[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.

Subgrouping of facilitatory or inhibitory conditioned pain modulation responses in patients with chronic knee pain. Explorative analysis from a multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

Facilitatory and inhibitory conditioned pain modulation (CPM) responses are observed in healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients, but the clinical implications for phenotyping are unknown. This study aimed to subgroup and compare chronic knee pain patients according to their CPM responses.

METHODS

This explorative, cross-sectional study included 127 patients with chronic knee pain (osteoarthritis or following total knee arthroplasty). Individual CPM responses were categorized as facilitatory (test stimuli pain intensity increased when conditioning stimuli were applied), as inhibitory (test stimuli pain intensity decreased) or as no change (defined as less than 5.3% change in pain intensity). Outcomes were clinical pain intensities, temporal summation, widespread pain, self-reported physical function, PainDETECT questionnaire and Pain Quality Assessment Scale. Data were analysed as comparisons between the inhibitory and the facilitatory groups and using multivariate linear regression models.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients had facilitatory CPM responses, 49 had inhibitory CPM responses, and 24 showed no change in CPM response. A between-group difference was observed for self-reported physical function, with the facilitatory CPM group reporting better function (54.4 vs. 46.0, p = 0.028) and the facilitatory CPM group reported more deep pain sensations (3.2 vs. 2.0, p = 0.021). The remaining outcomes showed no between-group differences. Higher clinical pain intensity and facilitated temporal summation were associated in the facilitated CPM group but not in the inhibitory CPM group.

CONCLUSION

These explorative findings indicated that quantitative clinical and experimental differences exist between facilitatory or inhibitory CPM responses in a chronic knee pain patient population. Differences in patients' CPM responses should be further investigated to unravel possible clinical importance.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings confirm that conditioned pain modulation consist of inhibitory and facilitatory responders among a patient population with chronic knee pain. This explorative study indicates that patients with either facilitatory or inhibitory conditioned pain modulation could exhibit differences in pain outcomes. Subgrouping of chronic pain patients depending on individual conditioned pain modulation responses could be considered in phenotyping patients prior to inclusion in clinical trials or used for personalizing the management regime.

Paradoxical heat sensation as a manifestation of thermal hypesthesia: a study of 1090 patients with lesions of the somatosensory system

ABSTRACT

Paradoxical heat sensation (PHS) is the perception of warmth when the skin is cooled. Paradoxical heat sensation rarely occurs in healthy individuals but more frequently in patients suffering from lesions or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system. To further understand mechanisms and epidemiology of PHS, we evaluated the occurrence of PHS in relation to disease aetiology, pain levels, quantitative sensory testing parameters, and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) items in patients with nervous system lesions. Data of 1090 patients, including NPSI scores from 404 patients, were included in the analysis. We tested 11 quantitative sensory testing parameters for thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds, and 10 NPSI items in a multivariate generalised linear model with PHS, aetiology, and pain (yes or no) as fixed effects. In total, 30% of the neuropathic patients reported PHS in contrast to 2% of healthy individuals. The frequency of PHS was not linked to the presence or intensity of pain. Paradoxical heat sensation was more frequent in patients living with polyneuropathy compared with central or unilateral peripheral nerve lesions. Patients who reported PHS demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to thermal perception, with lower sensitivity to normally painful heat and cold stimuli. Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores were lower for burning and electric shock-like pain quality for patients with PHS. Our findings suggest that PHS is associated with loss of small thermosensory fibre function normally involved in cold and warm perception. Clinically, presence of PHS could help screening for loss of small fibre function as it is straightforward to measure or self-reported by patients.

The association of self-reported symptoms of central sensitization and sleep disturbances in neuropathic pain

Introduction

Patients with neuropathic pain (NP) report a higher impairment of quality of life and sleep than patients with chronic pain without neuropathic characteristics. These include somatosensory peculiarities like allodynia, a surrogate marker for central sensitization.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the relation between symptoms of central sensitization and sleep disturbances in patients with NP.

