 13 quantitative sensory testing parameters. Three distinct subgroups with characteristic sensory profiles were identified and replicated. Cluster 1 (sensory loss, 42%) showed a loss of small and large fiber function in combination with paradoxical heat sensations. Cluster 2 (thermal hyperalgesia, 33%) was characterized by preserved sensory functions in combination with heat and cold hyperalgesia and mild dynamic mechanical allodynia. Cluster 3 (mechanical hyperalgesia, 24%) was characterized by a loss of small fiber function in combination with pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia. All clusters occurred across etiologies but frequencies differed. We present a new approach of subgrouping patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies according to intrinsic sensory profiles. These 3 profiles may be related to pathophysiological mechanisms and may be useful in clinical trial design to enrich the study population for treatment responders.

The Potential Role of Sensory Testing, Skin Biopsy, and Functional Brain Imaging as Biomarkers in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials: IMMPACT Considerations

Valid and reliable biomarkers can play an important role in clinical trials as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or as a signal of treatment response. Currently, there are no biomarkers for pain qualified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for use in clinical trials. This article summarizes an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting in which 3 potential biomarkers were discussed for use in the development of analgesic treatments: 1) sensory testing, 2) skin punch biopsy, and 3) brain imaging. The empirical evidence supporting the use of these tests is described within the context of the 4 categories of biomarkers: 1) diagnostic, 2) prognostic, 3) predictive, and 4) pharmacodynamic. Although sensory testing, skin punch biopsy, and brain imaging are promising tools for pain in clinical trials, additional evidence is needed to further support and standardize these tests for use as biomarkers in pain clinical trials.

PERSPECTIVE

The applicability of sensory testing, skin biopsy, and brain imaging as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers for use in analgesic treatment trials is considered. Evidence in support of their use and outlining problems is presented, as well as a call for further standardization and demonstrations of validity and reliability.

Exploring pain pathophysiology in patients

Although animal models of pain have brought invaluable information on basic processes underlying pain pathophysiology, translation to humans is a problem. This Review will summarize what information has been gained by the direct study of patients with chronic pain. The techniques discussed range from patient phenotyping using quantitative sensory testing to specialized nociceptor neurophysiology, imaging methods of peripheral nociceptors, analyses of body fluids, genetics and epigenetics, and the generation of sensory neurons from patients via inducible pluripotent stem cells.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for "precision medicine" or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster for localized neuropathic pain in thoracic surgical patients

CONTEXT

Neuropathic pain is a common and distressing symptom in thoracic surgical patients. When it consistently presents with measurable sensory changes in a circumscribed area, neuropathic pain can be diagnosed as localized neuropathic pain (LNP).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to report the efficacy of lidocaine 5% medicated plaster (Lido5%P) in the treatment of LNP in thoracic surgical patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of sixteen cancer and noncancer thoracic patients treated with Lido5%P for LNP. Patients had been assessed before and during treatment with standardized forms and questionnaires for pain intensity, sleep quality, drug dosages and adverse events.

RESULTS

Treatment with Lido5%P yielded a significant and lasting improvement in pain symptomatology. In oncological patients as an add-on therapy, Lido5%P improved pain intensity and sleep quality, and delayed opioid dose escalation. In non-oncological patients as monotherapy or in association with antineuropathic drugs, Lido5%P attenuated LNP. No local or systemic adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Lido5%P was effective in relieving thoracic LNP, and was well tolerated.

The 5% Lidocaine-Medicated Plaster: Its Inclusion in International Treatment Guidelines for Treating Localized Neuropathic Pain, and Clinical Evidence Supporting its Use

When peripheral neuropathic pain affects a specific, clearly demarcated area of the body, it may be described as localized neuropathic pain (LNP). Examples include postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, as well as post-surgical and post-traumatic pain. These conditions may respond to topical treatment, i.e., pharmaceutical agents acting locally on the peripheral nervous system, and the topical route offers advantages over systemic administration. Notably, only a small fraction of the dose reaches the systemic circulation, thereby reducing the risk of systemic adverse effects, drug–drug interactions and overdose. From the patient’s perspective, the analgesic agent is easily applied to the most painful area(s). The 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster has been used for several years to treat LNP and is registered in approximately 50 countries. Many clinical guidelines recommend this treatment modality as a first-line option for treating LNP, particularly in frail and/or elderly patients and those receiving multiple medications, because the benefit-to-risk ratios are far better than those of systemic analgesics. However, some guidelines make only a weak recommendation for its use. This paper considers the positioning of the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in international treatment guidelines and how they may be influenced by the specific criteria used in developing them, such as the methodology employed by randomized, placebo-controlled trials. It then examines the body of evidence supporting use of the plaster in some prevalent LNP conditions. Common themes that emerge from clinical studies are: (1) the excellent tolerability and safety of the plaster, which can increase patients’ adherence to treatment, (2) continued efficacy over long-term treatment, and (3) significant reduction in the size of the painful area. On this basis, it is felt that the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster should be more strongly recommended for treating LNP, either as one component of a multimodal approach or as monotherapy.

