Maximizing treatment efficacy through patient stratification in neuropathic pain trials

Prediction of the response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in peripheral neuropathic pain and validation of a new algorithm

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02010281.

An improved conflict avoidance assay reveals modality-specific differences in pain hypersensitivity across sexes

ABSTRACT

Abnormal encoding of somatosensory modalities (ie, mechanical, cold, and heat) are a critical part of pathological pain states. Detailed phenotyping of patients' responses to these modalities have raised hopes that analgesic treatments could one day be tailored to a patient's phenotype. Such precise treatment would require a profound understanding of the underlying mechanisms of specific pain phenotypes at molecular, cellular, and circuitry levels. Although preclinical pain models have helped in that regard, the lack of a unified assay quantifying detailed mechanical, cold, and heat pain responses on the same scale precludes comparing how analgesic compounds act on different sensory phenotypes. The conflict avoidance assay is promising in that regard, but testing conditions require validation for its use with multiple modalities. In this study, we improve upon the conflict avoidance assay to provide a validated and detailed assessment of all 3 modalities within the same animal, in mice. We first optimized testing conditions to minimize the necessary amount of training and to reduce sex differences in performances. We then tested what range of stimuli produce dynamic stimulus-response relationships for different outcome measures in naive mice. We finally used this assay to show that nerve injury produces modality-specific sex differences in pain behavior. Our improved assay opens new avenues to study the basis of modality-specific abnormalities in pain behavior.

[The EAN-NeuPSIG guideline on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain-a summary]

In this joint guideline of the scientific societies and working groups mentioned in the title, evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain were developed. The systematic literature search and meta-analysis yielded the following results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I‑DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, while S‑LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT received weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic workup of patients with possible neuropathic pain. There was a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials. The role of confocal corneal microscopy is still unclear. Functional imaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in elucidating the pathophysiology, but current literature does not support their use in diagnosing neuropathic pain. In selected cases, genetic testing in specialized centers may be considered.

Application and accuracy of the EAPC/IASP diagnostic algorithm for neuropathic cancer pain and quantitative sensory testing profile in patients with pain due to cancer

Introduction

Better diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) remains an unmet clinical need. The EAPC/IASP algorithm was specifically designed for NcP diagnosis; yet, to date, there is no information on its application and accuracy.

Objectives

Our aim was to determine the accuracy of the EAPC/IASP algorithm compared with the Neuropathic Special Interest Group grading system (gold standard) and to describe patients' sensory profile with quantitative sensory testing (QST).

Methods

This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted in a palliative care and pain outpatient clinic. Patients with cancer pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale 0-10) were eligible. The palliative care physician applied the EAPC/IASP algorithm as a grading system to diagnose probable or definite NcP, and an independent investigator applied the gold standard and performed the QST. Sensitivity and specificity of the EAPC/IASP algorithm were measured in comparison with the gold standard results. Kruskal-Wallis and unequal variance independent-samples t tests were used to compare the QST parameters in patients with and without NcP.

Results

Ninety-eight patients were enrolled from August 2020 to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity for the EAPC/IASP algorithm were 85% (95% CI 70.2-94.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 90.8-100), respectively. Patients with NcP in contrast to patients without NcP showed cold hypoesthesia (P = 0.0032), warm hypoesthesia (P = 0.0018), pressure hyperalgesia (P = 0.02), and the presence of allodynia (P = 0.0001).

Conclusion

The results indicate a good performance of the EAPC/IASP algorithm in diagnosing NcP and the QST discriminated well between patients with and without NcP.

Efficacy and safety of eliapixant in diabetic neuropathic pain and prediction of placebo responders with an exploratory novel algorithm: results from the randomized controlled phase 2a PUCCINI study

