Diagnostic criteria for idiopathic small fiber neuropathy: A systematic review

Comparing FGFR-3 and TS-HDS Seropositive Small Fiber Neuropathy: Unique Patient Features, Symptoms, Laboratory, and Nerve Conduction Study Findings

OBJECTIVES

Small fiber neuropathy presents a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. To solve this challenge, efforts have been made to identify autoantibodies associated with this condition. Previous literature has often considered tri-sulfated heparin disaccharide (TS-HDS) and fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) as a singular seropositive group and/or focused primarily on symptomatic associations.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-two small fiber neuropathy patients with a Washington University Sensory Neuropathy panel were selected for TS-HDS seropositivity, FGFR-3 seropositivity, and seronegative controls. Data were collected to on the demographic, symptomatic, and laboratory profiles of each subgroup.

RESULTS

Percent female (P = 0.0043), frequency of neuropathic pain symptoms (P = 0.0074), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (P = 0.0293), vitamin D (P < 0.0001), and vitamin B12 (P = 0.0033) differed between the groups. Skin biopsy was more frequently normal within both the FGFR-3 and the TS-HDS cohort (P = 0.0253).

CONCLUSIONS

TS-HDS and FGFR-3 display a distinct phenotype from both controls and one another. Immunoglobulin M (IgM) against FGFR-3 and IgM against TS-HDS may be individually valuable markers for the development of distinct clinical phenotypes.

Characterizing Acute-Onset Small Fiber Neuropathy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Immune-mediated small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is increasingly recognized. Acute-onset SFN (AOSFN) remains poorly described. Herein, we report a series of AOSFN cases in which immune origins are debatable.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with probable or definite AOSFN. Diagnosis of SFN was based on the NEURODIAB criteria. Acute onset was considered when the maximum intensity and extension of both symptoms and signs were reached within 28 days. We performed the following investigations: clinical examination, neurophysiologic assessment encompassing a nerve conduction study to rule out large fiber neuropathy, laser-evoked potentials (LEPs), warm detection thresholds (WDTs), electrochemical skin conductance (ESC), epidermal nerve fiber density (ENF), and patient serum reactivity against mouse sciatic nerve teased fibers, mouse dorsal root ganglion (DRG) sections, and cultured DRG. The serum reactivity of healthy subjects (n = 10) and diseased controls (n = 12) was also analyzed. Data on baseline characteristics, biological investigations, and disease course were collected.

RESULTS

Twenty patients presenting AOSFN were identified (60% women; median age: 44.2 years [interquartile range: 35.7-56.2]). SFN was definite in 18 patients (90%) and probable in 2 patients. A precipitating event was present in 16 patients (80%). The median duration of the progression phase was 14 days [5-28]. Pain was present in 17 patients (85%). Twelve patients (60%) reported autonomic involvement. The clinical pattern was predominantly non-length-dependent (85%). Diagnosis was confirmed by abnormal LEPs (60%), ENF (55%), WDT (39%), or ESC (31%). CSF analysis was normal in 5 of 5 patients. Antifibroblast growth factor 3 antibodies were positive in 4 of 18 patients (22%) and anticontactin-associated protein-2 antibodies in one patient. In vitro studies showed IgG immunoreactivity against nerve tissue in 14 patients (70%), but not in healthy subjects or diseased controls. Patient serum antibodies bound to unmyelinated fibers, Schwann cells, juxtaparanodes, paranodes, or DRG. Patients' condition improved after a short course of oral corticosteroids (3/3). Thirteen patients (65%) showed partial or complete recovery. Others displayed relapses or a chronic course.

DISCUSSION

AOSFN primarily presents as an acute, non-length-dependent, symmetric painful neuropathy with a variable disease course. An immune-mediated origin has been suggested based on in vitro immunohistochemical studies.

