An observational study of centrally facilitated pain in individuals with chronic low back pain

Validation of a questionnaire for central nervous system aspects of joint pain: the CAP questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic-like pain, fatigue, cognitive difficulty, catastrophizing, anxiety, sleep disturbance, depression and widespread pain associate with a single factor in people with knee pain. We report the Central Aspects of Pain questionnaire (CAP) to characterize this across painful musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS

CAP was derived from the 8-item CAP-Knee questionnaire, and completed by participants with joint pain in the Investigating Musculoskeletal Health and Wellbeing survey. Subgroups had OA, back pain or FM. Acceptability was evaluated by feedback and data missingness. Correlation coefficients informed widespread pain scoring threshold in relation to the other items, and evaluated associations with pain. Factor analysis assessed CAP structure. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) between paper and electronic administration assessed reliability. Friedman test assessed score stability over 4 years in people reporting knee OA.

RESULTS

Data were from 3579 participants (58% female, median age 71 years), including subgroups with OA (n = 1158), back pain (n = 1292) or FM (n = 177). Across the three subgroups, ≥10/26 painful sites on the manikin scored widespread pain. Reliability was high [ICC = 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92)] and CAP scores fit to one- and two-factor model, with a total CAP score that was associated with pain severity and quality (r = 0.50-0.72). In people with knee pain, CAP scores were stable over 4 years at the group level, but displayed significant temporal heterogeneity within individual participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Central aspects of pain are reliably measured by the CAP questionnaire across a range of painful musculoskeletal conditions, and is a changeable state.

Contribution of inflammation markers and quantitative sensory testing (QST) indices of central sensitisation to rheumatoid arthritis pain

BACKGROUND

Pain, the primary complaint in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is multifaceted, and may be driven by inflammatory disease activity and central sensitisation. We aimed to ascertain what proportion of RA pain severity is explained by markers of inflammation and quantitative sensory testing (QST) indices of central sensitisation.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional analysis of data from individuals with clinically active RA. Pain severity was assessed using numerical rating scales and inflammation via 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Ultrasound (Greyscale, Power Doppler). Pain sensitivity was assessed by 'static' (tibialis anterior or brachioradialis pressure pain detection threshold-PPT-TA/PPT-BR) and 'dynamic' (temporal summation-TS, conditioned pain modulation-CPM) QST. Bivariate associations used Spearman's correlation coefficients, and multivariable linear regression models determined relative contributions to pain severity.

RESULTS

In bivariate analyses of N = 96 (age 65 ± 10y, 77% females) people with RA, pain severity was significantly associated with inflammation indices (r = 0.20 to 0.55), and CPM (r=-0.26). In multivariable models that included TS, CPM, age, sex, and body mass index, inflammation indices remained significantly associated with pain severity. Multivariable models explained 22 to 27% of pain variance. Heterogeneity was apparent for associations with pain between subscores for pain now, strongest or average over the past 4-weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with clinically active RA, markers of inflammatory disease activity best explain RA pain with only marginal contributions from QST indices of central sensitisation. Although inflammation plays a key role in the experience of RA pain, the greater proportion of pain severity remains unexplained by DAS28 and ultrasound indices of inflammation.

Indication for spinal sensitization in chronic low back pain: mechanical hyperalgesia adjacent to but not within the most painful body area

Introduction

In 85% of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), no specific pathoanatomical cause can be identified. Besides primary peripheral drivers within the lower back, spinal or supraspinal sensitization processes might contribute to the patients' pain.

Objectives

The present study conceptualized the most painful area (MP) of patients with nonspecific CLBP as primarily affected area and assessed signs of peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal sensitization using quantitative sensory testing (QST) in MP, a pain-free area adjacent to MP (AD), and a remote, pain-free control area (CON).