Predictors of Response in Patients With Postherpetic Neuralgia and HIV-Associated Neuropathy Treated With the 8% Capsaicin Patch (Qutenza)

OBJECTIVES

Qutenza is a high-dose capsaicin patch used to relieve neuropathic pain from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and HIV-associated neuropathy (HIV-AN). In clinical studies, some patients had a dramatic response to the capsaicin patch. Our objective was to determine the baseline characteristics of patients who best benefit from capsaicin patch treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 6 completed randomized and controlled Qutenza studies by pooling individual patient data. Sustained response was defined as>50% decrease in the mean pain intensity from baseline to weeks 2 to 12, and Complete Response as an average pain intensity score≤1 during weeks 2 to 12. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of response and Complete Response, and subgroups of patients who respond best to the capsaicin patch.

RESULTS

Baseline pain intensity score (BPIS)≤4 was a predictor of Sustained and Complete Response in PHN and HIV-AN patients; absence of allodynia and presence of hypoesthesia, and a McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) sensory score <22 were predictors of Sustained Response in PHN patients; female sex was a predictor of Sustained and Complete Response in HIV-AN patients. Thus, characteristics associated with the highest chance of responding to the capsaicin patch were, for PHN, BPIS≤4, MPQ sensory score≤22, absence of allodynia, and presence of hypoesthesia; for HIV-AN, they were female sex and BPIS≤4. Patients with these characteristics had a statistically significantly greater chance of responding to the capsaicin patch than other patients.

DISCUSSION

We identified subpopulations of PHN and HIV-AN patients likely to benefit from the capsaicin patch.

Neuropathic Pain due to Small Fiber Neuropathy in Aging: Current Management and Future Prospects

Over the last 10 years, the diagnosis small fiber neuropathy (SFN) has gained recognition worldwide. Patients often suffer from severe neuropathic pain that may be difficult to treat. A substantial subset of patients with SFN is aged 65 years or older, and these patients often exhibit comorbidities and usage of multiple drugs, making neuropathic pain treatment more challenging. In this review, we highlight relevant pathophysiological aspects and discuss currently used therapeutic strategies for neuropathic pain. Possible pitfalls in neuropathic pain treatment in the elderly will be underlined.

The topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in localized neuropathic pain: a reappraisal of the clinical evidence

Topical 5% lidocaine medicated plasters represent a well-established first-line option for the treatment of peripheral localized neuropathic pain (LNP). This review provides an updated overview of the clinical evidence (randomized, controlled, and open-label clinical studies, real-life daily clinical practice, and case series). The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster effectively provides pain relief in postherpetic neuralgia, and data from a large open-label controlled study indicate that the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is as effective as systemic pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic polyneuropathy but with an improved tolerability profile. Additionally, improved analgesia and fewer side effects were experienced by patients treated synchronously with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, further demonstrating the value of multimodal analgesia in LNP. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster provides continued benefit after long-term (≤7 years) use and is also effective in various other LNP conditions. Minor application-site reactions are the most common adverse events associated with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster; there is minimal risk of systemic adverse events and drug–drug interactions. Although further well-controlled studies are warranted, the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is efficacious and safe in LNP and may have particular clinical benefit in elderly and/or medically compromised patients because of the low incidence of adverse events.

Neuropathic pain in people with cancer (part 2): pharmacological and non-pharmacological management

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the management of neuropathic pain associated with cancer and to provide helpful clinical advice for nurses working with patients who may have neuropathic pain. While cancer pain is a mixed-mechanism pain, this article will focus only on neuropathic pain management. The impact of neuropathic pain on patients' quality of life is great and while many patients recover from their cancer, a significant number continue to suffer from a neuropathic pain syndrome. Management of neuropathic pain is significantly different from management of nociceptive pain with respect to pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Neuropathic pain is complex, and as such requires complex management using pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological approaches. Specific drugs for neuropathic pain may be effective for some patients, but not all; therefore, ongoing and comprehensive assessment and management are required. Furthermore, these patients may require trials of several drugs before they find one that works for them. It is important for nurses to understand neuropathic pain, its manifestation, impact on quality of life and management when nursing patients with neuropathic pain associated with cancer.

