A Delphi consensus statement of the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the Italian Neurological Society on pharmacoresistant neuropathic pain

Diagnosis and treatment of Chiari malformation type 1 in children: the International Consensus Document

BACKGROUND

Chiari malformation type 1 (CM1) is a rare condition where agreed classification and treatment are still missing. The goal of this study is to achieve a consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of CM1 in children.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel formulated 57 provisional statements based on a review of the literature. Thirty-four international experts (IE) participated in a Delphi study by independently rating each statement on a 4-point Likert scale ("strongly disagree," "disagree," "agree," "strongly agree"). Statements that were endorsed ("agree" or "strongly agree") by < 75% of raters were re-formulated, or new statements were added, and another Delphi round followed (up to a maximum of three).

RESULTS

Thirty-five IE were contacted and 34 agreed to participate. A consensus was reached on 30/57 statements (52.6%) after round 1. Three statements were added, and one removed. After round 2, agreement was reached on 56/59 statements (94.9%). Finally, after round 3, which took place during the 2019 Chiari Consensus Conference (Milan, Italy), agreement was reached on 58/59 statements (98.3%) about four main sections (Definition and Classification, Planning, Surgery, Isolated Syringomyelia). Only one statement did not gain a consensus, which is the "definition of radiological failure 24 month post-surgery."

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus document consists of 58 statements (24 on diagnosis, 34 on treatment), serving clinicians and researchers following children with CM1. There is a clear need for establishing an international network and registry and to promote collaborative studies to increase the evidence base and optimize the long-term care of this patient population.

Modulation of the N13 component of the somatosensory evoked potentials in an experimental model of central sensitization in humans

The N13 component of somatosensory evoked potential (N13 SEP) represents the segmental response of dorsal horn neurons. In this neurophysiological study, we aimed to verify whether N13 SEP might reflect excitability changes of dorsal horn neurons during central sensitization. In 22 healthy participants, we investigated how central sensitization induced by application of topical capsaicin to the ulnar nerve territory of the hand dorsum modulated N13 SEP elicited by ulnar nerve stimulation. Using a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design, we also tested whether pregabalin, an analgesic drug with proven efficacy on the dorsal horn, influenced capsaicin-induced N13 SEP modulation. Topical application of capsaicin produced an area of secondary mechanical hyperalgesia, a sign of central sensitization, and increased the N13 SEP amplitude but not the peripheral N9 nor the cortical N20-P25 amplitude. This increase in N13 SEP amplitude paralleled the mechanical hyperalgesia and persisted for 120 min. Pregabalin prevented the N13 SEP modulation associated with capsaicin-induced central sensitization, whereas capsaicin application still increased N13 SEP amplitude in the placebo treatment session. Our neurophysiological study showed that capsaicin application specifically modulates N13 SEP and that this modulation is prevented by pregabalin, thus suggesting that N13 SEP may reflect changes in dorsal horn excitability and represent a useful biomarker of central sensitization in human studies.

Posterior-superior insular deep transcranial magnetic stimulation alleviates peripheral neuropathic pain - A pilot double-blind, randomized cross-over study

OBJECTIVES

Peripheral neuropathic pain (pNeP) is prevalent, and current treatments, including drugs and motor cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) leave a substantial proportion of patients with suboptimal pain relief.

METHODS

We explored the intensity and short-term duration of the analgesic effects produced in pNeP patients by 5 days of neuronavigated deep rTMS targeting the posterior superior insula (PSI) with a double-cone coil in a sham-controlled randomized cross-over trial.

RESULTS

Thirty-one pNeP patients received induction series of five active or sham consecutive sessions of daily deep-rTMS to the PSI in a randomized sequence, with a washout period of at least 21 days between series. The primary outcome [number of responders (>50% pain intensity reduction from baseline in a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10)] was significantly higher after real (58.1%) compared to sham (19.4%) stimulation (p = 0.002). The number needed to treat was 2.6, and the effect size was 0.97 [95% CI (0.6; 1.3)]. One week after the 5th stimulation day, pain scores were no longer different between groups, and no difference in neuropathic pain characteristics and interference with daily living were present. No major side effects occurred, and milder adverse events (i.e., short-lived headaches after stimulation) were reported in both groups. Blinding was effective, and analgesic effects were not affected by sequence of the stimulation series (active-first or sham-first), age, sex or pain duration of participants.

DISCUSSION

PSI deep-rTMS was safe in refractory pNeP and was able to provide significant pain intensity reduction after a five-day induction series of treatments. Post-hoc assessment of neuronavigation targeting confirmed deep-rTMS was delivered within the boundaries of the PSI in all participants.

CONCLUSION

PSI deep-rTMS provided significant pain relief during 5-day induction sessions compared to sham stimulation.

Pharmacotherapeutic Options for Managing Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite an increasing number of available therapies, the treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major issue. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that only a minority of patients with neuropathic pain have an adequate response to pharmacological treatment and that most drugs have dose-limiting side effects. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials published in the last five years. We searched for relevant papers within PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Clinical Trials database (ClinicalTrials.gov). Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, data extraction, and bias assessment. We identified 39 randomised controlled trials and included 16 in the meta-analysis. Trial outcomes were generally modest even for first-line drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids. Many drugs acting on new pain targets are currently under development. Clinical data are currently available for sodium channel isoform-specific antagonists, anti-nerve growth factor molecules, and fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: part 1-current state of knowledge and perspectives for pharmacotherapy

Background

Despite the increasing knowledge of the etiology of neuropathic pain, this type of chronic pain is resistant to available analgesics in approximately 50% of patients and therefore is continuously a subject of considerable interest for physiologists, neurologists, medicinal chemists, pharmacologists and others searching for more effective treatment options for this debilitating condition.

Materials and methods

The present review article is the first of the two articles focused on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN).

Results

CIPN is regarded as one of the most common drug-induced neuropathies and is highly pharmacoresistant. The lack of efficacious pharmacological methods for treating CIPN and preventing its development makes CIPN-related neuropathic pain a serious therapeutic gap in current medicine and pharmacotherapy. In this paper, the most recent advances in the field of studies on CIPN caused by platinum compounds (namely oxaliplatin and cisplatin), taxanes, vinca alkaloids and bortezomib are summarized.

Conclusions

The prevalence of CIPN, potential causes, risk factors, symptoms and molecular mechanisms underlying this pharmacoresistant condition are discussed.

Graphic abstract