Effect of heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation on electrical and pressure pain thresholds in two different anatomical regions

Robotic Stroking on the Face and Forearm: Touch Satiety and Effects on Mechanical Pain

Background: Slow stroking touch is generally perceived as pleasant and reduces thermal pain. However, the tactile stimuli applied tend to be short-lasting and typically applied to the forearm. This study aimed to compare the effects of a long-lasting brushing stimulus applied to the facial region and the forearm on pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) taken on the hand. Outcome measurements were touch satiety and concurrent mechanical pain thresholds of the hand. Methods: A total of 24 participants were recruited and randomized to receive continuous stroking, utilizing a robotic stimulator, at C-tactile (CT) favorable (3 cm/s) and non-favorable (30 cm/s) velocities applied to the right face or forearm. Ratings of touch pleasantness and unpleasantness and PPTs from the hypothenar muscle of the right hand were collected at the start of stroking and once per minute for 5 min. Results: A reduction in PPTs (increased pain sensitivity) was observed over time (P < 0.001). However, the increase in pain sensitivity was less prominent when the face was stroked compared to the forearm (P = 0.001). Continuous stroking resulted in a significant interaction between region and time (P = 0.008) on pleasantness ratings, with a decline in ratings observed over time for the forearm, but not on the face. Unpleasantness ratings were generally low. Conclusion: We observed touch satiety for 5 min of continuous robotic brushing on the forearm confirming previous studies. However, we did not observe any touch satiety for brushing the face. Mechanical pain sensitivity, measured in the hand, increased over the 5-min period but less so when paired with brushing on the face than with brushing on the forearm. The differential effects of brushing on the face and forearm on touch satiety and pain modulation may be by the differences in the emotional relevance and neuronal pathways involved.

Inter-Individual Differences Explain More Variance in Conditioned Pain Modulation Than Age, Sex and Conditioning Stimulus Intensity Combined

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) describes the reduction in pain evoked by a test stimulus (TS) when presented together with a heterotopic painful conditioning stimulus (CS). CPM has been proposed to reflect inter-individual differences in endogenous pain modulation, which may predict susceptibility for acute and chronic pain. Here, we aimed to estimate the relative variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences compared to age, sex, and CS physical and pain intensity. We constructed linear and mixed effect models on pooled data from 171 participants of several studies, of which 97 had repeated measures. Cross-sectional analyses showed no significant effect of age, sex or CS intensity. Repeated measures analyses revealed a significant effect of CS physical intensity (p = 0.002) but not CS pain intensity (p = 0.159). Variance decomposition showed that inter-individual differences accounted for 24% to 34% of the variance in CPM while age, sex, and CS intensity together explained <3% to 12%. In conclusion, the variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences largely exceeds that of commonly considered factors such as age, sex and CS intensity. This may explain why predictive capability of these factors has had conflicting results and suggests that future models investigating them should account for inter-individual differences.

Catastrophizing Has a Better Prediction for TMD Than Other Psychometric and Experimental Pain Variables

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are characterized by moderate to severe pain in the masticatory muscles and/or the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The present study is a part of a multidisciplinary project, initiated by the Norwegian Ministry of Health. The main purpose of this study is to compare a cohort of TMD patients to healthy individuals regarding experimental pain, the degree of disability caused by living with pain and psychometric variables, and to investigate which of these variables is the best predictor for TMD patients. We hypothesised that TMD patients have more disability when living with pain and lower pain thresholds than healthy controls, and those psychometric variables are stronger predictors than pain thresholds provoked by experimental pain. Sixty TMD patients were matched by sex and age to sixty healthy individuals without TMD symptoms or other musculoskeletal symptoms in the head and neck region. All subjects completed a questionnaire that included psychometric characteristics, that is, a one- and two-item version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Roland Morris Scale (RMS), which measures disability when living with pain. They also underwent a clinical examination including the measurement of pain thresholds with electrical and pressure stimuli. The TMD patients had lower pain thresholds for experimental electrical and pressure stimuli compared with the controls (P < 0.05 and <0.001, respectively). They also scored higher than healthy individuals with disability living with pain (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.001), depression (P < 0.001), and catastrophizing (P < 0.001). The results for anxiety, depression, and catastrophizing have been published earlier, and the reused data in this study are compared with RMS and pain thresholds. The conditional logistic regression model identified catastrophizing (OR = 2.42, CI 1.22–4.79) as a significant predictor of TMD patients. The results support this hypothesis and indicate that TMD patients have lower pain thresholds and more disability when living with pain compared to healthy individuals, where the strongest prediction for TMD was catastrophizing. Awareness of psychometric disabilities in TMD patients is of importance when considering the choice of treatment.

