Pain inhibition is not affected by exercise-induced pain

Opposite effects of isometric exercise on pain sensitivity of healthy individuals: the role of pain modulation

Introduction

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIHypo) among healthy individuals is well documented; however, the opposite effect of exercise, ie, exercise-induced hyperalgesia (EIHyper), has mainly been described in patients with chronic pain or after intense/painful exercise.

Objectives

We investigated the extent to which EIHypo and/or EIHyper occur among healthy participants and whether these responses are associated with individuals' pain modulation capacity.

Methods

Fifty-seven participants (mean age 29.20 ± 5.21 years) underwent testing of pressure pain threshold as an index of EIHypo/EIHyper: pain adaptation, offset analgesia (OA), and conditioned pain modulation as indices of pain modulation, prior to and immediately postsubmaximal isometric exercise (n = 40) or rest (n = 17, control group). Body awareness and exercise-evoked stress were also evaluated. Test-retest repeatability of the pain modulation indices was performed as well.

Results

Twenty-four participants (60%) exhibited EIHypo, whereas 16 (40%) exhibited EIHyper. Pressure pain threshold did not change in the control group. Baseline (preexercise) OA efficacy predicted EIHypo/EIHyper. Furthermore, OA significantly decreased postexercise in the EIHyper subgroup and slightly increased in the EIHypo subgroup. Exercise-induced hypoalgesia was associated with magnitude of daily exercise while EIHyper was associated with increased exercise-evoked stress and body awareness.

Conclusion

Submaximal isometric exercise can induce opposite effects on pain sensitivity among healthy participants-EIHypo or EIHyper. Descending pain inhibition pathways, and top-down influences over these pathways, seem to be involved in EIHypo/EIHyper effects. As such isometric exercise is often preferred in early stages of rehabilitation, preliminary screening individuals' vulnerability to this exercise is important; OA test may be used for this purpose.

Susceptibility to movement-evoked pain following resistance exercise

Objective

To investigate the: (1) role of basic muscle pain sensitivity and psychological factors in the prediction of movement-evoked pain (MEP) following delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and (2) association of MEP with changes in systemic muscle pain sensitivity following DOMS induction.

Methods

Fifty-one participants were assigned to either eccentric resistance exercise or control groups. They completed questionnaires evaluating psychological distress and underwent muscle pain sensitivity evaluation by the pressure pain threshold (PPT) test at the exercised and remote muscles, before and 24 hours following the intervention. MEP intensity was determined in response to lifting a 3kg canister using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

The exercise group demonstrated MEP intensity of 5/10 on VAS and reduced PPTs at the main exercised muscle (p<0.001). A regression tree analyses revealed that the level of anxiety trait predicted a higher MEP intensity. A secondary analysis showed that 53% participants who were DOMS responders (MEP > mild intensity; ≥ 3/10 VAS) exhibited decreased PPTs in the exercised (p<0.001) and remote (p = 0.027) muscles following eccentric exercise. Characterization of DOMS responders revealed that, at baseline, they had lower PPTs in the exercised (p = 0.004) and remote (p = 0.001) muscles and reported higher psychological distress i.e., anxiety trait and depression symptoms (p<0.05), compared to non-responders. A regression analysis revealed that lower PPT or high levels of anxiety trait increased the probability to become a responder (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Susceptibility to MEP following DOMS is determined by muscle pain hypersensitivity and high levels of anxiety trait. MEP at the early stage of DOMS is linked with an increase in systemic muscle pain sensitivity suggestive of central mechanisms. This knowledge is valuable in translating science into clinical musculoskeletal pain management.

Offset analgesia is increased intra-orally

BACKGROUND

Offset analgesia (OA) is commonly used to quantify endogenous pain inhibition. However, the potential role of afferent inputs and the subsequent peripheral factors from different body areas on the underlying mechanisms are still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare the magnitude of OA in four different body areas representing a) glabrous and non-glabrous skin, b) trigeminal and extra-trigeminal areas, and c) intra- and extra-oral tissue.

METHODS

OA was assessed at the oral mucosa of the lower lip, at the skin of the cheek, the forearm and the palm of the hand in 32 healthy and pain-free participants. OA testing included two trials: (1) a constant trial (30 seconds of constant heat stimulation at an individualized temperature of Pain₅₀ (pain intensity of 50 out of 100)), and (2) an offset trial (10 seconds of individualized Pain₅₀ , followed by 5 seconds at Pain₅₀ +1°C and 15 seconds at Pain₅₀ ). Participants continuously rated their pain during each trial with a computerized visual analog scale.

