Individualization of Migraine Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Psychophysical-based Prediction of Duloxetine Efficacy

Posttraumatic headache: pain related evoked potentials (PREP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) to assess the pain modulatory function

Posttraumatic headache (PTH) is common following traumatic brain injury and impacts quality of life. We investigated descending pain modulation as one possible mechanism for PTH and correlated it to clinical measures. Pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) were recorded in 26 PTH-patients and 20 controls after electrical stimulation at the right hand and forehead with concentric surface electrodes. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) was assessed using painful cutaneous electric stimulation (PCES) on the right hand as test stimulus and immersion of the left hand into 10 °C-cold water bath as conditioning stimulus based on changes in pain intensity and in amplitudes of PCES-evoked potentials. All participants completed questionnaires assessing depression, anxiety, and pain catastrophising. PTH-patients reported significantly higher pain ratings during PREP-recording in both areas despite similar stimulus intensity at pain threshold. N1P1-amplitudes during PREP and CPM-assessment were lower in patients in both areas, but statistically significant only on the hand. Both, PREP-N1-latencies and CPM-effects (based on the N1P1-amplitudes and pain ratings) were similar in both groups. Patients showed significantly higher ratings for anxiety and depression, which did not correlate with the CPM-effect. Our results indicate generalized hyperalgesia for electrical stimuli in both hand and face in PTH. The lacking correlation between pain ratings and EEG parameters indicates different mechanisms of pain perception and nociception.

Profiling migraine patients according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics: clinical validity of distinct migraine clusters

AIMS

Investigate if different clinical and psychophysical bedside tools can differentiate between district migraine phenotypes in ictal/perictal (cohort 1) and interictal (cohort 2) phases.

METHOD

This observational study included two independent samples in which patients were subgrouped into distinct clusters using standardized bedside assessment tools (headache frequency, disability, cervical active range of motion, pressure pain threshold in different areas): (A) cohort 1-ictal/perictal migraine patients were subgrouped, based on previous studies, into two clusters, i.e., Cluster-1.1 No Psychophysical Impairments (NPI) and Cluster-1.2 Increased Pain Sensitivity and Cervical Musculoskeletal Dysfunction (IPS-CMD); (B) cohort 2-interictal migraine patients were subgrouped into three clusters, i.e., Cluster-2.1 NPI, Cluster-2.2 IPS, and Cluster-2.3 IPS-CMD. Clinical characteristics (multiple questionnaires), somatosensory function (comprehensive quantitative sensory testing (QST)), and cervical musculoskeletal impairments (cervical musculoskeletal assessment) were assessed and compared across headache clusters and a group of 56 healthy controls matched for sex and age.

RESULTS

Cohort 1: A total of 156 subjects were included. Cluster-1.2 (IPS-CMD) had higher headache intensity (p = 0.048), worse headache-related (p = 0.003) and neck-related disability (p = 0.005), worse quality of life (p = 0.003), and higher symptoms related to sensitization (p = 0.001) and psychological burden (p = 0.005) vs. Cluster-1.1(NPI). Furthermore, Cluster-1.2 (IPS-CMD) had (1) reduced cervical active and passive range of motion (p < 0.023), reduced functionality of deep cervical flexors (p < 0.001), and reduced values in all QST(p < 0.001) vs. controls, and (2) reduced active mobility in flexion, left/right lateral flexion (p < 0.045), and reduced values in QST (p < 0.001) vs. Cluster-1.1 (NPI). Cohort 2: A total of 154 subjects were included. Cluster-2.3 (IPS-CMD) had (1) longer disease duration (p = 0.006), higher headache frequency (p = 0.006), disability (p < 0.001), and psychological burden (p = 0.027) vs. Cluster-2.2 (IPS) and (2) higher headache-related disability (p = 0.010), neck-related disability (p = 0.009), and higher symptoms of sensitization (p = 0.018) vs. Cluster-2.1 (NPI). Cluster-2.3(IPS-CMD) had reduced cervical active and passive range of motion (p < 0.034), and reduced functionality of deep cervical flexors (p < 0.001), vs. controls, Custer-2.1 (NPI), and Cluster-2.2 (IPS). Cluster-2.2 (IPS) and 2.3 (IPS-CMD) had reduced QST values vs. controls (p < 0.001) and Cluster-2.1 (p < 0.039).

