Ilya Ayzenberg1, Daniel Richter1, Eugenia Henke1, Susanna Asseyer1, Friedemann Paul1, Corinna Trebst1, Martin W Hümmert1, Joachim Havla1, Tania Kümpfel1, Marius Ringelstein1, Orhan Aktas1, Brigitte Wildemann1, Sven Jarius1, Vivien Häußler1, Jan-Patrick Stellmann1, Makbule Senel1, Luisa Klotz1, Hannah L Pellkofer1, Martin S Weber1, Marc Pawlitzki1, Paulus S Rommer1, Achim Berthele1, Klaus-Dieter Wernecke1, Kerstin Hellwig1, Ralf Gold1, Ingo Kleiter2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (I.A., D.R., E.H., K.H., R.G., I.K.), St. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany; Department of Neurology (I.A.), Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Russia; NeuroCure Clinical Research Center (S.A., F.P.), Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology (C.T., M.W.H.), Hannover Medical School, Germany; Institute of Clinical Neuroimmunology (J.H., T.K., H.L.P.), University Hospital and Biomedical Center, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.R., O.A.), Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.R.), Center for Neurology and Neuropsychiatry, LVR-Klinikum Düsseldorf, Germany; Molecular Neuroimmunology Group (B.W., S.J.), Department of Neurology, University of Heidelberg, Germany; Institut für Neuroimmunologie und Multiple Sklerose (INIMS) (V.H., J.-P.S.), Zentrum für Molekulare Neurobiologie, Hamburg, Germany; Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie (V.H., J.-P.S.), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany; APHM (J.-P.S.), Hopital de la Timone, CEMEREM, Marseille, France; Aix Marseille Université (J.-P.S.), CRMBM, CNRS UMR 7339, Marseille, France; Department of Neurology (M.S.), University of Ulm, Germany; Münster Department of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology (L.K., M.P.), University Hospital Münster, Germany; Department of Neurology (H.L.P., M.S.W.), University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.P.), Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany; Department of Neurology (P.S.R.), Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Neuroimmunology Section (P.S.R.), Department of Neurology, University of Rostock, Germany; Department of Neurology (A.B.), School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Germany; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, CRO SOSTANA GmbH Berlin (K.-D.W.), Germany; and Marianne-Strauß-Klinik (I.K.), Behandlungszentrum Kempfenhausen für Multiple Sklerose Kranke gGmbH, Berg, Germany. 2. From the Department of Neurology (I.A., D.R., E.H., K.H., R.G., I.K.), St. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany; Department of Neurology (I.A.), Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Russia; NeuroCure Clinical Research Center (S.A., F.P.), Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology (C.T., M.W.H.), Hannover Medical School, Germany; Institute of Clinical Neuroimmunology (J.H., T.K., H.L.P.), University Hospital and Biomedical Center, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.R., O.A.), Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.R.), Center for Neurology and Neuropsychiatry, LVR-Klinikum Düsseldorf, Germany; Molecular Neuroimmunology Group (B.W., S.J.), Department of Neurology, University of Heidelberg, Germany; Institut für Neuroimmunologie und Multiple Sklerose (INIMS) (V.H., J.-P.S.), Zentrum für Molekulare Neurobiologie, Hamburg, Germany; Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie (V.H., J.-P.S.), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany; APHM (J.-P.S.), Hopital de la Timone, CEMEREM, Marseille, France; Aix Marseille Université (J.-P.S.), CRMBM, CNRS UMR 7339, Marseille, France; Department of Neurology (M.S.), University of Ulm, Germany; Münster Department of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology (L.K., M.P.), University Hospital Münster, Germany; Department of Neurology (H.L.P., M.S.W.), University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.P.), Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany; Department of Neurology (P.S.R.), Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Neuroimmunology Section (P.S.R.), Department of Neurology, University of Rostock, Germany; Department of Neurology (A.B.), School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Germany; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, CRO SOSTANA GmbH Berlin (K.-D.W.), Germany; and Marianne-Strauß-Klinik (I.K.), Behandlungszentrum Kempfenhausen für Multiple Sklerose Kranke gGmbH, Berg, Germany. ingo.kleiter@rub.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate prevalence, clinical characteristics, and predictors of pain, depression, and their impact on the quality of life (QoL) in a large neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) cohort. METHODS: We included 166 patients with aquaporin-4-seropositive NMOSD from 13 tertiary referral centers. Patients received questionnaires on demographic and clinical characteristics, PainDetect, short form of Brief Pain Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory-II, and Short Form 36 Health Survey. