The National Academy of Sciences through its Institute of Medicine (IOM) has produced a major scholarly assessment of pain in America. This document is a tremendous contribution to the evolving nec...

Relieving pain in america: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research

Summary Neuropathic pain develops as a result of lesions or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system either in the periphery or centrally. Examples of neuropathic pain include painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and post-stroke pain. Clinically, neuropathic pain is characterised by spontaneous ongoing or shooting pain and evoked amplified pain responses after noxious or non-noxious stimuli. Methods such as questionnaires for screening and assessment focus on the presence and quality of neuropathic pain. Basic research is enabling the identification of different pathophysiological mechanisms, and clinical assessment of symptoms and signs can help to determine which mechanisms are involved in specific neuropathic pain disorders. Management of neuropathic pain requires an interdisciplinary approach, centred around pharmacological treatment. A better understanding of neuropathic pain and, in particular, of the translation of pathophysiological mechanisms into sensory signs will lead to a more effective and specific mechanism-based treatment approach.

/pdf/neuropathic-pain-diagnosis-pathophysiological-mechanisms-and-2fgs99rqus.pdf

Neuropathic pain: diagnosis, pathophysiological mechanisms, and treatment

The redefinition of neuropathic pain as "pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system," which was suggested by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) in 2008, has been widely accepted. In contrast, the proposed grading system of possible, probable, and definite neuropathic pain from 2008 has been used to a lesser extent. Here, we report a citation analysis of the original NeuPSIG grading paper of 2008, followed by an analysis of its use by an expert panel and recommendations for an improved grading system. As of February, 2015, 608 eligible articles in Scopus cited the paper, 414 of which cited the neuropathic pain definition. Of 220 clinical studies citing the paper, 56 had used the grading system. The percentage using the grading system increased from 5% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Obstacles to a wider use of the grading system were identified, including (1) questions about the relative significance of confirmatory tests, (2) the role of screening tools, and (3) uncertainties about what is considered a neuroanatomically plausible pain distribution. Here, we present a revised grading system with an adjusted order, better reflecting clinical practice, improvements in the specifications, and a word of caution that even the "definite" level of neuropathic pain does not always indicate causality. In addition, we add a table illustrating the area of pain and sensory abnormalities in common neuropathic pain conditions and propose areas for further research.

/pdf/neuropathic-pain-an-updated-grading-system-for-research-and-1grhl06ezx.pdf

Neuropathic pain: An updated grading system for research and clinical practice

A complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)—multiple system dysfunction, severe and often chronic pain, and disability—can be triggered by a minor injury, a fact that has fascinated scientists and perplexed clinicians for decades. However, substantial advances across several medical disciplines have recently improved our understanding of CRPS. Compelling evidence implicates biological pathways that underlie aberrant infl ammation, vasomotor dysfunction, and maladaptive neuroplasticity in the clinical features of CRPS. Collectively, the evidence points to CRPS being a multifactorial disorder that is associated with an aberrant host response to tissue injury. Variation in susceptibility to perturbed regulation of any of the underlying biological pathways probably accounts for the clinical heterogeneity of CRPS.

/pdf/clinical-features-and-pathophysiology-of-complex-regional-own9j3xa1l.pdf

Clinical features and pathophysiology of complex regional pain syndrome

Summary Allodynia (pain due to a stimulus that does not usually provoke pain) and hyperalgesia (increased pain from a stimulus that usually provokes pain) are prominent symptoms in patients with neuropathic pain. Both are seen in various peripheral neuropathies and central pain disorders, and affect 15–50% of patients with neuropathic pain. Allodynia and hyperalgesia are classified according to the sensory modality (touch, pressure, pinprick, cold, and heat) that is used to elicit the sensation. Peripheral sensitisation and maladaptive central changes contribute to the generation and maintenance of these reactions, with separate mechanisms in different subtypes of allodynia and hyperalgesia. Pain intensity and relief are important measures in clinical pain studies, but might be insufficient to capture the complexity of the pain experience. Better understanding of allodynia and hyperalgesia might provide clues to the underlying pathophysiology of neuropathic pain and, as such, they represent new or additional endpoints in pain trials.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474-4422(14)70102-4.pdf

Allodynia and hyperalgesia in neuropathic pain: clinical manifestations and mechanisms

Neuropathic pain is accompanied by both positive and negative sensory signs. To explore the spectrum of sensory abnormalities, 1236 patients with a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain were assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) following the protocol of DFNS (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain), using both thermal and mechanical nociceptive as well as non-nociceptive stimuli. Data distributions showed a systematic shift to hyperalgesia for nociceptive, and to hypoesthesia for non-nociceptive parameters. Across all parameters, 92% of the patients presented at least one abnormality. Thermosensory or mechanical hypoesthesia (up to 41%) was more frequent than hypoalgesia (up to 18% for mechanical stimuli). Mechanical hyperalgesias occurred more often (blunt pressure: 36%, pinprick: 29%) than thermal hyperalgesias (cold: 19%, heat: 24%), dynamic mechanical allodynia (20%), paradoxical heat sensations (18%) or enhanced wind-up (13%). Hyperesthesia was less than 5%. Every single sensory abnormality occurred in each neurological syndrome, but with different frequencies: thermal and mechanical hyperalgesias were most frequent in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injury, allodynia in postherpetic neuralgia. In postherpetic neuralgia and in central pain, subgroups showed either mechanical hyperalgesia or mechanical hypoalgesia. The most frequent combinations of gain and loss were mixed thermal/mechanical loss without hyperalgesia (central pain and polyneuropathy), mixed loss with mechanical hyperalgesia in peripheral neuropathies, mechanical hyperalgesia without any loss in trigeminal neuralgia. Thus, somatosensory profiles with different combinations of loss and gain are shared across the major neuropathic pain syndromes. The characterization of underlying mechanisms will be needed to make a mechanism-based classification feasible.

Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): Somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes

D.-R. Treede

Papers

Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): Somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes