Not just a matter of pain intensity: Effects of three different conditioning stimuli on conditioned pain modulation effects

CPM-Related Mechanisms Could Play a Key Role in the Effects on Pain Sensitivity Induced by Manual Therapy: Three Crossover Trials Investigating the Effects of Manual Pressure

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess whether pain-inducing manual pressure (PIMP) leads to effects on pressure pain threshold (PPT) mediated by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and whether these effects are influenced by the intensity and repetition of the stimulus. Additionally, the influence of psychological factors and physical activity on the response to PIMP was explored. Methods: A total of 72 pain-free students were randomly assigned to three crossover trials. Trial 1 compared the effects of PIMP with the cold pressor task and pain-inducing electrostimulation. Trial 2 compared the effects of manual pressure that elicited moderate pain, mild pain, and no pain. Trial 3 compared a single PIMP stimulation with four stimuli applied at the same site or at different sites. Results: PIMP produced a lower increase in PPT than cold pressor task and no difference with electrostimulation. Manual pressure that caused moderate pain led to a greater increase in PPT compared to mild pain and pain-free application. Repetition of PIMP stimulus, whether at the same or different sites, did not significantly increase PPT compared to a single stimulation. No association with psychological factors or physical activity was found. Conclusions: PIMP produces an increase in PPT, suggesting the involvement of CPM-related mechanisms.

Association between myofascial trigger point therapy and conditioned pain modulation

INTRODUCTION

Myofascial trigger point therapy (MTrP) is a widely used therapeutic approach, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Mechanisms discussed include peripheral involvement of muscles as well as central pain modulating processes such as the conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of this study was to investigate whether the analgesic response of MTrP and the analgesic response of CPM correlate in asymptomatic participants in order to identify shared underlying mechanisms of MTrP and CPM.

METHOD

Both, CPM and MTrP protocols consisted of heat-based test stimuli (heat pain thresholds before and after the intervention) and pressure-based (conditioning) stimuli. Asymptomatic participants (n = 94) were randomly assigned to receive either mild, intense or no pressure stimuli (between-group design) to both the fingernail and the MTrP of the infraspinatus muscle (within-group design). Pressure stimuli at both locations (fingernail, MTrP) were applied with a pressure algometer for 120 s and continuously adjusted to maintain a constant pain intensity of mild or intense pain. All thermal stimuli were applied on the lower leg with a thermal stimulator.

RESULTS

A significant correlation was shown between the analgesic effect of CPM and MTrP therapy for mild (r = 0.53, p = 0.002) and intensive stimuli (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). 17.3% of the variance of the MTrP effect were explained by CPM after mild stimulation, and 47.1% after intense stimulation. Pain-related characteristics did not explain the variance within the analgesic response using a regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Between the analgesic responses following MTrP and CPM paradigms, a moderate to strong correlation was observed, suggesting shared underlying mechanisms.

Preliminary Characterization of Age and Chronic Low Back Pain Effects on Multimodal Pain Sensitivity: A Comparison Study in Older Adults with and Without Chronic Low Back Pain