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five (75.3%) patients suffered from chronic NMOSD-associated pain. Of these, 65.9% had neuropathic pain, 68.8% reported spasticity-associated pain and 26.4% painful tonic spasms. Number of previous myelitis attacks (OR = 1.27, p = 0.018) and involved upper thoracic segments (OR = 1.31, p = 0.018) were the only predictive factors for chronic pain. The latter was specifically associated with spasticity-associated pain (OR = 1.36, p = 0.002). More than a third (39.8%) suffered from depression, which was moderate to severe in 51.5%. Pain severity (OR = 1.81, p < 0.001) and especially neuropathic character (OR = 3.44, p < 0.001) were associated with depression. Pain severity and walking impairment explained 53.9% of the physical QoL variability, while depression and walking impairment 39.7% of the mental QoL variability. No specific medication was given to 70.6% of patients with moderate or severe depression and 42.5% of those with neuropathic pain. Two-thirds (64.2%) of patients with symptomatic treatment still reported moderate to severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: Myelitis episodes involving upper thoracic segments are main drivers of pain in NMOSD. Although pain intensity was lower than in previous studies, pain and depression remain undertreated and strongly affect QoL. Interventional studies on targeted treatment strategies for pain are urgently needed in NMOSD.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate prevalence, clinical characteristics, and predictors of pain, depression, and their impact on the quality of life (QoL) in a large neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) cohort. METHODS: We included 166 patients with aquaporin-4-seropositive NMOSD from 13 tertiary referral centers. Patients received questionnaires on demographic and clinical characteristics, PainDetect, short form of Brief Pain Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory-II, and Short Form 36 Health Survey. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five (75.3%) patients suffered from chronic NMOSD-associated pain. Of these, 65.9% had neuropathic pain, 68.8% reported spasticity-associated pain and 26.4% painful tonic spasms. Number of previous myelitis attacks (OR = 1.27, p = 0.018) and involved upper thoracic segments (OR = 1.31, p = 0.018) were the only predictive factors for chronic pain. The latter was specifically associated with spasticity-associated pain (OR = 1.36, p = 0.002). More than a third (39.8%) suffered from depression, which was moderate to severe in 51.5%. Pain severity (OR = 1.81, p < 0.001) and especially neuropathic character (OR = 3.44, p < 0.001) were associated with depression. Pain severity and walking impairment explained 53.9% of the physical QoL variability, while depression and walking impairment 39.7% of the mental QoL variability. No specific medication was given to 70.6% of patients with moderate or severe depression and 42.5% of those with neuropathic pain. Two-thirds (64.2%) of patients with symptomatic treatment still reported moderate to severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: Myelitis episodes involving upper thoracic segments are main drivers of pain in NMOSD. Although pain intensity was lower than in previous studies, pain and depression remain undertreated and strongly affect QoL. Interventional studies on targeted treatment strategies for pain are urgently needed in NMOSD.
Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is an autoimmune inflammatory disorder
that primarily affects the visual pathway, brain, and spinal cord.[1,2]
Autoantibodies targeting aquaporin-4 (AQP4) are present in the majority of patients and
proved to be pathogenic in animal models.[3,4] NMOSD attacks often do
not fully recover and residual clinical deficits remain in >75% of
attacks.[5,6] Beside severe physical impairments, NMOSD can go along
with symptoms like chronic pain, cognitive deficits, and depression.[7,8]Spinal pain, girdle-like dysesthesia, and painful spasms were noted already in earliest
disease descriptions in the 18th century.[9] Nowadays, it has become clear that pain is a frequent and one of the
most disabling symptoms of NMOSD.[8,10-15] Chronic
NMOSD-associated pain affects quality of life (QoL), with pain severity being the most
important predictive factor.[10,12,13,15] Possible underlying
mechanisms include damage of the central nociceptive and antinociceptive pathways,
particularly the dorsal horn of the spinal cord and the dorsal root entry zone,
autonomic thoracolumbar nuclei, the periaqueductal gray, and hypothalamus. Excessive
levels of extracellular glutamate and increase of proinflammatory factors, such as
interleukin (IL)-6, IL-17, and C5a, can additionally facilitate nociceptive
processing.[16] Glutamate
excitotoxicity can cause an imbalance between excitation and inhibition in nociceptive
system, resulting in spontaneous neuropathic pain.Because of the rarity of NMOSD, most previous studies of pain were relatively
small.[10,11,17] Moreover,
several studies included a mixed population of AQP4-IgG–seropositive and
–seronegative patients,[10-13,15] whereas recent
clinical trials clearly indicate that pathogenetic mechanisms are different in these
forms.[18] Accordingly, data on
clinical and paraclinical predictors of pain as well as its association with depression
and effects on QoL remain limited.We sought to investigate clinical characteristics, risk factors, and impact of pain
syndromes and depression in a Central European cohort of patients with
AQP4-IgG–seropositive NMOSD. Furthermore, we wanted to evaluate the efficacy of
immunotherapies and symptomatic treatment for both conditions and search for a short
screening question to detect patients with disabling pain.