ABSTRACT

Phase 2a of the PUCCINI study was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, proof-of-concept study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the selective P2X3 antagonist eliapixant in patients with diabetic neuropathic pain (DNP) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04641273). Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus with painful distal symmetric sensorimotor neuropathy of >6 months' duration and neuropathic pain were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 150 mg oral eliapixant twice daily or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in weekly mean 24-hour average pain intensity score at week 8. In total, 135 participants completed treatment, 67 in the eliapixant group and 68 in the placebo group. At week 8, the change from baseline in posterior mean 24-hour average pain intensity score (90% credible interval) in the eliapixant group was -1.56 (-1.95, -1.18) compared with -2.17 (-2.54, -1.80) for the placebo group. The mean treatment difference was 0.60 (0.06, 1.14) in favor of placebo. The use of a model-based framework suggests that various factors may contribute to the placebo-responder profile. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and occurred in 51% of the eliapixant group and 48% of the placebo group. As the primary endpoint was not met, the PUCCINI study was terminated after completion of phase 2a and did not proceed to phase 2b. In conclusion, selective P2X3 antagonism in patients with DNP did not translate to any relevant improvement in different pain intensity outcomes compared with placebo. Funding: Bayer AG.

Phylogenetic analysis of mammalian SIP30 sequences indicating accelerated adaptation of functional domain in primates

SIP30, characterized by a coiled-coil functional domain, plays a key role in regulating synaptic vesicle exocytosis and is implicated in neuropathic pain resulting from peripheral nerve injury. Because neuropathic pain is studied in primates (including human), domesticated animals, and rodents, we conducted a phylogenetic analysis of SIP30 in selected species of these three groups of mammals. SIP30 exhibits a high degree of sequence divergence in comparison to its protein binding partners SNAP25 and ZW10, which show broad sequence conservation. Notably, we observed an increased rate of change in the highly conserved coiled-coil domain in the SIP30 protein, specifically within primates. This observation suggests an accelerated adaptation of this functional domain in primate species.

Central neuropathic pain

Central neuropathic pain arises from a lesion or disease of the central somatosensory nervous system such as brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis or related neuroinflammatory conditions. The incidence of central neuropathic pain differs based on its underlying cause. Individuals with spinal cord injury are at the highest risk; however, central post-stroke pain is the most prevalent form of central neuropathic pain worldwide. The mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain are not fully understood, but the pathophysiology likely involves intricate interactions and maladaptive plasticity within spinal circuits and brain circuits associated with nociception and antinociception coupled with neuronal hyperexcitability. Modulation of neuronal activity, neuron-glia and neuro-immune interactions and targeting pain-related alterations in brain connectivity, represent potential therapeutic approaches. Current evidence-based pharmacological treatments include antidepressants and gabapentinoids as first-line options. Non-pharmacological pain management options include self-management strategies, exercise and neuromodulation. A comprehensive pain history and clinical examination form the foundation of central neuropathic pain classification, identification of potential risk factors and stratification of patients for clinical trials. Advanced neurophysiological and neuroimaging techniques hold promise to improve the understanding of mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain and as predictive biomarkers of treatment outcome.

Reproducible and fully automated testing of nocifensive behavior in mice

Pain in rodents is often inferred from their withdrawal from noxious stimulation. Threshold stimulus intensity or response latency is used to quantify pain sensitivity. This usually involves applying stimuli by hand and measuring responses by eye, which limits reproducibility and throughput. We describe a device that standardizes and automates pain testing by providing computer-controlled aiming, stimulation, and response measurement. Optogenetic and thermal stimuli are applied using blue and infrared light, respectively. Precise mechanical stimulation is also demonstrated. Reflectance of red light is used to measure paw withdrawal with millisecond precision. We show that consistent stimulus delivery is crucial for resolving stimulus-dependent variations in withdrawal and for testing with sustained stimuli. Moreover, substage video reveals "spontaneous" behaviors for consideration alongside withdrawal metrics to better assess the pain experience. The entire process was automated using machine learning. RAMalgo (reproducible automated multimodal algometry) improves the standardization, comprehensiveness, and throughput of preclinical pain testing.

Archival skin biopsy specimens as a tool for miRNA-based diagnosis: Technical and post-analytical considerations

Archived specimens, taken by standardized procedures in clinical practice, represent a valuable resource in translational medicine. Their use in retrospective molecular-based studies could provide disease and therapy predictors. Microfluidic array is a user-friendly and cost-effective method allowing profiling of hundreds of microRNAs (miRNAs) from a low amount of RNA. However, even though tissue miRNAs may include potentially robust biomarkers, non-uniformed post-analytical pipelines could hinder translation into clinics. In this study, epidermal RNA from archival skin biopsy specimens was isolated from patients with peripheral neuropathy and healthy individuals. Unbiased miRNA profiling was performed using RT-qPCR-based microfluidic array. We demonstrated that RNA obtained from archival tissue is appropriate for miRNA profiling, providing evidence that different practices in threshold selection could significantly influence the final results. We showed the utility of software-based quality control for amplification curves. We revealed that selection of the most stable reference and the calculation of geometric mean are suitable when utilizing microfluidic arrays without known references. By applying appropriate post-analytical settings, we obtained miRNA profile of human epidermis associated with biological processes and a list of suitable references. Our results, which outline technical and post-analytical considerations, support the broad use of archived specimens for miRNA analysis to unravel disease-specific molecular signatures.