Anti-Plexin-D1 Seropositive Small Fiber Neuropathy: Clinical Phenotype, Demographics, and Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is a subtype of painful neuropathies defined by dysfunction of the Aδ and unmyelinated C fibers. It presents with both neuropathic pain and dysautonomia symptoms, posing a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. To address this challenge, research has been conducted to identify autoantibodies and define their association with phenotypes.

METHODS

Eleven cases of anti-plexin-D1 seropositive SFN were reviewed, along with relevant literature, in attempt to better define anti-plexin-D1 SFN demographics, symptoms, associated medical conditions, and therapeutics.

RESULTS

Anti-plexin-D1 SFN typically presents in female patients, with neuropathic pain, normal skin biopsy findings, and normal nerve conduction studies. Anti-plexin-D1 shows an association with concurrent chronic pain, with almost half of the patients undergoing an interventional procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-plexin-D1 represents a unique subgroup of SFN, defined by distinct demographics, phenotype, biopsy findings, and therapeutic management.

Initial validation of the Mass. General Neuropathy Exam Tool (MAGNET) for evaluation of distal small-fiber neuropathy

INTRODUCTION/AIMS

Diagnosis of small-fiber neuropathy (SFN) is hampered by its subjective symptoms and signs. Confirmatory testing is insufficiently available and expensive, so predictive examinations have value. However, few support the 2020 SFN consensus-case-definition requirements or were validated for non-diabetes neuropathies. Thus we developed the Massachusetts General Hospital Neuropathy Exam Tool (MAGNET) and measured diagnostic performance in 160 symptomatic patients evaluated for length-dependent SFN from any cause and 37 healthy volunteers.

METHODS

We compared prevalences of abnormalities (vital signs, pupil responses, lower-limb appearance, pin, light touch, vibration and position sensitivity, great-toe strength, muscle stretch reflexes), and validated diagnostic performance against objective SFN tests: lower-leg skin-biopsy epidermal neurite densities and autonomic function testing (AFT). Sensitivity/specificity, feasibility, test-retest and inter-rater reliability, and convergence with the Utah Early Neuropathy Scale were calculated.

RESULTS

Patients' ages averaged 48.5 ± 14.7 years and 70.6% were female. Causes of neuropathy varied, remaining unknown in 59.5%. Among the 46 with abnormal skin biopsies, the most prevalent abnormality was reduced pin sharpness at the toes (71.7%). Inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity excelled (range = 91.3-95.6%). Receiver operating characteristics comparing all symptomatic patients versus healthy controls indicated that a MAGNET threshold score of 14 maximized predictive accuracy for skin biopsies (0.74) and a 30 cut-off maximized accuracy for predicting AFT (0.60). Analyzing patients with any abnormal neuropathy-test results identified areas-under-the-curves of 0.87-0.89 for predicting a diagnostic result, accuracy = 0.80-0.89, and Youden's index = 0.62. Overall, MAGNET was 80%-85% accurate for stratifying patients with abnormal versus normal neuropathy test results.

DISCUSSION

MAGNET quickly generates research-quality metrics during clinical examinations.

Efficacy and safety of vixotrigine in idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful small fibre neuropathy (CONVEY): a phase 2 placebo-controlled enriched-enrolment randomised withdrawal study

Background

No pharmacological treatments are specifically indicated for painful small fibre neuropathy (SFN). CONVEY, a phase 2 enriched-enrolment study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of vixotrigine, a voltage- and use-dependent sodium channel blocker, in participants with idiopathic or diabetes-associated painful SFN.

Methods

CONVEY was a phase 2, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind (DB), enriched-enrolment, randomised withdrawal study. The study was conducted at 68 sites in 13 countries (Europe and Canada) between May 17, 2018, and April 12, 2021. Following a 4-week open-label period in which 265 adults with painful SFN (a mixture of large and small fibre neuropathy was not exclusionary) received oral vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily (BID), 123 participants (with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in average daily pain [ADP] score during the open-label period) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive 200 mg BID, 350 mg BID or placebo for a 12-week double-blind (DB) period. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants with a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP and the proportion of Patient Global Impression of Pain (PGIC) responders at DB Week 12. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were monitored. Statistical significance was set at 0.10 (2-sided). The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03339336) and on ClinicalTrialsregister.eu (2017-000991-27).