Methods
Patients
We performed an exploratory, questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study in the
years 2017–2019. Patients with AQP4-IgG–seropositive NMOSD
according to IPND criteria[19]
were identified through the registry of the German Neuromyelitis Optica Study
Group (NEMOS, nemos-net.de). Details on
the registry, participating centers, and data collection, quality and processing
can be found in previous publications.[5,6] Inclusion
criteria were (1) age over 18 years and (2) positive AQP4-IgG, confirmed in a
cell-based assay. Patients with known relevant cognitive deficits were excluded.
All patients were in remission during the study. Clinical data, including
Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), therapies, and localization of spinal
lesions in cervical and thoracic segments on MRI, were retrieved from the NEMOS
database or local patient records. Data on current pain, depression, walking,
and visual impairment and QoL were captured by self-reporting questionnaires.
Patients were instructed to report on NMOSD-associated pain syndromes only.
Questionnaires
Current pain was assessed using the PainDetect questionnaire (PDQ),[20] the short form of the Brief
Pain Inventory (SF-BPI), and the McGill Pain Questionnaire Short Form
(MPQ-SF).[21] The
questions of the SF-BPI consist of 2 categories: (1) pain severity (present,
highest, least, and average pain) based on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) from 0
(no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable) within the last week. The pain severity
index score represents the average score of these 4 pain intensity scores. (2)
Seven domains of pain-related interference in activity of daily living (ADL),
rated from of 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference): general
activity, mood, walking ability, working ability, relations with other people,
sleep, and enjoyment of life. The PDQ was administered to evaluate pain
localization and discriminate between definite neuropathic (PDQ score >18),
probable neuropathic (PDQ score 13–18), and nociceptive pain (PDQ score
<13). The MPQ-SF consists of 15 words, describing sensory (11 words) and
affective (4 words) components of pain. Patients rate their intensity as 0
= none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, or 3 = severe. Three pain
scores are derived from the sum of the rank values: (1) sensory, (2) affective,
and (3) total descriptors. Painful tonic spasms (PTSs) were assessed asking the
patient whether they experienced recurrent attacks or short episodes (duration
<1 minute) of localized muscle spasms, accompanied by severe pain.Depression was evaluated using Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), scored from
0 (best) to 63 (worst) (<9: no depressive affect; 9–13: minimal mood
disturbance; 14–20: mild depression, 21–28: moderate depression;
and ≥29: severe depression). Clinically relevant depression was defined
by a score of ≥14. Health-related QoL was measured with the SF-36
questionnaire, consisting of 36 items in 8 subscales. A Physical Component
Summary (PCS) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS) were calculated using
norm-based attaining values from 0 (worst) to 100 (best).
Standard Protocol Approvals, Registrations, and Patient Consents
Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the
Ruhr-University Bochum (#15-5534). Ethics approval of the NEMOS registry
was obtained in participating centers locally. Patients provided written
informed consent. The study was performed according to International Conference
on Harmonization/Good Clinical Practice and current legal requirements.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to describe sample data. Comparisons of
interval-scaled variables were performed using the 2-sample t
test for normally distributed variables, the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum test
for nonparametric or ordinal-scaled variables, and the χ2 test
for categorical variables. We used binary logistic regression to evaluate
factors associated with overall pain (yes vs no) as well as neuropathic
(neuropathic vs nociceptive pain) and spasticity-related pain
(spasticity-associated vs other [non–spasticity-associated] pain) as
dependent variables. The following independent variables were included into the
logistic model: sex, age, EDSS, disease duration, AQP4-IgG titer, overall number
of previous relapses, number of myelitis attacks, and number of involved spinal
segments. Concerning depressive state, sex, age, disease duration, walking, and
visual impairment were included into analysis. A multiple robust regression
model with backward feature selection was used to determine predictors for
hrQoL, with PCS and MCS composites as dependent variables and age, sex, disease
duration, walking and visual impairment, pain severity, and Beck depression
index as independent variables.[22] To check for correlations between pain intensity and
different aspects of ADL, we performed the Spearman correlation test. This study
was an exploratory pilot study, with no a priori sample size calculation. For
the same reason, statistical significance was set at p <
0.05 without adjustment for multiple testing. Numerical calculations were
performed by SPSS Statistics, Version 25, SPSS Inc., an IBM Company, and The R
Project for Statistical Computing, Version 3.4.0 (2017-04-21), The R Foundation
for Statistical Computing.