Methods

Within this cross-sectional study, data sets of 3339 patients with chronic NP syndromes (painful diabetic polyneuropathy, n = 543; postherpetic neuralgia, n = 1480) or complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS, n = 1316) were analyzed. Neuropathic pain symptoms were assessed with the painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q), depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and sleep impairment with items of the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale in 4 subscales. The association of demographic/clinical data, somatosensory phenotype, depression, and pain intensity with sleep impairment was assessed by unadjusted Spearman correlation analyses and multivariable regression analyses.

Results

Sleep impairment was observed in all pain aetiologies although with some significant differences in the single sleep items. The intensity of the individual PD-Q items differed to some extent between the 3 pain entities, whereas the PD-Q sum score was similar. Thermal hyperalgesia and burning assessed by the PD-Q were significantly associated with sleep disturbance, adequacy, and quantity but not with sleep somnolence. Only depression and self-reported allodynia had a significant relation to all 4 sleep elements.

Conclusion

Beside depression, allodynia as a surrogate marker hints to a possible impact of central sensitization on the sleep disruption of patients with NP.

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.

Sensory Profiles in Patients with Low Back Pain with and Without Radiculopathy

OBJECTIVE

During routine clinical evaluation, it can be challenging to differentiate between lumbar radiculopathy (RAD) and lower back pain with non-radicular somatic referred pain (SRP) or even axial non-radiating low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to characterize patients with RAD, axial LBP (aLBP), and SRP on the basis of somatosensory profiles.

METHODS

Patients with LBP (n = 54) were assessed with quantitative sensory testing in the area of LBP and, in cases of RAD, additionally in the area of projecting pain. Questionnaires (PainDETECT®, EuroQol-5D, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire for Back Pain, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Short Form-12 Health Survey, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were answered by all patients.

RESULTS

Patients with RAD (n = 12) had higher pain intensity scores (numeric rating scale: 5.7 ± 1.5 vs 4.1 ± 2.2; P < 0.05) and higher PainDETECT scores (14.6 ± 6.13 vs 9.7 ± 6.2; P < 0.05) than did patients with aLBP and SRP (n = 42). Patients with RAD had a more pronounced loss of small-fiber function, increased mechanical hyperalgesia, and a trend toward increased sensitivity to thermal pain in the area of LBP compared with patients with aLBP and SRP. Within patients with RAD, sensory profiles of the area of projecting pain and the area of LBP did not differ. Pressure pain hyperalgesia (measured by pressure pain threshold) and loss of mechanical detection (measured by mechanical detection threshold) in combination with the PainDETECT items numbness and prickling reached the best predictive value in detecting a radiculopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RAD demonstrated more somatosensory abnormalities than did patients with aLBP and SRP, including increased mechanical hyperalgesia and a loss of mechanical detection. The combination of pressure pain threshold, mechanical detection threshold, numbness, and prickling in the area of LBP can be a time-efficient tool to identify patients with RAD.

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 benefit from a given intervention whilst it has little-to-no effect in others. As such, current treatment failures may not result from a true lack of efficacy, but rather a failure to target them to individuals whose pain is driven by mechanisms which it therapeutically modulates. This necessitates a move towards phenotypical stratification of patients in order 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 successful identification of novel analgesics is dependent on rigorous experimental design as well as validity of models and translatability of outcome measures between 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.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Neuropathic Pain Clinical Trials - A Systematic Literature Review