Findings

A statistically significant difference from placebo in least squares mean reduction in ADP score from baseline to DB Week 12 was observed with vixotrigine 200 mg BID (-0.85; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.71 to 0.00; p = 0.050) but not 350 mg BID (-0.17; SE, 0.43; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.68; p = 0.70). Numerically, but not statistically significantly, more participants who received vixotrigine vs placebo experienced a ≥30% ADP reduction from baseline (68.3-72.5% vs 52.5%), and only the 350 mg BID group had significantly more PGIC responders vs placebo (48.8% vs 30.0%; odds ratio = 2.60; 95% CI, 0.97-6.99; p = 0.058) at DB Week 12. AEs were mostly mild to moderate in the vixotrigine groups. The most common AEs (≥5% of vixotrigine-treated participants) in the DB 200 mg BID and 350 mg BID vixotrigine groups were falls, nasopharyngitis, muscle spasm, and urinary tract infection.

Interpretation

In our study, vixotrigine 200 mg BID, but not 350 mg BID, met the primary endpoint; more vixotrigine-treated participants experienced a ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADP at DB Week 12. Vixotrigine (at both dosages) was well tolerated in participants with SFN.

Funding

Biogen, Inc.

Ayurvedic management of idiopathic small fibre neuropathy- A case report

Small fibre neuropathy (SFN) is a subgroup of peripheral neuropathy which is characterized by a disorder of the thin myelinated A-δ and unmyelinated C-fibres. With a prevalence of 52.95 per 100,000 population per year, the reported etiology of SFN has remained unclear in 23-93% of investigated patients and hence termed idiopathic small fibre neuropathy (iSFN). Pain is the most common symptom which is often described as burning. Conventional pain management is the only treatment option for iSFN, which is only modestly effective and associated with adverse events which lead to reduced drug compliance. It also affects the overall quality of life. This case report discusses the effect of Ayurvedic interventions in the management of iSFN. The patient was a 37-year-old male, who presented with severe pain, burning, and tingling sensation of B/L lower limbs and hands with decreased sleep for 5 years (visual analogue scale (VAS) was 10 and neuropathic pain scale (NPS) score was 39). Considering the signs and symptoms, the disease was diagnosed under the Vata Vyadhi (disease/syndrome caused by Vata Dosha) spectrum. The treatment included an initial OPD-based Shamana (treatment that pacifies the aggravated doshas) treatment with Drakshadi Kwatha, Sundibaladwaya Ksheera Kwatha, Kalyanaka Gritha, and Ashwagandhadi Churna. As the symptoms persisted, Shodhana (treatment in which aggravated doshas are expelled from the body) treatment was adopted which included Mridu (mild) Shodhana, Nasya (medicine administered through nasal route) and Basti (administration of medicine through the procto-colonic route). The intervention resulted in significant clinical improvement as evidenced by the reduction in VAS and NPS scores to zero and five respectively. The patient's quality of life also showed significant improvement. This case report signifies the pivotal role of Ayurvedic intervention in the management of iSFN and encourages further research in this area. Integrative therapeutic approaches can be developed which may offer a promising strategy for managing iSFN and improving patient outcomes.

Nociceptive two-point discrimination acuity and body representation failure in polyneuropathy

OBJECTIVES

Although patients' complaints suggest polyneuropathy (PNP) and neuropathic pain, routine investigations do not always support the diagnosis. Assessing two-point-pain discrimination thresholds (2ptDT) and quantify body representation disturbances might be useful to close this diagnostic gap.