Data Availability
Anonymized data not published within this article are available on reasonable
request from any qualified investigator within 5 years after publication.
Results
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics
Thirteen tertiary referral NEMOS centers participated in the study, and 172
questionnaires were sent back to the reading center in Bochum for analysis. The
response rate was 83.1% (data on response rate available for 7 centers,
addressing 71.1% of respondents). Data of 6 questionnaires were insufficient and
had to be excluded. In total, 166 patients with AQP4-IgG–seropositive
NMOSD (148 female and 18 male) were included. Main demographic and clinical
characteristics are described in table 1.
Most patients in the cohort had a history of myelitis (152; 91.6%) or optic
neuritis (114; 68.7%), 95 (57.2%) of both myelitis and optic neuritis. Data on
the last available spinal MRI were available for 143 of 166 patients (130 of 152
with a history of myelitis) and demonstrated a 2-peak distribution (C2-C6 and
Th2-Th7) of lesion location (figure 1).
Eleven of 21 patients without visible spinal lesions had a history of myelitis.
Six patients only had a relapse in the previous 6 months.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics and Immunotherapy
Figure 1
Distribution of Persistent Spinal Lesions in Cervical and Thoracic
Segments
Shown is the frequency (%) of patients (total n = 143) with a spinal
lesion on MRI at the appropriate level.
Demographic Characteristics and Immunotherapy
Distribution of Persistent Spinal Lesions in Cervical and Thoracic
Segments
Shown is the frequency (%) of patients (total n = 143) with a spinal
lesion on MRI at the appropriate level.
Overall Pain Prevalence and Main Characteristics
Overall, 125 (75.3%) patients suffered from chronic NMOSD-associated pain. The
intensity of NMOSD-associated chronic pain was moderate to severe in 55.2% of
pain sufferers (figure 2A). Pain was mainly
described as aching (90.4%), tender (76.8%), stabbing (68.8%), or burning
(66.4%) on sensory dimensions and tiring-exhausting (68.0%) on affective
dimension. Most prevalent were chronic pain without painless periods (n =
77, 61.6%). Isolated or overlapping pain attacks reported 48 (38.4%) and 40
(32.0%) patients accordingly (figure 2B).
Every second patient (n = 88, 53%) reported pain as a symptom of the last
relapse.
Figure 2
Main Characteristics of the NMOSD-Associated Pain
(A) Intensity, (B) temporal patterns (a. continuous pain with slight
fluctuations; b. continuous pain with pain attacks; c. pain attacks with
painless periods; d. pain attacks without painless periods), and (C and
D) character of pain. Values of pain intensity are given in median,
interquartile range, and minimal and maximal values. Prevalence is given
in (%). NMOSD = neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. NRS =
Numeric Rating Scale, PTS = painful tonic spasm.
Main Characteristics of the NMOSD-Associated Pain
(A) Intensity, (B) temporal patterns (a. continuous pain with slight
fluctuations; b. continuous pain with pain attacks; c. pain attacks with
painless periods; d. pain attacks without painless periods), and (C and
D) character of pain. Values of pain intensity are given in median,
interquartile range, and minimal and maximal values. Prevalence is given
in (%). NMOSD = neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. NRS =
Numeric Rating Scale, PTS = painful tonic spasm.