In neuropathic pain clinical trials, the patient's perspective is often insufficiently reflected focusing mainly on pain intensity. Comparability of outcome assessment is limited due to heterogenous patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases and reference lists of published meta-analyses were searched. Randomized controlled studies assessing treatment efficacy of drugs for chronic neuropathic pain were included. PROMs were assigned to recommended IMMPACT/NeuPSIG domains: pain intensity, pain other aspects, physical functioning, emotional functioning, global improvement and satisfaction, adverse events, participant disposition. Domains and PROMs were compared regarding the publication year and methodological quality of the studies. Within the 251 included studies 200 PROMs were used with 27 being recommended by IMMPACT/NeuPSIG. The number of domains was higher in high/moderate quality studies. The (sub-) domains 'physical functioning', 'global improvement and satisfaction', and 'neuropathic pain quality' were assessed more frequently in high/moderate quality studies and those published after 2011. Recent studies and those of better quality more often used the recommended PROMs. Although neuropathic assessment via PROMs has improved, there is still a high heterogeneity. A standardized core set of outcome domains and should be defined to improve neuropathic pain treatment and to achieve better comparability of clinical trials. Perspective: This systematic literature review assesses the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in chronic neuropathic pain. The results show that there is still a high heterogeneity, highlighting the need for a standardized core set of outcome domains and PROMs to improve comparability of clinical trials and neuropathic pain treatment.

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.

The pandemic's effect on a patient cohort with painful polyneuropathy in 2020: A longitudinal study on pain, mood, and everyday life

In the early phase of the COVID pandemic 2020, we demonstrated how patients with painful polyneuropathy, against our expectations, did not experience a deterioration of their neuropathic pain. We hypothesized that our assessed measures, that is, pain intensity and characteristics, emotional wellbeing, and everyday life, would deteriorate in the further course of the pandemic according to the phases of disaster management. Thus, the aim of our study was to investigate patients repeatedly under varying pandemic conditions from March until December 2020. Sixty-three patients were investigated with validated questionnaires (brief pain inventory [BPI], neuropathic pain symptom inventory [NPSI], pain catastrophizing scale [PCS], patient-reported outcomes measurement information system [PROMIS] pain interference/sleep disturbance/fatigue/ depression/anxiety, EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 level version [EQ-5D-5L]) and a pandemic-specific, self-designed questionnaire. The data from the beginning of the pandemic with severe restrictions, during summer with loosened regulations and from December 2020 with reinstalled, severe restrictions were compared with an observational design. Patients reported higher pain severity when restrictions were lower. Sleep, mood, and quality of life did not change in the course of the pandemic in the validated measures. Pain interference significantly decreased during the study independent from restrictions. Patients who reported medical disadvantages had a lower quality of life upon EuroQol 5 dimension (EQ-5D) and were significantly more worried about their health. The perception of pain intensity was dependent on pandemic severity. Sleep, mood, and quality of life did not change significantly in validated measures. Continued medical care seems decisive to prevent worsening of pain and quality of life.

Association of sensory phenotype with quality of life, functionality, and emotional well-being in patients suffering from neuropathic pain

ABSTRACT

Neuropathic pain highly affects quality of life, well-being, and function. It has recently been shown based on cluster analysis studies that most patients with neuropathic pain may be categorized into 1 of 3 sensory phenotypes: sensory loss, mechanical hyperalgesia, and thermal hyperalgesia. If these phenotypes reflect underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, they may be more relevant for patient management than underlying neurological diagnosis or pain intensity. The aim of this study was thus to examine the impact of these sensory phenotypes on mental health, functionality, and quality of life. Data of 433 patients from the IMI/EuroPain network database were analyzed, and results of HADS-D/A, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Euro Quality of Life 5D/-VAS, Brief Pain Inventory, and Graded Chronic Pain Scale between the sensory phenotypes were compared using multiple regression analysis. There was no difference in chronic pain grade, pain intensity, depression, or anxiety scores between phenotypes. Pain interference (Brief Pain Inventory) was higher (P = 0.002); self-reported health state lower (Euro Quality of Life 5D VAS, P = 0.02); and problems regarding mobility (P = 0.008), usual activities (P = 0.004), and self-care (P = 0.039) more prominent (EQ5-D) in the sensory loss compared with the thermal hyperalgesia phenotype. Patients with sensory loss also showed higher pain catastrophizing scores (P = 0.006 and 0.022, respectively) compared with the 2 other groups. Sensory phenotype is associated with the impact of neuropathic pain conditions on well-being, daily functionality, and quality of life but is less associated with pain intensity. These results suggest that the somatosensory phenotype should be considered for personalized pain management.