Reliability of the conditioned pain modulation paradigm across three anatomical sites

Background and aims Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) is a measure of pain inhibition-facilitation in humans that may elucidate pain mechanisms and potentially serve as a diagnostic test. In laboratory settings, the difference between two pain measures [painful test stimulus (TS) without and with the conditioning stimulus (CS) application] reflects the CPM magnitude. Before the CPM test can be used as a diagnostic tool, its reliability on the same day (intra-session) and across multiple days (inter-session) needs to be known. Furthermore, it is important to determine the most reliable anatomical sites for both the TS and the CS. This study aimed to measure the intra-session and inter-session reliability of the CPM test paradigm in healthy subjects with the TS (pressure pain threshold-PPT) applied to three test sites: the face, hand, and dorsum of the foot, and the CS (cold pressor test-CPT) applied to the contralateral hand. Methods Sixty healthy participants aged 18-65 were tested by the same examiner on 3 separate days, with an interval of 2-7 days. On each day, testing was comprised of two identical experimental sessions in which the PPT test was performed on each of the three dominant anatomical sites in randomized order followed by the CPM test (repeating the PPT with CPT on the non-dominant hand). CPM magnitude was calculated as the percent change in PPT. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Coefficient of Variation (CV), and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess reliability. Results PPT relative reliability ranged from good to excellent at all three sites; the hand showed an intra-session ICC of 0.90 (0.84, 0.94) before CPT and ICC of 0.89 (0.83, 0.92) during CPT. The PPT absolute reliability was also high, showing a low bias and small variability when performed on all three sites; for example, CV of the hand intra-session was 8.0 before CPT and 8.1 during CPT. The relative reliability of the CPM test, although only fair, was most reliable when performed during the intra-session visits on the hand; ICC of 0.57 (0.37, 0.71) vs. 0.20 (0.03, 0.39) for the face, and 0.22 (0.01, 0.46) for the foot. The inter-session reliability was lower in all three anatomical sites, with the best reliability on the hand with an ICC of 0.40 (0.23, 0.55). The pattern of absolute reliability of CPM was similar to the relative reliability findings, with the reliability best on the hand, showing lower intra-session and inter-session variability (CV% = 43.5 and 51.5, vs. 70.1 and 73.1 for the face, and 75.9 and 78.9 for the foot). The CPM test was more reliable in women than in men, and in older vs. younger participants. Discussion The CPM test was most reliable when the TS was applied to the dominant hand and CS performed on the contralateral hand. These data indicate that using the CS and TS in the same but contralateral dermatome in CPM testing may create the most reliable results.

Inventory of Personal Factors Influencing Conditioned Pain Modulation in Healthy People: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is believed to play an important role in the development and exacerbation of chronic pain, because dysfunction of CPM is associated with a shift in balance between pain facilitation and pain inhibition. In many patients with central sensitization, CPM is less efficacious. Besides that, efficacy of CPM is highly variable in healthy people. Consequently, it seems that several individual variables may influence CPM. A systematic review examining personal factors influencing CPM was conducted.

METHODS

This systematic review follows the PRISMA guidelines. "Pubmed" and "Web of Science" were searched using different synonyms of CPM. Full-text clinical reports addressing the influence of personal factors on CPM in healthy adults were included. Checklists for RCTs and case-control studies provided by the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO) and the Dutch Cochrane Centre were utilized to assess methodological quality. Levels of evidence and strength of conclusion were assigned using the CBO guidelines.

RESULTS

Forty-six articles were identified that reported the influence of personal factors on CPM. Quality assessment revealed 10 studies with a methodological quality less than 50% wherefore they were excluded (21.8%), resulting in a general total methodological quality score of 72.5%. Overall younger adult age, male gender, ovulatory phase, positive expectations, attention to the conditioning stimulus, and carrier of the 5-HTTLPR long allele result in better CPM.