CONCLUSION

A battery of patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and quantitative bedside tools can separate migraine clusters with different clinical characteristics, somatosensory functions, and cervical musculoskeletal impairments. This confirms the existence of distinct migraine phenotypes and emphasizes the importance of migraine phases of which the characteristics are assessed. This may have implications for responders and non-responders to anti-migraine medications.

Prediction of duloxetine efficacy in addition to self-management in painful temporomandibular disorders: A randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a potential predictor of treatment response that has not been studied in temporomandibular disorders (TMD).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of duloxetine in addition to self-management (SM) strategies to investigate its efficacy to reduce pain intensity in painful TMD patients. Moreover, we investigated whether baseline CPM would predict the duloxetine efficacy to reduce TMD pain intensity.

METHODS

Eighty participants were randomised to duloxetine 60 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes were the change in the pain intensity from baseline to week-12 and CPM-sequential paradigm at baseline. Safety, physical and emotional functioning outcomes were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 80 participants randomised, 78 were included in intention-to-treat analysis. Pain intensity decreased for SM-duloxetine and SM-placebo but did not differ between groups (p = .82). A more efficient CPM was associated with a greater pain intensity reduction regardless of the treatment group (p = .035). Physical and emotional functioning did not differ between groups, but adverse events (p = .014), sleep impairment (p = .003) and catastrophizing symptoms (p = .001) were more prevalent in SM-duloxetine group.

CONCLUSION

This study failed to provide evidence of a beneficial effect of adding duloxetine to SM strategies for treatment of painful TMD. Nonetheless, this RCT has shown the feasibility of applying pain modulation assessment to predict short-term treatment response in painful TMD patients, which confirms previous finds that CPM evaluation may serve a step forward in individualising pain treatment.

Harnessing the conditioned pain modulation response in migraine diagnosis, outcome prediction, and treatment-A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To present the potential use and relevance of the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) response to migraine diagnosis, outcome prediction, and treatment.

BACKGROUND

The CPM response is a widely used laboratory test to examine inhibitory pain modulation capabilities.

METHODS

This narrative review summarizes and synthesizes the findings on the CPM response in patients with migraine.

RESULTS

For diagnosis, we summarized the studies comparing CPM responses between patients with migraine and individuals without migraine or with other headache syndromes, as well as between patients with subtypes of migraine. For prediction, we summarized the studies utilizing the CPM response to predict migraine outcome, such as response to interventions. For treatment, we described a device that utilizes the CPM response for acute and preventative migraine treatment. In addition, we suggest the requirements needed for the CPM response to be used for migraine diagnosis, outcome prediction, and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more research is needed, the CPM response could be a useful tool for improving migraine management.

Profiling migraine patients according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics: a cluster analysis approach

AIM

This study aims to profile migraine patients according clinical and psychophysical characteristics.

METHOD

In this observational study, two cohorts of migraine patients(episodic/chronic) were included. Cohort-1: ictal/perictal phase; Cohort-2: interictal phase.The following variables were assessed: headache frequency; disability; cervical active range of motion(AROM) in flexion, extension, right/left lateral flexion, right/left rotation; pressure-pain threshold(PPT) over: temporalis, two cervical areas(C1/C4 vertebral segments), and two distal pain-free areas(hand/leg). Cluster analysis was performed using the K-means algorithm. Differences across clusters were investigated.

