A novel cortical biomarker signature for predicting pain sensitivity: protocol for the PREDICT longitudinal analytical validation study

Intramuscular injection of nerve growth factor as a model of temporomandibular disorder: nature, time-course, and sex differences characterising the pain experience

Background

Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is a common condition that frequently transitions to chronic symptoms. Experimental pain models that mimic the symptoms of clinical TMD may be useful in understanding the mechanisms, and sex differences, present in this disorder. Here we aimed to comprehensively characterise the nature and time-course of pain, functional impairment and hyperalgesia induced by repeated intramuscular injection of nerve growth factor (NGF) into the masseter muscle, and to investigate sex differences in the NGF-induced pain experience.

Methods

94 healthy individuals participated in a longitudinal study with 30-day follow-up. NGF was injected into the right masseter muscle on Day 0 and Day 2. Participants attended laboratory sessions to assess pain (Numerical Rating Scale; NRS), functional limitation (mouth opening distance, Jaw Functional Limitation Scale; JFLS) and mechanical sensitization (pressure pain thresholds; PPTs) on Days 0, 2 and 5 and completed twice daily electronic pain dairies from Day 0 to day 30.

Results

Peak pain averaged 2.0/10 (95 % CI: 1.6-2.4) at rest and 4.3/10 (95 % CI: 3.9-4.8) on chewing. Pain-free mouth opening distance reduced from 5.0 cm (95 % CI: 4.8-5.1 cm) on Day 0 to 3.7 cm (95 % CI: 3.5-3.9 cm) on Day 5. The greatest reduction in PPTs was observed over the masseter muscle. Females experienced higher pain, greater functional impairment, and greater sensitivity to mechanical stimuli than males.

Conclusion

Intramuscular injection of NGF is a useful model with which to explore the mechanisms, and sex differences, present in clinical TMD.

Peak alpha frequency as a candidate biomarker of pain sensitivity: the importance of distinguishing slow from slowing

The study by Valentini et al. (2022) observed that the peak alpha frequency (PAF) of participants became slower after they were exposed to painful, as well as non-painful but unpleasant stimuli. The authors interpreted this as a challenge to our previous studies which propose that the speed of resting PAF, independently of pain-induced changes to PAF, can be a reliable biomarker marker for gaging individual pain sensitivity. While investigations into the role that PAF plays in pain perception are timely, we have some concerns about the assumptions and methodology employed by Valentini et al. Moreover, we believe the authors here have also misrepresented some of our previous work. In the current commentary, we detail the critical differences between our respective studies, with the ultimate aim of guiding future investigations.