METHODS

Pinprick pain and laser-heat pain perception thresholds and 2ptDT on hands, forearms, lower legs and feet were obtained in 20 PNP patients (mean age: 57.6 ± 13.9) and 20 healthy subjects (mean age: 50.6 ± 4.7 years). Body representation disturbances were assessed by self-estimating feet size and the Bath CRPS body perception disturbances questionnaire adapted for PNP.

RESULTS

Pain perception thresholds and laser-heat pain 2ptDT were unaltered, but patients had higher pinprick pain 2ptDT then the healthy subjects. The 2ptDT for pinprick at the hands discriminate best between groups (U-test; p=0.001). Furthermore, patients estimated their feet longer than they are. In subsequent multivariate discriminant analyses, 2ptDT for pinprick pain at the hands, 2ptDT for laser-heat pain and the perception thresholds for laser-heat pain at the feet classified 85% of PNP vs. HC correctly. The combination of 2ptDT for pinprick pain at the hands, pinprick pain perception thresholds at the calves and foot length estimation differentiates painful vs. non-painful PNPs correctly in 90% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing 2ptDT for painful pinprick stimuli at the hands and asking for foot length estimation might add to diagnostic accuracy in painful PNP.

Observational case-control study of small-fiber neuropathies, with regards on smoking and vitamin D deficiency and other possible causes

Introduction

Small fiber neuropathies (SFNs) are disorders of skin nerve endings inducing pruritus, burning pain, numbness, and paresthesia. The aims of this study were to search for putative etiologies of SFN and their occurrence in a cohort of patients and to compare patients with SFN to a group of patients without SFN to highlight potential factors associated with SFN.

Methods

This study was observational, retrospective, and monocentric. All patients with symptoms of SFN who underwent skin biopsies with intraepidermal nerve density counts were included. Patients with a count lower than 5 percentiles were considered to be in the SFN group. Other patients were considered to be the control group.

Results

A total of 162 patients with SFN and 161 controls were included. No cause was identified for 108 patients (61.7%). The established causes were autoimmune diseases (9.1%), diabetes or glucose intolerance (8%), medication (4%), liver disease (3.4%), and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (2.9%). Current or former smokers were more numerous in the SFN group (26.5%) than in the control group (16.1%), while vitamin D amounts were significantly lower in the SFN group than in the control group.

Discussion

Hence, tobacco smoking and vitamin D deficiency might be new putative causes of SFN.

Small fiber neuropathy

Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is a peripheral nervous system disease due to affection of A-delta or C-fibers in a proximal, distal, or diffuse distribution. Selective SFN (without large fiber affection) manifests with pain, sensory disturbances, or autonomic dysfunction. Though uniform diagnostic criteria are unavailable, most of them request typical clinical features and reduced intra-epidermal nerve fiber density on proximal or distal skin biopsy. Little consensus has been reached about the treatment of SFN, why this narrative review aims at summarizing and discussing treatment options for SFN. Treatment of SFN can be classified as symptomatic, pathophysiologic, or causal. Prerequisites for treating SFN are an established diagnosis, knowledge about the symptoms and signs, and the etiology. Pain usually responds to oral/intravenous pain killers, antidepressants, anti-seizure drugs, or topical, transdermal specifications. Some of the autonomic disturbances respond favorably to symptomatic treatment. SFN related to Fabry disease or hATTR are accessible to pathogenesis-related therapy. Immune-mediated SFN responds to immunosuppression or immune-modulation. Several of the secondary SFNs respond to causal treatment of the underlying disorder. In conclusion, treatment of SFN relies on a multimodal concept and includes causative, pathophysiologic, and symptomatic measures. It strongly depends on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and etiology, why it is crucial before initiation of treatment to fix the diagnosis and etiology. Due to the heterogeneous clinical presentation and multi-causality, treatment of SFN should be individualized with the goal of controlling the underlying cause, alleviating pain, and optimizing functionality.

