More than 1100 patients with neuropathic pain were examined using quantitative sensory testing. Independent of the etiology, 3 subtypes with distinct sensory profiles were identified and replicated.

Neuropathic pain is due to lesion or dysfunction of the peripheral or central nervous system. Tricyclic antidepressants and anticonvulsants have long been the mainstay of treatment of this type of pain. Tricyclic antidepressants may relieve neuropathic pain by their unique ability to inhibit presynaptic reuptake of the biogenic amines serotonin and noradrenaline, but other mechanisms such as N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor and ion channel blockade probably also play a role in their pain-relieving effect. The effect of tricyclic antidepressants in neuropathic pain in man has been demonstrated in numerous randomised, controlled trials, and a few trials have shown that serotonin noradrenaline and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants also relieve neuropathic pain although with lower efficacy. Tricyclic antidepressants will relieve one in every 2-3 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors one in every 4-5 and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors one in every 7 patients. Thus, based on efficacy measures such as numbers needed to treat, tricyclic antidepressants tend to work better than the anticonvulsant gabapentin and treatment options such as tramadol and oxycodone, whereas the serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine appears to be equally effective with these drugs and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors apparently have lower efficacy. Head-to-head comparisons between antidepressants and the other analgesics are lacking. Contraindications towards the use of tricyclic antidepressants and low tolerability in general of this drug class -may among the antidepressants -favour the use of the serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors. A recent study on bupropion, which is a noradrenaline and dopamine uptake inhibitor, indicated a surprisingly high efficacy of this drug in peripheral neuropathic pain. In conclusion, antidepressants represent useful tools in neuropathic pain treatment and must still be considered as first line treatments of neuropathic pain. However, without head-to-head comparisons between antidepressants and other analgesics, it is not possible to provide real evidence-based treatment algorithms for neuropathic pain.Neuropathic pain is pain caused by a lesion or dysfunction in the nervous system with the primary lesion or dysfunction affecting either the peripheral or central nervous system. Prominent examples of peripheral neuropathic pain conditions are painful diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia and post-surgical neuropathic pain and the most common central neuropathic pain conditions are poststroke pain, pain in multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury pain. Neuropathic pain is also present in some other patient groups, e.g. cancer patients. Therefore, the scope of neuropathic pain is broader than the classical peripheral and central neuropathic pain conditions. The neuropathic pain conditions are most often chronic in nature and represent a real challenge in clinical practice both due to their fre...

