One-year prospective real-world assessment of effectiveness and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: results of the French FHU INOVPAIN registry study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy and safety of erenumab. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab in a real-world setting in French patients with migraine associated with extreme unmet needs. METHODS: This is a one year-prospective real-word study with enrolment of all consecutive adult patients included in the FHU InovPain registry who participated in a compassionate erenumab use program. RESULTS: Of 144 patients included, 140 patients (82.1% female / mean age of 50.9 ± 11.4) received at least one dose of erenumab and were concerned by effectiveness and safety assessment. All patients had failed 11 oral preventive treatments. Most of them suffered from chronic migraine (88.6%) and presented a medication overuse (90.7%) at baseline. Thirty-eight (27.1%) discontinued treatment during the 12-month follow-up, with 22 (15.7%), 11 (7.9%) and 5 (3.6%) patients before 3, 6 or 9 months of treatment. The proportion of ≥ 50% responders at M3, M6, M9 and M12 was 74/140 (52.9%), 69/118 (58.5%), 61/107 (57.0%) and 60/102 (58.8%) respectively. At M3, the rate of reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine was 57.3% and the rate of transition from medication overuse to non-overuse was 46.5%. For monthly migraine days, the median (IQR) was 18.0 (13.0-26.0), 9.0 (5.0-17.0), 7.5 (5.0-14.0), 8.0 (5.0-12.5) and 8.0 (5.0-12.0) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. For HIT-6 score, the median (IQR) was 68.0 (63.8-73.3), 60.0 (54.0-65.0), 60.0 (50.3-53.0), 59.0 (50.0-63.0) and 58.0 (50.0-62.9) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. Fifty-three (37.9%) patients reported at least one of the following adverse events: cutaneous erythema and/or pain at the injection site for 42 (30%) patients, constipation for 22 (15.7%) patients, muscle spasm for 2 (1.4%) patients, alopecia for one (0.7%) patient and blood pressure increase in one (0.7%) patient. There was no serious adverse event. One female patient became pregnant after 5 months of exposure to erenumab with a safe evolution after treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: This first French real-world study related to migraine prevention with CGRP-mAbs confirms effectiveness and safety of erenumab in patients with extreme unmet needs.

Revised guidelines of the French headache society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 3: Non-pharmacological treatment.

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. This article presents the third part of the guidelines, which is focused on the non-pharmacological treatment of migraine, including physical exercise, dietary supplements and plants, diets, neuromodulation therapies, acupuncture, behavioral interventions and mindfulness therapy, patent foramen ovale closure and surgical nerve decompression.

Revised guidelines of the French headache society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 2: Pharmacological treatment.

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. This article presents the second part of the guidelines, which is focused on the pharmacological treatment of migraine, including both the acute treatment of attacks and the prophylaxis of episodic migraine as well as chronic migraine with and without medication overuse. The specific situations that can be encountered in women with migraine are also discussed, including pregnancy, menstrual migraine, contraception and hormonal replacement therapy.

Revised guidelines of the French Headache Society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 1: Diagnosis and assessment.

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. The first part of these recommendations is focused on the diagnosis and assessment of migraine. First, migraine needs to be precisely diagnosed according to the currently validated criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3d version (ICHD-3). Migraine-related disability has to be assessed and we suggest to use the 6 questions of the headache impact test (HIT-6). Then, it is important to check for risk factors and comorbidities increasing the risk to develop chronic migraine, especially frequency of headaches, acute medication overuse and presence of depression. We suggest to use a migraine calendar and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). It is also necessary to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of current migraine treatments and we suggest to systematically use the self-administered Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (M-TOQ) for acute migraine treatment. Finally, a treatment strategy and a follow-up plan have to be proposed. Guidelines for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are presented in the second and third part of the recommendations.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain: Systematic review and French recommendations

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques and interventional management, but no comprehensive guideline encompassing all these treatments has yet been issued. We performed a systematic review of pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgery, psychotherapies and other types of therapy for peripheral or central neuropathic pain, based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018. The main inclusion criteria were chronic neuropathic pain for at least three months, a randomized controlled methodology, at least three weeks of follow-up, at least 10 patients per group, and a double-blind design for drug therapy. Based on the GRADE system, we provide weak-to-strong recommendations for use and proposal as a first-line treatment for SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants and, for topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a second-line treatment for pregabalin, tramadol, combination therapy (antidepressant combined with gabapentinoids), and for high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a third-line treatment for high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation (failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic polyneuropathy) and strong opioids (in the absence of an alternative). Psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness) is recommended as a second-line therapy, as an add-on to other therapies. An algorithm encompassing all the recommended treatments is proposed.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain: Systematic review and French recommendations.

