Determinants of Treatment Response in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Combined Deep Sensory Phenotyping and Multimodal Brain MRI Study

Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Crossover Trial Evaluating Topical Lidocaine for Mechanical Cervical Pain

BACKGROUND

There are few efficacious treatments for mechanical neck pain, with controlled trials suggesting efficacy for muscle relaxants and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Although studies evaluating topical lidocaine for back pain have been disappointing, the more superficial location of the cervical musculature suggests a possible role for topical local anesthetics.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial performed at four U.S. military, Veterans Administration, academic, and private practice sites, in which 76 patients were randomized to receive either placebo followed by lidocaine patch for 4-week intervals (group 1) or a lidocaine-then-placebo patch sequence. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in average neck pain, with a positive categorical outcome designated as a reduction of at least 2 points in average neck pain coupled with at least a 5-point score of 7 points on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at the 4-week endpoint.

RESULTS

For the primary outcome, the median reduction in average neck pain score was -1.0 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for the lidocaine phase versus -0.5 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for placebo treatment (P = 0.17). During lidocaine treatment, 27.7% of patients experienced a positive outcome versus 14.9% during the placebo phase (P = 0.073). There were no significant differences between treatments for secondary outcomes, although a carryover effect on pain pressure threshold was observed for the lidocaine phase (P = 0.015). A total of 27.5% of patients in the lidocaine group and 20.5% in the placebo group experienced minor reactions, the most common of which was pruritis (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The differences favoring lidocaine were small and nonsignificant, but the trend toward superiority of lidocaine suggests more aggressive phenotyping and applying formulations with greater penetrance may provide clinically meaningful benefit.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

4. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

Peripheral Neuropathy in Diabetes: What Can MRI Do?

Diabetes peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is commonly asymptomatic in the early stage. However, once symptoms and obvious defects appear, recovery is not possible. Diagnosis of neuropathy is based on physical examinations, questionnaires, nerve conduction studies, skin biopsies, and so on. However, the diagnosis of DPN is still challenging, and early diagnosis and immediate intervention are very important for prevention of the development and progression of diabetic neuropathy. The advantages of MRI in the diagnosis of DPN are obvious: the peripheral nerve imaging is clear, the lesions can be found intuitively, and the quantitative evaluation of the lesions is the basis for the diagnosis, classification, and follow-up of DPN. With the development of magnetic resonance technology, more and more studies have been conducted on detection of DPN. This article reviews the research field of MRI in DPN.

Changes in the central nervous system in diabetic neuropathy

One of the most common chronic complications arising from diabetes is diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Depending on research statistics, approximately half of the people who have diabetes will suffer from diabetic peripheral neuropathy over time, which manifests as abnormal sensations in the distal extremities, and about 25%-50% of these patients have symptoms of neuralgia, called painful diabetic neuropathy. These patients often exhibit adverse emotional conditions, like anxiety or depression, which can reduce their quality of life. The pathogenesis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy is complex, and although persistent hyperglycemia plays a central role in the development of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, strict glycemic control does not eliminate the risk of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. This suggests the need to understand the role of the central nervous system in the development of diabetic peripheral neuropathy to modulate treatment regimens accordingly. Magnetic resonance imaging not only allows for the noninvasive detection of structural and functional alterations in the central nervous system, but also provides insight into the processing of abnormal information such as pain by the central nervous system, and most importantly, contributes to the development of more effective pain relief protocols. Therefore, this article will focus on the mechanisms and related imaging evidence of central alterations in diabetic peripheral neuropathy, especially in painful diabetic neuropathy.

Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Practical Guidance and Challenges for Clinical Management

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is present in nearly a quarter of people with diabetes. It is estimated to affect over 100 million people worldwide. PDPN is associated with impaired daily functioning, depression, sleep disturbance, financial instability, and a decreased quality of life. Despite its high prevalence and significant health burden, it remains an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition. PDPN is a complex pain phenomenon with the experience of pain associated with and exacerbated by poor sleep and low mood. A holistic approach to patient-centred care alongside the pharmacological therapy is required to maximise benefit. A key treatment challenge is managing patient expectation, as a good outcome from treatment is defined as a reduction in pain of 30-50%, with a complete pain-free outcome being rare. The future for the treatment of PDPN holds promise, despite a 20-year void in the licensing of new analgesic agents for neuropathic pain. There are over 50 new molecular entities reaching clinical development and several demonstrating benefit in early-stage clinical trials. We review the current approaches to its diagnosis, the tools, and questionnaires available to clinicians, international guidance on PDPN management, and existing pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options. We synthesise evidence and the guidance from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, American Academy of Neurology, American Diabetes Association, Diabetes Canada, German Diabetes Association, and the International Diabetes Federation into a practical guide to the treatment of PDPN and highlight the need for future research into mechanistic-based treatments in order to prioritise the development of personalised medicine.