Though pain sensitivity impairments contribute to chronic pain in younger adults, it is unclear if pain hypersensitivity manifests with aging and is heightened in the geriatric chronic low back pain population. The cross-sectional study preliminarily addressed this gap by measuring pain sensitivity in older adults with chronic low back pain (n = 25) as well as pain-free sex-matched older (n = 25) and younger adults (n = 25). Pain sensitivity was quantified by 8 distinct measures that were subdivided as static (ie, pressure pain thresholds, heat pain thresholds, fixed mechanical pain, and fixed cold pain) and dynamic pain sensitivity (ie, mechanical temporal summation, thermal ramp and hold, heat pain aftersensations, and conditioned pain modulation). Test-retest reliability values for pain sensitivity ranged from moderate to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ .500; p's < .05). The main effect for the group was significant (partial η2 = .413, P < .001), revealing between-group differences in pain sensitivity on 5 out of 8 tests (p's ≤ .043). Predominantly, both older adult groups demonstrated increased pain facilitation and decreased pain inhibition during dynamic pain sensitivity testing compared to pain-free younger adults (p's ≤ .044). Despite qualitative differences, static and dynamic pain sensitivity responses were statistically similar between older adults with and without chronic LBP (p's > .05). Findings suggest pain sensitivity can be reliably measured in older adults and that pain hypersensitivity develops with chronological aging, providing partial support for the theory that pain hypersensitivity may impact geriatric chronic pain populations. Further study is needed to more definitively parse out whether pain hypersensitivity is comparatively heightened in older adults with chronic LBP beyond the influence of chronological aging. PERSPECTIVE: This article establishes that surrogate measures of centrally mediated pain sensitization are heightened with aging. Impaired endogenous pain modulation may influence chronic pain development, maintenance, treatment efficacy, and/or ensuing disability, necessitating research to comprehensively characterize how pain hypersensitivity contributes to geriatric chronic pain conditions.

Body-site effect on CPM efficiency in healthy subjects: Central vs. peripheral stimulation

Structural changes in the peripheral nerve system in neuropathic states alter sensory capacity of the affected area, thus biasing results of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) responses. The aim of this study was to evaluate CPM efficiency of central (i.e. trunk) vs. peripheral (i.e. limb) application of 'test' and 'conditioning' stimuli. Methods: Healthy volunteers (ages 18-73 yrs) underwent two CPM protocols: 'CPM Limb' and 'CPM Trunk'. Each included two types of test stimuli (Ts) (pressure pain threshold: PPT; and contact heat) conditioned either to hand immersion in cold noxious water (CPM limb), or to noxious contact heat applied on lower back (CPM trunk). Results: Both protocols generated efficient pain inhibition for each of the applied Ts; the PPT-based protocol induced more efficient CPM when the conditioned stimulus was applied on the trunk (p = 0.016). Moreover, the PPT-based CPM responses were significantly correlated (ρ = 0.349; p = 0.007). Conclusions: An efficient CPM induced by both central and peripheral stimulation, along with significant correlation between PPT-based responses, advances using the central 'CPM Trunk' protocol in patients with peripheral neuropathy.

Temporal stability and responsiveness of a conditioned pain modulation test

OBJECTIVES

Conditioned pain modulation is a commonly used quantitative sensory test, measuring endogenous pain control. The temporal stability of the test is questioned, and there is a lack of agreement on the effect of different pain conditions on the conditioned pain modulation response. Thus, an investigation of the temporal stability of a conditioned pain modulation test among patients suffering from persistent or recurrent neck pain is warranted. Further, an investigation into the difference between patients experiencing a clinically important improvement in pain and those not experiencing such an improvement will aid the understanding between changes in pain and the stability of the conditioned pain modulation test.

METHODS

This study is based on a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of home stretching exercises and spinal manipulative therapy vs. home stretching exercises alone. As no difference was found between the interventions, all participants were studied as a prospective cohort in this study, investigating the temporal stability of a conditioned pain modulation test. The cohort was also divided into responders with a minimally clinically important improvement in pain and those not experiencing such an improvement.

RESULTS

Stable measurements of conditioned pain modulation were observed for all independent variables, with a mean change in individual CPM responses of 0.22 from baseline to one week with a standard deviation of 1.34, and -0.15 from the first to the second week with a standard deviation of 1.23. An Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC3 - single, fixed rater) for CPM across the three time points yielded a coefficient of 0.54 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with persistent or recurrent neck pain had stable CPM responses over a 2 week course of treatment irrespective of clinical response.

Motor corticospinal excitability abnormalities differ between distinct chronic low back pain syndromes

OBJECTIVES

It is not known whether cortical plastic changes reported in low-back pain (LBP) are present in all etiologies of LBP. Here we report on the assessment of patients with three LBP conditions: non-specific-LBP (ns-LBP), failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and sciatica (Sc).

