Are changes in nociceptive withdrawal reflex magnitude a viable central sensitization proxy? Implications of a replication attempt

Assessing signs of central sensitization: A critical review of physiological measures in experimentally induced secondary hyperalgesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Central sensitization (CS) is believed to play a role in many chronic pain conditions. Direct non-invasive recording from single nociceptive neurons is not feasible in humans, complicating CS establishment. This review discusses how secondary hyperalgesia (SHA), considered a manifestation of CS, affects physiological measures in healthy individuals and if these measures could indicate CS. It addresses controversies about heat sensitivity changes, the role of tactile afferents in mechanical hypersensitivity and detecting SHA through electrical stimuli. Additionally, it reviews the potential of neurophysiological measures to indicate CS presence.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Four databases, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Cochrane Library, were searched using terms linked to 'hyperalgesia'. The search was limited to research articles in English conducted in humans until 2023.

RESULTS

Evidence for heat hyperalgesia in the SHA area is sparse and seems to depend on the experimental method used. Minimal or no involvement of tactile afferents in SHA was found. At the spinal level, the threshold of the nociceptive withdrawal reflex (RIII) is consistently reduced during experimentally induced SHA. The RIII area and the spinal somatosensory potential (N13-SEP) amplitude are modulated only with long-lasting nociceptive input. At the brain level, pinprick-evoked potentials within the SHA area are increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical pinprick hyperalgesia is the most reliable behavioural readout for SHA, while the RIII threshold is the most sensitive neurophysiological readout. Due to scarce data on reliability, sensitivity and specificity, none of the revised neurophysiological methods is currently suitable for CS identification at the individual level.

SIGNIFICANCE

Gathering evidence for CS in humans is a crucial research focus, especially with the increasing interest in concepts such as 'central sensitization-like pain' or 'nociplastic pain'. This review clarifies which readouts, among the different behavioural and neurophysiological proxies tested in experimental settings, can be used to infer the presence of CS in humans.

Clinical neurophysiology of neuropathic pain

Timely and accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is critical for optimizing therapeutic outcomes and minimizing treatment delays. According to current standards, the diagnosis of definite neuropathic pain requires objective confirmation of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system. This can be provided by specialized neurophysiological techniques as conventional methods like nerve conduction studies and somatosensory evoked potentials may not be sufficient as they do not assess pain pathways. These specialized techniques apply various stimuli, such as thermal, electrical, or mechanical, alongside assessments of spinal/cortical potential or electromyographic reflex recordings. The selection of techniques is guided by the patient's clinical history and examination. The most common neurophysiological tests used in clinical practice are pain-related evoked potentials (PREPs) providing an objective evaluation of nociceptive pathways. Four types of PREPs are employed: laser evoked potentials, contact-heat evoked potentials, intra-epidermal electrical stimulation evoked potentials, and pinprick evoked potentials, with the two former ones being the most robust and reliable ones. These techniques investigate small-diameter fibers, primarily Aδ-fibers, and spinothalamic tracts allowing the identification of peripheral or central nervous system lesions. Yet, they are limited in capturing neuronal mechanisms underlying neuropathic pain or in providing objective quantification of pain sensation. Two neurophysiological measures which investigate the pain system beyond its integrity are the nociceptive withdrawal reflex and the N13 component of somatosensory evoked potentials. Both of these methods are more commonly used in research than clinical practice, but they pose interesting approaches to quantify central sensitization, a key underlying mechanism of neuropathic pain. Future investigations in neuropathic pain are therefore warranted.

Healthy women show more experimentally induced central sensitization compared with men

ABSTRACT

Women more often experience chronic pain conditions than men. Central sensitization (CS) is one key mechanism in chronic pain that can differ between the sexes. It is unknown whether CS processes are already more pronounced in healthy women than in men. In 66 subjects (33 women), a thermal CS induction protocol was applied to the dorsum of one foot and a sham protocol to the other. Spatial extent [cm 2 ] of secondary mechanical hyperalgesia (SMH) and dynamic mechanical allodynia were assessed as subjective CS proxy measures, relying on verbal feedback. Changes in nociceptive withdrawal reflex magnitude (NWR-M) and response rate (NWR-RR) recorded through surface electromyography at the biceps and rectus femoris muscles were used as objective CS proxies. The effect of the CS induction protocol on SMH was higher in women than in men (effect size 2.11 vs 1.68). Nociceptive withdrawal reflex magnitude results were statistically meaningful for women (effect size 0.31-0.36) but not for men (effect size 0.12-0.29). Differences between men and women were not meaningful. Nociceptive withdrawal reflex response rate at the rectus femoris increased in women after CS induction and was statistically different from NWR-RR in men (median differences of 13.7 and 8.4% for 120 and 140% reflex threshold current). The objective CS proxy differences indicate that dorsal horn CS processes are more pronounced in healthy women. The even larger sex differences in subjective CS proxies potentially reflect greater supraspinal influence in women. This study shows that sex differences are present in experimentally induced CS in healthy subjects, which might contribute to women's vulnerability for chronic pain.

Modulation of the spinal N13 SEP component by high- and low-frequency electrical stimulation. Experimental pain models matter

OBJECTIVE

The N13 component of somatosensory evoked potential (N13 SEP) represents the segmental response of cervical dorsal horn neurons. Neurophysiological studies in healthy participants showed that capsaicin-induced central sensitization causes an increase of the N13 SEP amplitude. Consequently, in human research, this spinal component may serve as a valuable readout of central sensitization. In this study, we wanted to verify if the sensitivity of the N13 SEP for detecting central sensitization is consistent across different experimental pain models inducing central sensitization and secondary hyperalgesia, namely high and low-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS and LFS).

METHODS

In 18 healthy participants, we recorded SEP after bilateral ulnar nerve stimulation before and after secondary hyperalgesia was induced through HFS and LFS applied on the ulnar nerve territory of the hand of one side. The area of secondary hyperalgesia was mapped with a calibrated 128-mN pinprick probe, and the mechanical pain sensitivity with three calibrated 16-64-256-mN pinprick probes.

RESULTS

Although both HFS and LFS successfully induced secondary hyperalgesia only LFS increased the amplitude of the N13 SEP.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the sensitivity of the N13 SEP for detecting dorsal horn excitability changes may critically depend on the different experimental pain models.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results indicate that LFS and HFS could trigger central sensitization at the dorsal horn level through distinct mechanisms, however this still needs confirmation by replication studies.