Contribution of sensitivity, volume and tone to visceral perception in the upper gastrointestinal tract in man: emphasis on testing

Implications of rectal preconditioning for interpretation of sensory-motor data

Testing of biomechanical properties of intestine requires the tissue to be preconditioned by applying cyclic loading to obtain repeatable mechanical data. However, little is known about the mechanosensory properties during intestinal preconditioning. We aimed to study the relationship between mechanical preconditioning of the human rectum and sensory response. Three fast rectal bag distensions to the pain threshold were done in seven healthy females. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for sensory assessment. At each distension, we determined (1) time, bag cross-sectional area (CSA), radius (r), r/r₀, pressure and tension to reach VAS = 1, 3 and 5 (pain threshold); (2) the same parameters at induced contraction start; (3) CSA where the pressure started to increase (CSA_P>baseline) and (4) the number of contractions. The time, CSA, r/r₀ and tension to reach VAS = 1 and VAS = 3 increased from distension 1 to 3 (4.9 < F < 11.5, 0.05 > P > 0.007), primarily due to difference between the first and second distension. For VAS = 5, r/r₀ was smaller in distension 3 than distension 1 (P < 0.05), whereas time, CSA and tension did not differ between distensions (P > 0.5). Compared with distension 1, CSA, r/r₀ and tension at contraction start, and CSA_P>baseline were bigger in distensions 2 and 3 (5.5 < F < 10.9, 0.05 > P > 0.009). The pressure to reach the VAS levels, the contraction numbers and pressure at contraction start did not differ among distensions (P > 0.6). During mechanical preconditioning, CSA, tension and deformation increased at sub-pain levels, reflecting sensory adaptation. The data point to acute remodeling of a strain-dependent mechanism in the rectal wall.

The optimal order of stimulation modalities and reproducibility of the multimodal esophageal stimulation paradigm

BACKGROUND

Esophageal hypersensitivity can be triggered by different stimuli. We use a multimodal stimulation model to study esophageal sensitivity to four sensory modalities: thermal, mechanical, electrical, and chemical stimulation. The optimal order of these stimulations needs further validation.

METHODS

Esophageal sensitivity to thermal (heated saline solution), mechanical (balloon distention), electrical (block pulses with electrodes), and chemical stimulation (acid solution, 0.1 N HCl) was assessed in 10 subjects. In one session, thermal stimulation was performed first, followed by mechanical stimulation ("original protocol"). In a second session, mechanical stimulation was performed first, followed by temperature stimulation ("reversed protocol"). Besides, the impact of balloon distention speed (25 mL/min vs 50 mL/min) during mechanical stimulation was evaluated. Secondly, in order to establish reproducibility, independent control sessions of multimodal stimulations in 15 healthy volunteers were used retrospectively.

KEY RESULTS

A significant difference in pain perception threshold for thermal stimulation was found between the original and reversed protocol (P = 0.046), indicating that mechanical stimulation can sensitize the esophagus to thermal stimulation. Balloon distention rate had no impact on sensitivity thresholds for mechanical stimulation. Concerning the reproducibility, there were no differences for thermal, mechanical, electrical, and chemical stimulation in any of the control sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal order of the multimodal stimulation protocol was to start with the thermal stimulation, followed by mechanical, electrical, and chemical stimulation. The optimal balloon distention rate was 25 mL/min. Multimodal esophageal stimulation generates reproducible perception scores in health and therefore provides a reliable method to assess esophageal sensitivity changes after interventions that may alter esophageal sensitivity.

Oesophageal dysphagia: manifestations and diagnosis

Oesophageal dysphagia is a common symptom, which might be related to severe oesophageal diseases such as carcinomas. Therefore, an organic process must be ruled out in the first instance by endoscopy in all patients presenting with dysphagia symptoms. The most prevalent obstructive aetiologies are oesophageal cancer, peptic strictures and eosinophilic oesophagitis. Eosinophilic oesophagitis is one of the most common causes of dysphagia in adults and children, thus justifying the need to obtain oesophageal biopsy samples from all patients presenting with unexplained dysphagia. With the advent of standardized high-resolution manometry and specific metrics to characterize oesophageal motility, the Chicago classification has become a gold-standard algorithm for manometric diagnosis of oesophageal motor disorders. In addition, sophisticated investigations and analysis methods that combine pressure and impedance measurement are currently in development. In the future, these techniques might be able to detect subtle pressure abnormalities during bolus transport, which could further explain pathophysiology and symptoms. The degree to which novel approaches will help distinguish dysphagia caused by motor abnormalities from functional dysphagia still needs to be determined.

Efficacy and safety of PPC-5650 on experimental rectal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome

PPC-5650 is a new pharmacological agent that can modulate acid-sensing ion channel activity, leading to a reduction in the pain signal under up-regulated conditions. The non-clinical programme for PPC-5650 supported a role for this novel agent in the treatment of pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In patients with IBS, the aims of the study were: (1) to assess the efficacy of a single bolus of PPC-5650 locally applied in the rectum using multi-modal stimulations of the recto sigmoid and (2) to assess the safety profile of PPC-5650. The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial in patients with IBS, excluding females of child-bearing potential. The study consisted of a training visit, study visit 1 and 2 and a follow-up visit. Rectosigmoid electrical, thermal and mechanical stimulations were performed, pain perception was rated on a pain intensity scale and referred pain areas were assessed. All adverse events were registered. Twenty-five patients with IBS were enrolled and completed the study (9 women and 16 men; mean age 50.4 ± 12.7 years). No effects of the study drug were found on any of the rectal stimulations or for referred pain areas (all p > 0.05). No significant or clinically relevant treatment-related differences were seen for the laboratory safety variables or any other reported adverse event. In conclusion, in patients with IBS on rectal sensitivity to multi-modal stimulations, PPC-5650 did not produce efficacy relative to placebo. The overall safety and tolerability of PPC-5650 was acceptable.

Human experimental pain models for assessing the therapeutic efficacy of analgesic drugs

Pain models in animals have shown low predictivity for analgesic efficacy in humans, and clinical studies are often very confounded, blurring the evaluation. Human experimental pain models may therefore help to evaluate mechanisms and effect of analgesics and bridge findings from basic studies to the clinic. The present review outlines the concept and limitations of human experimental pain models and addresses analgesic efficacy in healthy volunteers and patients. Experimental models to evoke pain and hyperalgesia are available for most tissues. In healthy volunteers, the effect of acetaminophen is difficult to detect unless neurophysiological methods are used, whereas the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs could be detected in most models. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants are sensitive in several models, particularly in models inducing hyperalgesia. For opioids, tonic pain with high intensity is attenuated more than short-lasting pain and nonpainful sensations. Fewer studies were performed in patients. In general, the sensitivity to analgesics is better in patients than in healthy volunteers, but the lower number of studies may bias the results. Experimental models have variable reliability, and validity shall be interpreted with caution. Models including deep, tonic pain and hyperalgesia are better to predict the effects of analgesics. Assessment with neurophysiologic methods and imaging is valuable as a supplement to psychophysical methods and can increase sensitivity. The models need to be designed with careful consideration of pharmacological mechanisms and pharmacokinetics of analgesics. Knowledge obtained from this review can help design experimental pain studies for new compounds entering phase I and II clinical trials.