Deep Learning Classification of Treatment Response in Diabetic Painful Neuropathy: A Combined Machine Learning and Magnetic Resonance Neuroimaging Methodological Study

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been shown successfully to assess and stratify patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN). This supports the idea of using neuroimaging as a mechanism-based technique to individualise therapy for patients with painful DPN. The aim of this study was to use deep learning to predict treatment response in patients with pDPN using resting state functional imaging (rs-fMRI). We divided 43 painful pDPN patients into responders and non-responders to lidocaine treatment (responders n = 29 and non-responders n = 14). We used rs-fMRI to extract functional connectivity features, using group independent component analysis (gICA), and performed automated treatment response deep learning classification with three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (3D-CNN). Using gICA we achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 96.60% and F1-Score of 95% in a ten-fold cross validation (CV) experiment using our described 3D-CNN algorithm. To our knowledge, this is the first study utilising deep learning methods to classify treatment response in pDPN.

Limbic Connectivity Underlies Pain Treatment Response in Small-Fiber Neuropathy

OBJECTIVE

Small-fiber neuropathy (SFN) is characterized by neuropathic pain due to degeneration of small-diameter nerves in the skin. Given that brain reorganization occurs following chronic neuropathic pain, this study investigated the structural and functional basis of pain-related brain changes after skin nerve degeneration.

METHODS

Diffusion-weighted and resting-state functional MRI data were acquired from 53 pathologically confirmed SFN patients, and the structural and functional connectivity of the pain-related network was assessed using network-based statistic (NBS) analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with age- and sex-matched controls, the SFN patients exhibited a robust and global reduction of functional connectivity, mainly across the limbic and somatosensory systems. Furthermore, lower functional connectivity was associated with skin nerve degeneration measured by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density and better therapeutic response to anti-neuralgia medications, particularly for the connectivity between the insula and the limbic areas including the anterior and middle cingulate cortices. Similar to the patterns of functional connectivity changes, the structural connectivity was robustly reduced among the limbic and somatosensory areas, and the cognition-integration areas including the inferior parietal lobule. There was shared reduction of structural and functional connectivity among the limbic, somatosensory, striatal, and cognition-integration systems: (1) between the middle cingulate cortex and inferior parietal lobule and (2) between the thalamus and putamen. These observations indicate the structural basis underlying altered functional connectivity in SFN.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings provide imaging evidence linking structural and functional brain dysconnectivity to sensory deafferentation caused by peripheral nerve degeneration and therapeutic responses for neuropathic pain in SFN. ANN NEUROL 2022.

Intravenous Lidocaine in Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review of original research articles was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lidocaine infusion in the treatment of adult patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Original research from 1970 to September 2021 describing adult patients with chronic neuropathic pain receiving at least 1 dose of intravenous lidocaine was included. Extracted data included study design, sample size, patient demographics and comorbidities, etiology and duration of pain, pain intensity scores, time to pain resolution, lidocaine dose and administration frequency, lidocaine serum concentration, and adverse events. Each study was evaluated for level of evidence using the 2017 American Association of Neurology classification system.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies evaluating lidocaine infusion treatment in chronic neuropathic pain met inclusion criteria. One class I study was identified for patients with neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury . Two Class II studies were identified, one describing neuropathic pain due to peripheral nerve injury and another due to diabetic neuropathy. Across all studies, study design, participants, and experimental interventions were heterogenous with wide variation.

DISCUSSION

This qualitative review found insufficient, heterogenous evidence and therefore no recommendation can be made for lidocaine infusion treatment in patients with chronic neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury, peripheral nerve injury, diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or complex regional pain syndrome type II. Larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are required to further establish the efficacy of lidocaine infusion in patients with these etiologies of chronic neuropathic pain.

Changed cerebral function and morphology serve as neuroimaging evidence for subclinical type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy

Introduction

Central and peripheral nervous systems are all involved in type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy mechanisms, but such subclinical changes and associations remain unknown. This study aims to explore subclinical changes of the central and peripheral and unveil their association.

