Michel Lanteri-Minet

Bio: Michel Lanteri-Minet is an academic researcher from French Institute of Health and Medical Research. The author has contributed to research in topics: Migraine & Population. The author has an hindex of 41, co-authored 119 publications receiving 9942 citations. Previous affiliations of Michel Lanteri-Minet include Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice.

Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4)

Abstract: Few studies have directly compared the clinical features of neuropathic and non-neuropathic pains. For this purpose, the French Neuropathic Pain Group developed a clinician-administered questionnaire named DN4 consisting of both sensory descriptors and signs related to bedside sensory examination. This questionnaire was used in a prospective study of 160 patients presenting with pain associated with a definite neurological or somatic lesion. The most common aetiologies of nervous lesions (n=89) were traumatic nerve injury, post herpetic neuralgia and post stroke pain. Non-neurological lesions (n=71) were represented by osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthropathies and mechanical low back pain. Each patient was seen independently by two experts in order to confirm the diagnosis of neuropathic or non-neuropathic pain. The prevalence of pain descriptors and sensory dysfunctions were systematically compared in the two groups of patients. The analysis of the psychometric properties of the DN4 questionnaire included: face validity, inter-rater reliability, factor analysis and logistic regression to identify the discriminant properties of items or combinations of items for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. We found that a relatively small number of items are sufficient to discriminate neuropathic pain. The 10-item questionnaire developed in the present study constitutes a new diagnostic instrument, which might be helpful both in clinical research and daily practice.

Prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in the general population

Abstract: We conducted a large nationwide postal survey to estimate the prevalence of chronic pain with or without neuropathic characteristics in the French general population. A questionnaire aimed at identifying chronic pain (defined as daily pain for at least 3 months), evaluating its intensity, duration and body locations, was sent to a representative sample of 30,155 subjects. The DN4 questionnaire was used to identify neuropathic characteristics. Of the questionnaires, 24,497 (81.2%) were returned and 23,712 (96.8%) could be assessed. Seven thousand five hundred and twenty-two respondents reported chronic pain (prevalence=31.7%; [95%CI: 31.1-32.3]) and 4709 said the pain intensity was moderate to severe (prevalence=19.9%; [95%CI: 19.5-20.4]). Neuropathic characteristics were reported by 1631 respondents with chronic pain (prevalence=6.9%; [95%CI: 6.6-7.2]), which was moderate to severe in 1209 (prevalence=5.1% [95%CI: 4.8-5.4]). A higher prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics was associated with middle age (50-64 years), manual professions and those living in rural areas. It was more frequently located in the lower limbs and its intensity and duration were higher in comparison with chronic pain without neuropathic characteristics. This large national population-based study indicates that a significant proportion of chronic pain patients report neuropathic characteristics. We identified distinctive socio-demographic profile and clinical features indicating that chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics is a specific health problem.

Development and validation of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory

Abstract: This study describes the development and validation of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), a new self-questionnaire specifically designed to evaluate the different symptoms of neuropathic pain. Following a development phase and a pilot study, we generated a list of descriptors reflecting spontaneous ongoing or paroxysmal pain, evoked pain (i.e. mechanical and thermal allodynia/hyperalgesia) and dysesthesia/paresthesia. Each of these items was quantified on a (0-10) numerical scale. The validation procedure was performed in 176 consecutive patients with neuropathic pain of peripheral (n = 120) or central (n = 56) origin, recruited in five pain centers in France and Belgium. It included: (i) assessment of the test-retest reliability of each item, (ii) determination of the factorial structure of the questionnaire and analysis of convergent and divergent validities (i.e. construct validity), and (iii) evaluation of the ability of the NPSI to detect the effects of treatment (i.e. sensitivity to change). The final version of the NPSI includes 10 descriptors (plus two temporal items) that allow discrimination and quantification of five distinct clinically relevant dimensions of neuropathic pain syndromes and that are sensitive to treatment. The psychometric properties of the NPSI suggest that it might be used to characterize subgroups of neuropathic pain patients and verify whether they respond differentially to various pharmacological agents or other therapeutic interventions.

The cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight project.

Abstract: Background and purpose: Headache disorders are very common, but their monetary costs in Europe are unknown. We performed the first comprehensive estimation of how economic resources are lost to headache in Europe. Methods: From November 2008 to August 2009, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight countries representing 55% of the adult EU population. Participation rates varied between 11% and 59%. In total, 8412 questionnaires contributed to this analysis. Using bottom-up methodology, we estimated direct (medications, outpatient health care, hospitalization and investigations) and indirect (work absenteeism and reduced productivity at work) annual per-person costs. Prevalence data, simultaneously collected and, for migraine, also derived from a systematic review, were used to impute national costs. Results: Mean per-person annual costs were €1222 for migraine (95% CI 1055–1389; indirect costs 93%), €303 for tension-type headache (TTH, 95% CI 230–376; indirect costs 92%), €3561 for medication-overuse headache (MOH, 95% CI 2487–4635; indirect costs 92%), and €253 for other headaches (95% CI 99–407; indirect costs 82%). In the EU, the total annual cost of headache amongst adults aged 18–65 years was calculated, according to our prevalence estimates, at €173 billion, apportioned to migraine (€111 billion; 64%), TTH (€21 billion; 12%), MOH (€37 billion; 21%) and other headaches (€3 billion; 2%). Using the 15% systematic review prevalence of migraine, calculated costs were somewhat lower (migraine €50 billion, all headache €112 billion annually). Conclusions: Headache disorders are prominent health-related drivers of immense economic losses for the EU. This has immediate implications for healthcare policy. Health care for headache can be both improved and cost saving.

ARISE: A Phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine:

Abstract: BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. Erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is being evaluated for migraine prevention.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 577 adults with episodic migraine were randomized to placebo or 70 mg erenumab; 570 patients were included in efficacy analyses. Primary endpoint was change in monthly migraine days. Secondary endpoints were ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and ≥5-point reduction in Physical Impairment and Impact on Everyday Activities domain scores measured by the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary. All endpoints assessed change from baseline at month 3.ResultsPatients receiving erenumab experienced −2.9 days change in monthly migraine days, compared with −1.8 days for placebo, least-squares mean (95% CI) treatment difference of −1.0 (−1.6, −...

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Summary Background New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and E valuation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fi xed-eff ects Mantel-Haenszel method. Findings 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment eff ects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009). T rial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2–8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5–9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9–9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4–19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, fi nal quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These fi ndings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as fi rst-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. Interpretation Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest effi cacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profi ling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. Funding NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Neuropathic pain Redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes

Abstract: Pain usually results from activation of nociceptive afferents by actually or potentially tissue-damaging stimuli. Pain may also arise by activity generated within the nervous system without adequate stimulation of its peripheral sensory endings. For this type of pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain introduced the term neuropathic pain, defined as "pain initiated or caused by a primary lesion or dysfunction in the nervous system." While this definition has been useful in distinguishing some characteristics of neuropathic and nociceptive types of pain, it lacks defined boundaries. Since the sensitivity of the nociceptive system is modulated by its adequate activation (e.g., by central sensitization), it has been difficult to distinguish neuropathic dysfunction from physiologic neuroplasticity. We present a more precise definition developed by a group of experts from the neurologic and pain community: pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system. This revised definition fits into the nosology of neurologic disorders. The reference to the somatosensory system was derived from a wide range of neuropathic pain conditions ranging from painful neuropathy to central poststroke pain. Because of the lack of a specific diagnostic tool for neuropathic pain, a grading system of definite, probable, and possible neuropathic pain is proposed. The grade possible can only be regarded as a working hypothesis, which does not exclude but does not diagnose neuropathic pain. The grades probable and definite require confirmatory evidence from a neurologic examination. This grading system is proposed for clinical and research purposes.