RESULTS

Cohort-1: 100 patients were included, and two clusters were identified. Cluster-1.1 (19%), Cluster-1.2 (81%). Cluster 1.1 had a higher percentage of men (P = .037) and higher disability (P = .003) compared to Clusters 1.2. Cluster 1.2 had reduced AROM in flexion, extension, and left/right lateral flexion (P < .037), and lower PPT value in all areas (P < .001) compared to Cluster 1.1. Cohort-2: 98 patients were included and three clusters were identified. Cluster-2.1(18%), Cluster-2.2(45%), and Cluster-2.3(37%). Cluster-2.1 had a higher percentage of men compared to clusters-2.2 and 2.3 (P = .009). Cluster-2.3 had higher headache frequency, and disability compared to Cluster-2.2 (P < .006), and higher disability compared to Cluster-2.1 (P = .010). Cluster-2.3 had reduced AROM in all directions compared to Clusters-2.1 and 2.2 (P < .029). Clusters-2.2 and 2.3 have lower PPT values in all areas compared to Cluster-1.1 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In the Ictal/perictal phase, two clusters were identified according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics, with one group showing no psychophysical impairment and one with increased pain-sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal-dysfunctions.In the interictal phase, three clusters could be identified, with one group showing no psychophysical impairment, one increased pain-sensitivity, and one increased pain sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal-dysfunctions.

Cervical musculoskeletal impairments and pain sensitivity in migraine patients

INTRODUCTION

Currently, examination of migraine patients relies on a clinical interview investigating symptoms characteristics. Despite this, to help identify distinct migraine subtypes and allow a personalized treatment approach, biomarkers to profile distinct migraine subtypes should be utilized in clinical and research settings. Therefore, there is a need to include physical and psychophysical examinations aimed at assessing migraine features quantitatively.

PURPOSE

This paper aimed to discuss if increased pressure pain sensitivity and impaired cervical musculoskeletal function could be considered 1) as quantitative features of migraine and 2) if they could be used as biomarkers to profile migraine patients in distinct subtypes.

IMPLICATION

Increased pain sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal impairments have been suggested as quantitative biomarkers to phenotype and subgroup migraine patients in clinical and research settings. This could provide the first step for a mechanistically-driven and personalized treatment approach according to migraine phenotypes.

The temporal trend of placebo response in migraine prevention from 1990 to 2021: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with regression

BACKGROUND

Migraine affects 1.1 billion people globally and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In clinical trials, treatment efficacy is evaluated by comparing the differential responses in the treatment and placebo arms. Although placebo response in preventive migraine trials has been studied, there is limited research examining temporal trends. This study evaluates the trend of placebo response over thirty years in migraine prevention trials and investigates the association of potential confounders, such as patient, treatment, and study characteristics on placebo response using meta-analysis with regression.

METHODS

We conducted literature searches from January 1990 to August 2021 in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). Studies were selected according to PICOS criteria and included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating preventive migraine treatments in adult patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine, with or without aura. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021271732). Migraine efficacy outcomes included were either continuous (e.g., monthly migraine days) or dichotomous (e.g., ≥ 50% responder rate (yes/no)). We assessed the correlation of the change in outcome from baseline in the placebo arm, with the year of publication. The relationship between placebo response and year of publication was also assessed after accounting to confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 907 studies were identified, and 83 were found eligible. For the continuous outcomes, the change from baseline in mean placebo response showed an increase over the years (rho = 0.32, p = 0.006). The multivariable regression analysis also showed an overall increase in placebo response over the years. The correlation analysis of dichotomous responses showed no significant linear trend between publication year and mean placebo response (rho = 0.08, p = 0.596). Placebo response also varied by route of administration.

CONCLUSION

Placebo response increased over the past 30 years in migraine preventive trials. This phenomenon should be considered when designing clinical trials and conducting meta-analyses.

Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

Predicting pain after standard pain therapy for knee osteoarthritis - the first steps towards personalized mechanistic-based pain medicine in osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) is rising, and pain is the hallmark symptom of OA. Pain in OA is complicated and can be influenced by multiple joint-related factors and factors related to, e.g., physiological, epigenetic, and pain sensory profiles. Increasing evidence suggests that a subset of patients with OA are pain sensitive. This can be assessed using quantitative sensory testing (QST). Common treatments of OA are total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and administration of 3-weeks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provide pain relief to many patients with OA. However, approx. 20% of patients experience chronic postoperative pain after TKA, whereas NSAIDs provide an average pain relief of approx. 25%. The current topical review focuses on the emerging evidence linking pretreatment QST to the treatment response of TKA and NSAID treatments.

