This is a revision of guidelines, originally published in 2004, for the assessment of patients with neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system either at peripheral or central level. Screening questionnaires are suitable for identifying potential patients with neuropathic pain, but further validation of them is needed for epidemiological purposes. Clinical examination, including accurate sensory examination, is the basis of neuropathic pain diagnosis. For more accurate sensory profiling, quantitative sensory testing is recommended for selected cases in clinic, including the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathies and for research purposes. Measurement of trigeminal reflexes mediated by A-beta fibers can be used to differentiate symptomatic trigeminal neuralgia from classical trigeminal neuralgia. Measurement of laser-evoked potentials is useful for assessing function of the A-delta fiber pathways in patients with neuropathic pain. Functional brain imaging is not currently useful for individual patients in clinical practice, but is an interesting research tool. Skin biopsy to measure the intraepidermal nerve fiber density should be performed in patients with clinical signs of small fiber dysfunction. The intensity of pain and treatment effect (both in clinic and trials) should be assessed with numerical rating scale or visual analog scale. For future neuropathic pain trials, pain relief scales, patient and clinician global impression of change, the proportion of responders (50% and 30% pain relief), validated neuropathic pain quality measures and assessment of sleep, mood, functional capacity and quality of life are recommended.

Neuropathic pain is accompanied by both positive and negative sensory signs. To explore the spectrum of sensory abnormalities, 1236 patients with a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain were assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) following the protocol of DFNS (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain), using both thermal and mechanical nociceptive as well as non-nociceptive stimuli. Data distributions showed a systematic shift to hyperalgesia for nociceptive, and to hypoesthesia for non-nociceptive parameters. Across all parameters, 92% of the patients presented at least one abnormality. Thermosensory or mechanical hypoesthesia (up to 41%) was more frequent than hypoalgesia (up to 18% for mechanical stimuli). Mechanical hyperalgesias occurred more often (blunt pressure: 36%, pinprick: 29%) than thermal hyperalgesias (cold: 19%, heat: 24%), dynamic mechanical allodynia (20%), paradoxical heat sensations (18%) or enhanced wind-up (13%). Hyperesthesia was less than 5%. Every single sensory abnormality occurred in each neurological syndrome, but with different frequencies: thermal and mechanical hyperalgesias were most frequent in complex regional pain syndrome and peripheral nerve injury, allodynia in postherpetic neuralgia. In postherpetic neuralgia and in central pain, subgroups showed either mechanical hyperalgesia or mechanical hypoalgesia. The most frequent combinations of gain and loss were mixed thermal/mechanical loss without hyperalgesia (central pain and polyneuropathy), mixed loss with mechanical hyperalgesia in peripheral neuropathies, mechanical hyperalgesia without any loss in trigeminal neuralgia. Thus, somatosensory profiles with different combinations of loss and gain are shared across the major neuropathic pain syndromes. The characterization of underlying mechanisms will be needed to make a mechanism-based classification feasible.

Background:  Consensus guidelines on the definition, investigation, and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) have been previously published in European Journal of Neurology and Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System.Objectives:  To revise these guidelines.Methods:  Disease experts, including a representative of patients, considered references retrieved from MEDLINE and Cochrane Systematic Reviews published between August 2004 and July 2009 and prepared statements that were agreed in an iterative fashion.Recommendations:  The Task Force agreed on Good Practice Points to define clinical and electrophysiological diagnostic criteria for CIDP with or without concomitant diseases and investigations to be considered. The principal treatment recommendations were: (i) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (Recommendation Level A) or corticosteroids (Recommendation Level C) should be considered in sensory and motor CIDP; (ii) IVIg should be considered as the initial treatment in pure motor CIDP (Good Practice Point); (iii) if IVIg and corticosteroids are ineffective, plasma exchange (PE) should be considered (Recommendation Level A); (iv) if the response is inadequate or the maintenance doses of the initial treatment are high, combination treatments or adding an immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory drug should be considered (Good Practice Point); (v) symptomatic treatment and multidisciplinary management should be considered (Good Practice Point).

