[Pain and cervical dystonia]

BACKGROUND

Dystonia is a hyperkinetic movement disorder that results in twisting, cramps and tremors due to sustained or intermittent muscle contractions. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of dystonia, in which the head, neck and/or shoulder areas are affected. In addition to these motor symptoms, pain and psychiatric symptoms are frequent in (cervical) dystonia.

OBJECTIVE

Description of the incidence and evaluation of pain in cervical dystonia, summary and discussion of treatment options and effects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this review article the results in the scientific literature on pain in dystonia are summarized and discussed.

RESULTS

Compared to other forms of dystonia, pain occurs most frequently in patients with cervical dystonia. A large proportion of patients with cervical dystonia suffer from pain, which contributes most to impairment of the patient. The motor symptoms of dystonia are usually treated with botulinum toxin injections. These have a muscle relaxing effect and also relieve pain. The study situation on the occurrence and treatment of pain in other forms of dystonia is so far very limited. Pain can dominate the clinical picture in patients with cervical dystonia. Evaluation of pain in cervical dystonia can be performed using standardized questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

It is important to ask patients with cervical dystonia about pain and to consider it in treatment planning and evaluation. Vice versa, if pain is present the possibility of a causative dystonia should also be considered. For pain assessment there are some newly developed questionnaires to assess pain in a standardized way in patients with dystonia. Further research is needed to better understand the pathomechanisms of pain in dystonia.

Tremor is associated with familial clustering of dystonia

INTRODUCTION

Dystonia is a movement disorder of variable etiology and clinical presentation and is accompanied by tremor in about 50% of cases. Monogenic causes in dystonia are rare, but also in the group of non-monogenic dystonias 10-30% of patients report a family history of dystonia. This points to a number of patients currently classified as idiopathic that have at least in part an underlying genetic contribution. The present study aims to identify clinical and demographic features associated with heritability of yet idiopathic dystonia.

METHODS

Seven hundred thirty-three datasets were obtained from the DysTract dystonia registry, patients with acquired dystonia or monogenic causes were excluded. Affected individuals were assigned to a familial and sporadic group, and clinical features were compared across these groups. Additionally, the history of movement disorders was also counted in family members.

RESULTS

18.2% of patients reported a family history of dystonia. Groups differed in age at onset, disease duration and presence of tremor on a descriptive level. Logistic regression analysis revealed that tremor was the only predictor for a positive family history of dystonia (OR 2.49, CI = 1.54-4.11, p < 0.001). Tremor turned out to be the most common movement disorder in available relatives of patients, and presence of tremor in relatives was associated with tremor in index patients (X²(1) = 16.2, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Tremor is associated with an increased risk of familial clustering of dystonia and with a family history of tremor itself. This indicates a hereditable dystonia-tremor syndrome with a clinical spectrum ranging from tremor-predominant diseases to dystonia.

Relationship of Genotype, Phenotype, and Treatment in Dopa-Responsive Dystonia: MDSGene Review

BACKGROUND

Pathogenic variants in 5 genes (GCH1, TH, PTS, SPR, and QDPR), involved in dopamine/tetrahydrobiopterin biosynthesis or recycling, have been linked to Dopa-responsive dystonia (DRD). Diagnosis and treatment are often delayed due to high between- and within-group variability.

OBJECTIVES

Comprehensively analyzed individual genotype, phenotype, treatment response, and biochemistry information.

METHODS

734 DRD patients and 151 asymptomatic GCH1 mutation carriers were included using an MDSGene systematic literature review and an automated classification approach to distinguish between different forms of monogenic DRDs.

RESULTS

Whereas dystonia, L-Dopa responsiveness, early age at onset, and diurnal fluctuations were identified as red flags, parkinsonism without dystonia was rarely reported (11%) and combined with dystonia in only 18% of patients. While sex was equally distributed in autosomal recessive DRD, there was female predominance in autosomal dominant DYT/PARK-GCH1 patients accompanied by a lower median age at onset and more dystonia in females compared to males. Accordingly, the majority of asymptomatic heterozygous GCH1 mutation carriers (>8 years of age) were males. Multiple other subgroup-specific characteristics were identified, showing high accuracy in the automated classification approach: Seizures and microcephaly were mostly seen in DYT/PARK-PTS, autonomic symptoms appeared commonly in DYT/PARK-TH and DYT/PARK-PTS, and sleep disorders and oculogyric crises in DYT/PARK-SPR. Biochemically, homovanillic acid and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid in CSF were reduced in most DRDs, but neopterin and biopterin were increased only in DYT/PARK-PTS and DYT/PARK-SPR. Hyperphenylalaninemia was seen in DYT/PARK-PTS, DYT/PARK-QDPR, and rarely reported in autosomal recessive DYT/PARK-GCH1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our indicators will help to specify diagnosis and accelerate start of treatment. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Cerebellar rTMS and PAS effectively induce cerebellar plasticity

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS), paired associative stimulation (PAS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been applied over the cerebellum to induce plasticity and gain insights into the interaction of the cerebellum with neo-cortical structures including the motor cortex. We compared the effects of 1 Hz rTMS, cTBS, PAS and tDCS given over the cerebellum on motor cortical excitability and interactions between the cerebellum and dorsal premotor cortex / primary motor cortex in two within subject designs in healthy controls. In experiment 1, rTMS, cTBS, PAS, and tDCS were applied over the cerebellum in 20 healthy subjects. In experiment 2, rTMS and PAS were compared to sham conditions in another group of 20 healthy subjects. In experiment 1, PAS reduced cortical excitability determined by motor evoked potentials (MEP) amplitudes, whereas rTMS increased motor thresholds and facilitated dorsal premotor-motor and cerebellum-motor cortex interactions. TDCS and cTBS had no significant effects. In experiment 2, MEP amplitudes increased after rTMS and motor thresholds following PAS. Analysis of all participants who received rTMS and PAS showed that MEP amplitudes were reduced after PAS and increased following rTMS. rTMS also caused facilitation of dorsal premotor-motor cortex and cerebellum-motor cortex interactions. In summary, cerebellar 1 Hz rTMS and PAS can effectively induce plasticity in cerebello-(premotor)-motor pathways provided larger samples are studied.