Small-Fiber-Neuropathien

Die Small-Fiber-Neuropathie (SFN) ist eine Erkrankung des peripheren Nervensystems aufgrund einer isolierten oder vorwiegenden Schädigung dünn myelinisierter Aδ-Fasern und/oder unmyelinisierter C‑Fasern. Für die sichere Diagnose einer SFN ist neben der klinischen Symptomatik mit Schmerzen und Sensibilitätsstörungen, typischerweise mit distal betonter Ausbreitung, der apparative Nachweis einer Rarefizierung oder einer Funktionsstörung der dünn myelinisierten Aδ-Fasern und/oder der unmyelinisierten C‑Fasern gefordert. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird eine Übersicht über die diagnostischen Verfahren zum Nachweis einer SFN sowie über mögliche Ursachen und Behandlungsoptionen gegeben.

A Retrospective Analysis of Pain Etiology in Middle-Aged Patients with Peripheral Neuropathy

Background and Objectives: Correct assessment and a multidisciplinary approach appear to be extremely important in preventing peripheral neuropathy and its complications. The purpose of this study was to find the correlations and dissimilarities between different types of peripheral neuropathy, the occurrence of pain, and laboratory results. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study assessed 124 patients who were hospitalized in our neurology department due to various types of sensory or motor disturbances. The patients were eventually diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy, based on the electrophysiological study, anamnesis, physical examination, and laboratory results. The whole group was subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean age of patients was over 56 years, with a slight woman predominance. A statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationship between the place of residence and gender was seen, where more men than women live in the rural area, while more women than men live in the urban area. Most often we observed symmetric, sensorimotor, demyelinating, inflammatory, and chronic neuropathy. More than 40% of patients reported pain. A statistically significant correlation between the evolution/severity and the occurrence of pain was seen in subacute type (p < 0.05) and small fibre neuropathy (p < 0.01). Conclusions: A higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy in middle-aged people will become essential in the aging society with lifestyle and chronic disorders. Peripheral neuropathy is slightly more common in women than men and its occurrence may be influenced by work performed or internal and external factors. In the study group, more than 40% of patients reported pain, therefore the pain measurement for each patient should be implemented and repeated at every visit. An assessment of sodium level and, in women, markers of neuroinflammation level in the various types of peripheral neuropathy may be an interesting direction for the future.

Evaluation and diagnosis of neuropathic pain

Background: Thorough evaluation and an accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain are essential for effective treatment. The therapeutic approach and choice of medication for neuropathic pain are different from those for other kinds of nociceptive pain. Therefore, this study aimed to present the current evaluation and diagnostic methods for neuropathic pain.Current Concepts: Grading of the certainty of the presence of neuropathic pain according to the results of clinical history, neurological examination, and confirmatory tests improves the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. The Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions, and PainDETECT are mainly used for neuropathic pain screening. During physical examination, sensory nerve function tests are more critical than other nervous system examination items, including the test of the sense of touch with a cotton swab and the sense of vibration with a tuning fork. In addition, pain sensation using pins and temperature sensation using cold metal are tested to check for nociceptive pathway abnormalities. Diagnostic tests include imaging tests, nerve conduction tests, and other neurophysiological tests, such as quantitative sensory function tests, autonomic nerve function tests, and blood tests.Discussion and Conclusion: To diagnose neuropathic pain, physicians should first determine whether patient symptoms match the characteristics of neuropathic pain. If there is a possibility of neuropathic pain, physicians should perform a neurological screening examination and a proper diagnostic test to identify the cause of pain.

Small fiber neuropathy: Swiss cohort characterization

Introduction/Aim

There is currently insufficient clinical and epidemiological data concerning small fiber neuropathy (SFN). This research analyzes data from medical records to determine epidemiology, demographics, clinical characteristics and etiology of SFN.

Methods

This is a retrospective, observational study of sequential patients diagnosed with definite SFN (typical clinical features, normal nerve conduction studies, abnormal epidermal nerve fiber density) from the end of November 2016 to the middle of July 2019 at the Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, central Switzerland.