METHODS

Patients underwent a standardized assessment of clinical pain, conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and measures of motor evoked potential (MEPs)-based motor corticospinal excitability (CE) by transcranial magnetic stimulation, including short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), and intracortical facilitation (ICF). Comparisons were also made with normative data from sex- and age-matched healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

60 patients (42 women, 55.1±9.1 years old) with LBP were included (20 in each group). Pain intensity was higher in patients with neuropathic pain [FBSS (6.8±1.3), and Sc (6.4±1.4)] than in those with ns-LBP (4.7±1.0, P<0.001). The same was shown for pain interference (5.9±2.0, 5.9±1.8, 3.2±1.9, P<0.001), disability (16.4±3.3, 16.3±4.3, 10.4±4.3, P<0.001), and catastrophism (31.1±12.3, 33.0±10.4, 17.4±10.7, P<0.001) scores for FBSS, Sc, and ns-LBP groups, respectively. Patients with neuropathic pain (FBSS, Sc) had lower CPM (-14.8±1.9, -14.1±16.7, respectively) compared to ns-LBP (-25.4±16.6; P<0.02). 80.0% of the FBSS group had defective ICF compared to the other two groups (52.5% for ns-LBP, P=0.025 and 52.5% for Sc, P=0.046). MEPs (140%-rest motor threshold) were low in 50.0% of patients in the FBSS group compared to 20.0% of ns-LBP (P=0.018) and 15.0% of Sc (P=0.001) groups. Higher MEPs were correlated with mood scores (r=0.489), and with lower neuropathic pain symptom scores(r=-0.415) in FBSS.

CONCLUSIONS

Different types of LBP were associated with different clinical, CPM and CE profiles, which were not uniquely related to the presence of neuropathic pain. These results highlight the need to further characterize patients with LBP in psychophysics and cortical neurophysiology studies.

Factors predicting the transition from acute to persistent pain in people with 'sciatica': the FORECAST longitudinal prognostic factor cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sciatica is a common condition and is associated with higher levels of pain, disability, poorer quality of life, and increased use of health resources compared with low back pain alone. Although many patients recover, a third develop persistent sciatica symptoms. It remains unclear, why some patients develop persistent sciatica as none of the traditionally considered clinical parameters (eg, symptom severity, routine MRI) are consistent prognostic factors.The FORECAST study (factors predicting the transition from acute to persistent pain in people with 'sciatica') will take a different approach by exploring mechanism-based subgroups in patients with sciatica and investigate whether a mechanism-based approach can identify factors that predict pain persistence in patients with sciatica.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a prospective longitudinal cohort study including 180 people with acute/subacute sciatica. N=168 healthy participants will provide normative data. A detailed set of variables will be assessed within 3 months after sciatica onset. This will include self-reported sensory and psychosocial profiles, quantitative sensory testing, blood inflammatory markers and advanced neuroimaging. We will determine outcome with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index and a Numerical Pain Rating Scale for leg pain severity at 3 and 12 months.We will use principal component analysis followed by clustering methods to identify subgroups. Univariate associations and machine learning methods optimised for high dimensional small data sets will be used to identify the most powerful predictors and model selection/accuracy.The results will provide crucial information about the pathophysiological drivers of sciatica symptoms and may identify prognostic factors of pain persistence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The FORECAST study has received ethical approval (South Central Oxford C, 18/SC/0263). The dissemination strategy will be guided by our patient and public engagement activities and will include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, social media and podcasts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18170726; Pre-results.

Inter-subject variability of pleasant pain relief using a data-driven approach in healthy volunteers

Background

The offset of a painful and unpleasant sensation can elicit pleasure. This phenomenon, namely pleasant pain relief (PPR), is attracting growing interest in research. While the cold pressor test (CPT) has been frequently used to study the inhibition of pain by the administration of another painful stimulation (inhibitory conditioned pain modulation; ICPM), a preliminary study from our research team has shown that CPT can also elicit a robust and long-lasting PPR. However, its effects on pain relief and inhibition vary greatly between subjects. Although substantial research has been carried out on inter-individual variability in the case of ICPM, the same cannot be said of PPR. Therefore, the current study sought to identify clusters of healthy volunteers with similar dynamic pain responses during the CPT, using a data-driven approach, and to investigate the inter-subject variability for PPR and ICPM.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-two healthy volunteers were recruited. A sequential ICPM paradigm was carried out with CPT (water at 10°C) and a Peltier Thermode to evaluate pain intensity and unpleasantness. Moreover, PPR was measured for four minutes at CPT offset. Statistical analyses were performed using group-based trajectory modelling.

Results

Four trajectories (groups) were identified for CPT pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings with varying levels of tonic pain and pain sensitization (e.g., temporal summation). PPR scores were correlated with both pain ratings trajectories (p &lt; 0.001). On the other hand, no differences were found between groups regarding ICPM efficacy (percentage pain inhibition).

Discussion

This study has provided a first step into the investigation of PPR and ICPM interindividual variability. Using a data-driven approach, it was shown that PPR at CPT offset differs between clusters of participants identified based on dynamic pain intensity and unpleasantness responses from CPT. Thus, it was brought to light that both the levels of tonic pain and pain sensitization underlie individual differences in PPR. The lack of correlation between CPT pain trajectories and ICPM efficacy may be explained by the hypotheses that eliciting ICPM requires only a certain threshold of stimulation which doesn’t need to be noxious. In the future, studies on the inter-subject variability of PPR in large samples of chronic pain patients are warranted.

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targeting M1 and S2 in Central Poststroke Pain: A Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVES

Central poststroke pain (CPSP), a neuropathic pain condition, is difficult to treat. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted to the primary motor cortex (M1) can alleviate the condition, but not all patients respond. We aimed to assess a promising alternative rTMS target, the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2), for CPSP treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled three-arm crossover trial assessed navigated rTMS (nrTMS) targeted to M1 and S2 (10 sessions, 5050 pulses per session at 10 Hz). Participants were evaluated for pain, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, upper limb function, and three plasticity-related gene polymorphisms including Dopamine D2 Receptor (DRD2). We monitored pain intensity and interference before and during stimulations and at one month. A conditioned pain modulation test was performed using the cold pressor test. This assessed the efficacy of the descending inhibitory system, which may transmit TMS effects in pain control.

RESULTS

We prescreened 73 patients, screened 29, and included 21, of whom 17 completed the trial. NrTMS targeted to S2 resulted in long-term (from baseline to one-month follow-up) pain intensity reduction of ≥30% in 18% (3/17) of participants. All stimulations showed a short-term effect on pain (17-20% pain relief), with no difference between M1, S2, or sham stimulations, indicating a strong placebo effect. Only nrTMS targeted to S2 resulted in a significant long-term pain intensity reduction (15% pain relief). The cold pressor test reduced CPSP pain intensity significantly (p = 0.001), indicating functioning descending inhibitory controls. The homozygous DRD2 T/T genotype is associated with the M1 stimulation response.

CONCLUSIONS

S2 is a promising nrTMS target in the treatment of CPSP. The DRD2 T/T genotype might be a biomarker for M1 nrTMS response, but this needs confirmation from a larger study.

Dissecting central post-stroke pain: a controlled symptom-psychophysical characterization

Central post-stroke pain affects up to 12% of stroke survivors and is notoriously refractory to treatment. However, stroke patients often suffer from other types of pain of non- neuropathic nature (musculoskeletal, inflammatory, complex regional) and no head-to-head comparison of their respective clinical and somatosensory profiles has been performed so far.

We compared 39 patients with definite central neuropathic post-stroke pain with two matched- control groups: 32 patients with exclusively non-neuropathic pain developed after stroke and 31 stroke patients not complaining of pain. Patients underwent deep phenotyping via a comprehensive assessment including clinical exam, questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing to dissect central post-stroke pain from chronic pain in general and stroke.