RESULTS

A significant OA response was recorded at the oral mucosa (p<0.001, d=1.24), the cheek (p<0.001, d=0.84) and the forearm (p<0.001, d=1.04), but not at the palm (p=0.19, d=0.24). Significant differences were shown for OA recorded at the cheek versus the mucosa (p=0.02), and between palm and mucosa (p=0.007), but not between the remaining areas (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that intra-oral endogenous pain inhibition assessed with OA is enhanced and supports the role of peripheral mechanisms contributing to the OA response.

[Pain modulation through exercise : Exercise-induced hypoalgesia in physiotherapy]

Exercise prescription is a central tenet of physiotherapy. One of the numerous benefits of exercise is its influence on endogenous pain modulation. Exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) refers to a short-term change in pain sensitivity following an acute bout of exercise. Interest in this phenomenon has grown considerably with over 150 articles published, including four systematic reviews in 2020 alone.This narrative review provides an overview of EIH including a definition and summary of the underlying mechanisms and mediating factors. Recent systematic reviews assessing EIH in people with and without musculoskeletal complaints were evaluated using AMSTAR2. Review findings confirm the presence of EIH. For asymptomatic people, confidence in the evidence was low to very low due to high heterogeneity of included studies, risk of bias, and study eligibility. For people with pain, there is very low confidence, at best, that subgroups or isometric exercise show altered EIH. Despite the growing body of evidence, challenges within the available evidence due to its complex nature are highlighted. Recommendations regarding outcome measures and exercise parameters are required, and further understanding of reliability and validity of EIH is needed. There is a demand to further elucidate these parameters and contextual factors to advance our understanding of EIH. Additional clinical research, especially in patient populations, is required to then provide implications for rehabilitation.

The effect of acute-experimental pain models on offset analgesia

BACKGROUND

Offset analgesia (OA) is characterized by a disproportionately large decrease in pain perception after a slight decrease in noxious stimulation. In patients with ongoing pain, this response is reduced. The effect is pronounced in painful body areas. The influence of acute pain has not been sufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of two experimental acute pain models, measured within the area of acute pain and on the non-affected opposite side, thereby considering the possible somatotopic nature of OA.

METHODS

Healthy, pain-free volunteers (n = 75) were randomly assigned to one of three groups (cold water, exercise and control group). The 'cold water group' immersed one hand into cold water for 3 min (Cold Pressor Task), while the 'exercise group' performed an isometric grip exercise for 3 min. There was no manipulation in the control group. Each experimental pain stimulus was performed at both (dominant, non-dominant) forearms. The individualized OA paradigm consisted of offset and constant temperature trials. Offset analgesia was measured immediately before, during and after the experimental pain stimuli.

RESULTS

A significant difference in OA was shown during experimental pain when compared to the control condition (exercise vs. control: p < 0.001, cold vs. control: p = 0.001), with no difference between the experimental conditions (p > 0.05). Immediately following the pain stimulation, results were marginally non-significant (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Experimental painful stimulation reduced OA. This result should be interpreted with caution due to potential influences of conditioned pain modulation or exercise-induced hypoalgesia as well as possible floor effects.

SIGNIFICANCE

Temporal contrast of pain perception is inhibited in acute pain states. This study showed that reduced offset analgesia is observed when pain is experimentally induced using noxious cold and exercise stimuli.

Muscle endurance training of the neck triggers migraine attacks

BACKGROUND

Most migraine patients report neck pain as part of their migraine symptomatology, but it is unknown whether triggering neck pain would induce migraine attacks. Our aim was to assess the occurrence of headache and/or neck pain after an endurance test of the neck muscles among migraineurs and controls.

METHODS

Sixty-five patients with migraine and 32 headache-free participants underwent a manual examination of the cervical spine by an assessor blinded towards the diagnosis and were sub-classified according to the appearance or absence of neck pain. Subsequently, the endurance of the neck flexors and extensors was tested three times, in a random order. The maximum sustained duration was recorded and the test was terminated when the subject was unable to maintain the position or reported pain. On the day after the assessment, participants were asked to report the potential occurrence of headache or neck symptoms.

RESULTS

None of the controls reported headache after assessment, while migraine-like headache was reported by 42% of the patients with migraine (p < 0.001) after 15.8 h (SD: 10.0). Neck pain was more prevalent in migraineurs compared to controls (45% vs. 16%, p = 0.006). When considering the neck pain subtype, there were no differences among the three profiles regarding neck pain but participants with referred pain to the head reported a migraine attack more often (45%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients with migraine are more likely to report neck pain and migraine attacks following a neck muscle endurance test. Participants with neck pain referred to the head during manual examination had a greater prevalence of migraine attacks than those without or with only local pain.