CONTENT

MEDLINE was systematically searched for all studies from 2000 to 2022 on pretreatment QST, TKA, and NSAIDs. Pre-clinical studies, reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded.

SUMMARY

Currently, 14 studies on TKA and four studies on NSAIDs have been published with the aim to attempt prediction of the treatment response. The QST methodologies in the studies are inconsistent, but 11/14 (79%) studies on TKA and 4/4 (100%) studies on NSAIDs report statistically significant associations between pretreatment QST and chronic postoperative pain after TKA or analgesic effect after NSAID treatment. The strength of the associations remains low-to-moderate. The most consistent pretreatment QST predictors are pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, and conditioned pain modulation.

OUTLOOK

The use of QST as predictors of standard OA treatment is interesting, but the predictive strength remains low-to-moderate. A transition of QST from a research-based setting and into the clinic is not advised until the predictive strength has been improved and the methodology has been standardized.

Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe) for prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine: part II

BACKGROUND

Migraine affects 1 billion people worldwide and > 30 million Brazilians; besides, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder.

OBJECTIVE

The need to disseminate knowledge about the prophylactic treatment of migraine is known, so the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe, in the Portuguese acronym) appointed a committee of authors with the objective of establishing a consensus with recommendations on the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine based on articles from the world literature as well as from personal experience.

METHODS

Meetings were held entirely online, with the participation of 12 groups that reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of drugs and, at the end, met to read and finish the document. The drug classes studied in part II of this Consensus were: antihypertensives, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, other drugs, and rational polytherapy.

RESULTS

From this list of drugs, only candesartan has been established as effective in controlling episodic migraine. Flunarizine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and pizotifen were defined as likely to be effective, while lisinopril, enalapril, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, quetiapine, atorvastatin, simvastatin, cyproheptadine, and melatonin were possibly effective in prophylaxis of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an effort by the scientific community to find really effective drugs in the treatment of migraine, given the large number of drugs tested for this purpose, we still have few therapeutic options.

Response Predictors of Repetitive Neuromuscular Magnetic Stimulation in the Preventive Treatment of Episodic Migraine

Background

Repetitive neuromuscular magnetic stimulation (rNMS) of the trapezius muscles showed beneficial effects in preventing episodic migraine. However, clinical characteristics that predict a favorable response to rNMS are unknown. The objective of this analysis is to identify such predictors.

Methods

Thirty participants with a diagnosis of episodic migraine (mean age: 24.8 ± 4.0 years, 29 females), who were prospectively enrolled in two non-sham-controlled studies evaluating the effects of rNMS were analyzed. In these studies, the interventional stimulation of the bilateral trapezius muscles was applied in six sessions and distributed over two consecutive weeks. Baseline and follow-up assessments included the continuous documentation of a headache calendar over 30 days before and after the stimulation period, the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaire (before stimulation and 90 days after stimulation), and measurements of pain pressure thresholds (PPTs) above the trapezius muscles by algometry (before and after each stimulation session). Participants were classified as responders based on a ≥25% reduction in the variable of interest (headache frequency, headache intensity, days with analgesic intake, MIDAS score, left-sided PPTs, right-sided PPTs). Post-hoc univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

Lower headache frequency (P = 0.016) and intensity at baseline (P = 0.015) and a migraine diagnosis without a concurrent tension-type headache component (P = 0.011) were significantly related to a ≥25% reduction in headache frequency. Higher headache frequency (P = 0.052) and intensity at baseline (P = 0.014) were significantly associated with a ≥25% reduction in monthly days with analgesic intake. Lower right-sided PPTs at baseline were significantly related to a ≥25% increase in right-sided PPTs (P = 0.0.015) and left-sided PPTs (P =0.030). Performance of rNMS with higher stimulation intensities was significantly associated with a ≥25% reduction in headache intensity (P = 0.046).