Background:  Revision of the guidelines on the use of skin biopsy in the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy, published in 2005, has become appropriate owing to publication of more relevant articles. Most of the new studies focused on small fiber neuropathy (SFN), a subtype of neuropathy for which the diagnosis was first developed through skin biopsy examination. This revision focuses on the use of this technique to diagnose SFN.Methods:  Task force members searched the Medline database from 2005, the year of the publication of the first EFNS guideline, to June 30th, 2009. All pertinent articles were rated according to the EFNS and PNS guidance. After a consensus meeting, the task force members created a manuscript that was subsequently revised by two experts (JML and JVS) in the field of peripheral neuropathy and clinical neurophysiology, who were not previously involved in the use of skin biopsy.Results and Conclusions:  Distal leg skin biopsy with quantification of the linear density of intraepidermal nerve fibers (IENF), using generally agreed upon counting rules, is a reliable and efficient technique to assess the diagnosis of SFN (Recommendation Level A). Normative reference values are available for bright‐field immunohistochemistry (Recommendation Level A) but not yet for confocal immunofluorescence or the blister technique. The morphometric analysis of IENF density, either performed with bright‐field or immunofluorescence microscopy, should always refer to normative values matched for age (Recommendation Level A). Newly established laboratories should undergo adequate training in a well‐established skin biopsy laboratory and provide their own stratified for age and gender normative values, intra‐ and interobserver reliability, and interlaboratory agreement. Quality control of the procedure at all levels is mandatory (Good Practice Point). Procedures to quantify subepidermal nerve fibers and autonomic innervated structures, including erector pili muscles, and skin vessels, are under development but need to be confirmed by further studies. Sweat gland innervation can be examined using an unbiased stereologic technique recently proposed (Recommendation Level B).A reduced IENF density is associated with the risk of developing neuropathic pain (Recommendation Level B), but it does not correlate with its intensity. Serial skin biopsies might be useful for detecting early changes of IENF density, which predict the progression of neuropathy, and to assess degeneration and regeneration of IENF (Recommendation Level C). However, further studies are warranted to confirm its potential usefulness as an outcome measure in clinical practice and research. Skin biopsy has not so far been useful for identifying the etiology of SFN. Finally, we emphasize that 3‐mm skin biopsy at the ankle is a safe procedure based on the experience of 10 laboratories reporting absence of serious side effects in approximately 35 000 biopsies and a mere 0.19% incidence of non‐serious side effects in about 15 years of practice (Good Practice Point).

Skin biopsy has become a widely used tool to investigate small calibre sensory nerves including somatic unmyelinated intraepidermal nerve fibres (IENF), dermal myelinated nerve fibres, and autonomic nerve fibres in peripheral neuropathies and other conditions. Different techniques for tissue processing and nerve fibre evaluation have been used. In March 2004, a Task Force was set up under the auspices of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) with the aim of developing guidelines on the use of skin biopsy in the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathies. We searched the Medline database from 1989, the year of the first publication describing the innervation of human skin using immunostaining with anti‐protein‐gene‐product 9.5 (PGP 9.5) antibodies, to 31 March 2005. All pertinent papers were rated according to the EFNS guidance. The final version of the guidelines was elaborated after consensus amongst members of the Task Force was reached. For diagnostic purposes in peripheral neuropathies, we recommend performing a 3‐mm punch skin biopsy at the distal leg and quantifying the linear density of IENF in at least three 50‐μm thick sections per biopsy, fixed in 2% PLP or Zamboni's solution, by bright‐field immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence with anti‐PGP 9.5 antibodies (level A recommendation). Quantification of IENF density closely correlated with warm and heat‐pain threshold, and appeared more sensitive than sensory nerve conduction study and sural nerve biopsy in diagnosing small‐fibre sensory neuropathy. Diagnostic efficiency and predictive values of this technique were very high (level A recommendation). Confocal microscopy may be particularly useful to investigate myelinated nerve fibres, dermal receptors and dermal annex innervation. In future, the diagnostic yield of dermal myelinated nerve fibre quantification and of sweat gland innervation should be addressed. Longitudinal studies of IENF density and regeneration rate are warranted to correlate neuropathological changes with progression of neuropathy and to assess the potential usefulness of skin biopsy as an outcome measure in peripheral neuropathy trials (level B recommendation). In conclusion, punch skin biopsy is a safe and reliable technique (level A recommendation). Training in an established cutaneous nerve laboratory is recommended before using skin biopsy as a diagnostic tool in peripheral neuropathies. Quality control at all levels is mandatory.