Skin Matters: A Review of Topical Treatments for Chronic Pain. Part Two: Treatments and Applications

In Part One of this two-part series, we discussed skin physiology and anatomy as well as generalities concerning topical analgesics. This modality of therapy has lesser side effects and drug-drug interactions, and patients tolerate this form of therapy better than many oral options. Unfortunately, this modality is not used as often as it could be in chronic pain states, such as that from neuropathic pain. Part Two discusses specific therapies, local anesthetics, and other drugs, as well as how a clinician might use specific aspects of a patient's neuropathic pain presentation to help guide them in the selection of a topical agent.

Alternative methods of pain management for the older adult population: Review of topical pain medications

The older adult population is one of the fastest growing age groups in the United States. As this population continues to expand, determining the safest way to provide pain management has become increasingly important. More than 50% of community-dwelling older adults experience pain on a daily basis, and up to 83% of those in assisted living facilities experience persistent pain. Pain is exceedingly challenging to treat safely and effectively in the elderly because of the physiologic changes that occur as people age. In addition, many nonnarcotic medications with analgesic properties are listed in both the 2012 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults and the Pharmacy Quality Alliance high-risk medications lists. An approach to the growing challenge of managing pain in the elderly that is gaining popularity among community-dwelling patients is the use of topical pain medications. The goal of this article is to review some of the available literature regarding the use of various topical analgesics alone or in combination, and to discuss their known or theoretical mechanisms of peripheral pain modulation. Commercially available or compounded topical pain medications may be used to replace or augment doses of oral medications in an effort to decrease the risk of adverse drug events for older adult patients. When prescribing topical pain medications physicians should consider the nature of the pain targeted, the type of analgesia expected from each ingredient, the potential for systemic absorption, and related side effects.

5% Lidocaine Medicated Plaster for the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Review of the Clinical Safety and Tolerability

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, very painful, and often long-lasting complication of herpes zoster which is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. It mainly affects the elderly, many of whom are already treated for comorbidities with a variety of systemic medications and are thus at high risk of drug-drug interactions. An efficacious and safe treatment with a low interaction potential is therefore of high importance. This review focuses on the safety and tolerability of the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, a topical analgesic indicated for the treatment of PHN. The available literature (up to June 2014) was searched for publications containing safety data regarding the use of the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in PHN treatment; unpublished clinical safety data were also included in this review. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster demonstrated good short- and long-term tolerability with low systemic uptake (3 ± 2%) and minimal risk for systemic adverse drug reactions (ADRs). ADRs related to topical lidocaine treatment were mainly application site reactions of mild to moderate intensity. The treatment discontinuation rate was generally below 5% of patients. In one trial, the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster was better tolerated than systemic treatment with pregabalin. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster provides a safe alternative to systemic medications for PHN treatment, including long-term pain treatment.

Individualized pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain

Patients with the same disease may suffer from completely different pain symptoms yet receive the same drug treatment. Several studies elucidate neuropathic pain and treatment response in human surrogate pain models. They show promising results toward a patient stratification according to the mechanisms underlying the pain, as reflected in their symptoms. Several promising new drugs produced negative study results in clinical phase III trials. However, retrospective analysis of treatment response based on baseline pain phenotyping could demonstrate positive results for certain subgroups of patients. Thus, a prospective classification of patients according to pain phenotype may play an increasingly important role in personalized treatment of neuropathic pain states. A recent prospective study using stratification based on pain-related sensory abnormalities confirmed the concept of personalized pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain.