While central post-stroke pain was mostly located in the face and limbs, non-neuropathic pain was predominantly axial and located in neck, shoulders and knees (p&lt;0.05). Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory clusters burning (82.1%, n=32, p&lt;0.001), tingling (66.7%, n= 26, p&lt;0.001) and evoked by cold (64.1%, n=25, p&lt;0.001) occurred more frequently in central post-stroke pain. Hyperpathia, thermal and mechanical allodynia also occurred more commonly in this group (p&lt;0.001), which also presented higher levels of deafferentation (p&lt;0.012) with more asymmetric cold and warm detection thresholds compared to controls. In particular, cold hypoesthesia (considered when the threshold of the affected side was less than 41% of the contralateral threshold) odds ratio was 12 (95%CI: 3.8-41.6) for neuropathic pain. Additionally, cold detection threshold/ warm detection threshold ratio correlated with the presence of neuropathic pain (ρ=-0.4, p&lt; 0.001). Correlations were found between specific neuropathic pain symptom clusters and quantitative sensory testing: paroxysmal pain with cold (ρ=-0.4; p=0.008) and heat pain thresholds (ρ=0.5; p=0.003), burning pain with mechanical detection (ρ= -0.4; p=0.015) and mechanical pain thresholds (ρ=-0.4, p&lt;0.013), evoked pain with mechanical pain threshold (ρ= -0.3; p=0.047). Logistic regression showed that the combination of cold hypoesthesia on quantitative sensory testing, the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and the allodynia intensity on bedside examination explained 77% of the occurrence of neuropathic pain.

These findings provide insights into the clinical-psychophysics relationships in central post-stroke pain and may assist more precise distinction of neuropathic from non-neuropathic post-stroke pain in clinical practice and in future trials.

The N13 spinal component of somatosensory evoked potentials is modulated by heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation suggesting an involvement of spinal wide dynamic range neurons

OBJECTIVES

Although somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) after median nerve stimulation are widely used in clinical practice, the dorsal horn generator of the N13 SEP spinal component is not clearly understood. To verify whether wide dynamic range neurons in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord are involved in the generation of the N13 SEP, we tested the effect of heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation, which modulates wide dynamic range neurons, on N13 SEP in healthy humans.

METHODS

In 12 healthy subjects, we performed the cold pressor test on the left foot as a heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulus to modulate wide dynamic range neurons. To verify the effectiveness of heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation, we tested the pressure pain threshold at the thenar muscles of the right hand and recorded SEPs after right median nerve stimulation before, during and after the cold pressor test.

RESULTS

The cold pressor test increased pressure pain threshold by 15% (p = 0.04). During the cold pressor test, the amplitude of the N13 component was significantly lower than that recorded at baseline (by 25%, p = 0.04).

DISCUSSION

In this neurophysiological study in healthy humans, we showed that a heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulus significantly reduced N13 SEP amplitude. This finding suggests that the N13 SEP might be generated by the segmental postsynaptic response of dorsal horn wide dynamic range neurons.

Test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold and heat pain threshold as test stimuli for evaluation of conditioned pain modulation

OBJECTIVES

There is growing interest in conditioned pain modulation (CPM) protocols for evaluating the function of the descending pain-modulatory system in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate test-retest reliability of a CPM protocol with contact heat as a conditioning stimulus (CS) and two test stimuli (pressure pain threshold (PPT) and heat pain threshold (HPT)), all applied within one session. In addition, gender and age differences were evaluated.

METHODS

The study included 87 healthy subjects (average age 37.95 ± 12.02 years, 57.5% females). The magnitude of the results of the CPM test was calculated as the difference between subject-reported pain thresholds before and after application of the CS. To assess the reliability of the protocol, a subgroup of 66 subjects underwent re-test after 14±1 days. In order to investigate the influence of age on the CPM magnitude, subjects were divided into subgroups (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 years).