CONCLUSION

It is advised for future studies to take these factors into account. Further research regarding the influence of oral contraceptives, catastrophizing, information about conditioning stimulation, distraction, physical activity, and genetics on CPM magnitude is required.

A systematic literature review of 10 years of research on sex/gender and experimental pain perception - part 1: are there really differences between women and men?

The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and critically appraise the results of 10 years of human laboratory research on pain and sex/gender. An electronic search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and conducted in multiple databases. A total of 172 articles published between 1998 and 2008 were retrieved, analyzed, and synthesized. The first set of results (122 articles), which is presented in this paper, examined sex difference in the perception of laboratory-induced thermal, pressure, ischemic, muscle, electrical, chemical, and visceral pain in healthy subjects. This review suggests that females (F) and males (M) have comparable thresholds for cold and ischemic pain, while pressure pain thresholds are lower in F than M. There is strong evidence that F tolerate less thermal (heat, cold) and pressure pain than M but it is not the case for tolerance to ischemic pain, which is comparable in both sexes. The majority of the studies that measured pain intensity and unpleasantness showed no sex difference in many pain modalities. In summary, 10 years of laboratory research have not been successful in producing a clear and consistent pattern of sex differences in human pain sensitivity, even with the use of deep, tonic, long-lasting stimuli, which are known to better mimic clinical pain. Whether laboratory studies in healthy subjects are the best paradigm to investigate sex differences in pain perception is open to question and should be discussed with a view to enhancing the clinical relevance of these experiments and developing new research avenues.

A systematic literature review of 10 years of research on sex/gender and pain perception - part 2: do biopsychosocial factors alter pain sensitivity differently in women and men?

This systematic review summarizes the results of 10 years of laboratory research on pain and sex/gender. An electronic search strategy was designed by a medical librarian to access multiple databases. A total of 172 articles published between 1998 and 2008 were retrieved, analyzed, and synthesized. The second set of results presented in this review (129 articles) examined various biopsychosocial factors that may contribute to differences in pain sensitivity between healthy women and men. The results revealed that the involvement of hormonal and physiological factors is either inconsistent or absent. Some studies suggest that temporal summation, allodynia, and secondary hyperalgesia may be more pronounced in women than in men. The evidence to support less efficient endogenous pain inhibitory systems in women is mixed and does not necessarily apply to all pain modalities. With regard to psychological factors, depression may not mediate sex differences in pain perception, while the role of anxiety is ambiguous. Cognitive and social factors appear to partly explain some sex-related differences. Finally, past individual history may be influential in female pain responses. However, these conclusions must be treated with much circumspection for various methodological reasons. Furthermore, some factors/mechanisms remain understudied in the field. There is also a need to assess and improve the ecological validity of findings from laboratory studies on healthy subjects, and perhaps a change of paradigm needs to be considered at this point in time to better understand the factors that influence the experience of women and men who suffer from acute or chronic pain.

Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings

Sex-related influences on pain and analgesia have become a topic of tremendous scientific and clinical interest, especially in the last 10 to 15 years. Members of our research group published reviews of this literature more than a decade ago, and the intervening time period has witnessed robust growth in research regarding sex, gender, and pain. Therefore, it seems timely to revisit this literature. Abundant evidence from recent epidemiologic studies clearly demonstrates that women are at substantially greater risk for many clinical pain conditions, and there is some suggestion that postoperative and procedural pain may be more severe among women than men. Consistent with our previous reviews, current human findings regarding sex differences in experimental pain indicate greater pain sensitivity among females compared with males for most pain modalities, including more recently implemented clinically relevant pain models such as temporal summation of pain and intramuscular injection of algesic substances. The evidence regarding sex differences in laboratory measures of endogenous pain modulation is mixed, as are findings from studies using functional brain imaging to ascertain sex differences in pain-related cerebral activation. Also inconsistent are findings regarding sex differences in responses to pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain treatments. The article concludes with a discussion of potential biopsychosocial mechanisms that may underlie sex differences in pain, and considerations for future research are discussed.

PERSPECTIVE

This article reviews the recent literature regarding sex, gender, and pain. The growing body of evidence that has accumulated in the past 10 to 15 years continues to indicate substantial sex differences in clinical and experimental pain responses, and some evidence suggests that pain treatment responses may differ for women versus men.