Topical lidocaine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Lidocaine is a local anaesthetic that is sometimes used on the skin to treat neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of topical lidocaine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 1 July 2014, together with the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal to identify additional published or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing any formulation of topical lidocaine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies (508 participants) in comparisons with placebo or an active control. Six studies enrolled participants with moderate or severe postherpetic neuralgia, and the remaining studies enrolled different, or mixed, neuropathic pain conditions, including trigeminal neuralgia and postsurgical or post-traumatic neuralgia. Four different formulations were used: 5% medicated patch, 5% cream, 5% gel, and 8% spray. Most studies used a cross-over design, and two used a parallel-group design. Two studies used enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal. Seven studies used multiple doses, with one to four-week treatment periods, and five used single applications. We judged all of the studies at high risk of bias because of small size or incomplete outcome assessment, or both.There was no first or second tier evidence, and no pooling of data was possible for efficacy outcomes. Only one multiple-dose study reported our primary outcome of participants with ≥ 50% or ≥ 30% pain intensity reduction. Three single-dose studies reported participants who were pain-free at a particular time point, or had a 2-point (of 10) reduction in pain intensity. The two enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal studies reported time to loss of efficacy. In all but one study, third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated that lidocaine was better than placebo for some measure of pain relief. Pooling multiple-dose studies across conditions demonstrated no clear evidence of an effect of lidocaine on the incidence of adverse events or withdrawals, but there were few events and the withdrawal phase of enriched enrolment designs is not suitable to assess the true impact of adverse events (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found no evidence from good quality randomised controlled studies to support the use of topical lidocaine to treat neuropathic pain, although individual studies indicated that it was effective for relief of pain. Clinical experience also supports efficacy in some patients. Several large ongoing studies, of adequate duration, with clinically useful outcomes should provide more robust conclusions about both efficacy and harm.

Lidocaine Patch (5%) in Treatment of Persistent Inguinal Postherniorrhaphy Pain

Background:

Evidence-based pharmacological treatment options for patients with persistent inguinal postherniorrhaphy pain are lacking.

Methods:

Twenty-one male patients, with severe, unilateral, persistent inguinal postherniorrhaphy pain, participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial, receiving lidocaine patch (5%) and placebo patch treatments in periods of 14 days separated by a 14-day wash-out period. Pain intensities (at rest, during movement, and pressure evoked [Numerical Rating Scale]) were assessed before treatment and on the last 3 days of each treatment period. Patients were a priori divided into two subgroups based on quantitative sensory testing (+/− thermal “hyposensitivity”). Skin biopsies for intraepidermal nerve fiber density assessment were taken at baseline, and quantitative sensory testing was performed before and after each treatment period. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity assessed as the difference in summed pain intensity differences between lidocaine and placebo patch treatments.

Results:

There was no difference in summed pain intensity differences between lidocaine and placebo patch treatments in all patients (mean difference 6.2% [95% CI = −6.6 to 18.9%]; P = 0.33) or in the two subgroups (+/− thermal “hyposensitivity”). The quantitative sensory testing (n = 21) demonstrated an increased pressure pain thresholds after lidocaine compared with placebo patch treatment. Baseline intraepidermal nerve fiber density (n = 21) was lower on the pain side compared with the nonpain side (−3.8 fibers per millimeter [95% CI = −6.1 to −1.4]; P = 0.003). One patient developed mild erythema in the groin during both treatments.

Conclusions:

Lidocaine patch treatment did not reduce combined resting and dynamic pain ratings compared with placebo in patients with severe, persistent inguinal postherniorrhaphy pain.

WITHDRAWN: Topical lidocaine for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia

Background

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2007. The cause of postherpetic neuralgia is damage to peripheral neurons, dorsal root ganglia, and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, secondary to herpes zoster infection (shingles). In postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral neurons discharge spontaneously and have lowered activation thresholds, and exhibit an exaggerated response to stimuli. Topical lidocaine dampens peripheral nociceptor sensitisation and central nervous system hyperexcitability, and may benefit patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

Objectives

To examine efficacy and safety of topical lidocaine in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SIGLE, Citation Index, the reference lists of all eligible trials, key textbooks, and previous systematic reviews. Last search conducted April 2011.

Selection criteria

Randomised or quasi‐randomised trials comparing topical applications of lidocaine in patients of all ages with postherpetic neuralgia (pain persisting at the site of shingles at least one month after the onset of the acute rash).

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors extracted data, and a third checked them.

Main results

In the original review three studies involving 182 topical lidocaine treated participants and 132 control participants were included. Two studies gave data on pain relief, and the remaining study provided data on secondary outcome measures. The largest study published as an abstract compared topical lidocaine patch to a placebo patch and accounted for 150 of the 314 participants (48%).

A meta‐analysis combining two studies identified a significant difference between topical lidocaine and control groups for the primary outcome measure: a mean improvement in pain relief according to a pain relief scale. Topical lidocaine relieved pain better than placebo (P = 0.003).

There was a statistical difference between the groups for the secondary outcome measure of mean VAS score reduction (P = 0.03), but this was only for a single small study. There were a similar number of adverse skin reactions in both treatment and placebo groups.