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques and interventional management, but no comprehensive guideline encompassing all these treatments has yet been issued. We performed a systematic review of pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgery, psychotherapies and other types of therapy for peripheral or central neuropathic pain, based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018. The main inclusion criteria were chronic neuropathic pain for at least three months, a randomized controlled methodology, at least three weeks of follow-up, at least 10 patients per group, and a double-blind design for drug therapy. Based on the GRADE system, we provide weak-to-strong recommendations for use and proposal as a first-line treatment for SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants and, for topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a second-line treatment for pregabalin, tramadol, combination therapy (antidepressant combined with gabapentinoids), and for high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a third-line treatment for high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation (failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic polyneuropathy) and strong opioids (in the absence of an alternative). Psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness) is recommended as a second-line therapy, as an add-on to other therapies. An algorithm encompassing all the recommended treatments is proposed.

Management of neuropathic pain induced by surgery: Review of the literature by a group of experts specialized in pain management, anesthesia and surgery.

Chronic postsurgical neuropathic pain (CPSNP) is frequent. While prevalence varies considerably according to type of operation and means of evaluation, it can reach 37% following breast surgery. Identification of risk factors related to the procedure and to the patient and taking into account the development of new, minimally invasive surgical techniques is increasingly nerve-sparing and reduces the likelihood of injury. CPSNP diagnosis in daily practice is facilitated by simple and quickly usable tools such as the NP4 4-question test. Management is based on pharmacological (analgesics, antiepileptics, antidepressants, local anesthetics) and non-pharmacological (kinesitherapy, neurostimulation, psychotherapy) approaches. In light of the present review of the literature, the authors, who constitute an expert group specialized in pain management, anesthesia and surgery, express their support for topical treatments (lidocaine, capsaicin) in treatment of localized postsurgical neuropathic pain in adults.

Neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic pain.

The goal of this narrative review was to give an up-to-date overview of the peripheral and central neurostimulation methods that can be used to treat chronic pain. Special focus has been given to three pain conditions: neuropathic pain, nociplastic pain and primary headaches. Both non-invasive and invasive techniques are briefly presented together with their pain relief potentials. For non-invasive stimulation techniques, data concerning transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) are provided. Concerning invasive stimulation techniques, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are presented. The action mode of all these techniques is only partly understood but can be very different from one technique to the other. Patients' selection is still a challenge. Recent consensus-based guidelines for clinical practice are presented when available. The development of closed-loop devices could be of interest in the future, although the clinical benefit over open loop is not proven yet.

Efficacy and safety of a T-type calcium channel blocker in patients with neuropathic pain: A proof-of-concept, randomized, double-blind and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: T-type calcium channels have been shown to play an important role in the initiation and maintenance of neuropathic pain and represent a promising therapeutic target for new analgesic treatments. Ethosuximide (ETX), an anticonvulsant and a T-type channel blocker has shown analgesic effect in several chronic pain models but has not yet been evaluated in patients with neuropathic pain. METHODS: This proof-of-concept, multicentre, double-blind, controlled and randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of ETX (given as add-on therapy) to an inactive control (IC) in 114 patients with non-diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. After a 7-day run-in period, eligible patients aged over 18 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to ETX or IC for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference between groups in the pain intensity (% of change from the baseline to end of treatment) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with EudraCT (2013-004801-26) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02100046). RESULTS: The study was stopped during the interim analysis due to the high number of adverse events in the active treatment group. ETX failed to reduce total pain and showed a poor tolerance in comparison to IC. In the per-protocol analysis, ETX significantly reduced pain intensity by 15.6% (95% CI -25.8; -5.4) from baseline compared to IC (-7.8%, 95% CI -14.3; -1.3; p = 0.033), but this result must be interpreted with caution because of a small subgroup of patients. CONCLUSION: Ethosuximide did not reduce the severity of neuropathic pain and induces, at the doses used, many adverse events. SIGNIFICANCE: This article shows that ETX is not effective to treat neuropathic pain. Nevertheless, per-protocol analysis suggests a possible analgesic effect of ETX. Thus, our work adds significant knowledge to preclinical and clinical data on the benefits of T-type calcium channel inhibition for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

What are the therapeutic alternatives to dextropropoxyphene in France? A prescribers' survey.

About a year after dextropropoxyphene (DXP) withdrawal from the French market, we conducted a survey among members of the French Society of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine (Sfar) and of the French Society of the Study and Treatment of Pain (SFETD) to identify the indications for which this WHO level II analgesic had been prescribed, the prescriber's feedback following withdrawal, and the substitutive analgesics prescribed. DXP had been prescribed by more than 75% of the 430 anaesthesiologists and 230 pain specialists interviewed, mainly for acute and chronic non-cancer pain of moderate intensity. While two thirds of pain specialists were not satisfied with DXP withdrawal, this decision did not affect the majority of anaesthesiologists. In both groups, the main substitutive analgesic was tramadol combined with acetaminophen, while only 24% of prescribers considered acetaminophen alone as a substitute.