Development of a bedside tool-kit for assessing sensitization in patients with chronic osteoarthritis knee pain or chronic knee pain after total knee replacement

ABSTRACT

Different pathophysiological mechanisms contribute to the pain development in osteoarthritis (OA). Sensitization mechanisms play an important role in the amplification and chronification of pain and may predict the therapeutic outcome. Stratification of patients according to their pain mechanisms could help to target pain therapy. This study aimed at developing an easy-to-use, bedside tool-kit to assess sensitization in patients with chronic painful knee OA or chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). In total, 100 patients were examined at the most affected knee and extrasegmentally by the use of 4 standardized quantitative sensory testing parameters reflecting sensitization (mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity, dynamic mechanical allodynia, and pressure pain threshold), a bedside testing battery of equivalent parameters including also temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation, and pain questionnaires. Machine learning techniques were applied to identify an appropriate set of bedside screening tools. Approximately half of the patients showed signs of sensitization (46%). Based on machine learning techniques, a composition of tests consisting of 3 modalities was developed. The most adequate bedside tools to detect sensitization were pressure pain sensitivity (pain intensity at 4 mL pressure using a 10-mL blunted syringe), mechanical pinprick pain sensitivity (pain intensity of a 0.7 mm nylon filament) over the most affected knee, and extrasegmental pressure pain sensitivity (pain threshold). This pilot study presents a first attempt to develop an easy-to-use bedside test to probe sensitization in patients with chronic OA knee pain or chronic pain after TKR. This tool may be used to optimize individualized, mechanism-based pain therapy.

Bedside testing for precision pain medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years, the identification of therapy responders has become an increasing focus of pain research. On the basis of laboratory quantitative sensory testing, subgroups of patients were identified, which have been shown to predict treatment response. However, the high cost and time expenditure limits the use of these lab-QST protocols in clinical practice and large clinical trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently, different bedside testing protocols were developed as easy-to-use alternative for lab-QST. In addition, patients can be subgrouped based on their symptoms by use of patient-reported outcome measures. First results suggest that these approaches can be used to stratify patients into pathophysiological-plausible subgroups predictive for treatment response.

SUMMARY

This review presents recently developed bedside approaches that can be implemented as stratification tools in future clinical trials to realize individualized pain medicine. Being complementary rather than replaceable, future studies should combine questionnaires and sensory testing and apply them prospectively in large clinical trials.

Contralateral Sensory and Pain Perception Changes in Patients With Unilateral Neuropathy

OBJECTIVE

To test whether contralateral sensory abnormalities in the clinically unaffected area of patients with unilateral neuropathic pain are due to the neuropathy or pain mechanisms.

METHODS

We analyzed the contralateral clinically unaffected side of patients with unilateral painful or painless neuropathy (peripheral nerve injury [PNI], postherpetic neuropathy [PHN], radiculopathy) by standardized quantitative sensory testing following a validated protocol. Primary outcome was the independent contribution of the following variables on the contralateral sensory function using generalized linear regression models: pain intensity, disease duration, etiology, body area, and sensory patterns in the most painful area.

RESULTS

Among 424 patients (PNI n = 256, PHN n = 78, radiculopathy n = 90), contralateral sensory abnormalities were frequent in both painful (n = 383) and painless (n = 41) unilateral neuropathy, demonstrating sensory loss for thermal and mechanical nonpainful stimuli and both sensory loss and gain for painful test stimuli. Analysis by etiology revealed contralateral pinprick hyperalgesia in PHN and PNI. Analysis by ipsilateral sensory phenotype demonstrated mirror-image pinprick hyperalgesia in both mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia phenotypes. Pain intensity, etiology, and affected body region predicted changes in only single contralateral somatosensory parameters. Disease duration had no impact on the contralateral sensory function.

