Offset analgesia is reduced on the palm and increases with stimulus duration

Assessing the Influence of Nonischemic A-Fiber Conduction Blockade on Offset Analgesia: An Experimental Study

Offset analgesia (OA) is believed to reflect the efficiency of the endogenous pain modulatory system. However, the underlying mechanisms are still being debated. Previous research suggested both, central and peripheral mechanisms, with the latter involving the influence of specific A-delta-fibers. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the influence of a nonischemic A-fiber conduction blockade on the OA response in healthy participants. A total of 52 participants were recruited for an A-fiber conduction blockade via compression of the superficial radial nerve. To monitor fiber-specific peripheral nerve conduction capacity, quantitative sensory testing was performed continuously. Before, during, and after the A-fiber block, an individualized OA paradigm was applied to the dorsum of both hands (blocked and control sides were randomized). The pain intensity of each heat stimulus was evaluated by an electronic visual analog scale. A successful A-fiber conduction blockade was achieved in thirty participants. OA has been verified within time (before, during, and after blockade) and condition (blocked and control side) (P < .01, d > .5). Repeated measurements analysis of variance showed no significant interaction effects between OA within condition and time (P = .24, η²p = .05). Hence, no significant effect of A-fiber blockade was detected on OA during noxious heat stimulation. The results suggest that peripheral A-fiber afferents may play a minor role in OA compared with alternative central mechanisms or other fibers. However, further studies are needed to substantiate a central rather than peripheral influence on OA. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the observation of OA before, during, and after a successful A-fiber conduction blockade in healthy volunteers. A better understanding of the mechanisms of OA and endogenous pain modulation, in general, may help to explain the underlying aspects of pain disorders.

Differential Effects of Thermal Stimuli in Eliciting Temporal Contrast Enhancement: A Psychophysical Study

Offset analgesia (OA) is observed when pain relief is disproportional to the reduction of noxious input and is based on temporal contrast enhancement (TCE). This phenomenon is believed to reflect the function of the inhibitory pain modulatory system. However, the mechanisms contributing to this phenomenon remain poorly understood, with previous research focusing primarily on painful stimuli and not generalizing to nonpainful stimuli. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether TCE can be induced by noxious as well as innocuous heat and cold stimuli. Asymptomatic subjects (n = 50) were recruited to participate in 2 consecutive experiments. In the first pilot study (n = 17), the parameters of noxious and innocuous heat and cold stimuli were investigated in order to implement them in the main study. In the second (main) experiment, subjects (n = 33) participated in TCE paradigms consisting of 4 different modalities, including noxious heat (NH), innocuous heat (IH), noxious cold (NC), and innocuous cold (IC). The intensity of the sensations of each thermal modality was assessed using an electronic visual analog scale. TCE was confirmed for NH (P < .001), NC (P = .034), and IC (P = .002). Conversely, TCE could not be shown for IH (P = 1.00). No significant correlation between TCE modalities was found (r < .3, P > .05). The results suggest that TCE can be induced by both painful and nonpainful thermal stimulation but not by innocuous warm temperature. The exact underlying mechanisms need to be clarified. However, among other potential mechanisms, this may be explained by a thermo-specific activation of C-fiber afferents by IH and of A-fiber afferents by IC, suggesting the involvement of A-fibers rather than C-fibers in TCE. More research is needed to confirm a peripheral influence. PERSPECTIVE: This psychophysical study presents the observation of temporal contrast enhancement during NH, NC, and innocuous cold stimuli but not during stimulation with innocuous warm temperatures in healthy volunteers. A better understanding of endogenous pain modulation mechanisms might be helpful in explaining the underlying aspects of pain disorders.

Psychological mechanisms of offset analgesia: The effect of expectancy manipulation

A frequently used paradigm to quantify endogenous pain modulation is offset analgesia, which is defined as a disproportionate large reduction in pain following a small decrease in a heat stimulus. The aim of this study was to determine whether suggestion influences the magnitude of offset analgesia in healthy participants. A total of 97 participants were randomized into three groups (hypoalgesic group, hyperalgesic group, control group). All participants received four heat stimuli (two constant trials and two offset trials) to the ventral, non-dominant forearm while they were asked to rate their perceived pain using a computerized visual analogue scale. In addition, electrodermal activity was measured during each heat stimulus. Participants in both intervention groups were given a visual and verbal suggestion about the expected pain response in an hypoalgesic and hyperalgesic manner. The control group received no suggestion. In all groups, significant offset analgesia was provoked, indicated by reduced pain ratings (p < 0.001) and enhanced electrodermal activity level (p < 0.01). A significant group difference in the magnitude of offset analgesia was found between the three groups (F[2,94] = 4.81, p < 0.05). Participants in the hyperalgesic group perceived significantly more pain than the hypoalgesic group (p = 0.031) and the control group (p < 0.05). However, the electrodermal activity data did not replicate this trend (p > 0.05). The results of this study indicate that suggestion can be effective to reduce but not increase endogenous pain modulation quantified by offset analgesia in healthy participants.

