Diagnosis and management of neuropathic pain: Review of literature and recommendations of the Polish Association for the Study of Pain and the Polish Neurological Society – Part one

Neuropathic pain still present a major diagnostic and therapeutic challenge despite considerable progress in understanding of its mechanisms and publication of number of studies which assessed the efficacy and safety of drugs used in the symptomatic treatment. In practice, it is diagnosed less frequently than recognised in the epidemiological studies, and many patients do not achieve satisfactory outcomes of treatment. A multidisciplinary team of Polish experts, commissioned by the Polish Association for the Study of Pain and the Polish Neurological Society, has reviewed the literature on neuropathic pain, with special focus on the published international recommendations, and formulated recommendations on neuropathic pain diagnosis and treatment, in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine. The paper presents also background information on the neuropathic pain definition, epidemiology, pathomechanism and method of assessment. The diagnosis of neuropathic pain may be established based on medical history and physical examination including special assessment of the somatosensory system. First-line drugs used in pharmacological management of neuropathic pain are: tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, pregabalin, opioids and lidocaine patches.     

Diagnosis and management of neuropathic pain: Review of literature and recommendations of the Polish Association for the Study of Pain and the Polish Neurological Society – Part Two

Neuropathic pain may be caused by a variety of lesions or diseases of both the peripheral and central nervous system. The most common and best known syndromes of peripheral neuropathic pain are painful diabetic neuropathy, trigeminal and post-herpetic neuralgia, persistent post-operative and post-traumatic pain, complex regional pain syndrome, cancer-related neuropathic pain, HIV-related neuropathic pain and pain after amputation. The less common central pain comprises primarily central post-stroke pain, pain after spinal cord injury, central pain in Parkinson disease or in other neurodegenerative diseases, pain in syringomyelia and in multiple sclerosis.A multidisciplinary team of Polish experts, commissioned by the Polish Association for the Study of Pain and the Polish Neurological Society, has reviewed the literature on various types of neuropathic pain, with special focus on the available international guidelines, and has formulated recommendations on their diagnosis and treatment, in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM). High quality studies on the efficacy of various medicines and medical procedures in many neuropathic pain syndromes are scarce, which makes the recommendations less robust.     

European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on diagnosis and treatment of Guillain–Barré syndrome

Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy. Symptoms may vary greatly in presentation and severity. Besides weakness and sensory disturbances, patients may have cranial nerve involvement, respiratory insufficiency, autonomic dysfunction and pain. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of GBS, using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) constructed 14 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome questions (PICOs) covering diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of GBS, which guided the literature search. Data were extracted and summarised in GRADE Summaries of Findings (for treatment PICOs) or Evidence Tables (for diagnostic and prognostic PICOs). Statements were prepared according to GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. For the six intervention PICOs, evidence-based recommendations are made. For other PICOs, good practice points (GPPs) are formulated. For diagnosis, the principal GPPs are: GBS is more likely if there is a history of recent diarrhoea or respiratory infection; CSF examination is valuable, particularly when the diagnosis is less certain; electrodiagnostic testing is advised to support the diagnosis; testing for anti-ganglioside antibodies is of limited clinical value in most patients with typical motor-sensory GBS, but anti-GQ1b antibody testing should be considered when Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) is suspected; nodal–paranodal antibodies should be tested when autoimmune nodopathy is suspected; MRI or ultrasound imaging should be considered in atypical cases; and changing the diagnosis to acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (A-CIDP) should be considered if progression continues after 8 weeks from onset, which occurs in around 5% of patients initially diagnosed with GBS. For treatment, the TF recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) 0.4 g/kg for 5 days, in patients within 2 weeks (GPP also within 2–4 weeks) after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided, or a course of plasma exchange (PE) 12–15 L in four to five exchanges over 1–2 weeks, in patients within 4 weeks after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided. The TF recommends against a second IVIg course in GBS patients with a poor prognosis; recommends against using oral corticosteroids, and weakly recommends against using IV corticosteroids; does not recommend PE followed immediately by IVIg; weakly recommends gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants or carbamazepine for treatment of pain; does not recommend a specific treatment for fatigue. To estimate the prognosis of individual patients, the TF advises using the modified Erasmus GBS outcome score (mEGOS) to assess outcome, and the modified Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score (mEGRIS) to assess the risk of requiring artificial ventilation. Based on the PICOs, available literature and additional discussions, we provide flow charts to assist making clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and the need for intensive care unit admission.     

National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association guidelines for the neuropathologic assessment of Alzheimer’s disease: a practical approach

We present a practical guide for the implementation of recently revised National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association guidelines for the neuropathologic assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Major revisions from previous consensus criteria are: (1) recognition that AD neuropathologic changes may occur in the apparent absence of cognitive impairment, (2) an "ABC" score for AD neuropathologic change that incorporates histopathologic assessments of amyloid β deposits (A), staging of neurofibrillary tangles (B), and scoring of neuritic plaques (C), and (3) more detailed approaches for assessing commonly co-morbid conditions such as Lewy body disease, vascular brain injury, hippocampal sclerosis, and TAR DNA binding protein (TDP)-43 immunoreactive inclusions. Recommendations also are made for the minimum sampling of brain, preferred staining methods with acceptable alternatives, reporting of results, and clinico-pathologic correlations.     