Methods

Fifty-nine patients with CLBP (51 years, SD = 16.6, 22 female patients) and 35 pain-free control participants individually matched for age, sex, and testing areas (49 years, SD = 17.5, 19 female participants) underwent a full QST protocol in MP and a reduced QST protocol assessing sensory gain in AD and CON. Quantitative sensory testing measures, except paradoxical heat sensations and dynamic mechanical allodynia (DMA), were Z-transformed to the matched control participants and tested for significance using Z-tests (α = 0.001). Paradoxical heat sensations and DMA occurrence were compared between cohorts using Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05). The same analyses were performed with a high-pain and a low-pain CLBP subsample (50% quantile).

Results

Patients showed cold and vibration hypoesthesia in MP (all Ps < 0.001) and mechanical hyperalgesia (P < 0.001) and more frequent DMA (P = 0.044) in AD. The results were mainly driven by the high-pain CLBP subsample. In CON, no sensory alterations were observed.

Conclusion

Mechanical hyperalgesia and DMA adjacent to but not within MP, the supposedly primarily affected area, might reflect secondary hyperalgesia originating from spinal sensitization in patients with CLBP.

The effectiveness of a combined exercise and psychological treatment programme on measures of nervous system sensitisation in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) offers information regarding underlying mechanisms contributing to chronic pain (CP) in adults with musculoskeletal disorders. This review examined the use of QST measures in adults with CP following participation in a combined exercise and psychological intervention.

METHODS

The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Five databases were searched from inception to November 2022. All study designs which evaluated the effects of a combined exercise and psychological treatment on measures of nervous system sensitivity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain were included.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies met the selection criteria, 10 of which were included in a meta-analysis. Local pressure pain thresholds were the most frequently used measure (n = 12 studies). Meta-analysis revealed statistically significantly improvements in favour of the combined exercise and psychological intervention group, compared to a control group, for local pressure pain threshold measures [SMD = 0.44, 95% CI 0.08-0.81, I2 = 84%], pain intensity scores [SMD=-0.89, 95% CI -1.66- -0.13, I2 = 94%] and the Central Sensitisation Inventory [SMD=-0.69, 95% CI -1.37- -0.02, I2 = 87%]. There were no significant differences found between groups for remote pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation or conditioned pain modulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that a combined exercise and psychological intervention may lead to greater improvements in local pressure pain threshold, pain intensity and Central Sensitisation Inventory scores when compared to a control intervention in adults with CP, however these findings must be interpreted with caution as a large degree of heterogeneity was present in these results (I2: 84-94%). Further large, longitudinal studies are required using standardised QST measurement procedures and patient reported outcome measures to explore changes in nervous system sensitisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, ID Number CRD42022380464.

The interrater and test-retest reliability of 3 modalities of quantitative sensory testing in healthy adults and people with chronic low back pain or rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) modalities used to assess central pain mechanisms require different protocols in people with different musculoskeletal conditions.

Objectives

We aimed to explore the possible effects of musculoskeletal diagnosis and test site on QST interrater and test-retest reliability.

Methods

The study included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 18; QST conducted on lower leg) and low back pain (LBP, n = 25; QST conducted on forearm), plus 45 healthy control participants (n = 20 QST on lower leg and n = 25 QST on forearm). Test-retest reliability was assessed from QST conducted 1 to 3 weeks apart. Quantitative sensory testing modalities used were pressure pain detection threshold (PPT) at a site distant to tissue pathology, temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Temporal summation was calculated as difference or ratio of single and repeated punctate stimuli and unconditioned thresholds for CPM used single or mean of multiple PPTs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were compared between different subgroups.

Results

High to very high reliability was found for all assessments of PPT and TS across anatomical sites (lower leg and forearm) and participants (healthy, RA, and LBP) (ICC ≥ 0.77 for PPT and ICC ≥ 0.76 for TS). Reliability was higher when TS was calculated as a difference rather than a ratio. Conditioned pain modulation showed no to moderate reliability (ICC = 0.01-0.64) that was similar between leg or forearm, and between healthy people and those with RA or LBP.

Conclusion

PPT and TS are transferable tools to quantify pain sensitivity at different testing sites in different musculoskeletal diagnoses. Low apparent reliability of CPM protocols might indicate minute-to-minute dynamic pain modulation.