RESULTS

The pain thresholds for both test stimuli (TS) were significantly higher following the application of the CS (p < 0.001). Values of the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the CPM with PPT as the TS indicated good reliability (ICC=0.631, 95% CI:0.365-0.782), while those for the HPT indicated poor reliability (ICC=0.328, 95% CI:-0.067-0.582). Significant differences in CPM between genders were found for both TS. Significant CPM differences were not detected among the four age subgroups for either TS.

CONCLUSIONS

CPM effects can be successfully induced with both PPT and HPT as a TS, but PPT showed significantly higher reliability.

Abnormal sensory thresholds of dystonic patients are not affected by deep brain stimulation

BACKGROUND

Unlike motor symptoms, the effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on non-motor symptoms associated with dystonia remain unknown.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to assess the effects of DBS on evoked experimental pain and cutaneous sensory thresholds in a crossover, double-blind on/off study and compare these results with those of healthy volunteers (HV).

RESULTS

Sixteen patients with idiopathic dystonia (39.9 ± 13 years old, n = 14 generalized) with DBS of the globus pallidus internus underwent a battery of quantitative sensory testing and assessment using a pain top-down modulation system (conditioned pain modulation, CPM). Results for the more and less dystonic body regions were compared in on and off stimulation. The patients' results were compared to age- and sex-matched HV. Descending pain modulation CPM responses in dystonic patients (on-DBS, 11.8 ± 40.7; off-DBS, 1.8 ± 22.1) was abnormally low (defective) compared to HV (-15.6 ± 23.5, respectively p = .006 and p = .042). Cold pain threshold and cold hyperalgesia were 54.8% and 95.7% higher in dystonic patients compared to HV. On-DBS CPM correlated with higher Burke-Fahn-Marsden disability score (r = 0.598; p = .014). While sensory and pain thresholds were not affected by DBS on/off condition, pain modulation was abnormal in dystonic patients and tended to be aggravated by DBS.

CONCLUSION

The analgesic effects after DBS do not seem to depend on short-duration changes in cutaneous sensory thresholds in dystonic patients and may be related to changes in the central processing of nociceptive inputs.

The effect of conditioning stimulus intensity on conditioned pain modulation (CPM) hypoalgesia

Background: The magnitude and duration of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) likely depends on the nature and intensity of the conditioning stimulus (CS).

Aims: The aim of this study was to measure the effect of CS intensity on the duration of CPM hypoalgesia.

Methods: In this single-blind, nonrandomized, repeated measures study, we assessed CPM hypoalgesia in 20 healthy participants following cold pressor tests (CPT) at 7°C and 12°C. The test stimulus, a 60-s heat stimulation, was administered before the CPT and immediately after, and again at 5-min intervals until participants’ pain scores returned to pre-CS levels. Two hypoalgesia thresholds were used to establish return to pre-CS level: within −10/100 of baseline and within −20/100 of baseline.

Results: CPM hypoalgesia, when defined as a reduction in pain levels >10/100, did not last longer following the more intense 7°C CPT compared to the 12°C CPT (32 min vs. 20 min, respectively; P = 0.06); similar results were obtained when CPM hypoalgesia was defined as a reduction in pain levels of >20/100 (16 min following the 7°C CPT vs. 9 min following the 12°C CPT; P = 0.33). The duration of CPM hypoalgesia was significantly longer when the 10/100 threshold was used compared to the 20/100 threshold, regardless of CPT temperature (P = 0.008 for the 12°C CPT; P < 0.001 for the 7°C CPT).

Conclusions: The more intense CS did not induce CPM hypoalgesia of longer duration compared to the less intense CS. The choice of threshold for what constitutes CPM hypoalgesia did have a significant effect on the results.

