Acid-induced experimental knee pain and hyperalgesia in healthy humans

Amorphous calcium carbonate as a novel potential treatment for osteoarthritis in dogs: a pilot clinical study

Background

Amorphous calcium carbonate (ACC) is a potential new treatment for canine osteoarthritis (OA) with novel mechanisms based on local pH modulation and targeting bone remodeling, inflammation, and pain. The aim of this pilot exploratory clinical study was to obtain initial data on the potential efficacy and safety of ACC in OA dogs and to determine if further investigation was appropriate using similar assessment methods.

Materials and methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study, 41 client-owned dogs were allocated in a 2:1 ratio to ACC: placebo given orally for 56 days. Efficacy assessments included improvements in pain and mobility using owner questionnaires [Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI), Client Specific Outcome Measure (CSOM), and Veterinary Orthopedic Scores (VOS)]. Safety in the study population was monitored by veterinary examinations, clinical pathology, and adverse events.

Results

Fifty-three dogs were screened, of which 41 enrolled and served for the safety assessment. Thirty-six dogs were found evaluable for initial efficacy assessment. Three dogs given placebo (21.4%) and one given ACC (4.5%) were removed before day 56 due to owner-perceived pain and were considered treatment failures. There were no serious adverse events or clinically significant treatment-related effects in the study. Overall, ACC was found safe in the small study population. On day 56, proportionally more ACC than placebo dogs were treatment successes based on CBPI (45.5% vs. 21.4%) and CSOM (63.6% vs. 30.8%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.15 and 0.06, respectively). On day 56, within the ACC group but not the placebo group, the CBPI, CSOM, and VOS assessments were lower compared to day 0 and day 14 (p < 0.05).

Limitations

The relatively small number of dogs limited the statistical power of the pilot study in evaluating the efficacy and safety of ACC.

Conclusion

Study results support the conduct of larger, appropriately powered studies using similar assessments to confirm whether ACC may be a safe and effective treatment for OA in dogs.

Patient expectations about a clinical diagnostic test may influence the clinician's test interpretation

BACKGROUND

With medical information widely available, patients often have preconceived ideas regarding diagnostic procedures and management strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether expectations, such as beliefs about the source of symptoms and knowledge about diagnostic tests, influence pain perception during a clinical diagnostic test.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Pain was induced by intramuscular hypertonic saline infusion in the thenar muscles. In line with sample size calculations, fifteen participants were included. All participants received identical background information regarding basic median nerve biomechanics and basic concepts of differential diagnosis via mechanical loading of painful structures. Based on different explanations about the origin of their induced pain, half of the participants believed (correctly) they had 'muscle pain' and half believed (incorrectly) they had 'nerve pain'. Pain intensity and size of the painful area were evaluated in five different positions of the median nerve neurodynamic test (ULNT1 _MEDIAN). Data were analysed with two-way analyses of variance.

RESULTS

/findings: Changes in pain in the ULNT1 _MEDIAN positions were different between the 'muscle pain' and 'nerve pain' group (p < 0.001). In line with their expectations, the 'muscle pain' group demonstrated no changes in pain throughout the test (p > 0.38). In contrast, pain intensity (p ≤ 0.003) and size of the painful area (p ≤ 0.03) increased and decreased in the 'nerve pain' group consistent with their expectations and the level of mechanical nerve loading.

CONCLUSION

Pain perception during a clinical diagnostic test may be substantially influenced by pain anticipation. Moreover, pain was more aligned with beliefs and expectations than with the actual pathobiological process.

Acute experimentally-induced pain replicates the distribution but not the quality or behaviour of clinical appendicular musculoskeletal pain. A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Experimental pain is a commonly used method to draw conclusions about the motor response to clinical musculoskeletal pain. A systematic review was performed to determine if current models of acute experimental pain validly replicate the clinical experience of appendicular musculoskeletal pain with respect to the distribution and quality of pain and the pain response to provocation testing.

METHODS

A structured search of Medline, Scopus and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to August 2020 using the following key terms: "experimental muscle pain" OR "experimental pain" OR "pain induced" OR "induced pain" OR "muscle hyperalgesia" OR ("Pain model" AND "muscle"). Studies in English were included if investigators induced experimental musculoskeletal pain into a limb (including the sacroiliac joint) in humans, and if they measured and reported the distribution of pain, quality of pain or response to a provocation manoeuvre performed passively or actively. Studies were excluded if they involved prolonged or delayed experimental pain, if temporomandibular, orofacial, lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine pain were investigated, if a full text of the study was not available or if they were systematic reviews. Two investigators independently screened each title and abstract and each full text paper to determine inclusion in the review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third investigator.

RESULTS

Data from 57 experimental pain studies were included in this review. Forty-six of these studies reported pain distribution, 41 reported pain quality and six detailed the pain response to provocation testing. Hypertonic saline injection was the most common mechanism used to induce pain with 43 studies employing this method. The next most common methods were capsaicin injection (5 studies) and electrical stimulation, injection of acidic solution and ischaemia with three studies each. The distribution of experimental pain was similar to the area of pain reported in clinical appendicular musculoskeletal conditions. The quality of appendicular musculoskeletal pain was not replicated with the affective component of the McGill Pain Questionnaire consistently lower than that typically reported by musculoskeletal pain patients. The response to provocation testing was rarely investigated following experimental pain induction. Based on the limited available data, the increase in pain experienced in clinical populations during provocative maneuvers was not consistently replicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Current acute experimental pain models replicate the distribution but not the quality of chronic clinical appendicular musculoskeletal pain. Limited evidence also indicates that experimentally induced acute pain does not consistently increase with tests known to provoke pain in patients with appendicular musculoskeletal pain. The results of this review question the validity of conclusions drawn from acute experimental pain studies regarding changes in muscle behaviour in response to pain in the clinical setting.