Results

A total of 84 patients (64.3% female) with a mean age of 54.7 y were analyzed. Symptoms had been present in patients for an average of 4.8 y when entering the study. A length dependent clinical pattern was seen in 79.8%. All patients had sensory discomfort. Etiology could not be determined in 35.7% of patients, who were diagnosed with idiopathic SFN; 34.5% of patients had an apparently autoimmune SFN, followed by14.3% of patients with metabolic causes. The estimated incidence was at least 4.4 cases/100.000 inhabitants/y. The minimum prevalence was 131.5 cases/100.000 inhabitants.

Discussion

This study indicates significant incidence and prevalence rates of SFN in Switzerland. SFN can vary greatly in its symptoms and severity. Extensive work‐up resulted in two thirds of the patients being assigned an etiological association. The largest group of patients could not be etiologically defined, underlining the importance of further research on etiologic identification. We expect increased awareness of the developing field of SFN.

Diagnosing small fiber neuropathy in clinical practice: a deep phenotyping study

Background and aims

Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is increasingly suspected in patients with pain of uncertain origin, and making the diagnosis remains a challenge lacking a diagnostic gold standard.

Methods

In this case-control study, we prospectively recruited 86 patients with a medical history and clinical phenotype suggestive of SFN. Patients underwent neurological examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), and distal and proximal skin punch biopsy, and were tested for pain-associated gene loci. Fifty-five of these patients additionally underwent pain-related evoked potentials (PREP), corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), and a quantitative sudomotor axon reflex test (QSART).

Results

Abnormal distal intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) (60/86, 70%) and neurological examination (53/86, 62%) most frequently reflected small fiber disease. Adding CCM and/or PREP further increased the number of patients with small fiber impairment to 47/55 (85%). Genetic testing revealed potentially pathogenic gene variants in 14/86 (16%) index patients. QST, QSART, and proximal IENFD were of lower impact.

Conclusion

We propose to diagnose SFN primarily based on the results of neurological examination and distal IENFD, with more detailed phenotyping in specialized centers.

Sensitive Skins May Be Neuropathic Disorders: Lessons from Studies on Skin and Other Organs

Sensitive skin can be considered a neuropathic disorder. Sensory disorders and the decrease in intra-epidermal nerve ending density are strong arguments for small-fiber neuropathies. Sensitive skin is frequently associated with irritable bowel syndrome or sensitive eyes, which are also considered neuropathic disorders. Consequently, in vitro co-cultures of skin and neurons are adequate models for sensitive skin.

Idiopathic distal sensory polyneuropathy: ACTTION diagnostic criteria

OBJECTIVE

To present standardized diagnostic criteria for idiopathic distal sensory polyneuropathy (iDSP) and its subtypes: idiopathic mixed fiber sensory neuropathy (iMFN), idiopathic small fiber sensory neuropathy (iSFN), and idiopathic large fiber sensory neuropathy (iLFN) for use in research.

METHODS

The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the Food and Drug Administration convened a meeting to develop consensus diagnostic criteria for iMFN, iSFN, and iLFN. After background presentations, a collaborative, iterative approach was used to develop expert consensus for new criteria.

RESULTS

An iDSP diagnosis requires at least 1 small fiber (SF) or large fiber (LF) symptom, at least 1 SF or LF sign, abnormalities in sensory nerve conduction studies (NCS) or distal intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD), and exclusion of known etiologies. An iMFN diagnosis requires that at least 1 of the above clinical features is SF and 1 clinical feature is LF with abnormalities in sensory NCS or IENFD. Diagnostic criteria for iSFN require at least 1 SF symptom and at least 1 SF sign with abnormal IENFD, normal sensory NCS, and the absence of LF symptoms and signs. Diagnostic criteria for iLFN require at least 1 LF symptom and at least 1 LF sign with normal IENFD, abnormal sensory NCS, and absence of SF symptoms and signs.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of these standardized diagnostic criteria will advance research and clinical trials and spur development of novel therapies for iDSPs.