Central neuropathic pain (CNP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) is debilitating and immensely impacts the individual. Central neuropathic pain is relatively resistant to treatment administered after it develops, perhaps owing to irreversible pathological processes. Although preemptive treatment may overcome this shortcoming, its administration necessitates screening patients with clinically relevant biomarkers that could predict CNP early post-SCI. The aim was to search for such biomarkers by measuring pronociceptive and for the first time, antinociceptive indices early post-SCI. Participants were 47 patients with acute SCI and 20 healthy controls. Pain adaptation, conditioned pain modulation (CPM), pain temporal summation, wind-up pain, and allodynia were measured above, at, and below the injury level, at 1.5 months after SCI. Healthy control were tested at corresponding regions. Spinal cord injury patients were monitored for CNP emergence and characteristics at 3 to 4, 6 to 7, and 24 months post-SCI. Central neuropathic pain prevalence was 57.4%. Central neuropathic pain severity, quality, and aggravating factors but not location somewhat changed over 24 months. Spinal cord injury patients who eventually developed CNP exhibited early, reduced at-level pain adaptation and CPM magnitudes than those who did not. The best predictor for CNP emergence at 3 to 4 and 7 to 8 months was at-level pain adaptation with odds ratios of 3.17 and 2.83, respectively (∼77% probability) and a cutoff value with 90% sensitivity. Allodynia and at-level CPM predicted CNP severity at 3 to 4 and 24 months, respectively. Reduced pain inhibition capacity precedes, and may lead to CNP. At-level pain adaptation is an early CNP biomarker with which individuals at risk can be identified to initiate preemptive treatment.
BACKGROUND: Treatment with either Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or plasma exchange (PE) in patients with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) showed equivalent efficacy as attested by a commonly used disability scale. However, it has been suggested that this scale may not be sensitive enough to detect subtle functional changes between the two treatments since it mainly focuses on walking capability and respiratory function. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate functional outcomes following treatment with IVIg or PE using comprehensive scales that incorporate parameters of basic activities of daily living. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2007 and 2013 in an inpatient neurologic rehabilitation department. The study group included 70 individuals with GBS: 39 were treated with PE and 31 with IVIg. A comparison of functional outcomes was performed using Functional Independence Measure (FIM), rehabilitation efficiency (REy), rehabilitation effectiveness (REs), and the GBS disability scale (GDS). RESULTS: Both treatments had a comparable effect on the various functional outcomes. Patients showed a significant increase in total FIM scores (30 points on average) during rehabilitation mainly as a result of an increase in motor sub-scores. A mean improvement of 1.23 (SD 0.9) in GDS was also observed. On average, individuals with GBS spent 20 days combined in the acute departments and 61 days in the rehabilitation department, with length of stay being similar for both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: IVIg and PE treatments have similar basic activities of daily living (ADL) functional outcomes. Nevertheless, due to the different mechanism of actions of these treatments and the multitude of GBS variants, it is possible that further comprehensive assessment tools may demonstrate differences in activity and participation of individuals with GBS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.