Ergot Use and Overuse: A Pharmacoepidemiology Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate and to characterize the actual patterns of ergot use and overuse in France using a drug reimbursement database. METHODS: We included all people covered by the French General Health Insurance System (GHIS) from the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur (PACA) and Corsica administrative areas who had at least one prescription of ergot between May 2010 and December 2011. All prescriptions of ergots, migraine prophylactic treatment, and psychotropic medications were extracted from the GHIS database. We defined occasional ergot users (<3 months of prescription) and regular ergot users (>3 months of prescription). Among regular ergot users, we identified overusers and nonoverusers. RESULTS: We included 4358 patients who had at least one prescription of ergots (oral ergotamine tartrate, dihydroergotamine mesilate nasal spray, intravenous dihydroergotamine mesilate). Among ergot overusers, a large majority of patients had ergotamine tartrate overuse. The proportion of ergotamine tartrate overusers is maximum after 55 years. Compared with regular users, overusers use more frequently a prophylactic treatment (93/165 [56.4%] versus 398/1057, OR = 2.15, P < .001), antidepressants (72/165 [43.6%] versus 326/1057 [30.8%] OR = 1.79, P < .001), benzodiazepines (111/165 [67.3%] versus 613/1057 [58.0%], OR = 1.50, P < .001), weak opioids (95/165 [57.6%] versus 463/1057 [43.8], OR = 1.77, P < .001) and strong opioids (13/165 [7.9%] versus 24/1057 [2.3%], OR = 3.86, P < .001). The coexistence of ergot consumption and triptan overuse, and the possibility of both triptan and ergot overuse was described; triptan overusers were more described in ergotamine overusers than in nonoverusers. CONCLUSIONS: This work outlines a high prevalence of ergotamine tartrate overuse (11.1%). As ergotamine tartrate users are mostly aged more than 55 years, an evaluation of ergotamine cardiovascular risk profile is necessary in the elderly population.

Epidemiology of migraine: French key descriptive data.

France is a country for which the epidemiology of migraine is very well known. Based on the results of the main studies over the last 20 years, this brief review presents the key descriptive data for French migraine epidemiology, and considers its prevalence, individual impact, recognition and medical management, and social impact.

[Neurosurgical treatment of chronic pain]. / Traitement neurochirurgical de la douleur chronique.

Neurosurgical treatment of pain used two kind of techniques: 1) Lesional techniques interrupt the transmission of nociceptive neural input by lesionning the nociceptive pathways (drezotomy, cordotomy, tractotomy…). They are indicated to treat morphine-resistant cancer pain and few cases of selected neuropathic pain. 2) Neuromodulation techniques try to decrease pain by reinforcing inhibitory and/or to limit activatory mechanisms. Chronic electrical stimulation of the nervous system (peripheral nerve stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, motor cortex stimulation…) is used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Intrathecal infusion of analgesics (morphine, ziconotide…), using implantable pumps, allows to increase their efficacy and to reduce their side effects. These techniques can improve, sometimes dramatically, selected patients with severe and chronic pain, refractory to all other treatments. The quality of the analgesic outcome depends on the relevance of the indications.

Multicolumn spinal cord stimulation for significant low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome: design of a national, multicentre, randomized, controlled health economics trial (ESTIMET Study).

BACKGROUND: Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic neuropathic radicular pain over recent decades, but despite global favourable outcomes in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with leg pain, the back pain component remains poorly controlled by neurostimulation. Technological and scientific progress has led to the development of new SCS leads, comprising a multicolumn design and a greater number of contacts. The efficacy of multicolumn SCS lead configurations for the treatment of the back pain component of FBSS has recently been suggested by pilot studies. However, a randomized controlled trial must be conducted to confirm the efficacy of new generation multicolumn SCS. Évaluation médico-économique de la STImulation MEdullaire mulTi-colonnes (ESTIMET) is a multicentre, randomized study designed to compare the clinical efficacy and health economics aspects of mono- vs. multicolumn SCS lead programming in FBSS patients with radicular pain and significant back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FBSS patients with a radicular pain VAS score≥50mm, associated with a significant back pain component were recruited in 14 centres in France and implanted with multicolumn SCS. Before the lead implantation procedure, they were 1:1 randomized to monocolumn SCS (group 1) or multicolumn SCS (group 2). Programming was performed using only one column for group 1 and full use of the 3 columns for group 2. Outcome assessment was performed at baseline (pre-implantation), and 1, 3, 6 and 12months post-implantation. The primary outcome measure was a reduction of the severity of low back pain (bVAS reduction≥50%) at the 6-month visit. Additional outcome measures were changes in global pain, leg pain, paraesthesia coverage mapping, functional capacities, quality of life, neuropsychological aspects, patient satisfaction and healthcare resource consumption. TRIAL STATUS: Trial recruitment started in May 2012. As of September 2013, all 14 study centres have been initiated and 112/115 patients have been enrolled. Preliminary results are expected to be published in 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration information-URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT01628237.

Charcot spinal arthropathy in a diabetic patient.

We report a case of Charcot spinal arthropathy in a diabetic patient and emphasize the clinical reasoning leading to the diagnosis, discuss the differential diagnosis, and insist on the crucial role of the radiologist and pathologist which allows the distinction between Charcot spinal arthropathy and infectious or tumoural disorders of the spine.