[Drug management of cancer-related peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review of the literature]. / Prise en charge médicamenteuse des douleurs neuropathiques périphériques liées au cancer : une revue systématique de la littérature.

The objective of the present systematic literature review was to provide an update on medical treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer patients. The number of cancer patients is steadily increasing. Pain is frequent in cancer patients. Few studies have focused on medical treatment of pain, and especially of neuropathic pain, in current or former cancer patients. The present systematic review of all studies published between December 2012 and August 2018 was intended to estimate the scale of this lack. In all, 27 articles were identified on a systematic PubMed search and from the authors' personal knowledge, confirming that scant data have been published. The heterogeneity of cancer patients, of cancer, and of pain go some way toward explaining this scarcity. Guidelines, founded mainly on results from non-cancer patients, recommend tricyclic antidepressants and antiepileptic drugs; local treatments have the advantage of good systemic tolerance. Larger-scale studies taking account of the etiology of neuropathic pain, its characteristics (strictly neuropathic or mixed) and patient characteristics (awaiting treatment, under treatment, recent or non-recent survivor, or in terminal phase) along the care pathway are needed to improve knowledge. The results of the present literature analysis can help future research.

Can Musical or Painting Interventions Improve Chronic Pain, Mood, Quality of Life, and Cognition in Patients with Mild Alzheimer's Disease? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among non-pharmacological therapies, musical intervention is often used for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and patients presenting chronic pain. However, their efficacy is still under debate. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the efficacy of choral singing versus painting sessions on chronic pain, mood, quality of life, and cognition in AD patients. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, 59 mild AD patients were randomized to a 12-week singing (SG; n = 31) or painting group (PG; n = 28). Chronic pain, anxiety, depression, and quality of life were assessed before, after, and 1 month after the sessions. Cognitive abilities were assessed before and after interventions. The evolution of these different measures was assessed with mixed linear models. The primary data analysis was by intention-to-treat, and completed by a 'per protocol' approach. RESULTS: Both singing and painting interventions led to significant pain reduction (Time effect: F = 4.71; p = 0.01), reduced anxiety (Time effect: F = 10.74; p < 0.0001), improved Quality of Life (Time effect: F = 6.79; p = 0.002), improved digit span (F = 12.93; p = 0.001), and inhibitory processes (Time effect: F = 4.93; p = 0.03). Depression was reduced over time in PG only (Time x Group effect: F = 4.53; p = 0.01). Verbal Memory performance remained stable over time in SG, but decreased in PG (Time x group effect: F = 9.29; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that singing and painting interventions may reduce pain and improve mood, quality of life, and cognition in patients with mild AD, with differential effects of painting for depression and singing for memory performance.

Cognitive function in older patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Neuropathic pain has been shown to be accompanied by cognitive impairment, but the specific impact of postherpetic neuropathic pain on cognitive processes has not been explored. This study aims to evaluate the impact of pain on several domains of cognition in older patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). METHODS: This cross-sectional study (clinicaltrial.gov NCT 00989040) included 84 individuals after signature of informed consent. PARTICIPANTS: 42 patients with PHN and 42 healthy volunteers. Of the 42 PHN patients, 21 received systemic treatment (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opiates) and 21 had topical treatment with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster. All participants performed a panel of four cognitive tests: reaction time, semantic memory, decision-making, and visual memory (Cantab, Cambridge). RESULTS: Forty men and 44 women with a mean age of 72 ± 8 years participated. Each PHN patient was matched by age and gender with a healthy volunteer. Vigilance, decision-making, and semantic memory were significantly impaired (P < 0.05) in patients on systemic treatment, especially with antidepressants, while no significant changes were noted between the lidocaine plaster group and their matched controls of healthy volunteers. CONCLUSION: This study shows the deleterious effect of systemic PHN treatment on several domains of cognition. Cognitive impairment associated with pain and antidepressants may be reversed by topical pain management. Topical treatment with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is a valuable alternative for pain alleviation and maintains cognitive integrity in this vulnerable population.

5% lidocaine medicated plaster in elderly patients with postherpetic neuralgia: results of a compassionate use programme in France.

BACKGROUND: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, debilitating complication of herpes zoster that has a major impact on patients' quality of life. PHN prevalence increases with advancing age. One treatment option is the topical analgesic 5% lidocaine (lignocaine) medicated plaster (Versatis®), which has been proven to be efficacious and well tolerated in a number of randomized clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to assess the use of the lidocaine medicated plaster under clinical practice conditions in a patient population whose previous PHN treatment with antidepressant and/or antiepileptic agents was inadequate or was not tolerated, or for whom such treatment was contraindicated or not recommended. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, non-interventional observation conducted in private and public health centres in France under a compassionate use programme (CUP). To obtain this new - and, at the time, unauthorized - PHN treatment alternative, physicians (in accordance with French guidelines) had to complete standardized case report forms for each patient before his/her inclusion in the CUP. As it was a CUP and therefore a non-interventional observation, returning documented information on follow-up visits to the medication provider was voluntary, and only a limited number of physicians returned completed forms. Documentation was, however, mandatory for adverse events (AEs) occurrence. Depending on the size of the painful skin area, up to three lidocaine plasters daily were applied for a maximum of 12 hours with plaster-free intervals of at least 12 hours. The study assessed changes in the prescription of concomitant PHN medication from the start of lidocaine plaster treatment to the last follow-up visit, both in terms of the sum of all concomitant PHN treatments and stratified by type of treatment: antiepileptic drugs, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), classical analgesics (classified as step 1, 2 or 3 according to the WHO cancer pain ladder), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and others (mainly NSAIDs). AEs were monitored for safety. RESULTS: A total of 625 patients were included in the CUP and permitted to receive lidocaine plaster treatment. Physicians returned 273 documented follow-up visit report forms. The mean ± SD CUP duration (i.e. duration of lidocaine plaster treatment) was 2.4 ± 2.5 months (median 1 month). Efficacy was assessed in the group of patients with documented follow-up visits (n = 273; mean ± SD age 73.6 ± 11.2 years), of whom 184 were aged ≥70 years (elderly efficacy population). The safety analysis included 625 patients (mean ± SD age 73.2 ± 11.9 years). Lidocaine plaster treatment resulted in a significant mean reduction of one concomitant PHN treatment per patient in the overall efficacy population analysed at the end of the observation (p < 0.001). In both populations (overall efficacy and elderly efficacy population), significantly fewer patients received TCAs (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001, respectively), step 3 analgesics (p = 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively), and other miscellaneous treatments (p < 0.001 for both populations); there was also a significant reduction in the proportion of patients who took step 2 analgesics (p = 0.009) in the overall efficacy group. AEs (mainly related to local plaster application) were documented for 2.6% of the patients in the safety population; none were considered serious. CONCLUSIONS: In day-to-day clinical practice management of PHN, treatment with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster permitted a significant quantitative reduction in concomitant treatments for neuropathic pain in the overall efficacy population. In the subgroup aged ≥70 years, the quantitative reduction was non-significant. However, in both populations, 5% lidocaine medicated plaster reduced use of TCAs and step 3 analgesics. An improved polymedication status and good tolerability in this likely multimorbid age group indicate that the plaster is a new therapeutic alternative for patients suffering from PHN in France.

