Prediction of Individual Analgesic Response to Intravenous Lidocaine in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVES

Intravenous lidocaine can alleviate painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in some patients. Whether quantitative sensory testing (QST) can identify treatment responders has not been prospectively tested.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial comparing intravenous lidocaine to normal saline (placebo) for painful DPN. Thirty-four participants with painful DPN were enrolled and administered intravenous lidocaine (5 mg/kg ideal body weight) or placebo as a 40-minute infusion, after a battery of QST parameters were tested on the dorsal foot, with a 3-week washout period between infusions.

RESULTS

Thirty-one participants completed both study sessions and were included in the final analysis. Lidocaine resulted in a 51% pain reduction 60 to 120 minutes after infusion initiation, as assessed on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, while placebo resulted in a 33.5% pain reduction (difference=17.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9%-33.3%, P=0.03). Neither mechanical pain threshold, heat pain threshold, or any of the other measured QST parameters predicted the response to treatment. Lidocaine administration reduced mean Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory paresthesia/dysesthesia scores when compared with placebo by 1.29 points (95% CI, -2.03 to -0.55, P=0.001), and paroxysmal pain scores by 0.84 points (95% CI, -1.62 to -0.56, P=0.04), without significant changes in burning, pressing or evoked pain subscores.

DISCUSSION

While some participants reported therapeutic benefit from lidocaine administration, QST measures alone were not predictive of response to treatment. Further studies, powered to test more complex phenotypic interactions, are required to identify reliable predictors of response to pharmacotherapy in patients with DPN.

Protection levels of N95-level respirator substitutes proposed during the COVID-19 pandemic: safety concerns and quantitative evaluation procedures

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated widespread shortages of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and the creation and sharing of proposed substitutes (novel designs, repurposed materials) with limited testing against regulatory standards. We aimed to categorically test the efficacy and fit of potential N95 respirator substitutes using protocols that can be replicated in university laboratories.

SETTING

Academic medical centre with occupational health-supervised fit testing along with laboratory studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven adult volunteers who passed quantitative fit testing for small-sized (n=2) and regular-sized (n=5) commercial N95 respirators.

METHODS

Five open-source potential N95 respirator substitutes were evaluated and compared with commercial National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved N95 respirators as controls. Fit testing using the 7-minute standardised Occupational Safety and Health Administration fit test was performed. In addition, protocols that can be performed in university laboratories for materials testing (filtration efficiency, air resistance and fluid resistance) were developed to evaluate alternate filtration materials.

RESULTS

Among five open-source, improvised substitutes evaluated in this study, only one (which included a commercial elastomeric mask and commercial HEPA filter) passed a standard quantitative fit test. The four alternative materials evaluated for filtration efficiency (67%-89%) failed to meet the 95% threshold at a face velocity (7.6 cm/s) equivalent to that of a NIOSH particle filtration test for the control N95 FFR. In addition, for all but one material, the small surface area of two 3D-printed substitutes resulted in air resistance that was above the maximum in the NIOSH standard.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing protocols such as those described here are essential to evaluate proposed improvised respiratory protection substitutes, and our testing platform could be replicated by teams with similar cross-disciplinary research capacity. Healthcare professionals should be cautious of claims associated with improvised respirators when suggested as FFR substitutes.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Practical Guidelines to Study Design and Scientific Manuscript Preparation in Neuromodulation

Background

Healthcare clinical and even policy decisions are progressively made based on research-based evidence. The process by which the appropriate trials are developed and well-written manuscripts by means of evidence-based medicine recommendations has resulted in unprecedented necessity in evidence-based medicine in neuromodulation.

Methods

The essential considerations in the planning of neuromodulation research are discussed in the light of available scientific literature as well as the authors’ scientific expertise regarding research study design and scientific manuscript preparation.

Conclusion

This article should enable the reader to understand how to appropriately design a clinical research study and prepare scientific manuscripts. The high-quality and well-designed studies, when performed and reported effectively, support evidence-based medicine and foster improved patient outcomes.

A Comprehensive Practice Guideline for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compatibility in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices

OBJECTIVES

The evolution of neuromodulation devices in order to enter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners has been one of understanding limitations, engineering modifications, and the development of a consensus within the community in which the FDA could safely administer labeling for the devices. In the initial decades of neuromodulation, it has been contraindicated for MRI use with implanted devices. In this review, we take a comprehensive approach to address all the major products currently on the market in order to provide physicians with the ability to determine when an MRI can be performed for each type of device implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have prepared a narrative review of MRI guidelines for currently marketed implanted neuromodulation devices including spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, peripheral nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and sacral nerve stimulators. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, as well as manufacturer-provided information.

RESULTS

Guidelines and recommendations for each device and their respective guidelines for use in and around MR environments are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first comprehensive guideline with regards to various devices in the market and MRI compatibility from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Wireless, battery-free optoelectronic systems as subdermal implants for local tissue oximetry

Monitoring regional tissue oxygenation in animal models and potentially in human subjects can yield insights into the underlying mechanisms of local O2-mediated physiological processes and provide diagnostic and therapeutic guidance for relevant disease states. Existing technologies for tissue oxygenation assessments involve some combination of disadvantages in requirements for physical tethers, anesthetics, and special apparatus, often with confounding effects on the natural behaviors of test subjects. This work introduces an entirely wireless and fully implantable platform incorporating (i) microscale optoelectronics for continuous sensing of local hemoglobin dynamics and (ii) advanced designs in continuous, wireless power delivery and data output for tether-free operation. These features support in vivo, highly localized tissue oximetry at sites of interest, including deep brain regions of mice, on untethered, awake animal models. The results create many opportunities for studying various O2-mediated processes in naturally behaving subjects, with implications in biomedical research and clinical practice.

Neuropathic Pain: Central vs. Peripheral Mechanisms

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our goal is to examine the processes-both central and peripheral-that underlie the development of peripherally-induced neuropathic pain (pNP) and to highlight recent evidence for mechanisms contributing to its maintenance. While many pNP conditions are initiated by damage to the peripheral nervous system (PNS), their persistence appears to rely on maladaptive processes within the central nervous system (CNS). The potential existence of an autonomous pain-generating mechanism in the CNS creates significant implications for the development of new neuropathic pain treatments; thus, work towards its resolution is crucial. Here, we seek to identify evidence for PNS and CNS independently generating neuropathic pain signals.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent preclinical studies in pNP support and provide key details concerning the role of multiple mechanisms leading to fiber hyperexcitability and sustained electrical discharge to the CNS. In studies regarding central mechanisms, new preclinical evidence includes the mapping of novel inhibitory circuitry and identification of the molecular basis of microglia-neuron crosstalk. Recent clinical evidence demonstrates the essential role of peripheral mechanisms, mostly via studies that block the initially damaged peripheral circuitry. Clinical central mechanism studies use imaging to identify potentially self-sustaining infra-slow CNS oscillatory activity that may be unique to pNP patients. While new preclinical evidence supports and expands upon the key role of central mechanisms in neuropathic pain, clinical evidence for an autonomous central mechanism remains relatively limited. Recent findings from both preclinical and clinical studies recapitulate the critical contribution of peripheral input to maintenance of neuropathic pain. Further clinical investigations on the possibility of standalone central contributions to pNP may be assisted by a reconsideration of the agreed terms or criteria for diagnosing the presence of central sensitization in humans.