CONCLUSION

Mechanisms of sensory loss seem to spread to the contralateral side in both painful and painless neuropathies. Contralateral spread of pinprick hyperalgesia was restricted to the 2 ipsilateral phenotypes that suggest sensitization; this suggest a contribution of descending net facilitation from supraspinal areas, which was reported in rodent models of neuropathic pain but not yet in human patients.

Unusual Pain Disorders - What Can Be Learned from Them?

Pain is common in many different disorders and leads to a significant reduction in quality of life in the affected patients. Current treatment options are limited and often result in insufficient pain relief, partly due to the incomplete understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The identification of these pathomechanisms is therefore a central object of current research. There are also a number of rare pain diseases, that are generally little known and often undiagnosed, but whose correct diagnosis and examination can help to improve the management of pain disorders in general. In some of these unusual pain disorders like sodium-channelopathies or sensory modulation disorder the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms have only recently been unravelled. These mechanisms might serve as pharmacological targets that may also play a role in subgroups of other, more common pain diseases. In other unusual pain disorders, the identification of pathomechanisms has already led to the development of new drugs. A completely new therapeutic approach, the gene silencing, can even stop progression in hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and porphyria, ie in pain diseases that would otherwise be rapidly fatal if left untreated. Thus, pain therapists and researchers should be aware of these rare and unusual pain disorders as they offer the unique opportunity to study mechanisms, identify new druggable targets and finally because early diagnosis might save many patient lives.

Pain matters for central sensitization: sensory and psychological parameters in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome

Sensory abnormalities through quantitative sensory testing in fibromyalgia were not substantially influenced by psychological comorbidities. A significant subgroup showed signs of central sensitization, influenced by pain intensity.

Introduction:

Patients suffering from fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) are heterogenous. They often present with sensory abnormalities and comorbidities.

Objectives:

We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a specific somatosensory profile in our patient cohort? (2) Can we detect subgroups characterized by a specific combination of sensory and psychological features? and (3) Do psychological parameters influence sensory signs?

Methods:

In 87 patients with FMS quantitative sensory testing was performed on the hand and evaluated in combination with questionnaire results regarding pain, psychological comorbidities, sleep, and functionality.

Results:

Patients presented different somatosensory patterns, but no specific subgroups regarding sensory signs and psychological features were detected. Hypersensitivity for noxious mechanical and thermal stimuli and hyposensitivity for nonnoxious mechanical stimuli were the most prominent features. Thirty-one percent of patients showed signs of central sensitization as indicated by abnormally increased pinprick hyperalgesia or dynamic mechanical allodynia. Central sensitization was associated with higher pain intensities (P < 0.001). Only a small influence of psychiatric comorbidities on mechanical pain sensitivity (P = 0.044) and vibration detection (P = 0.028) was found, which was partly associated with high pain intensities. A small subgroup of patients (11.4%) demonstrated thermal hyposensitivity (loss of small-fiber function).

Conclusion:

Patients with FMS showed various somatosensory abnormalities. These were not significantly influenced by psychological comorbidities. Signs for central sensitization were detected in about one-third of patients and associated with higher pain intensities. This supports the notion of central sensitization being a major pathophysiological mechanism in FMS, whereas small-fiber loss may be less important.

The serotonin receptor 2A (HTR2A) rs6313 variant is associated with higher ongoing pain and signs of central sensitization in neuropathic pain patients

BACKGROUND

The serotonin receptor 2A (HTR2A) has been described as an important facilitation mediator of spinal nociceptive processing leading to central sensitization (CS) in animal models of chronic pain. However, whether HTR2A single nucleotide variants (SNVs) modulate neuropathic pain states in patients has not been investigated so far. The aim of this study was to elucidate the potential association of HTR2A variants with sensory abnormalities or ongoing pain in neuropathic pain patients.