Offset analgesia is increased intra-orally

BACKGROUND

Offset analgesia (OA) is commonly used to quantify endogenous pain inhibition. However, the potential role of afferent inputs and the subsequent peripheral factors from different body areas on the underlying mechanisms are still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare the magnitude of OA in four different body areas representing a) glabrous and non-glabrous skin, b) trigeminal and extra-trigeminal areas, and c) intra- and extra-oral tissue.

METHODS

OA was assessed at the oral mucosa of the lower lip, at the skin of the cheek, the forearm and the palm of the hand in 32 healthy and pain-free participants. OA testing included two trials: (1) a constant trial (30 seconds of constant heat stimulation at an individualized temperature of Pain₅₀ (pain intensity of 50 out of 100)), and (2) an offset trial (10 seconds of individualized Pain₅₀ , followed by 5 seconds at Pain₅₀ +1°C and 15 seconds at Pain₅₀ ). Participants continuously rated their pain during each trial with a computerized visual analog scale.

RESULTS

A significant OA response was recorded at the oral mucosa (p<0.001, d=1.24), the cheek (p<0.001, d=0.84) and the forearm (p<0.001, d=1.04), but not at the palm (p=0.19, d=0.24). Significant differences were shown for OA recorded at the cheek versus the mucosa (p=0.02), and between palm and mucosa (p=0.007), but not between the remaining areas (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that intra-oral endogenous pain inhibition assessed with OA is enhanced and supports the role of peripheral mechanisms contributing to the OA response.

Temporal properties of pain contrast enhancement using repetitive stimulation

BACKGROUND

Offset analgesia (OA) is characterized by a disproportionately large reduction in pain following a small decrease in noxious stimulation and is based on temporal pain contrast enhancement (TPCE). The underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon are still poorly understood. This study is aiming to investigate whether TPCE can also be induced by repetitive stimulation, i.e., by stimuli clearly separated in time.

METHODS

A repetitive TPCE paradigm was induced in healthy, pain-free subjects (n = 33) using heat stimuli. Three different interstimulus intervals (ISIs) were used: 5, 15, and 25 seconds. All paradigms were contrasted with a control paradigm without temperature change. Participants continuously rated perceived pain intensity. In addition, electrodermal activity (EDA) was recorded as a surrogate measure of autonomic arousal.

RESULTS

Temporal pain contrast enhancement was confirmed for ISI 5 seconds (p < 0.001) and ISI 15 seconds (p = 0.005) but not for ISI 25 seconds (p = 0.07), however, the magnitude of TPCE did not differ between ISIs (p = 0.11). A TPCE-like effect was also detected with increased EDA values.

CONCLUSIONS

TPCE can be induced by repetitive stimulation. This finding may be explained by a combination of the mechanisms underlying the OA and a facilitated pain habituation.

Adaptation to tonic heat in healthy subjects and patients with sensory polyneuropathy

Adaptation to a constant sensory stimulus involves many sites along the path of sensory volleys towards perception. The evaluation of such phenomenon may be of clinical interest. We studied adaptation to a constant temperature stimulus in healthy subjects to set normative data, and in patients with sensory polyneuropathy (SPN), as proof of concept. Twenty-six healthy subjects and 26 patients with SPN in the context of chemotherapy treatment with oxaliplatin for colon cancer were instructed to express through an electronic VAS system (eVAS) the level of sensation felt when a thermode set at either 39º, 41º, 43º, 45º or 47º was applied to their ventral forearm. The eVAS recordings showed typically an abrupt onset that slowed to approach maximum sensation and continued with a slow decrease indicating adaptation. The time to respond (TR), the velocity of the initial response (VR), the maximum sensation (MA), the time to reach MA (MAt), the onset of adaptation (AO), and the decrease in the sensation level with respect to MA at 30 s after stimulus application (SL30), were dependent on the temperature level in all subjects. However, patients showed significantly delayed TR, slowed VR, decreased MA, delayed AO, and reduced SL30, with respect to healthy subjects. Differences were more pronounced at low temperature levels, with absent AO in 25 patients vs. 2 healthy subjects at temperatures of 39º and 41ºC. The study of adaptation to a constant temperature stimulus can furnish valuable data for the assessment of SPN patients.