Prevalence of Different Types of Pain
One-third of pain sufferers had nociceptive (n = 39, 30.7%), probable
neuropathic (n = 43, 33.9%), or definite neuropathic pain (n = 40,
31.5%) each; in 3 patients, the type of pain could not be identified (figure 2C). Pain was most often localized in
legs (72.8%, in two-thirds of cases bilateral), followed by arms (48.8%, in half
of cases bilateral), trunk (34.4%), and neck/head region (27.2%). Most intense
pain were reported by patients with pain localization in the trunk (4.9 ±
1.7 vs 3.3 ± 2.2, p < 0.05) or legs (4.1 ± 2.2
vs 3.2 ± 2.0, p < 0.05). Trunk pains were more often
of definite neuropathic than of probable neuropathic or nociceptive character
(55.8% vs 27.9% vs 16.3%; p < 0.05), whereas no changes
were found for pains in other regions of the body.Two-thirds of the pain sufferers reported spasticity-associated pain (n =
86, 68.8%) (figure 2D). It was
significantly more prevalent in patients with nociceptive than neuropathic pain
(87.8% vs 55.8%, p = 0.02). Thirty-three patients (26.4%)
had short-lasting PTS, mostly in the legs (n = 28, 84.8%) and rarely in the
arms (n = 6, 18.2%). These patients reported approximately 5 PTS episodes a
day (4.9 ± 6.4), with a range of 26 attacks per day to 1 per week.
Episodes of Myelitis Involving Upper Thoracic Segments Are Associated With
Chronic Pain
Chronic pain was not associated with age, sex, AQP4-IgG titer, disease duration,
overall disability (EDSS), or depressive state (BDI > 14). However, the
number of previous attacks was significantly associated with the occurrence of
pain (OR 1.12 [1.02–1.21], p = 0.020). More
detailed analysis revealed that the total number of episodes of myelitis (OR
1.27 [1.05–1.57], p = 0.018), but not the number of
optic neuritis (OR 1.02 [0.92–1.13], p = 0.716),
was relevant. There was no association of pain prevalence or severity with the
presence or any specific localization of persistent spinal lesions (table 2). However, we found an association
of the number of involved spinal segments with pain (OR 1.14 [1.03–1.28],
p = 0.024). Moreover, the number of lesions in the
upper 6 thoracic segments only (but not in cervical or lower thoracic lesions)
was associated with the risk of having pain in general (OR 1.31
[1.01–1.63], p = 0.018) and was the only specific
factor increasing the risk of spasticity-associated pain among pain sufferers
(OR 1.36 [1.10–1.67], p = 0.002). We could not find
any specific factors associated with short-lasting PTS. Depressive state was the
only factor strongly associated with neuropathic pain (OR 3.44
[1.35–8.80], p = 0.001).
Table 2
Prevalence and Severity of Pain in 143 Patients With Spinal Lesions of
Different Localizations
Prevalence and Severity of Pain in 143 Patients With Spinal Lesions of
Different Localizations
Pain Severity Strongly Correlates With Reduction of Activities of Daily
Living
Effects of pain on ADL are given in table
3. Correlation analysis revealed a strong correlation of pain
severity with general activity (rho = 0.69, p <
0.001) and sleep (rho = 0.61, p < 0.001), followed by
mood (rho = 0.55, p < 0.001), walking ability (rho
= 0.54, p < 0.001), normal work (rho = 0.52,
p < 0.001), enjoyment of life (rho = 0.50,
p < 0.001), and relations (rho = 0.46,
p < 0.001). We observed an even stronger negative
effect of definite neuropathic pain on all evaluated ADL aspects compared with
nociceptive pain.
Table 3
Effects of Neuropathic and Nociceptive Pain on ADL
Effects of Neuropathic and Nociceptive Pain on ADL
Chronic Pain But Not Physical Impairment Is Associated With Depression in
NMOSD
Sixty-six (39.8%) patients suffered from depression: mild in 32 (19.3%), moderate
in 21 (11.6%), and severe in 13 (7.8%) cases. There was no association between a
depressive state (BDI > 14) and age, sex, or disease duration. Univariate
regression analyses revealed pain severity as well as walking and visual
impairment to be associated with depressive state. In the multiple logistic
regression analysis, pain intensity (OR 1.53 [1.22–1.91],
p < 0.001) remained the only factor independently
associated with a depressive state.
Pain, Depression, and Walking Impairment Are 3 Main QoL Predictors
The physical but not the mental composite subscale was significantly lower in
pain sufferers (table 4). Among pain
sufferers, patients with definite neuropathic pain had significantly lower
scores in both SF-36 composites comparing to those with nociceptive pain.
Multivariate regression analysis identified pain severity (p
< 0.001) and walking impairment (p < 0.001) as 2
independent predictors explaining 53.9% of the physical QoL composite
variability. Depression measured by the BDI score (p <
0.001) and to a lesser extent walking impairment (p =
0.043) determined 39.7% of the mental QoL composite variability.