The highest recorded blood lidocaine concentration varied between 59 ng/ml and 431 ng/ml between studies. The latter figure is high and the authors of the study suggest that the sample had been contaminated during the assay procedure.

Authors' conclusions

Since the last version of this review in Issue 2, 2007 no new studies have been found and the results therefore remain the same. There is still insufficient evidence to recommend topical lidocaine as a first‐line agent in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia with allodynia. Further research should be undertaken on the efficacy of topical lidocaine for other chronic neuropathic pain disorders, and also to compare different classes of drugs (e.g. topical anaesthetic applications versus anti‐epileptic drugs).

Topical lidocaine may benefit some patients on an individual basis though there is stronger evidence for the use of other drugs. Postherpetic neuralgia is a long‐lasting pain disorder that causes pain from stimuli that are not normally painful. Local anaesthetics (such as lidocaine) can reduce the sensation of pain that is transmitted through nerves, and allow pain relief in patients with postherpetic neuralgia. This review found three small studies involving 182 topical lidocaine treated participants and 132 control participants using lidocaine for patients with postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies provided data on pain relief amongst patients with postherpetic neuralgia, and they showed some improvement in pain when topical lidocaine was compared to a placebo. No comparison was made with other medications that are in current use for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia. The side effects of topical lidocaine are very minimal, but include skin problems (such as irritation and redness). We are unable to recommend the use of topical lidocaine as a first‐line treatment for postherpetic neuralgia at this stage. Further studies are needed to compare topical lidocaine to other medications in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.

Differential effects of a 5% lidocaine medicated patch in peripheral nerve injury

INTRODUCTION

We examined the effect of topical lidocaine on the function of small and large fibers in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain due to traumatic or postoperative nerve injury.

METHODS

In an open-label study, 24 patients were treated with a 5% lidocaine patch for up to 12 weeks. We recorded contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) and performed quantitative sensory testing (QST) before and after treatment with the contralateral side as control.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (mean age 47.6 ± 13.5 years) completed the study. Lidocaine increased cold pain threshold (P = 0.04) and reduced CHEP amplitude (P = 0.007) with no effect on other QST parameters. Patients responding to treatment had less cold detection deficit on the affected side and had a larger increase in cold pain detection threshold following treatment than nonresponders.

CONCLUSIONS

Controlled trials are warranted to further understand the mechanisms mediating the effects of topical lidocaine.

Subgrouping of patients with neuropathic pain according to pain-related sensory abnormalities: a first step to a stratified treatment approach

BACKGROUND

Patients with neuropathic pain present with various pain-related sensory abnormalities. These sensory features form different patterns or mosaics-the sensory profile-in individual patients. One hypothesis for the development of sensory profiles is that distinct pathophysiological mechanisms of pain generation produce specific sensory abnormalities. Several controlled trials of promising new drugs have produced negative results, but these findings could have been a result of heterogeneity in the patient population. Subgrouping patients on the basis of individual sensory profiles could reduce this heterogeneity and improve trial design.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

A statistical categorisation of patients with neuropathic pain showed that subgroups of patients with distinct sensory profiles who perceive their pain differently do exist across a range of neuropathic disorders, although some distinct disorder-specific profiles were also detected. Results of the first clinical trials to use the subgroup approach at baseline could show a superior effect of the study drugs in specific subgroups, rather than in the entire cohort of patients. WHERE NEXT?: A new classification of neuropathic pain should take into account subgroups of patients with different sensory profiles. Sensory phenotyping has the potential to improve clinical trial design by enriching the study population with potential treatment responders, and might lead to a stratified treatment approach and ultimately to personalised treatment.

Post-herpetic neuralgia

Background

In spite of the large body of evidence available in the literature, definition and treatment of Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) are still lacking a consistent and universally recognized standardization. Furthermore, many issues concerning diagnosis, prediction and prevention of PHN need to be clarified in view of recent contributions.

Objectives

To assess whether PHN may be better defined, predicted, treated and prevented in light of recent data, and whether available alternative or adjunctive therapies may improve pain relief in treatment recalcitrant PHN.

Methods

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and protocols were searched; the search sources included PubMed, Cochrane Library, NICE, and DARE. More than 130 papers were selected and evaluated.

Results

Diagnosis of PHN is essentially clinical, but it can be improved by resorting to the many tools available, including some practical and accessible questionnaires. Prediction of PHN can be now much more accurate, taking into consideration a few well validated clinical and anamnestic variables. Treatment of PHN is presently based on a well characterized array of drugs and drug associations, including, among others, tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentinoids, opioids and many topical formulations. It is still unsatisfactory, however, in a substantial proportion of patients, especially those with many comorbidities and intense pain at herpes zoster (HZ) presentation, so that this frequent complication of HZ still strongly impacts on the quality of life of affected patients.