Conclusions

Clinical headache characteristics at baseline, the level of muscular hyperalgesia, and stimulation intensity may inform about how well an individual patient responds to rNMS. These factors may allow an early identification of patients that would most likely benefit from rNMS.

The Effect of Duloxetine on Mechanistic Pain Profiles, Cognitive Factors, and Clinical Pain in Patients with Painful Knee Osteoarthritis - A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine is indicated in the management of pain in osteoarthritis. Evidence suggests that duloxetine modulate central pain mechanisms and cognitive factors, and these factors are assumed contributing to the analgesic effect. This proof-of-mechanism, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blinded trial evaluated the effect of duloxetine on quantitative sensory testing (QST), cognitive factors, and clinical pain in patients with osteoarthritis and to predict the analgesic effect.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients completed this cross-over study with either 18-weeks duloxetine (maximum 60 mg/daily) followed by placebo or vice-versa. Pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, and conditioned pain modulation were assessed using cuff algometry. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale evaluated cognitive factors. Clinical pain was assessed using Brief Pain Inventory and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Linear regression models were used to predict the analgesic effect of duloxetine.

RESULTS

Depending on the clinical pain outcome, 40-68% of patients were classified as responders to duloxetine. Linear regression models predicted the analgesic effect (predictive value of 45-75% depending on clinical pain outcome parameter) using a combination of pre-treatment QST parameters, cognitive factors, and clinical pain. No significant changes were found for QST, cognitive factors, or clinical pain on a group level when comparing duloxetine to placebo.

CONCLUSION

A combination of pre-treatment QST, cognitive factors, and clinical pain was able to predict the analgesic response of duloxetine. However, in this relatively small study, duloxetine did not selectively modulate QST, cognitive factors, or clinical pain intensity when compared with placebo.

Conditioned pain modulation is more efficient in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy than those with nonpainful diabetic polyneuropathy

ABSTRACT

Endogenous pain modulation, as tested by the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) protocol, is typically less efficient in patients with chronic pain compared with healthy controls. We aimed to assess whether CPM is less efficient in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) compared with those with nonpainful DPN. Characterization of the differences in central pain processing between these 2 groups might provide a central nervous system explanation to the presence or absence of pain in diabetic neuropathy in addition to the peripheral one. Two hundred seventy-one patients with DPN underwent CPM testing and clinical assessment, including quantitative sensory testing. Two modalities of the test stimuli (heat and pressure) conditioned to cold noxious water were assessed and compared between patients with painful and nonpainful DPN. No significant difference was found between the groups for pressure pain CPM; however, patients with painful DPN demonstrated unexpectedly more efficient CPMHEAT (-7.4 ± 1.0 vs -2.3 ± 1.6; P = 0.008). Efficient CPMHEAT was associated with higher clinical pain experienced in the 24 hours before testing (r = -0.15; P = 0.029) and greater loss of mechanical sensation (r = -0.135; P = 0.042). Moreover, patients who had mechanical hypoesthesia demonstrated more efficient CPMHEAT (P = 0.005). More efficient CPM among patients with painful DPN might result from not only central changes in pain modulation but also from altered sensory messages coming from tested affected body sites. This calls for the use of intact sites for proper assessment of pain modulation in patients with neuropathy.

Reliability of conditioned pain modulation in healthy individuals and chronic pain patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a psychophysical parameter that is used to reflect the efficacy of endogenous pain inhibition. CPM reliability is important for research and potential clinical applications. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the reliability of CPM tests in healthy individuals and chronic pain patients.