Table 4
Quality of Life in Patients With and Without NMOSD-Associated Pain
Quality of Life in Patients With and Without NMOSD-Associated Pain
Symptomatic Pain Treatment Is Insufficiently Effective in Real-Life
Practice
Two-thirds (n = 81, 64.8%) of the 125 pain sufferers took pain medications,
antidepressants, or both. Most of them took 1 (n = 44, 35.2%) or 2 (n
= 25, 20.0%) pain medications. Nine patients (7.2%) had 3 different pain
medications, and 3 patients had 4, 5, and 6 medications each. Pain medication
included nonopioid analgesics (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs)
(n = 47, 37.6%), antiepileptic medications for neuropathic pain (including
gabapentin, pregabalin, carbamazepine, and oxcarbazepine) (n = 51, 40.8%),
and opioids (n = 13, 10.4%). Antidepressants were taken by 21 (16.8%) pain
sufferers. Surprisingly, only one-third (n = 10, 29.4%) of those with at
least moderate depression (BDI > 20) took antidepressants. Seven of 10
suffered from pain with a median pain intensity of 5.0 (2.0–8.0), so that
antidepressant medication could be a component of pain therapy.Patients with definite neuropathic pain took symptomatic therapy significantly
more often compared with those with nociceptive pain (85.0% vs 51.3%,
p = 0.002, table
5). However, among the 40 patients with neuropathic pain, only 23
(57.5%) took specific medications. Retrospectively, patients reported a
substantial reduction of the pain intensity through pain medications; median 60%
(range 0–100) in all patients, 50% (0–100) in those with definite
neuropathic pain, 65% (0–100) in those with nociceptive pain. Only 4
patients (4.9%) were pain-free, and 25 patients (30.9%) reported mild pain. Most
patients still reported moderate (n = 41, 50.6%) or severe (n = 11,
13.6%) pain despite symptomatic treatment. Only 28.8% of those with
spasticity-associated pain received antispastic medications.
Table 5
Prevalence and Efficacy of Symptomatic Therapy in Pain Sufferers
Prevalence and Efficacy of Symptomatic Therapy in Pain Sufferers
Effects of Immunotherapies on Pain Experience
There was no difference in terms of pain prevalence or intensity in patients with
different immunotherapies. Retrospectively, 39.5% of pain sufferers reported
improvement of pain after start of immunotherapy: 28 of 75 (37.3%) under
rituximab, 6 of 15 (40.0%) under azathioprine, 2 of 6 (33.3%) under
mycophenolate mofetil, and 6 of 9 (66.7%) under tocilizumab.
Pain Pattern Question Can Be an Effective Screening Tool
Finally, we searched for a short screening question allowing identification of
those patients most affected by pain in NMOSD. We used the 4 pain patterns from
the PDQ (table 6). Patients suffering
from pain attacks without painless intervals (patterns 2 and 4) had
significantly more intense pains and a significantly lower physical QoL
component. Moreover, the majority of those with pattern 4 suffered from moderate
or severe depression (87.5%) and neuropathic pain (62.5%) and had lower mental
QoL.
Table 6
Association of 4 Pain Patterns With Pain Characteristics, Depression, and
QoL
Association of 4 Pain Patterns With Pain Characteristics, Depression, and
QoL
Discussion
We evaluated a large cohort of patients with AQP4-IgG–seropositive NMOSD for
pain and comorbid depression. As much as 75.3% of all patients suffered from
NMOSD-associated chronic pain, in line with previously reported 80%–86% in
smaller studies from other geographic areas.[10-12,14,23] The majority of patients reported
continuous pain, often superimposed by pain attacks. Pain localization was in the
legs in 3/4 and around the trunk and in arms in 1/2 each. Overall pain intensity was
lower in our cohort compared with previous studies conducted a decade ago,[10-12] and only 10%
suffered from severe pain. Both median EDSS and the total number of involved spinal
segments were lower than in previous studies. Less aggressive disease course,
probably due to earlier diagnosis and/or more effective immunotherapy, could explain
these differences. Indeed, two-thirds of our patients received rituximab, and about
40% reported reduction of pain under current immunotherapy. A positive selection
bias could be another possible explanation. No data on questionnaire response rates
have been reported in 2 of 3 abovementioned smaller surveys.[11,12] Of interest, similar to one of the previous studies, we
achieved a relative high response rate and pain severity was very similar in both
studies (3.6 ± 2.8 other study; 3.8 ± 2.1 our cohort).[10]Using the PDQ, 24% of our patients had definite neuropathic pain and further 26%
signs of possible neuropathic pain. Two previous studies reported a significantly
higher prevalence of neuropathic pain, 62% and 86%, respectively, based on the
Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire and less clearly defined clinical
criteria.[12,23] In a recent PainDetect-based small
study, definite neuropathic pain was present in 7% only.[14]We were able to identify several predictors of pain in our cohort. The number of
myelitis episodes and the extent of spinal cord lesions independently contributed to
the risk of NMOSD-associated pain. Previous smaller studies demonstrated