Conclusion

Further efforts are needed to improve the management of PHN. Potentially relevant interventions may include early antiviral therapy of acute HZ, prevention of HZ by adult vaccination, as well as new therapeutic approaches for patients experiencing PHN.

Peripheral nociceptor sensitization mediates allodynia in patients with distal symmetric polyneuropathy

Patients with painful neuropathy frequently complain of pain in response to normally non-painful brushing, namely dynamic mechanical allodynia. Despite many animal studies suggesting that allodynia arises when the spontaneous firing in damaged nociceptive afferents sensitise second-order nociceptive neurons to Aβ-fibre input, no studies have sought to confirm this mechanism by investigating Aβ-fibre sparing in human patients with allodynia. In this study we compared data from Aβ-fibre-mediated nerve conduction studies and nociceptive-fibre-mediated laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) in 200 patients with distal symmetric polyneuropathy (114 with neuropathic pain, 86 without). Of the 114 patients with painful neuropathy studied, 44 suffered from allodynia. Whereas no statistical difference was found in nerve conduction study data between patients with and without allodynia, LEP amplitudes were larger in patients with allodynia than in those without (P < 0.01 by Mann-Whitney U test). The lack of difference in NCS data between patients with and without allodynia suggest that this type of pain, rather than arising through second-order nociceptive neuron sensitization to Aβ-fibre input, might reflect a reduced mechanical threshold in sensitised intraepidermal nociceptive nerve terminals.

Neuropathic pain: is quantitative sensory testing helpful?

Neuropathic pain arises as a consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system and is characterised by a combination of positive and negative sensory symptoms. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) examines the sensory perception after application of different mechanical and thermal stimuli of controlled intensity and the function of both large (A-beta) and small (A-delta and C) nerve fibres, including the corresponding central pathways. QST can be used to determine detection, pain thresholds and stimulus-response curves and can thus detect both negative and positive sensory signs, the second ones not being assessed by other methods. Similarly to all other psychophysical tests QST requires standardised examination, instructions and data evaluation to receive valid and reliable results. Since normative data are available, QST can contribute also to the individual diagnosis of neuropathy, especially in the case of isolated small-fibre neuropathy, in contrast to the conventional electrophysiology which assesses only large myelinated fibres. For example, detection of early stages of subclinical neuropathy in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with diabetes mellitus can be helpful to optimise treatment and identify diabetic foot at risk of ulceration. QST assessed the individual's sensory profile and thus can be valuable to evaluate the underlying pain mechanisms which occur in different frequencies even in the same neuropathic pain syndromes. Furthermore, assessing the exact sensory phenotype by QST might be useful in the future to identify responders to certain treatments in accordance to the underlying pain mechanisms.

Use of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster to treat localized neuropathic pain secondary to traumatic injury of peripheral nerves

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (LMP) has previously been demonstrated in post-traumatic localized neuropathic pain. This study evaluated the use of LMP in localized neuropathic pain secondary to traumatic peripheral nerve injury.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled patients with traumatic injuries to peripheral nerves that were accompanied by localized neuropathic pain of more than 3 months duration. Demographic variables, pain intensity (measured using the numeric rating scale; NRS), answers to the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire, and the size of the painful area were recorded.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included, aged (mean ± standard deviation) 41.4 ± 15.7 years. Nerve injuries affected the upper (eight patients) or lower (11 patients) limbs. The mean duration of pain before starting treatment with LMP was 22.6 ± 43.5 months (median 8 months). Mean baseline values included: NRS 6.7 ± 1.6, painful area 17.8 ± 10.4 cm(2) (median 18 cm(2)), and DN4 score 6.7 ± 1.4. The mean duration of treatment with LMP was 19.5 ± 10.0 weeks (median 17.4 weeks). Mean values after treatment were: NRS 2.8 ± 1.5 (≥3 point reduction in 79% of patients, ≥50% reduction in 57.9% of patients) and painful area 2.1 ± 2.3 cm(2) (median 1 cm(2), ≥50% reduction in 94.7% of patients). Functional improvement after treatment was observed in 14/19 patients (73.7%).

CONCLUSION

LMP effectively treated traumatic injuries of peripheral nerves which presented with chronic localized neuropathic pain, reducing both pain intensity and the size of the painful area.