METHODS

We searched three databases for peer-reviewed studies published from inception to October 2020: EMBASE, Web of Science and NCBI. Risk of bias and the quality of the included studies were assessed. A meta-analysis with a random effects model was conducted to estimate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

Meta-analysis was performed on 25 papers that examined healthy participants (k=21) or chronic pain patients (k=4). The highest CPM intra-session reliability was with pressure as test stimulus (TS) and ischemic pressure (IP) or cold pressor test (CPT) as conditioning stimulus (CS) in healthy individuals (ICC 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.77), and pressure as TS with CPT as CS in patients (ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.82). The highest inter-session ICC was with IP as TS and IP or CPT as CS (ICC 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.59) in healthy subjects. The only data available in patients for inter-session reliability were with pressure as TS and CPT as CS (ICC 0.44, 95% CI 0.11-0.69). Quality ranged from very good to excellent using the QACMRR checklist. The majority of the studies (24 out of 25) scored inadequate in Kappa coefficient reporting item of the COSMIN-ROB checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure and CPT were the TS and CS most consistently associated with good to excellent intra-session reliability in healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients. The inter-session reliability was fair or less for all modalities, both in healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients.

Comparison of Thermal and Electrical Modalities in the Assessment of Temporal Summation of Pain and Conditioned Pain Modulation

Temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and a cold pressor test (CPT). Unfortunately, these tools are complex, expensive, and are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Building on the results from an exploratory study that attempted to use transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to measure CPM and TSP, the present study assesses whether a “new” TENS protocol can be used instead of the thermode and CPT to measure CPM and TSP. The objective of this study was to compare the thermode/CPT protocol with the new TENS protocol, by (1) measuring the association between the TSP evoked by the two protocols; (2) measuring the association between the CPM evoked by the two protocols; and by (3) assessing whether the two protocols successfully trigger TSP and CPM in a similar number of participants. We assessed TSP and CPM in 50 healthy participants, using our new TENS protocol and a thermode/CPT protocol (repeated measures and randomized order). In the TENS protocol, both the test stimulus (TS) and the conditioning stimulus (CS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode/CPT protocol, the TS was delivered using a thermode and the CS consisted of a CPT. There was no association between the response evoked by the two protocols, neither for TSP nor for CPM. The number of participants showing TSP [49 with TENS and 29 with thermode (p < 0.001)] and CPM [16 with TENS and 30 with thermode (p = 0.01)] was different in both protocols. Our results suggest that response to one modality does not predict response to the other; as such, TENS cannot be used instead of a thermode/CPT protocol to assess TSP and CPM without significantly affecting the results. Moreover, while at first glance it appears that TENS is more effective than the thermode/CPT protocol to induce TSP, but less so to induce CPM, these results should be interpreted carefully. Indeed, TSP and CPM response appear to be modality-dependent as opposed to an absolute phenomenon, and the two protocols may tap into entirely different mechanisms, especially in the case of TSP.

The predictive value of quantitative sensory testing: a systematic review on chronic postoperative pain and the analgesic effect of pharmacological therapies in patients with chronic pain

Studies have suggested that quantitative sensory testing (QST) might hold a predictive value for the development of chronic postoperative pain and the response to pharmacological interventions. This review systematically summarizes the current evidence on the predictive value of QST for chronic postoperative pain and the effect of pharmacological interventions. The main outcome measures were posttreatment pain intensity, pain relief, presence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, responders of 30% and 50% pain relief, or validated questionnaires on pain and disability. A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE yielded 25 studies on surgical interventions and 11 on pharmacological interventions. Seventeen surgical and 11 pharmacological studies reported an association between preoperative or pretreatment QST and chronic postoperative pain or analgesic effect. The most commonly assessed QST modalities were pressure stimuli (17 studies), temporal summation of pain (TSP, 14 studies), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM, 16 studies). Of those, the dynamic QST parameters TSP (50%) and CPM (44%) were most frequently associated with chronic postoperative pain and analgesic effects. A large heterogeneity in methods for assessing TSP (n = 4) and CPM (n = 7) was found. Overall, most studies demonstrated low-to-moderate levels of risk of bias in study design, attrition, prognostic factors, outcome, and statistical analyses. This systematic review demonstrates that TSP and CPM show the most consistent predictive values for chronic postoperative pain and analgesic effect, but the heterogeneous methodologies reduce the generalizability and hence call for methodological guidelines.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS): towards the development of a clinic-friendly method for the evaluation of excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms

Background: Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and cold pressor test (CPTest). Unfortunately, these complex and expensive tools are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments.

