Sensory Complaints of the Upper Extremities in Multiple Sclerosis: Relative Efficacy of Nortriptyline and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation

Electrical stimulation therapy for pain and related symptoms in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of electrical stimulation therapy (EST) for pain, depression, fatigue, disability, and quality of life in multiple sclerosis (MS) remains uncertain. This study aims to analyze and discuss the efficacy of various EST treatments in alleviating pain among MS patients.

METHODS

The primary search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases until September 25, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients with MS pain receiving EST compared with other therapies were included. Pain intensity, quality of life, and neuropsychiatric symptoms were reported. The mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated separately for outcomes to understand the mean effect size.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs containing 315 participants were included. The pooled data from 8 trials including 267 participants showed that the EST was superior in alleviating pain (MD = -1.75, 95 % CI -2.85--0.64, P = 0.002, I2=73 %) evaluated by the visual analog scale. In subgroup analysis, medium-term EST treatment showed the highest effect size compared to short-term and long-term treatment (MDmedium-term = -2.17, 95 % CI -3.51--0.84, P = 0.001, I2 = 0 %). However, no significant differences were found in terms of pain-related quality of life, depression, fatigue, and pain-related disability. No adverse events related to EST were reported. A high risk of bias was identified in three of the ten included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

EST is effective and safe for alleviating pain in MS, but it should be noted that limited sample sizes and methodological issues were present in the included studies. More robust assessment criteria and high-quality RCTs are required for patients with MS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023406787. (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=406787).

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

Characterising the Features of 381 Clinical Studies Evaluating Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Relief: A Secondary Analysis of the Meta-TENS Study to Improve Future Research

Background and Objectives: Characterising the features of methodologies, clinical attributes and intervention protocols, of studies is valuable to advise directions for research and practice. This article reports the findings of a secondary analysis of the features from studies screened as part of a large systematic review of TENS (the meta-TENS study). Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis was performed on information associated with methodology, sample populations and intervention protocols from 381 randomised controlled trials (24,532 participants) evaluating TENS delivered at a strong comfortable intensity at the painful site in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Results: Studies were conducted in 43 countries commonly using parallel group design (n = 334) and one comparator group (n = 231). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) study sample size (64.05 ± 58.29 participants) and TENS group size (27.67 ± 21.90 participants) were small, with only 13 of 381 studies having 100 participants or more in the TENS group. Most TENS interventions were ‘high frequency’ (>10 pps, n = 276) and using 100 Hz (109/353 reports that stated a pulse frequency value). Of 476 comparator groups, 54.2% were active treatments (i.e., analgesic medication(s), exercise, manual therapies and electrophysical agents). Of 202 placebo comparator groups, 155 used a TENS device that did not deliver currents. At least 216 of 383 study groups were able to access other treatments whilst receiving TENS. Only 136 out of 381 reports included a statement about adverse events. Conclusions: Clinical studies on TENS are dominated by small parallel group evaluations of high frequency TENS that are often contaminated by concurrent treatment(s). Study reports tended focus on physiological and clinical implications rather than the veracity of methodology and findings. Previously published criteria for designing and reporting TENS studies were neglected and this should be corrected in future research using insights gleaned from this analysis.

Physiotherapy interventions may relieve pain in individuals with central neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objectives:

To evaluate the effectiveness of any form of physiotherapy intervention for the management of central neuropathic pain (cNeP) due to any underlying cause.

Methods:

Multiple databases were searched from inception until August 2021. Randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control condition on pain among people with cNeP were included. Methodological quality and the quality of evidence were assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool, respectively.