Conditioned pain modulation-A comprehensive review

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a centrally processed measure of the net effect of the descending pain pathway. This comprises both the facilitatory as well as the inhibitory effect. In the past, CPM or similar effects have been previously described using different terminologies such as diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC), heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation (HNCS) or endogenous analgesia (EA). A variety of patient-related factors such as age, gender, hormones, race, genetic and psychological factors have been thought to influence the CPM paradigms. CPM paradigms have also been associated with a wide range of methodological variables including the mode of application of the 'test' as well as the 'conditioning' stimuli. Despite all these variabilities, CPM seems to reliably lend itself to the pain modulation profile concept and could in future become one of the phenotypic biomarkers for pain and also a guide for mechanism-based treatment in chronic pain. Future research should focus on establishing consistent methodologies for measuring CPM and thereby enhancing the robustness of this emerging biomarker for pain.

Conditioned pain modulation affects the N2/P2 complex but not the N1 wave: A pilot study with laser-evoked potentials

BACKGROUND

The 'pain-inhibits-pain' effect stems from neurophysiological mechanisms involving endogenous modulatory systems termed diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC) or conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) components, the N2/P2 complex, and the N1 wave, reflect the medial and lateral pain pathway, respectively: anatomically, the lateral thalamic nuclei (LT) project mainly to the somatosensory cortex (N1 generator), while the medial thalamic nuclei (MT) are bound to the limbic cortices (N2/P2 generators).

METHODS

We applied a CPM protocol in which the test stimulus was laser stimulation and the conditioning stimulus was a cold pressor test. LEPs recordings were obtained from 15 healthy subjects in three different conditions: baseline, during heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation (HNCS) and post-HNCS.

RESULTS

We observed a significant reduction in N2/P2 amplitude during HNCS and a return to pre-test amplitude post-HNCS, whereas the N1 wave remained unchanged during and post-HNCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that CPM affects only the medial pain system. The spinothalamic tract (STT) transmits to both the LT and the MT, while the spinoreticulothalamic (SRT) projects only to the MT. The reduction in the amplitude of the N2/P2 complex and the absence of change in the N1 wave suggest that DNIC inhibition on the dorsal horn neurons affects only pain transmission via the SRT, while the neurons that give rise to the STT are not involved. The N1 wave can be a reliable neurophysiological parameter for assessment of STT function in clinical practice, as it does not seem to be influenced by CPM.

SIGNIFICANCE

No reports have described the effect of DNIC on lateral and medial pain pathways. We studied the N1 wave and the N2/P2 complex to detect changes during a CPM protocol. We found a reduction in the amplitude of the N2/P2 complex and no change in the N1 wave. This suggests that the DNIC inhibitory effect on dorsal horns neurons affects only pain transmission via the SRT, whereas the neurons that give rise to the STT are not involved.

Painful Cutaneous Electrical Stimulation vs. Heat Pain as Test Stimuli in Conditioned Pain Modulation

Different paradigms can assess the effect of conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of the present study was to compare heat pain, as an often used test stimulus (TS), to painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES), having the advantage of the additional recording of PCES-related evoked potentials. In 28 healthy subjects we applied heat and PCES at the dominant hand as test stimulus (TS) to compare the CPM-effect elicited by hand immersion into cold water (10 °C) as conditioning stimulus (CS). Subjects rated the pain intensity of TS at baseline, during and 5 min after CS application and additionally of CS, on a numerical rating scale (NRS) (0–100). The ‘early’ (during CS–before CS) and ‘late’ (after CS–before CS) CPM-effects were analyzed. Parallel to the PCES, the related evoked potentials were recorded via Cz to evaluate any changes in PCES-amplitudes. CS reduced significantly the pain intensity of both PCES and heat pain as TS. On a group level, the CPM-effect did not differ significantly between both paradigms. Both early and late CPM-effect based on PCES correlated significantly with the CS pain intensity (r = −0.630 and −0.503, respectively), whereas using heat pain the correlation was not significant. We found a significant reduction of PCES-amplitudes during CS, but this did not correlate with the PCES-induced pain intensity. Correlation with the CS painfulness (r = −0.464) did not achieve the significance level after Bonferroni correction. The extent of the CPM effects was similar in both testing paradigms at group level, despite intraindividual differences. Future studies should further elicit the exact mechanisms explaining the modality of these specific differences.