Targeting sensory neuron GPCRs for peripheral neuropathic pain

Despite the high prevalence of peripheral neuropathic pain (NP) conditions and significant progress in understanding its underlying mechanisms, the management of peripheral NP remains inadequate. Existing pharmacotherapies for NP act primarily on the central nervous system (CNS) and are often associated with CNS-related adverse effects, limiting their clinical effectiveness. Mounting preclinical evidence indicates that reducing the heightened activity in primary sensory neurons by targeting G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), without activating these receptors in the CNS, relieves pain without central adverse effects. In this review, we focus on recent advancements in GPCR-mediated peripheral pain relief and discuss strategies to advance the development of more effective and safer therapies for peripheral NP by shifting from traditional CNS modulatory approaches toward selective targeting of GPCRs on primary sensory neurons.

Lessons learned in translating pain knowledge into practice

Introduction

During the past 2 decades, basic research deciphering the underlying mechanisms of nociception and chronic pain was thought to finally step beyond opioids and nonsteroidals and provide patients with new analgesics. But apart from calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, nothing arrived in hands of clinicians.

Objectives

To present existing evidence of 3 representative target molecules in the development of novel pain treatment that, so far, did not result in approved drugs.

Methods

This Clinical Update aligns with the 2022 IASP Global Year Translating Pain Knowledge into Practice and selectively reviews best available evidence and practice.

Results

We highlight 3 targets: a ion channel, a neuronal growth factor, and a neuropeptide to explore why these drug targets have been dropped in clinical phase II-III trials. Antibodies to nerve growth factor had very good effects in musculoskeletal pain but resulted into more patients requiring joint replacements. Blockers of NaV1.7 were often not effective enough-at least if patients were not stratified. Blockers of neurokinin receptor were similarly not successful enough. In general, failure was most often to the result of a lack of effect and to a lesser extend because of unexpected severe side effects. However, all studies and trials lead to an enormous move in the scientific community to better preclinical models and testing as well as revised methods to molecularly phenotype and stratify patients.

Conclusion

All stakeholders in the process can help in the future: better preclinical studies, phenotyping and stratifying patients, and participation in clinical trials to move the discovery of analgesics forward.

Comprehensive quantitative sensory testing shows altered sensory function in women with chronic pelvic pain: results from the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) Study

ABSTRACT

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP), despite its high prevalence, is still relatively poorly understood mechanistically. This study, as part of the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project, has used a full quantitative sensory testing (QST) paradigm to profile n = 85 women with and without CPP (endometriosis or bladder pain specifically). We used the foot as a control site and abdomen as the test site. Across 5 diagnostically determined subgroups, we found features which are common across different aetiologies, eg, gain of function in pressure pain threshold (PPT) when assessing responses from the lower abdomen or pelvis (referred pain site). However, disease-specific phenotypes were also identified, eg, greater mechanical allodynia in endometriosis, despite there being large heterogeneities within diagnostic groups. The most common QST sensory phenotype was mechanical hyperalgesia (>50% across all the groups). A "healthy' sensory phenotype was seen in <7% of CPP participants. Specific QST measures correlated with sensory symptoms assessed by the painDETECT questionnaire (pressure-evoked pain [painDETECT] and PPT [QST] [ r = 0.47, P < 0.001]; mechanical hyperalgesia (painDETECT) and mechanical pain sensitivity [MPS from QST] [ r = 0.38, P = 0.009]). The data suggest that participants with CPP are sensitive to both deep tissue and cutaneous inputs, suggesting that central mechanisms may be important in this cohort. We also see phenotypes such as thermal hyperalgesia, which may be the result of peripheral mechanisms, such as irritable nociceptors. This highlights the importance of stratifying patients into clinically meaningful phenotypes, which may have implications for the development of better therapeutic strategies for CPP.