Results:

The searches yielded 2661 studies, of which 23 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of trials examining non-invasive neurostimulation revealed significant reductions in pain severity due to spinal cord injury (SCI; standardised mean difference (SMD): −0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.07, −0.11), p = 0.02) and phantom limb pain (weighted mean difference (WMD): −1.57 (95% CI: −2.85, −0.29), p = 0.02). The pooled analyses of trials utilising acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and mirror therapy showed significant reductions in pain severity among individuals with stroke (WMD: −1.46 (95% CI: −1.97, −0.94), p < 0.001), multiple sclerosis (SMD: −0.32 (95% CI: −0.57, −0.06), p = 0.01), and phantom limb pain (SMD: −0.74 (95% CI: −1.36, −0.11), p = 0.02), respectively. Exercise was also found to significantly reduce pain among people with multiple sclerosis (SMD: −1.58 (95% CI: −2.85, −0.30), p = 0.02).

Conclusion:

Evidence supports the use of non-invasive neurostimulation for the treatment of pain secondary to SCI and phantom limb pain. Beneficial pain management outcomes were also identified for acupuncture in stroke, TENS in multiple sclerosis, and mirror therapy in phantom limb pain.

Pain Management in Multiple Sclerosis: a Review of Available Treatment Options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease with no curative treatment available. While recent years have ushered in many effective new disease-modifying therapies for MS, they have not obviated the need for symptomatic treatments for MS-related pain. In this review, we discuss available approaches to control pain, which is one of the most common complaints MS patients have.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most recent research in this topic is directed towards non-pharmacologic interventions including water exercises, yoga and cannabis. More trials are being conducted on neuromodulation for MS-related neuropathic pain, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Pain control for MS patients is challenging, considering the progressive and relapsing remitting nature of the disease, however, it is a very important aspect of it's management, as it improves mobility, exercise tolerance, concomitant depression and overall quality of life. Future research should focus on the use of neuromodulation in controlling MS pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.

The effectiveness of physical factors used in the treatment of patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Literature review

Introduction: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic progressive disease of the nervous system which etiology is still unknown. Environmental factors, genetic predisposition and complex autoimmune reactions play a significant role in its pathogenesis. MS is not a fatal disease, but patients often require constant medical care and complex social welfare. Physiotherapy conducted at every stage of the disease depends on the current state of a patient and their functional capability and gradually occurring disorders and dysfunctions. Physical therapy is an important element of the therapy.

Aim: To evaluate the usefulness of physical treatments used in the treatment of the MS patients.

Material and methods: An analysis of domestic and foreign literature published between 2004 and 2014. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Science Direct, Termedia, Polish Medical Bibliography, Cochrane. The papers concerning the use of physical treatment as monotherapy and combination therapy were included.

Summary and conclusions: Numerous research confirm both safety and efficacy of physical methods used in treatment of the MS patients. The implementation of research on the mechanism of action and effectiveness of physical factors, which are well-designed in terms of methodology, allows for the selection of the optimal physical procedure. Modern equipment and current methods of physiotherapy change views on the previously used treatments, their methodology and application.

Unilateral and bilateral upper limb dysfunction at body functions, activity and participation levels in people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

There has been limited research on upper limb dysfunction in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to study unilateral and bilateral upper limb dysfunction at different International Classification of Functioning (ICF) levels according to overall disability in PwMS.

METHODS

A total of 105 PwMS (16 with EDSS<4 (mild); 17 with EDSS 4-5.5 (moderate); 37 with EDSS 6-6.5 (severe); 35 with EDSS>6.5 (severe non-ambulant)) were recruited from two rehabilitation centers and assessed in a cross-sectional study.

RESULTS

The whole sample showed a diminished sensory function (median (first/third interquartile)) score of 3 (2/3) on the Monofilament Test and a reduced strength 91 (76/100) points on the Motricity Index (Body-Function level). Sensory dysfunction did not increase with higher EDSS while strength decreased from 100 (86/100) in the mild subgroups to 91 (80/100) points in the severe subgroup. All showed diminished dexterity, scoring 0.28 peg/s (0.17/0.35) on the Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT) (activity level). Score was better for the mild (0.38 (0.35/0.46)) peg/s compared to the severe subgroup (0.28 (0.17/0.35)). Sixty-eight percent, 44% and 75% of PwMS showed bilateral disorders in sensation, strength and dexterity, respectively. The Community Integration Questionnaire (participation level) showed a 35% reduction in home activities, even among PwMS with EDSS<4.