contradictory results.[11,12,23] Although a correlation between pain intensity and an
overall length of the spinal lesions was reported, this could not be confirmed in
another study.[11,12] It is likely that different severity and location
(both sagittal and axial) of injuries have different effects on pain perception. In
contrast to a recent UK study,[23]
we could not confirm a protective effect of persistent cervical lesions; however,
injuries in the upper thoracic (but not cervical or lower thoracic) segments were
critical for development of chronic pain. Previously, a causative relationship
between upper thoracic lesions and neuropathic pain was postulated.[23] As known, patients with spinal
lesions develop both neuropathic and nociceptive pain.[24] To evaluate a link between spinal lesions and
neuropathic pain, we compared patients with a definite nociceptive and definite
neuropathic pain. We could not confirm a specific association of the latter with any
extent or any precise sagittal lesions location. In contrast, the number of involved
upper thoracic segments was significantly associated with the risk of
spasticity-associated pain, observed in two-thirds of pain sufferers. Spasticity was
one of the main mechanisms underlying nociceptive NMOSD-associated pain in our
cohort, being present in almost 90% of these patients.Similar to previous studies, we found that approximately 20% of all respondents
suffered from short-lasting PTSs.[17] Despite a previously supported association of PTS to
incompletely remyelinated spinal lesions, we could not confirm this finding either.
In MS, PTSs are supposed to be associated with thalamocortical lesions.[25,26]The 19% prevalence of moderate to severe depression in our cohort was lower compared
with an earlier reported 28% in NMOSD.[27] Similar to previous studies, only pain severity but not
disability, disease activity, or any other demographic parameter was associated with
depression. Depression was the only factor associated with neuropathic but not
nociceptive pain; however, identification of causative relationships between these
conditions is impossible in a cross-sectional study. Bidirectional relationships
between depression and neuropathic pain are well known and especially in
inflammatory diseases share common underlying mechanisms.[28] It is noteworthy that a specific direct link
between NMOSD and depression has been supposed in experimental studies: AQP4
deficiency itself results in a decreased hippocampal neurogenesis, which could
contribute to the pathogenesis of depression.[29]Despite being mild to moderate, pain and depression can have enormous negative
effects on patient's life. Pain markedly reduced all aspects of ADL. Pain
intensity and walking impairment were 2 main factors independently associated with
lower physical QoL, whereas the latter and depression had an impact on the mental
QoL. Comparing patients with nociceptive and neuropathic pain, the latter had
significantly lower ADL as well as both lower physical and mental composites of QoL.
Of interest, 2 temporal pain patterns (persistent pain with pain attacks and pain
attacks with pain between them) were associated with a markedly higher pain
intensity, depression prevalence, and lower QoL. This simple image-based question
allowing prompt identification of most disabled patients might be useful for pain
screening in NMOSD.In previous NMOSD studies, an insufficient symptomatic therapy has been
reported.[15] In our cohort,
65% received pain medications, and two-thirds of them reported a significant pain
relief. Despite multiple medications, pain intensity mostly remained moderate, and
only a minority of patients was pain-free. Insufficient on-target medication could
be one of the reasons: antispastic medications were administered in only 29% of
those with a spasticity-associated pain and only 58% of patients with neuropathic
pain had specific treatment.Compared with pain, depression was less often adequately treated. Twenty-nine percent
of those with moderate to severe depression received antidepressants. The actual
number of patients receiving adequate antidepressant pharmacotherapy is probably
even lower, as at least in some of them, antidepressants were administered as a part
of pain therapy.The strengths of our study are inclusion of a relatively large cohort of purely
AQP4-IgG–seropositive NMOSD patients and the definition of clinical and
paraclinical predictors of pain as well as its association with depression and
effects on QoL. There are also limitations. Because we only asked for pharmacologic
treatments, no information about nonpharmacologic pain therapies and psychotherapy
is available. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation was recently reported to
reduce persistent central neuropathic pain in NMOSD.[30] Because MRI data were retrieved by record review,
we could not perform a precise analysis of transverse localization and size of the
spinal lesions. In addition, no brain MRI was performed to evaluate central
nociceptive pathways. There were no sufficient data on lumbar MRI, rarely involved
by seropositive NMOSD. The analysis of lesion extension in the acute phase of
myelitis could be also promising, as some injured foci become invisible afterward.