Positional cluster-like headache. A case report of a neurovascular compression between the third cervical root and the vertebral artery.

Symptomatic cluster-like headaches have been described with lesions of the trigeminal and parasympathetic systems. Here, we report the case of a 44-year-old woman with continuous auricular pain and a positional cluster-like headache associated with red ear syndrome. Clinical data and morphological investigations raised the hypothesis of a neurovascular compression between the C3 root and vertebral artery. Neurosurgical exploration found a fibrosis surrounding both the C3 root and the vertebral artery. The excellent outcome after microvascular cervical decompression suggests a causal relationship between the cluster-like headache and the vertebral constraint on the C3 root.

Anatomical location of effective deep brain stimulation electrodes in chronic cluster headache.

Deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamus is a therapeutic approach to the treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache, but the precise anatomical location of the electrode contacts has not been clearly assessed. Our aim was to study the location of the contacts used for chronic stimulation, projecting each contact centre on anatomic atlases. Electrodes were implanted in a series of 10 patients (prospective controlled trial) in the so-called 'posteroinferior hypothalamus' according to previously described coordinates, i.e. 2 mm lateral, 3 mm posterior and 5 mm below the mid-commissural point. The coordinates of the centre of each stimulating contact were measured on postoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans, taking into account the artefact of the electrode. Each contact centre (n=10; left and right hemispheres pooled) was displayed on the Schaltenbrand atlas and a stereotactic three dimensional magnetic resonance imaging atlas (4.7 tesla) of the diencephalon-mesencephalic junction for accurate anatomical location. Of the 10 patients with 1-year follow-up, 5 responded to deep brain stimulation (weekly frequency of attacks decrease >50%). In responders, the mean (standard deviation) coordinates of the contacts were 2.98 (1.16) mm lateral, 3.53 (1.97) mm posterior and 3.31 (1.97) mm below the mid-commissural point. All the effective contacts were located posterior to the hypothalamus. In responders, structures located <2 mm from the centres of effective contacts were: the mesencephalic grey substance (5/5), the red nucleus (4/5), the fascicle retroflexus (4/5), the fascicle longitudinal dorsal (3/5), the nucleus of ansa lenticularis (3/5), the fascicle longitudinal medial (1/5) and the thalamus superficialis medial (1/5). The contact coordinates (Wilcoxon test) and the structures (Fisher's exact test) were not significantly different between responders and non-responders. These findings suggest that failure of deep brain stimulation treatment in cluster headache may be due to factors unrelated to electrode misplacement. They also suggest that the therapeutic effect is probably not related to direct hypothalamic stimulation. Deep brain stimulation might modulate either a local cluster headache generator, located in the hypothalamus or in the mesencephalic grey substance, or non-specific anti-nocioceptive systems.

Safety and efficacy of deep brain stimulation in refractory cluster headache: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial followed by a 1-year open extension.

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a disabling primary headache, considering the severity and frequency of pain attacks. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used to treat severe refractory CCH, but assessment of its efficacy has been limited to open studies. We performed a prospective crossover, double-blind, multicenter study assessing the efficacy and safety of unilateral hypothalamic DBS in 11 patients with severe refractory CCH. The randomized phase compared active and sham stimulation during 1-month periods, and was followed by a 1-year open phase. The severity of CCH was assessed by the weekly attacks frequency (primary outcome), pain intensity,sumatriptan injections, emotional impact (HAD) and quality of life (SF12). Tolerance was assessed by active surveillance of behavior, homeostatic and hormonal functions.During the randomized phase, no significant change in primary and secondary outcome measures was observed between active and sham stimulation. At the end of the open phase, 6/11 responded to the chronic stimulation(weekly frequency of attacks decrease [50%), including three pain-free patients. There were three serious adverse events, including subcutaneous infection, transient loss of consciousness and micturition syncopes. No significant change in hormonal functions or electrolytic balance was observed. Randomized phase findings of this study did not support the efficacy of DBS in refractory CCH, but open phase findings suggested long-term efficacy in more than 50% patients, confirming previous data, without high morbidity. Discrepancy between these findings justifies additional controlled studies (clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00662935).