CONCLUSION

This study showed uni-/bilateral upper limb abnormalities at all ICF levels increasing with the overall disability.

Establishment and characterization of an optimized mouse model of multiple sclerosis-induced neuropathic pain using behavioral, pharmacologic, histologic and immunohistochemical methods

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS) that causes debilitating central neuropathic pain in many patients. Although mouse models of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) have provided insight on the pathobiology of MS-induced neuropathic pain, concurrent severe motor impairments confound quantitative assessment of pain behaviors over the disease course. To address this issue, we have established and characterized an optimized EAE-mouse model of MS-induced neuropathic pain. Briefly, C57BL/6 mice were immunized with MOG35-55 (200μg) and adjuvants comprising Quil A (45μg) and pertussis toxin (2×250ng). The traditionally used Freund's Complete Adjuvant (FCA) was replaced with Quil A, as FCA itself induces CNS neuroinflammation. Herein, EAE-mice exhibited a mild relapsing-remitting clinical disease course with temporal development of mechanical allodynia in the bilateral hindpaws. Mechanical allodynia was fully developed by 28-30days post-immunization (p.i.) and was maintained until study completion (52-60days p.i.), in the absence of confounding motor deficits. Single bolus doses of amitriptyline (1-7mg/kg), gabapentin (10-50mg/kg) and morphine (0.1-2mg/kg) evoked dose-dependent analgesia in the bilateral hindpaws of EAE-mice; the corresponding ED50s were 1.5, 20 and 1mg/kg respectively. At day 39 p.i. in EAE-mice exhibiting mechanical allodynia in the hindpaws, there was marked demyelination and gliosis in the brain and lumbar spinal cord, mirroring these pathobiologic hallmark features of MS in humans. Our optimized EAE-mouse model of MS-associated neuropathic pain will be invaluable for future investigation of the pathobiology of MS-induced neuropathic pain and for efficacy profiling of novel molecules as potential new analgesics for improved relief of this condition.

Mechanisms and pharmacology of neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis

The neuropathic pain of multiple sclerosis is quite prevalent and severely impacts quality of life. A few randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded clinical trials suggest that cannabis- and anticonvulsant-based treatments provide partial pain relief, but at the expense of adverse events. An even smaller, but emerging, number of translational studies are using rodent models of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), which exhibit pain-like behaviors resembling those of Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. These studies not only support the possible effectiveness of anticonvulsants, but also compel further clinical trials with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, the immunosuppressant drug rapamycin, or drugs which interfere with glutamatergic neurotransmission. Future behavioral studies in EAE models are essential toward a new pharmacotherapy of multiple sclerosis pain.

Multiple sclerosis-induced neuropathic pain: pharmacological management and pathophysiological insights from rodent EAE models

In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), pain is a frequent and disabling symptom. The prevalence is in the range 29-86 % depending upon the assessment protocols utilised and the definition of pain applied. Neuropathic pain that develops secondary to demyelination, neuroinflammation and axonal damage in the central nervous system is the most distressing and difficult type of pain to treat. Although dysaesthetic extremity pain, L'hermitte's sign and trigeminal neuralgia are the most common neuropathic pain conditions reported by patients with MS, research directed at gaining insight into the complex mechanisms underpinning the pathobiology of MS-associated neuropathic pain is in its relative infancy. By contrast, there is a wealth of knowledge on the neurobiology of neuropathic pain induced by peripheral nerve injury. To date, the majority of research in the MS field has used rodent models of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) as these models have many clinical and neuropathological features in common with those observed in patients with MS. However, it is only relatively recently that EAE-rodents have been utilised to investigate the mechanisms contributing to the development and maintenance of MS-associated central neuropathic pain. Importantly, EAE-rodent models exhibit pro-nociceptive behaviours predominantly in the lower extremities (tail and hindlimbs) as seen clinically in patients with MS-neuropathic pain. Herein, we review research to date on the pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning MS-associated neuropathic pain as well as the pharmacological management of this condition. We also identify knowledge gaps to guide future research in this important field.