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.

New perspectives in diabetic neuropathy

Diabetes prevalence continues to climb with the aging population. Type 2 diabetes (T2D), which constitutes most cases, is metabolically acquired. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), the most common microvascular complication, is length-dependent damage to peripheral nerves. DPN pathogenesis is complex, but, at its core, it can be viewed as a state of impaired metabolism and bioenergetics failure operating against the backdrop of long peripheral nerve axons supported by glia. This unique peripheral nerve anatomy and the injury consequent to T2D underpins the distal-to-proximal symptomatology of DPN. Earlier work focused on the impact of hyperglycemia on nerve damage and bioenergetics failure, but recent evidence additionally implicates contributions from obesity and dyslipidemia. This review will cover peripheral nerve anatomy, bioenergetics, and glia-axon interactions, building the framework for understanding how hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia induce bioenergetics failure in DPN. DPN and painful DPN still lack disease-modifying therapies, and research on novel mechanism-based approaches is also covered.

Joint European Academy of Neurology-European Pain Federation-Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP.

RESULTS

Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I-DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S-LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor-to-moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale, well-designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed.

Advances and challenges in neuropathic pain: a narrative review and future directions

Over the past few decades, substantial advances have been made in neuropathic pain clinical research. An updated definition and classification have been agreed. Validated questionnaires have improved the detection and assessment of acute and chronic neuropathic pain; and newer neuropathic pain syndromes associated with COVID-19 have been described. The management of neuropathic pain has moved from empirical to evidence-based medicine. However, appropriately targeting current medications and the successful clinical development of drugs acting on new targets remain challenging. Innovative approaches to improving therapeutic strategies are required. These mainly encompass rational combination therapy, drug repurposing, non-pharmacological approaches (such as neurostimulation techniques), and personalised therapeutic management. This narrative review reports historical and current perspectives regarding the definitions, classification, assessment, and management of neuropathic pain and explores potential avenues for future research.

Neuropathic Pain and Spinal Cord Injury: Management, Phenotypes, and Biomarkers

Chronic neuropathic pain after a spinal cord injury (SCI) continues to be a complex condition that is difficult to manage due to multiple underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and the association with psychosocial factors. Determining the individual contribution of each of these factors is currently not a realistic goal; however, focusing on the primary mechanisms may be more feasible. One approach used to uncover underlying mechanisms includes phenotyping using pain symptoms and somatosensory function. However, this approach does not consider cognitive and psychosocial mechanisms that may also significantly contribute to the pain experience and impact treatment outcomes. Indeed, clinical experience supports that a combination of self-management, non-pharmacological, and pharmacological approaches is needed to optimally manage pain in this population. This article will provide a broad updated summary integrating the clinical aspects of SCI-related neuropathic pain, potential pain mechanisms, evidence-based treatment recommendations, neuropathic pain phenotypes and brain biomarkers, psychosocial factors, and progress regarding how defining neuropathic pain phenotypes and other surrogate measures in the neuropathic pain field may lead to targeted treatments for neuropathic pain after SCI.

Precision Medicine in Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain is a common chronic pain condition that is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The multitude of sensory negative and positive sensations and associated comorbidities have a major impact on quality of life of affected patients. Current treatment options often only lead to a partial pain relief or are even completely ineffective. In addition, many clinical trials for the development of new drugs have not met the primary endpoint. Therefore, there is still an unmet clinical need in neuropathic pain syndromes. One reason for this therapeutic dilemma could be the heterogeneity of neuropathic pain with a variety of pathophysiological pain mechanisms that are expressed differently in each patient regardless of the underlying disease etiology. Reclassification of neuropathic pain syndromes therefore focuses on the underlying mechanisms of pain development rather than the disease etiology. A priori stratification of patients based on these individual mechanisms could allow the identification of potential treatment responders and thus realize the concept of a mechanism-based treatment. As no biomarkers for pain mechanisms have been discovered yet, one has to rely on surrogate markers that are thought to be closely related to these mechanisms. In this chapter, we present promising predictive biomarkers, focusing in particular on sensory symptoms and signs assessed by patient-reported outcome measures and sensory testing, and discuss how these tools might be used in clinical trials in the future.