Aims: We aimed to compare the temporal summation and CPM obtained with the thermode + CPTest paradigm to those obtained with a novel paradigm using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).

Methods: We assessed temporal summation and CPM in 29 healthy participants, using two paradigms (random order): TENS, and thermode + CPTest. In the TENS paradigm, both the conditioning stimulus (CS) and the test stimulus (TS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode + CPTest paradigm, the CS consisted of a CPTest and the TS was delivered using a thermode. We compared the average temporal summation and CPM evoked by the two paradigms.

Results: Average temporal summation was similar for both modalities (P = 0.90), and the number of participants showing temporal summation was similar in both paradigms (19 with thermode vs. 18 with TENS; P = 1.00). Average CPM response was larger following the thermode + CPTest than following the TENS (P = 0.005), and more participants showed CPM with the thermode + CPTest paradigm compared to the TENS paradigm (24 vs. 14; P = 0.01).

Conclusions: Both paradigms were roughly equivalent in the ability to evoke temporal summation (although response to one modality did not predict response to the other), but the TENS paradigm appeared to be less apt to induce a CPM response than the thermode + CPTest paradigm.

Development and Validation of a Predictive Model of Pain Modulation Profile to Guide Chronic Pain Treatment: A Study Protocol

Introduction: Quantitative sensory testing is frequently used in research to assess endogenous pain modulation mechanisms, such as Temporal Summation (TS) and Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM), reflecting excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms, respectively. Numerous studies found that a dysregulation of these mechanisms is associated with chronic pain conditions. In turn, such a patient's “profile” (increased TS and/or weakened CPM) could be used to recommend different pharmacological treatments. However, the procedure to evaluate these mechanisms is time-consuming and requires expensive equipment that is not available in the clinical setting. In this study, we aim to identify psychological, physiological and socio-demographic markers that could serve as proxies to allow healthcare professionals to identify these pain phenotypes in clinic, and consequently optimize pharmacological treatments.

Method: We aim to recruit a healthy participant cohort (n = 360) and a chronic pain patient cohort (n = 108). Independent variables will include psychological questionnaires, pain measurements, physiological measures and sociodemographic characteristics. Dependent variables will include TS and CPM, which will be measured using quantitative sensory testing in a single session. We will evaluate one prediction model and two validation models (for healthy and chronic pain participants) using multiple regression analysis between TS/CPM and our independent variables. The significance thresholds will be set at p = 0.05, respectively.

Perspectives: This study will allow us to develop a predictive model to compute the pain modulation profile of individual patients based on their biopsychosocial characteristics. The development of the predictive model is the first step toward the overarching goal of providing clinicians with a set of quick and cheap tests, easily applicable in clinical practice to orient pharmacological treatments.

Bisphosphonates in veterinary medicine: The new horizon for use

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are characterized by their ability to bind strongly to bone mineral and inhibit bone resorption. However, BPs exert a wide range of pharmacological activities beyond the inhibition of bone resorption, including the inhibition of cancer cell metastases and angiogenesis and the inhibition of proliferation and apoptosis in vitro. Additionally, the inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase activity, altered cytokine and growth factor expression, as well as reductions in parameters of pain have also been reported. In humans, clinical BP use has transformed the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis, rare bone diseases such as osteogenesis imperfecta, as well as multiple myeloma and metastatic breast and prostate cancer, albeit not without infrequent but significant adverse events. Despite the well-characterized health benefits of BP use in humans, the evidence-base for the therapeutic efficacy of BPs in veterinary medicine is, by comparison, limited. Notwithstanding, BPs are used widely in small animal veterinary practice for the medical management of hyperparathyroidism, idiopathic hypercalcemia in cats, as well as for the palliative care of bone tumors which are common in dogs, and in particular, primary bone tumors such as osteosarcoma. Palliative BP treatment has also recently increased in veterinary oncology to alleviate tumor-associated bone pain. In equine veterinary practice, non-nitrogen-containing BPs are FDA-approved to control clinical signs associated with navicular syndrome in adult horses. However, there are growing concerns regarding the off-label use of BPs in juvenile horses. Here we discuss the current understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and current controversies surrounding BP use in veterinary medicine to highlight the future utility of these potentially beneficial drugs.