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a heterogeneous disorder regarding the clinical presentation, electrophysiological subtype and outcome. Previous single country reports indicate that Guillain-Barré syndrome may differ among regions, but no systematic comparative studies have been conducted. Comparative studies are required to identify factors determining disease susceptibility, variation and prognosis, and to improve diagnostic criteria. The International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study is a prospective, observational cohort study including all patients within the diagnostic spectrum, aiming to describe the heterogeneity of Guillain-Barré syndrome worldwide. The current study was based on the first 1000 inclusions with a follow-up of at least 1 year and confirmed the variation in clinical presentation, course and outcome between patients. The full clinical spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome was observed in patients from all countries participating in the International Guillain-Barré Syndrome Outcome Study, but the frequency of variants differed between regions. We compared three regions based on geography, income and previous reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: 'Europe/Americas', 'Asia' (without Bangladesh), and 'Bangladesh'. We excluded 75 (8%) patients because of alternative diagnoses, protocol violations, or missing data. The predominant clinical variant was sensorimotor in Europe/Americas (n = 387/562, 69%) and Asia (n = 27/63, 43%), and pure motor in Bangladesh (n = 74/107, 69%). Miller Fisher syndrome and Miller Fisher-Guillain-Barré overlap syndrome were more common in Asia (n = 14/63, 22%) than in the other two regions (Europe/Americas: n = 64/562, 11%; Bangladesh: n = 1/107, 1%) (P < 0.001). The predominant electrophysiological subtype was demyelinating in all regions (Europe/Americas: n = 312/573, 55%; Asia: n = 29/65, 45%; Bangladesh: n = 38/94, 40%). The axonal subtype occurred more often in Bangladesh (n = 34/94, 36%) than in Europe/Americas (n = 33/573, 6%) and other Asian countries (n = 4/65, 6%) (P < 0.001). In all regions, patients with the axonal subtype were younger, had fewer sensory deficits, and showed a trend towards poorer recovery compared to patients with the demyelinating subtype. The proportion of patients able to walk unaided after 1 year varied between Asia (n = 31/34, 91%), Europe/Americas (n = 334/404, 83%) and Bangladesh (n = 67/97, 69%) (P = 0.003). A similar variation was seen for mortality, being higher in Bangladesh (n = 19/114, 17%) than in Europe/Americas (n = 23/486, 5%) and Asia (n = 1/45, 2%) (P < 0.001). This study showed that factors related to geography have a major influence on clinical phenotype, disease severity, electrophysiological subtype, and outcome of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common complications of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Up to half of patients with diabetes develop neuropathy during the course of their disease, which is accompanied by neuropathic pain in to 30–40% of cases. Peripheral nerve injury in diabetes can manifest as progressive distal symmetric polyneuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, radiculo-plexopathies, and mononeuropathies. The most common diabetic neuropathy is distal symmetric polyneuropathy, which we will refer to as DN, with its characteristic glove and stocking like presentation of distal sensory or motor function loss. DN or its painful counterpart, painful DN, are associated with increased mortality and morbidity; thus, early recognition and preventive measures are essential. Nevertheless, it is not easy to diagnose DN or painful DN, particularly in patients with early and mild neuropathy, and there is currently no single established diagnostic gold standard. The most common diagnostic approach in research is a hierarchical system, which combines symptoms, signs, and a series of confirmatory tests. The general lack of long-term prospective studies has limited the evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of new morphometric and neurophysiological techniques. Thus, the best paradigm for screening DN and painful DN both in research and in clinical practice remains uncertain. Herein, we review the diagnostic challenges from both clinical and research perspectives and their implications for managing patients with DN. There is no established DN treatment, apart from improved glycemic control, which is more effective in type 1 than in type 2 diabetes, and only symptomatic management is available for painful DN. Currently, less than one third of painful DN patients derive sufficient pain relief with existing pharmacotherapies. A more precise and distinct sensory profile from patients with DN and painful DN may help identify responsive patients to one treatment versus another. Detailed sensory profiles will lead to tailored treatment for patient subgroups with painful DN by matching to novel or established DN pathomechanisms and also for improved clinical trials stratification. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to identify the interventions, i.e. pharmacological, physical, cognitive, educational, etc, which leads to the best therapeutic outcomes.

No abstract

Most studies of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) and painful DPN are conducted in persons with longstanding diabetes. This cross-sectional study aimed to estimate the prevalence of DPN and painful DPN, important risk factors, and the association with mental health in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. A total of 5514 (82%) patients (median diabetes duration 4.6 years) enrolled in the Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort responded to a detailed questionnaire on neuropathy and pain. A score ≥4 on the MNSI questionnaire determined possible DPN, whereas pain presence in both feet together with a score ≥3 on the DN4 questionnaire determined possible painful DPN. The prevalence of possible DPN and possible painful DPN was 18% and 10%, respectively. Female sex, age, diabetes duration, body mass index, and smoking were associated with possible DPN, whereas only smoking showed a clear association with possible painful DPN (odds ratio 1.52 [95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.93]). Possible DPN and painful DPN were independently and additively associated with lower quality of life, poorer sleep, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Possible DPN itself had greater impact on mental health than neuropathic pain. This large study emphasizes the importance of careful screening for DPN and pain early in the course of type 2 diabetes.

No abstract

Background and purpose Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is a common complication of diabetes. Using the Toronto criteria for diabetic polyneuropathy and the grading system for neuropathic pain, the performance of neuropathy scales and questionnaires were assessed by comparing them to a clinical gold standard diagnosis of DPN and painful DPN in a cohort of patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Methods A questionnaire on neuropathy and pain was sent to a cohort of 5514 Danish type 2 diabetes patients. A sample of 389 patients underwent a detailed clinical examination and completed neuropathy questionnaires and scales. Results Of the 389 patients with a median diabetes duration of 5.9 years, 126 had definite DPN (including 53 with painful DPN), 88 had probable DPN and 53 had possible DPN. There were 49 patients with other causes of polyneuropathy, neuropathy symptoms or pain, 10 with subclinical DPN and 63 without DPN. The sensitivity of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument questionnaire to detect DPN was 25.7% and the specificity 84.6%. The sensitivity of the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Scoring System, including questionnaire and clinical examination, was 62.9% and the specificity was 74.6%. Conclusions Diabetic polyneuropathy affects approximately one in five Danish patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes but neuropathic pain is not as common as previously reported. Neuropathy scales with clinical examination perform better compared with questionnaires alone, but better scales are needed for future epidemiological studies.