METHODS

At total of 240 neuropathic pain patients and 253 healthy volunteers were included. Patients were phenotypically characterized using standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST). Patients and controls were genotyped for HTR2A g.-1438G > A (rs6311) and c.102C > T (rs6313). Genotype-related differences in QST parameters were assessed considering QST profile clusters, principal somatosensory components and sex.

RESULTS

There was an equal distribution of rs6313 and linked rs6311 between patients and controls. However, the rs6313 variant was significantly associated with a principal component of pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia, indicating enhanced CS in patients with sensory loss (-0.34 ± 0.15 vs. +0.31 ± 0.11 vs., p < .001). In this cluster, the variant allele was also associated with single QST parameters of pinprick hyperalgesia (MPT, +0.64 ± 0.18 vs. -0.34 ± 0.23 p = .002; MPS, +0.66 ± 0.17 vs. -0.09 ± 0.23, p = .009) and ongoing pain was increased by 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

The specific association of the rs6313 variant with pinprick hyperalgesia and increased levels of ongoing pain suggests that the HTR2A receptor might be an important modulator in the development of CS in neuropathic pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article presents new insights into serotonin receptor 2A-mediating mechanisms of central sensitization in neuropathic pain patients. The rs6313 variant allele was associated with increased mechanical pinprick sensitivity and increased levels of ongoing pain supporting a contribution of central sensitization in the genesis of ongoing pain providing a possible route for mechanism-based therapies.

Neuropathic Pain: Mechanism-Based Therapeutics

Neuropathic pain (NeP) can result from sources as varied as nerve compression, channelopathies, autoimmune disease, and incision. By identifying the neurobiological changes that underlie the pain state, it will be clinically possible to exploit mechanism-based therapeutics for maximum analgesic effect as diagnostic accuracy is optimized. Obtaining sufficient knowledge regarding the neuroadaptive alterations that occur in a particular NeP state will result in improved patient analgesia and a mechanism-based, as opposed to a disease-based, therapeutic approach to facilitate target identification. This will rely on comprehensive disease pathology insight; our knowledge is vastly improving due to continued forward and back translational preclinical and clinical research efforts. Here we discuss the clinical aspects of neuropathy and currently used drugs whose mechanisms of action are outlined alongside their clinical use. Finally, we consider sensory phenotypes, patient clusters, and predicting the efficacy of an analgesic for neuropathy.

Chance or challenge, spoilt for choice? New recommendations on diagnostic and therapeutic considerations in hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy: the German/Austrian position and review of the literature

Hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis is caused by pathogenic variants (ATTR_v) in the TTR gene. Alongside cardiac dysfunction, the disease typically manifests with a severely progressive sensorimotor and autonomic polyneuropathy. Three different drugs, tafamidis, patisiran, and inotersen, are approved in several countries, including the European Union and the United States of America. By stabilizing the TTR protein or degrading its mRNA, all types of treatment aim at preventing amyloid deposition and stopping the otherwise fatal course. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to recognize both onset and progression of neuropathy as early as possible. To establish recommendations for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the follow-up of both pre-symptomatic mutation carriers and patients with manifest ATTR_v amyloidosis with polyneuropathy, German and Austrian experts elaborated a harmonized position. This paper is further based on a systematic review of the literature. Potential challenges in the early recognition of disease onset and progression are the clinical heterogeneity and the subjectivity of sensory and autonomic symptoms. Progression cannot be defined by a single test or score alone but has to be evaluated considering various disease aspects and their dynamics over time. The first-line therapy should be chosen based on individual symptom constellations and contra-indications. If symptoms worsen, this should promptly implicate to consider optimizing treatment. Due to the rareness and variability of ATTR_v amyloidosis, the clinical course is most importantly directive in doubtful cases. Therefore, a systematic follow-up at an experienced center is crucial to identify progression and reassure patients and carriers.