Comparison of International Working Group criteria and National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association criteria for Alzheimer’s disease

Two sets of research criteria for Alzheimer’s disease are now available: those published by an International Working Group in 2007, and the recommendations published by the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association (NIA–AA) in 2011. They both provide guidelines for the diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. The coexistence of two sets of criteria for the same disorder raises the question of which set of criteria should be preferred. A comparison of the criteria revealed differences in approach, terminology, and use of cognitive markers and biomarkers. Most persons who meet the International Working Group criteria will also meet the NIA–AA criteria and vice versa. However, the NIA–AA criteria allow for a subclassification of persons based on biomarker results within each diagnostic category. Further research is needed to validate the criteria. Modifications are likely to be made before the criteria can be used in daily practice.     

The Roland–Morris disability scale for the assessment of non-specific low back pain outcomes among disability sector workers

Low back pain (LBP) is the most common cause of time lost from work and has significant personal impacts and societal burdens. Caregivers for patients with disabilities have a high LBP prevalence that requires attention in the public health system. This study aimed to understand the LBP disability outcomes and determinants of care workers for people with intellectual, autistic and associated multiple disabilities. Study subjects included 678 care workers in 15 disability institutions who reported that they had experienced acute or chronic nonspecific LBP in the previous year. The effects of the LBP outcome were measured by the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), which is a self-rated assessment of pain-related disability used in this study. The mean score of the RDQ was 3.97 (range 0–24). Of the respondents, 14% expressed that they were free from pain disability (score = 0), 66.4% subjects expressed they had a little pain disability (score 1–6), 14.7% subjects reported that they were mildly affected by pain disability (score 7–12), 3.8% subjects reported that they were moderately affected by pain disability (score 13–18), and 1% reported they had severe pain disability (score 19–24). A multiple linear regression of the pain disability score revealed that those care workers who expressed that LBP affects their work and living (p < 0.001), had ever sought pain care (p = 0.008), with moderate (p = 0.001) and severe (p = 0.001) levels of LBP were significantly associated with a higher score of pain disability than their counterparts (R² = 22.6%). This study suggests that a comprehensive assessment of pain disability and treatment strategies for LBP should be undertaken regarding the needs of care workers in disability sectors.     

The long-term treatment of restless legs syndrome/Willis–Ekbom disease: evidence-based guidelines and clinical consensus best practice guidance: a report from the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group

A Task Force was established by the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group (IRLSSG) to develop evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the long-term pharmacologic treatment of restless legs syndrome/Willis–Ekbom disease (RLS/WED). The Task Force reviewed the results of all studies of RLS/WED treatments with durations of 6 months or longer presented at meetings over the past 2 years, posted on Web sites of pharmaceutical companies, or published in peer-reviewed journals, asking the questions, “What is the efficacy of this treatment in patients with RLS/WED?” and “What is the safety of this treatment in patients with RLS/WED?”The Task Force developed guidelines based on their review of 61 papers meeting inclusion criteria, and using a modified evidence-grading scheme. Pregabalin has been established as effective for up to 1 year in treating RLS/WED (Level A evidence). Pramipexole, ropinirole, and rotigotine have been established as effective for up to 6 months in treating RLS/WED (Level A). The following drugs have been established as probably effective (Level B) in treating RLS/WED for durations ranging from 1 to 5 years: gabapentin enacarbil, pramipexole, and ropinirole (1 year); levodopa (2 years); and rotigotine (5 years). Because of associated safety concerns, pergolide and cabergoline should not be used in the treatment of RLS/WED unless the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Other pharmacologic therapies have insufficient evidence to support their long-term use in treating RLS/WED.The IRLSSG Task Force also developed consensus-based strategies for the prevention and treatment of complications (such as augmentation, loss of efficacy, excessive daytime sleepiness, and impulse control disorders) that may develop with the long-term pharmacologic treatment of RLS/WED. The use of either a dopamine-receptor agonist or α₂δ calcium-channel ligand is recommended as the first-line treatment of RLS/WED for most patients, with the choice of agent dependent on the patient’s severity of RLS/WED symptoms, cognitive status, history, and comorbid conditions.     

The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS). A psychometric re-analysis of the European Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression Study using Rasch analysis

The objective of this re-analysis of the European Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression Study (GENDEP) was to psychometrically test the unidimensionality of the full Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS₁₀) and the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D₁₇) versus their respective subscales (MADRS₅ and HAM-D₆) containing the core symptoms of depression severity. Rasch analysis was applied using RUMM 2030 software to assess the overall fit for unidimensionality. Neither the MADRS₁₀ nor the HAM-D₁₇ was found to fit the Rasch model for unidimensionality. The HAM-D₆ (containing the items of depressed mood, guilt, work and interests, psychomotor retardation, psychic anxiety, and somatic general) as well as the analogue MADRS₅ were tested for unidimensionality by use of the RUMM 2030 programme, and only the HAM-D₆ was accepted. When testing for invariance across rating weeks or centres, the RUMM 2030 had to be supplemented with the Friedman two-way analysis of variance by ranks. The HAM-D₆ but not the MADRS₅ was accepted. It was therefore concluded that the HAM-D₆ is a psychometrically valid outcome scale to measure change in clinical trials of antidepressants.