Effect of First-Line Ziconotide Intrathecal Drug Therapy for Neuropathic Pain on Disability, Emotional Well-Being, and Pain Catastrophizing.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown decreased pain scores with ziconotide as a first-line agent for intrathecal drug therapy (IDT). Subset analysis suggests that patients with neuropathic pain have greater improvement. We prospectively examine the role of first-line ziconotide IDT on the tridimensional pain experience in ziconotide IDT-naive patients with neuropathic pain. METHODS: We included patients who underwent a successful ziconotide trial and were scheduled for standard-of-care IDT pump placement. Scores were collected at baseline and latest follow-up for the following measures: Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory, and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Numeric rating scale (NRS) scores were also collected at each follow-up visit to monitor patients' pain levels and to guide ziconotide dose titration. Responders were identified as patients who had a previously established minimum clinically important difference of a ≥1.2-point reduction in NRS current scores. RESULTS: Eleven of 14 patients completed long-term follow-up. There were 7 responders based on NRS minimum clinically important difference. At a mean (±standard error of the mean) follow-up of 10.91 ± 0.70 months, SF-36 emotional well-being (P = 0.04), SF-36 pain (P = 0.02), and ODI (P = 0.03) significantly improved for the entire cohort and in responders (SF-36 emotional well-being, P = 0.01; SF-36 pain, P = 0.04; ODI, P = 0.02). PCS-Rumination (P = 0.02), PCS-Helplessness (P = 0.02), and PCS-Total (P = 0.003) scores improved significantly for responders only. CONCLUSIONS: We show that ziconotide IDT improves pain as well as emotional components and function. Our study adds prospective evidence to the literature on IDT for neuropathic pain, specifically its role in improving disability, emotional well-being, and catastrophizing.

Correlations Between Family History of Psychiatric Illnesses and Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established procedure for chronic neuropathic pain. Research has established patients with personal psychiatric history do not fare as well as their correspondents following SCS surgery. We explored whether a documented psychiatric family history (PFH) correlated with worse outcomes following SCS surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our single-center, prospectively collected database of patients who received permanent SCS implants over the past eight years. Subjects were separated into those with documented PFH and those without. Subjects completed validated scales at preoperative, 6 ± 2 postoperative, and 12 ± 3 months postoperative visits. The percent change in scores from preoperative to postoperative timepoints was compared between subjects with PFH vs. controls. RESULTS: SCS subjects reporting a PFH demonstrated significantly worse 6-month outcomes on Pain Catastrophizing Scale-rumination subscale (p = 0.02), numeric rating scale (NRS) scores on "pain at its least" (p = 0.04) and NRS "pain right now" (p = 0.02). This group also endorsed greater disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) throughout the follow-up period (p = 0.04 at 6 ± 2 months, p = 0.001 at 12 ± 3 months). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with PFH may experience less improvement in disability following SCS as compared to subjects without PFH. They may take longer to achieve the same outcomes, including pain relief and decrease in pain rumination. Our findings show that improvements in the PFH cohort are equivalent to that of the no PFH cohort on all measures except ODI at 12-month follow-up. Thus obtaining a detailed PFH prior to performing SCS is important in order to implement pre-operative coping training for PFH patients, rather than exclusion from SCS.

Introduction to "Working Across Species".

Comparison between different animal species is omnipresent in the history of science and medicine but rarely subject to focussed historical analysis. The articles in the "Working Across Species" topical collection address this deficit by looking directly at the practical and epistemic work of cross-species comparison. Drawn from papers presented at a Wellcome-Trust-funded workshop in 2016, these papers investigate various ways that comparison has been made persuasive and successful, in multiple locations, by diverse disciplines, over the course of two centuries. They explore the many different animal features that have been considered to be (or else made) comparable, and the ways that animals have shaped science and medicine through the use of comparison. Authors demonstrate that comparison between species often transcended the range of practices typically employed with experimental animal models, where standardised practises and apparatus were applied to standardised bodies to produce generalizable, objective data; instead, comparison across species has often engaged diverse groups of non-standard species, made use of subjective inferences about phenomena that cannot be directly observed, and inspired analogies that linked physiological and behavioural characteristics with the apparent affective state of non-human animals. Moreover, such comparative practices have also provided unusually fruitful opportunities for collaborative connections between different research traditions and disciplines.

Animal roles and traces in the history of medicine, c.1880-1980.

This paper argues for the need to create a more animal-centred history of medicine, in which animals are considered not simply as the backdrop for human history, but as medical subjects important in and of themselves. Drawing on the tools and approaches of animal and human-animal studies, it seeks to demonstrate, via four short historical vignettes, how investigations into the ways that animals shaped and were shaped by medicine enables us to reach new historical understandings of both animals and medicine, and of the relationships between them. This is achieved by turning away from the much-studied fields of experimental medicine and public health, to address four historically neglected contexts in which diseased animals played important roles: zoology/pathology, parasitology/epidemiology, ethology/psychiatry, and wildlife/veterinary medicine. Focusing, in turn, on species that rarely feature in the history of medicine - big cats, tapeworms, marsupials and mustelids - which were studied, respectively, within the zoo, the psychiatric hospital, human-animal communities and the countryside, we reconstruct the histories of these animals using the traces that they left on the medical-historical record.

Patterns of Infection and Patterns of Evolution: How a Malaria Parasite Brought "Monkeys and Man" Closer Together in the 1960s.

In 1960, American parasitologist Don Eyles was unexpectedly infected with a malariaparasite isolated from a macaque. He and his supervisor, G. Robert Coatney of the National Institutes of Health, had started this series of experiments with the assumption that humans were not susceptible to "monkey malaria." The revelation that a mosquito carrying a macaque parasite could infect a human raised a whole range of public health and biological questions. This paper follows Coatney's team of parasitologists and their subjects: from the human to the nonhuman; from the American laboratory to the forests of Malaysia; and between the domains of medical research and natural history. In the course of this research, Coatney and his colleagues inverted Koch's postulate, by which animal subjects are used to identify and understand human parasites. In contrast, Coatney's experimental protocol used human subjects to identify and understand monkey parasites. In so doing, the team repeatedly followed malaria parasites across the purported boundary separating monkeys and humans, a practical experience that created a sense of biological symmetry between these separate species. Ultimately, this led Coatney and his colleagues make evolutionary inferences, concluding "that monkeys and man are more closely related than some of us wish to admit." In following monkeys, men, and malaria across biological, geographical, and disciplinary boundaries, this paper offers a new historical narrative, demonstrating that the pursuit of public health agendas can fuel the expansion of evolutionary knowledge.