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.

Individual variability and sex differences in conditioned pain modulation and the impact of resilience, and conditioning stimulus pain unpleasantness and salience

Distinct pain experiences are shaped both by personal attributes and characteristics of noxious stimuli. An Individual's capacity for endogenous pain inhibition (reflected by conditioned pain modulation [CPM]), their resilience, and the pain unpleasantness and salience of painful stimuli can impact their pain perception. Here, we aimed to determine how individual variability in CPM relates to sex and resilience as personal attributes, and pain unpleasantness and salience of the CPM conditioning stimulus (CS). We evaluated CPM in 106 healthy participants (51 female and 55 male) based on the change in test stimulus pain applied concurrently with a painful CS, both delivered by painful heat. The CS reduced test stimulus pain in only half of the participants (CPM subgroup), but did not do so for the other half (no-CPM subgroup), many who exhibited pain facilitation. A regression model explained CPM effects after accounting for sex, resilience, CS pain unpleasantness and salience. In the CPM subgroup regression model, the CPM effect was positively related to CS pain unpleasantness, while the CPM effect was not related to any variable in the no-CPM subgroup model. Correlation analyses revealed that the CPM effect was anticorrelated with resilience in males with no-CPM. The CPM effect was correlated with CS pain unpleasantness in males with CPM and in females with no-CPM. The CPM effect and CS salience were correlated in the whole group more strongly than in the subgroups. These data reveal that the complexity of contributors to CPM variability include both personal attributes and attributes of the CS.

Individual differences of maladaptive brain changes in migraine and their relationship with differential effectiveness of treatments

Migraine is a difficult disorder to identify with regard to its pathophysiological mechanisms, and its treatment has been primarily difficult owing to interindividual differences. Substantial rates of nonresponsiveness to medications are common, making migraine treatment complicated. In this review, we systematically analyzed recent studies concerning neuroimaging findings regarding the neurophysiology of migraine. We linked the current imaging research with anecdotal evidence from interindividual factors such as duration and pain intensity of migraine, age, gender, hormonal interplay, and genetics. These factors suggested the use of nonpharmacological therapies such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and placebo therapy for the treatment of migraine. Finally, we discussed how interindividual differences are related to such nondrug treatments.

Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the prevention of migraine and vestibular migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objectives

The role of serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in migraine prophylaxis has not been completely established. Current treatments for vestibular migraine (VM) are based on scarce evidence. We aimed to perform an updated review focusing on the efficacy and tolerability of SNRIs for migraine and VM prevention.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies. The primary outcome was migraine frequency. In the case of VM, the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) scores and Vertigo Severity Scores (VSSs) were extracted.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials involving 418 patients were analyzed. Patients receiving SNRIs had fewer migraine days than those receiving a placebo (standardized mean difference −0.38, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.01, p=0.04). The effects of SNRIs and other active drugs were comparable. In patients with VM, venlafaxine had a significant advantage over other active drugs in decreasing the VSS (weighted mean difference (MD) −1.45, 95% CI −2.11 to −0.78, p<0.0001) and the emotional domain score of the DHI (MD −2.64, 95% CI −4.97 to −0.31, p=0.03). We found no significant difference in the rate of withdrawals due to any reason or withdrawals due to side effects between SNRIs and active drugs and between SNRIs and a placebo.

Conclusions

SNRIs were clinically safe and effective for migraine and VM prophylaxis, were better than a placebo, and not inferior to other active drugs. SNRIs may be a preferable choice for patients with VM with psychiatric disorders.