Sensory testing might not be perfect - but it is the best biomarker for pain phenotypes we have right now

Idiopathic Distal Sensory Polyneuropathy and Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Comparative Phenotyping Study

INTRODUCTION

Painful idiopathic distal sensory polyneuropathy (IDSP) and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) are cryptogenic chronic pain syndromes. The contribution of small fibre pathology (SFP) in FMS remains controversial. This study aims to quantify small nerve pathology in participants with IDSP and FMS and identify relationships of SFP with sensory phenotypes.

METHODS

In this study, 73 individuals (FMS: 25, IDSP: 23, healthy volunteers: 25) underwent comprehensive assessment, including neurological exams, questionnaires, sensory tests, and corneal confocal microscopy.

RESULTS

IDSP participants displayed lower wind-up ratio (WUR) relative to FMS (p < 0.001), loss of function to thermal and mechanical stimuli and elevated neuropathy disability scores compared to FMS and healthy volunteers (all p < 0.001). FMS participants demonstrated gain of function to heat and blunt pressure pain responses relative to IDSP, and healthy volunteers (heat: p = 0.002 and p = 0.003; pressure: both p < 0.001) and WUR (both p < 0.001). FMS participants exhibited reduced corneal nerve fibre density (p = 0.02), while IDSP participants had lower global corneal nerve measures (density, branch density, and length) relative to healthy volunteers (all p < 0.001). Utilising corneal nerve fibre length, SFP was demonstrated in 66.6% of participants (FMS: 13/25; IDSP: 22/23).

CONCLUSION

Participants with SFP, in both FMS and IDSP, reported symptoms indicative of small nerve fibre disease. Although distinctions in pain distributions are evident between individuals with FMS and IDSP, over 50% of participants between the two conditions displayed both a loss and gain of thermal and mechanical function suggestive of shared mechanisms. However, sensory phenotypes were associated with the presence of SFP in IDSP but not in FMS.

Improving neuropathic pain treatment - by rigorous stratification from bench to bedside

Chronic pain is a constantly recurring and persistent illness, presenting a formidable healthcare challenge for patients and physicians alike. Current first-line analgesics offer only low-modest efficacy when averaged across populations, further contributing to this debilitating disease burden. Moreover, many recent trials for novel analgesics have not met primary efficacy endpoints, which is particularly striking considering the pharmacological advances have provided a range of highly relevant new drug targets. Heterogeneity within chronic pain cohorts is increasingly understood to play a critical role in these failures of treatment and drug discovery, with some patients deriving substantial benefits from a given intervention while it has little-to-no effect on others. As such, current treatment failures may not result from a true lack of efficacy, but rather a failure to target individuals whose pain is driven by mechanisms which it therapeutically modulates. This necessitates a move towards phenotypical stratification of patients to delineate responders and non-responders in a mechanistically driven manner. In this article, we outline a bench-to-bedside roadmap for this transition to mechanistically informed personalised pain medicine. We emphasise how the successful identification of novel analgesics is dependent on rigorous experimental design as well as the validity of models and translatability of outcome measures between the animal model and patients. Subsequently, we discuss general and specific aspects of human trial design to address heterogeneity in patient populations to increase the chance of identifying effective analgesics. Finally, we show how stratification approaches can be brought into clinical routine to the benefit of patients.

Radiofrequency stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion as a diagnostic tool for radicular pain syndromes: six representative cases

BACKGROUND

We discuss the diagnostic benefit of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) in a case series of patients with different pathologies. We expand the diagnostic potential of DRG stimulation beyond paresthesia mapping by using DRG stimulation to help determine the role of the DRG in the patient's pain and narrow down the etiology. In some cases, DRG stimulation was also part of the treatment plan.

METHODS

Six patients underwent DRG radiofrequency as a diagnostic/therapeutic step before considering implantation of a DRG neurostimulator. First, patients underwent a basic bedside neurological evaluation. Next, an electrode was placed in the epidural space through the sacral hiatus or between vertebral laminae. Then, sensory stimulation was applied at 50 Hz and gradually increased from 0.1 V until the patient reported paresthesia or until a maximum intensity of 2 V was reached. Patients were asked to describe where the stimulation was felt and outline the anatomical area the paresthesia covered. Then a motor stimulation was applied at 2 Hz until muscle twitching was reported by the patient or observed by the physician.

RESULTS

The information obtained helped diagnose the type of lesion as principally preganglionic, ganglionic, or postganglionic. This information guided patient management.

CONCLUSION

PRF of the DRG can provide valuable diagnostic information and is a useful step before ganglionic electrode implantation. In all cases, PRF of the DRG provided valuable diagnostic information and guided management options.

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.