A Novel Algorithm to Identify Predictors of Treatment Response: Tapentadol Monotherapy or Tapentadol/Pregabalin Combination Therapy in Chronic Low Back Pain?

Purpose: High dose monotherapies or drug combinations are used to achieve sufficient analgesia for the treatment of severe chronic low back pain, before invasive therapy options are considered. In order to demonstrate an alternative for an empirical treatment approach, the authors' primary aim was to present an algorithm for the objective identification of treatment predictors. Additionally, the study identified baseline-characteristics in chronic low back pain patients prior to tapentadol PR treatment, as well as scrutinized those patients, either benefitting from a medium/high dose tapentadol PR monotherapy or a combination therapy (medium dose tapentadol PR + pregabalin).

Patients and Methods: The statistical approach included data of a previously published randomized, double blind, phase 3b study which compared the effectiveness and safety of tapentadol PR vs. a combination of tapentadol PR and pregabalin. In total, 46 clinical parameters were included in the statistical prediction models which were applied separately either to 50 patients who already responded well during the titration period (i.e., medium dose tapentadol PR) or to 261 patients with in the comparative treatment period [i.e., monotherapy (high dose tapentadol PR) or combination therapy (medium dose tapentadol PR/pregabalin)].

Results: The first statistical model identified three co-variables (NRS-3, PDQ, SQ) with predictive effects on patients responding well (“optimal responders”) to a medium dose tapentadol PR titration. Those patients presented low baseline pain intensity scores, good sleep quality and high painDETECT scores. The second statistical model identified eight co-variables (PDQ, numbness, SF-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, VAS, HADS-A, HADS-D, SQ) with predictive effects on patients responding to high dose tapentadol PR monotherapy vs. a combination therapy (tapentadol PR + pregabalin). The high dose tapentadol PR responders indicated high painDETECT scores, little numbness and a good mental health status. Whereas, the combination therapy (tapentadol PR + pregabalin) responders were characterized by severe sleep disturbances and little anxiety.

Conclusion: The statistical analysis characterized chronic low back pain patients and identified factors contributing to a treatment response. Thus, this retrospective statistical algorithm represents an elegant method, which may contribute to future strategies toward a more individualized and improved mechanism based pain therapy.

SIGMA-1 Receptor Gene Variants Affect the Somatosensory Phenotype in Neuropathic Pain Patients

Pain sensitivity is characterized by interindividual variability, determined by factors including genetic variation of nociceptive receptors and pathways. The sigma-1 receptor (SIGMAR1) is involved in pain modulation especially under pre-sensitized conditions. However, the contribution of SIGMAR1 genetic variants to pain generation and sensitivity is unknown yet. This study aimed to identify effects of 5 SIGMAR1 variants on the somatosensory phenotype of neuropathic pain patients (n = 228) characterized by standardized quantitative sensory testing. Principal component analysis revealed that the SIGMAR1 variants -297G>T (rs10814130) and 5A>C (rs1800866) significantly lowered thermal detection and heat/pressure nociception in particular in neuropathic pain patients with mainly preserved somatosensory function. Compared to wild-type, the variant allele -297T was associated with loss of warm detection (P = .049), lower heat-pain sensitivity (P = .027) and wind-up ratio (P = .023) as well as increased paradoxical heat sensation (P = .020). Likewise for 5A>C the strongest genotype-associated differences observed were reduced peripheral (less heat hyperalgesia; P = .026) and central sensitization (lower mechanical pain sensitivity; P = .026) in variant compared to wild-type carriers. This study indicates lack of association of SIGMAR1 -297G>T and 5A>C genetic variants to susceptibility to develop chronic pain, but significant modulation of somatosensory function in neuropathic pain patients. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the first study indicating a modulation of somatosensory function in neuropathic pain patients by selected genetic variants in SIGMAR1. As our findings could contribute to the explanation of interindividual differences in drug response they might help to improve the treatment of neuropathic pain.