Moreover, prospective evaluation of the type and severity of pain in the first 6
months after acute myelitis could be helpful for precise analysis of possible
underlying mechanisms. A relatively high proportion of pain sufferers (35%) took no
pain medications during the study. It remains unclear whether the medications have
not been administered due to low pain intensity or stopped due to low efficacy and
side effects. It would be important to address this point in further studies.
Finally, we did not perform an analysis of fatigue, an important factor influencing
depression and QoL.In conclusion, chronic pain and depression are highly prevalent and strongly affect
QoL and ADL in AQP4-IgG–seropositive NMOSD. Both conditions remain
undertreated and therefore should be asked for in the diagnostic workup. Pain
attacks without painless periods are typical for NMOSD and have the most severe
impact. Episodes of myelitis involving upper thoracic segments are main drivers of
pain in NMOSD and should be prevented and aggressively treated. Adequate
immunotherapy has a beneficial effect on pain experience. Higher awareness and
interventional studies on targeted symptomatic treatment of neuropathic and
spasticity-associated pain, including characteristic and very intense short-lasting
PTSs, are warranted and could change a real-life clinical practice in NMOSD.
Authors: Vanessa A Skucas; Ian B Mathews; Jianmin Yang; Qi Cheng; Andrew Treister; Aine M Duffy; Alan S Verkman; Barbara L Hempstead; Marcelo A Wood; Devin K Binder; Helen E Scharfman Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Sven Jarius; Klemens Ruprecht; Brigitte Wildemann; Tania Kuempfel; Marius Ringelstein; Christian Geis; Ingo Kleiter; Christoph Kleinschnitz; Achim Berthele; Johannes Brettschneider; Kerstin Hellwig; Bernhard Hemmer; Ralf A Linker; Florian Lauda; Christoph A Mayer; Hayrettin Tumani; Arthur Melms; Corinna Trebst; Martin Stangel; Martin Marziniak; Frank Hoffmann; Sven Schippling; Jürgen H Faiss; Oliver Neuhaus; Barbara Ettrich; Christian Zentner; Kersten Guthke; Ulrich Hofstadt-van Oy; Reinhard Reuss; Hannah Pellkofer; Ulf Ziemann; Peter Kern; Klaus P Wandinger; Florian Then Bergh; Tobias Boettcher; Stefan Langel; Martin Liebetrau; Paulus S Rommer; Sabine Niehaus; Christoph Münch; Alexander Winkelmann; Uwe K Zettl U; Imke Metz; Christian Veauthier; Jörn P Sieb; Christian Wilke; Hans P Hartung; Orhan Aktas; Friedemann Paul Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 8.322
Authors: Dean M Wingerchuk; Brenda Banwell; Jeffrey L Bennett; Philippe Cabre; William Carroll; Tanuja Chitnis; Jérôme de Seze; Kazuo Fujihara; Benjamin Greenberg; Anu Jacob; Sven Jarius; Marco Lana-Peixoto; Michael Levy; Jack H Simon; Silvia Tenembaum; Anthony L Traboulsee; Patrick Waters; Kay E Wellik; Brian G Weinshenker Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Susanna Asseyer; Felix Schmidt; Claudia Chien; Michael Scheel; Klemens Ruprecht; Judith Bellmann-Strobl; Alexander U Brandt; Friedemann Paul Journal: Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin Date: 2018-08-30
Authors: Elia Sechi; Laura Cacciaguerra; John J Chen; Sara Mariotto; Giulia Fadda; Alessandro Dinoto; A Sebastian Lopez-Chiriboga; Sean J Pittock; Eoin P Flanagan Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: José E Meca-Lallana; Rocío Gómez-Ballesteros; Francisco Pérez-Miralles; Lucía Forero; María Sepúlveda; Carmen Calles; María L Martínez-Ginés; Inés González-Suárez; Sabas Boyero; Lucía Romero-Pinel; Ángel P Sempere; Virginia Meca-Lallana; Luis Querol; Lucienne Costa-Frossard; Daniel Prefasi; Jorge Maurino Journal: Neurol Ther Date: 2022-05-06