No abstract

No abstract

Dynamic mechanical allodynia is a widespread and intractable symptom of neuropathic pain for which there is a lack of effective therapy. We recently provided a novel perspective on the mechanisms of this symptom by showing that a simple switch in trigeminal glycine synaptic inhibition can turn touch into pain by unmasking innocuous input to superficial dorsal horn nociceptive specific neurons through a local excitatory, NMDA-dependent neural circuit involving neurons expressing the gamma isoform of protein kinase C. Here, we further investigated the clinical relevance and processing of glycine disinhibition. First, we showed that glycine disinhibition with strychnine selectively induced dynamic but not static mechanical allodynia. The induced allodynia was resistant to morphine. Second, morphine did not prevent the activation of the neural circuit underlying allodynia as shown by study of Fos expression and extracellularsignal regulated kinase phosphorylation in dorsal horn neurons. Third, in contrast to intradermal capsaicin injections, light, dynamic mechanical stimuli applied under disinhibition did not produce neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor internalization in dorsal horn neurons. Finally, light, dynamic mechanical stimuli applied under disinhibition induced Fos expression only in neurons that did not express NK1 receptor. To summarize, the selectivity and morphine resistance of the glycine-disinhibition paradigm adequately reflect the clinical characteristics of dynamic mechanical allodynia. The present findings thus reveal the involvement of a selective dorsal horn circuit in dynamic mechanical allodynia, which operates through superficial lamina nociceptive-specific neurons that do not bear NK1 receptor and provide an explanation for the differences in the pharmacological sensitivity of neuropathic pain symptoms.

We evaluated the effect of DMTs on Covid‐19 severity in patients with MS, with a pooled‐analysis of two large cohorts from Italy and France. The association of baseline characteristics and DMTs with Covid‐19 severity was assessed by multivariate ordinal‐logistic models and pooled by a fixed‐effect meta‐analysis. 1066 patients with MS from Italy and 721 from France were included. In the multivariate model, anti‐CD20 therapies were significantly associated (OR = 2.05, 95%CI = 1.39–3.02, p < 0.001) with Covid‐19 severity, whereas interferon indicated a decreased risk (OR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.18–0.99, p = 0.047). This pooled‐analysis confirms an increased risk of severe Covid‐19 in patients on anti‐CD20 therapies and supports the protective role of interferon.

Objectives.-To document the prevalence of new headaches in patients with Covid-19 infection and the potential association with other neuro-sensorial symptoms (anosmia and ageusia). The persistence of these symptoms 1 month after recovery was also documented. Background.-Headaches are a very common symptom of viral infections. Surprisingly, early Chinese studies reported a relatively low prevalence (12-15%) of headaches associated with Covid-19. Methods.-All the patients with laboratory-confirmed or chest-CT-confirmed Covid-19 infection, diagnosed between February 27 th and April 15 th , 2020 in the dedicated laboratory of Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital were followed for 1 month after recovery. Results.-A total of 139 consecutive patients (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [15.3] years; 87 women [62.6%]) were interviewed 1 month after disappearance of fever and dyspnea (semi-structured phone interview). Overall, 59.0% (82/139) of people with Covid-19 had mild disease, 36.7% (51/139) had severe disease, and 4.3% (6/139) had critical illness. Eighty-two (59.0%; 95% CI: 50.3 to 67.3) reported new headaches during the acute phase and 3.6% (5/139) had persistent headaches 1 month after fever and dyspnea remission. Anosmia and ageusia were also very common, occurring in 60.4% (84/139) and 58.3% (81/139) of the patients, respectively. These 2 symptoms persisted in 14.4% (20/139) and 11.5% (16/139) of Covid-19 patients 1 month after recovery. Headaches were neither clearly associated with anosmia, nor with ageusia, and were not associated with disease severity (ie, requiring hospitalization or intensive care unit). Conclusion.-This specific study highlights the high prevalence of new headaches during Covid-19 infection in French patients. Further studies are needed to refine the characterization of patients with Covid-19-associated headaches.

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive technique that allows cortical stimulation. Recent studies have shown that rTMS of the primary motor cortex or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreases pain in various pain conditions. The aim of this review was to summarize the main characteristics of rTMS-induced analgesic effects and to analyse the current data on its mechanisms of action. Databases: Medline, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies on the analgesic effects and mechanisms of rTMS-induced analgesic effects. Studies on epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) were also included when required, as several mechanisms of action are probably shared between both techniques. Results: Stimulation site and stimulation parameters have a major impact on rTMS-related analgesic effects. Local cortical stimulation is able to elicit changes in the functioning of distant brain areas. These modifications outlast the duration of the rTMS session and probably involve LTP-like mechanisms via its influence on glutamatergic networks. Analgesic effects seem to be correlated to restoration of normal cortical excitability in chronic pain patients and depend on pain modulatory systems, in particular endogenous opioids. Dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine and GABAergic circuitry may also be involved in its effects, as well as rostrocaudal projections. Conclusions: rTMS activates brain areas distant from the stimulation site. LTP-like mechanisms, dependence on endogenous opioids and increase in concentration of neurotransmitters (monoamines, GABA) have all been implicated in its analgesic effects, although more studies are needed to fill in the still existing gaps in the understanding of its mechanisms of action.

We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to analyze changes in brain activity associated with stimulation of the cutaneous trigger zone in patients with classic trigeminal neuralgia (CTN). Fifteen consecutive patients with CTN in the second or third division of the nerve, were included in this study. The fMRI paradigm consisted of light tactile stimuli of the trigger zone and the homologous contralateral area. Stimulation of the affected side induced pain in seven patients, but was not painful in eight patients on the day of the experiment. Painful stimuli were associated with significantly increased activity in the spinal trigeminal nucleus (SpV), thalamus, primary and secondary somatosensory cortices (S1, S2), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula, premotor/motor cortex, prefrontal areas, putamen, hippocampus and brainstem. Nonpainful stimulation of the trigger zone activated all but three of these structures (SpV, brainstem and ACC). After a successful surgical treatment, activation induced by stimulation of the operated side was confined to S1 and S2. Our data demonstrate the pathological hyperexcitability of the trigeminal nociceptive system, including the second order trigeminal sensory neurons during evoked attacks of CTN. Such sensitization may depend on pain modulatory systems involving both the brainstem (i.e. periaqueductal gray and adjacent structures) and interconnected cortical structures (i.e. ACC). The fact that large portions of the classical 'pain neuromatrix' were also activated during nonpainful stimulation of the trigger zone, could reflect a state of maintained sensitization of the trigeminal nociceptive systems in CTN.

Background Several neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods. Methods We searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results Thirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high. Conclusion Several neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.