People with epilepsy frequently have cognitive impairment. The majority of cognitive problems is influenced by a variety of interlinked factors, including the early onset of epilepsy and the frequency, intensity and duration of seizures, along with the anti-epileptic drug treatment. With a systematic review, we investigate significant factors about the cognitive impairment in epilepsy. Most cognitive problems in adult people with epilepsy include memory, attention and executive function deficits. However, which cognitive area is mainly affected highly depends on the location of epileptic activity. Moreover, modifications in signalling pathways and neuronal networks have an essential role in both the pathophysiology of epilepsy and in the mechanism responsible for cognitive impairment. Additionally, studies have shown that the use of polytherapy in the treatment of epilepsy with anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) heightens the risk for cognitive impairment. It can be challenging to distinguish the contribution of each factor, because they are often closely intertwined.

Background: Opioid use for chronic non‐cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan‐European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).Methods: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self‐help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence‐based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case‐series, case‐control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.Results: The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non‐pharmacological treatments and non‐opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non‐pharmacological treatments or non‐opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence‐ and clinical consensus‐based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation.Conclusions: Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance.Significance: In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non‐pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi‐modal, multi‐disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.

Background and Purpose: In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence‐based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP).Methods: We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP.Results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I‐DN4 (self‐administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S‐LANSS (self‐administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases.Conclusions: These recommendations provide evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor‐to‐moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large‐scale, well‐designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed.

Background and purpose: Although the main clinical features of COVID‐19 infection are pulmonary, several associated neurological signs, symptoms and diseases are emerging. The incidence and characteristics of neurological complications are unclear. For this reason, the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) core COVID‐19 Task Force initiated a survey on neurological symptoms observed in patients with COVID‐19 infection.Methods: A 17‐question online survey was made available on the EAN website and distributed to EAN members and other worldwide physicians starting on 9 April 2020.Results: By 27 April 2020, proper data were collected from 2343 responders (out of 4199), of whom 82.0% were neurologists, mostly from Europe. Most responders (74.7%) consulted patients with COVID‐19 mainly in emergency rooms and in COVID‐19 units. The majority (67.0%) had evaluated fewer than 10 patients with neurological manifestations of COVID‐19 (neuro COVID‐19). The most frequently reported neurological findings were headache (61.9%), myalgia (50.4%), anosmia (49.2%), ageusia (39.8%), impaired consciousness (29.3%) and psychomotor agitation (26.7%). Encephalopathy and acute cerebrovascular disorders were reported at 21.0%. Neurological manifestations were generally interpreted as being possibly related to COVID‐19; they were most commonly recognized in patients with multiple general symptoms and occurred at any time during infection.Conclusion: Neurologists are currently and actively involved in the management of neurological issues related to the COVID‐19 pandemic. This survey justifies setting up a prospective registry to better capture the prevalence of patients with neuro COVID‐19, neurological disease characteristics and the contribution of neurological manifestations to outcome.