Methods

A total of 55 type-2 diabetes patients consisting of symptomatic (n = 23), subclinical (n = 12), and no polyneuropathy (n = 20) were enrolled in this study. Cerebral morphology, function, peripheral electrophysiology, and clinical information were collected and assessed using ANOVA and post-hoc analysis. Gaussian random field correction was used for multiple comparison corrections. Pearson/Spearman correlation analysis was used to evaluate the association of the cerebral with the peripheral.

Results

When comparing the subclinical group with no polyneuropathy groups, no statistical differences were shown in peripheral evaluations except amplitudes of tibial nerves. At the same time, functional connectivity from the orbitofrontal to bilateral postcentral and middle temporal cortex increased significantly. Gray matter volume of orbitofrontal and its functional connectivity show a transient elevation in the subclinical group compared with the symptomatic group. Besides, gray matter volume in the orbitofrontal cortex negatively correlated with the Neuropathy Symptom Score (r = -0.5871, p < 0.001), Neuropathy Disability Score (r = -0.3682, p = 0.009), and Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (r = -0.4403, p = 0.003), and also found correlated positively with bilateral peroneal amplitude (r > 0.4, p < 0.05) and conduction velocities of the right sensory sural nerve(r = 0.3181, p = 0.03). Similarly, functional connectivity from the orbitofrontal to the postcentral cortex was positively associated with cold detection threshold (r = 0.3842, p = 0.03) and negatively associated with Neuropathy Symptom Score (r = -0.3460, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Function and morphology of brain changes in subclinical type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy might serve as an earlier biomarker. Novel insights from subclinical stage to investigate the mechanism of type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy are warranted.

Recent updates in the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy

Distal symmetric diabetic peripheral polyneuropathy (DPN) is the most common form of neuropathy in the world, affecting 30 to 50% of diabetic individuals and resulting in significant morbidity and socioeconomic costs. This review summarizes updates in the diagnosis and management of DPN. Recently updated clinical criteria facilitate bedside diagnosis, and a number of new technologies are being explored for diagnostic confirmation in specific settings and for use as surrogate measures in clinical trials. Evolving literature indicates that distinct but overlapping mechanisms underlie neuropathy in type 1 versus type 2 diabetes, and there is a growing focus on the role of metabolic factors in the development and progression of DPN. Exercise-based lifestyle interventions have shown therapeutic promise. A variety of potential disease-modifying and symptomatic therapies are in development. Innovations in clinical trial design include the incorporation of detailed pain phenotyping and biomarkers for central sensitization.

Towards prevention of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: clinical presentation, pathogenesis, and new treatments

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) occurs in up to half of individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. DPN results from the distal-to-proximal loss of peripheral nerve function, leading to physical disability and sometimes pain, with the consequent lowering of quality of life. Early diagnosis improves clinical outcomes, but many patients still develop neuropathy. Hyperglycaemia is a risk factor and glycaemic control prevents DPN development in type 1 diabetes. However, glycaemic control has modest or no benefit in individuals with type 2 diabetes, probably because they usually have comorbidities. Among them, the metabolic syndrome is a major risk factor for DPN. The pathophysiology of DPN is complex, but mechanisms converge on a unifying theme of bioenergetic failure in the peripheral nerves due to their unique anatomy. Current clinical management focuses on controlling diabetes, the metabolic syndrome, and pain, but remains suboptimal for most patients. Thus, research is ongoing to improve early diagnosis and prognosis, to identify molecular mechanisms that could lead to therapeutic targets, and to investigate lifestyle interventions to improve clinical outcomes.

Recent updates in the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy

Distal symmetric diabetic peripheral polyneuropathy (DPN) is the most common form of neuropathy in the world, affecting 30 to 50% of diabetic individuals and resulting in significant morbidity and socioeconomic costs. This review summarizes updates in the diagnosis and management of DPN. Recently updated clinical criteria facilitate bedside diagnosis, and a number of new technologies are being explored for diagnostic confirmation in specific settings and for use as surrogate measures in clinical trials. Evolving literature indicates that distinct but overlapping mechanisms underlie neuropathy in type 1 versus type 2 diabetes, and there is a growing focus on the role of metabolic factors in the development and progression of DPN. Exercise-based lifestyle interventions have shown therapeutic promise. A variety of potential disease-modifying and symptomatic therapies are in development. Innovations in clinical trial design include the incorporation of detailed pain phenotyping and biomarkers for central sensitization.

The Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (painful-DPN) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition, affecting up to one-third of patients with diabetes. This condition can have a profound impact resulting in a poor quality of life, disruption of employment, impaired sleep, and poor mental health with an excess of depression and anxiety. The management of painful-DPN poses a great challenge. Unfortunately, currently there are no Food and Drug Administration (USA) approved disease-modifying treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) as trials of putative pathogenetic treatments have failed at phase 3 clinical trial stage. Therefore, the focus of managing painful- DPN other than improving glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor modification is treating symptoms. The recommended treatments based on expert international consensus for painful- DPN have remained essentially unchanged for the last decade. Both the serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine and α2δ ligand pregabalin have the most robust evidence for treating painful-DPN. The weak opioids (e.g. tapentadol and tramadol, both of which have an SNRI effect), tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and α2δ ligand gabapentin are also widely recommended and prescribed agents. Opioids (except tramadol and tapentadol), should be prescribed with caution in view of the lack of definitive data surrounding efficacy, concerns surrounding addiction and adverse events. Recently, emerging therapies have gained local licenses, including the α2δ ligand mirogabalin (Japan) and the high dose 8% capsaicin patch (FDA and Europe). The management of refractory painful-DPN is difficult; specialist pain services may offer off-label therapies (e.g. botulinum toxin, intravenous lidocaine and spinal cord stimulation), although there is limited clinical trial evidence supporting their use. Additionally, despite combination therapy being commonly used clinically, there is little evidence supporting this practise. There is a need for further clinical trials to assess novel therapeutic agents, optimal combination therapy and existing agents to determine which are the most effective for the treatment of painful-DPN. This article reviews the evidence for the treatment of painful-DPN, including emerging treatment strategies such as novel compounds and stratification of patients according to individual characteristics (e.g. pain phenotype, neuroimaging and genotype) to improve treatment responses.

Pathogenesis, diagnosis and clinical management of diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy

Diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy (DSPN) is a serious complication of diabetes mellitus and is associated with increased mortality, lower-limb amputations and distressing painful neuropathic symptoms (painful DSPN). Our understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease has largely been derived from animal models, which have identified key potential mechanisms. However, effective therapies in preclinical models have not translated into clinical trials and we have no universally accepted disease-modifying treatments. Moreover, the condition is generally diagnosed late when irreversible nerve damage has already taken place. Innovative point-of-care devices have great potential to enable the early diagnosis of DSPN when the condition might be more amenable to treatment. The management of painful DSPN remains less than optimal; however, studies suggest that a mechanism-based approach might offer an enhanced benefit in certain pain phenotypes. The management of patients with DSPN involves the control of individualized cardiometabolic targets, a multidisciplinary approach aimed at the prevention and management of foot complications, and the timely diagnosis and management of neuropathic pain. Here, we discuss the latest advances in the mechanisms of DSPN and painful DSPN, originating both from the periphery and the central nervous system, as well as the emerging diagnostics and treatments.

Somatosensory network functional connectivity differentiates clinical pain phenotypes in diabetic neuropathy

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this work was to investigate whether different clinical pain phenotypes of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) are distinguished by functional connectivity at rest.

METHODS

This was an observational, cohort study of 43 individuals with painful DPN, divided into irritable (IR, n = 10) and non-irritable (NIR, n = 33) nociceptor phenotypes using the German Research Network of Neuropathic Pain quantitative sensory testing protocol. In-situ brain MRI included 3D T1-weighted anatomical and 6 min resting-state functional MRI scans. Subgroup differences in resting-state functional connectivity in brain regions involved with somatic (thalamus, primary somatosensory cortex, motor cortex) and non-somatic (insular and anterior cingulate cortices) pain processing were examined. Multidimensional reduction of MRI datasets was performed using a machine-learning approach to classify individuals into each clinical pain phenotype.

RESULTS

Individuals with the IR nociceptor phenotype had significantly greater thalamic-insular cortex (p false discovery rate [FDR] = 0.03) and reduced thalamus-somatosensory cortex functional connectivity (p-FDR = 0.03). We observed a double dissociation such that self-reported neuropathic pain score was more associated with greater thalamus-insular cortex functional connectivity (r = 0.41; p = 0.01) whereas more severe nerve function deficits were more related to lower thalamus-somatosensory cortex functional connectivity (r = -0.35; p = 0.03). Machine-learning group classification performance to identify individuals with the NIR nociceptor phenotype achieved an accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI 0.08) and sensitivity of 90%.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

This study demonstrates differences in functional connectivity in nociceptive processing brain regions between IR and NIR phenotypes in painful DPN. We also establish proof of concept for the utility of multimodal MRI as a biomarker for painful DPN by using a machine-learning approach to classify individuals into sensory phenotypes.