Symptomatic treatment and management of multiple sclerosis

The range of symptoms which occur in multiple sclerosis (MS) can have disabling functional consequences for patients and lead to significant reductions in their quality of life. MS symptoms can also interact with each other, making their management challenging. Clinical trials aimed at identifying symptomatic therapies have generally been poorly designed and have tended to be underpowered. Therefore, the evidence base for the management of MS symptoms with pharmacologic therapies is not strong and tends to rely upon open-label studies, case reports, and clinical trials with small numbers of patients and poorly validated clinical outcome measures. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the management of MS symptoms with pharmacologic treatments, and better-designed, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials have been reported. This chapter will describe the evidence base predominantly behind the various pharmacologic approaches to the management of MS symptoms, which in most, if not all, cases, requires multidisciplinary input. Drugs routinely recommended for individual symptoms and new therapies, which are currently in the development pipeline, will be reviewed. More interventional therapies related to symptoms that are refractory to pharmacotherapy will also be discussed, where relevant.

Combination treatment of mice with CRx-153 (nortriptyline and desloratadine) decreases the severity of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis

Pro-inflammatory CD4(+) T cell-mediated autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, are hypothesized to be initiated and maintained by self-reactive interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and interleukin-17 (IL-17) producing CD4(+) T cells. Previous studies have shown moderate to significant alterations in inflammatory T cell responses and potentially treatment of autoimmune disease by administration of antihistamine or tricyclic antidepressants alone. The goal of the present study was to determine if treatment of PLP(139-151)-induced relapsing-remitting experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (R-EAE) in SJL/J mice with a combination of two FDA approved drugs for other indications could decrease R-EAE disease. The findings show that combination treatment with desloratadine and nortriptyline decreases the mean clinical score, disease relapse frequency, and number of CD4(+) T cells infiltrating into the CNS. In addition, combination treatment of PLP(139-151) primed mice decreases the level of IFN-γ and IL-17 secreted via a decrease in both the number of cells secreting and the amount of cytokine secreted per cell following PLP(139-151) reactivation ex vivo. This is in contrast to an increase in the level of IL-4 produced and the number of IL-4 secreting cells. The data also show that combination treatment with desloratadine and nortriptyline inhibits the production of IFN-γ and IL-17 produced by naive CD4(+) T cells activated in the presence of Th1 cell- and Th17 cell-promoting conditions, while increasing the level of IL-4 produced by naive CD4(+) T cells activated in the presence of Th2 cell-promoting conditions. The present findings suggest a novel method for the development of a putative autoimmune therapy.

Painful and involuntary multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Pain, dysphagia, respiratory problems, sexual and cardiovascular dysfunctions may occur in patients with MS.

AREAS COVERED

In the present review, we attempt to summarize the current knowledge on the impact pain, dysphagia, respiratory problems, sexual and cardiovascular dysfunctions have in patients with MS.

EXPERT OPINION

To effectively manage MS, it is essential that these symptoms are recognized as early as possible and treated by a rehabilitative multidisciplinary approach, based on proven scientific evidence.

Multiple sclerosis-related central pain disorders

Central neuropathic pain is common in multiple sclerosis (MS), and its prevalence increases with physical disability. Sufficient evidence links dysesthetic pain, trigeminal neuralgia, Lhermitte's sign, and painful tonics spasms to plaque formation in the spinal cord and brain, whereas the association with headache and back pain remains unclear. Management varies according to the pain in question. For dysesthetic pain, drugs in use for neuropathic pain in general are recommended as first-line treatment, and emerging evidence suggests some benefit from cannabinoids and levetiracetam. Because of unique characteristics of MS-related trigeminal neuralgia, ganglion and root level neuroablative procedures are worth considering before microvascular decompression. Overall, the lack of controlled clinical trials, together with our limited understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms involved, form a hindrance to a systematic and rational management of MS-related pain.