"Convergent validity of the central sensitization inventory and experimental testing of pain sensitivity"

Pain profiles and variability in temporal summation of pain and conditioned pain modulation in pain-free individuals and patients with low back pain, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia

BACKGROUND

Pain profiles (e.g. pro- and anti-nociceptive) can be developed using quantitative sensory testing (QST) but substantial variability exists. This study describes the variability in temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients, proposes cut-off values, and explores the association with clinical pain intensity.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis in which TSP and CPM were assessed using cuff algometry in pain-free subjects (n = 69), and patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP, n = 267), osteoarthritis (n = 134), and fibromyalgia (n = 101). Using TSP and CPM from the pain-free subjects as a reference, four distinct pain profiles TSP (low/high) and CPM (low/high) were created, and differences in clinical pain between pain profiles were explored.

RESULTS

Individual data revealed large inter-person variability. High TSP and low CPM were found in fibromyalgia (p < 0.01) and osteoarthritis (p < 0.01) but not cLBP when compared to pain-free subjects. The proportion of patients classified into the distinct pain profiles was significantly different (p < 0.001) with the largest proportion in the high TSP and low CPM group in fibromyalgia (52.5%) and osteoarthritis (41.4%). Clinical pain was not significantly different comparing the pain profiles, and no significant correlations were observed between clinical pain and TSP or CPM.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrated substantial inter-person variability in TSP and CPM in patients with different chronic pain conditions and pain-free subjects. The proportion of patients with a pro-nociceptive profile appears larger in fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis, but we found no association to clinical pain.

SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT

This analysis shows that there is variability when assessing TSP and CPM in both pain-free subjects and patients with chronic pain. A cut-off for determining when a person is pain-sensitive is proposed, and data based on this cut-off approach suggest that significantly more patients with osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia are pain-sensitive (i.e. higher TSP and lower CPM) compared to pain-free subjects. This analysis does not find an association between pain sensitivity and clinical pain.

Reduction of Chronic Primary Low Back Pain by Spinal Manipulative Therapy is Accompanied by Decreases in Segmental Mechanical Hyperalgesia and Pain Catastrophizing: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Dual-blind Mixed Experimental Trial

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) refers to low back pain that persists over 3 months, that cannot be explained by another chronic condition, and that is associated with emotional distress and disability. Previous studies have shown that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is effective in relieving CPLBP, but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. This randomized placebo-controlled dual-blind mixed experimental trial (NCT05162924) aimed to investigate the efficacy of SMT to improve CPLBP and its underlying mechanisms. Ninety-eight individuals with CPLBP and 49 controls were recruited. Individuals with CPLBP received SMT (n = 49) or a control intervention (n = 49), 12 times over 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were CPLBP intensity (0-100 on a numerical rating scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pressure pain thresholds in 4 body regions, pain catastrophizing, Central Sensitization Inventory, depressive symptoms, and anxiety scores. Individuals with CPLBP showed widespread mechanical hyperalgesia (P < .001) and higher scores for all questionnaires (P < .001). SMT reduced pain intensity compared with the control intervention (mean difference: -11.7 [95% confidence interval, -11.0 to -12.5], P = .01), but not disability (P = .5). Similar mild to moderate adverse events were reported in both groups. Mechanical hyperalgesia at the manipulated segment was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05). Pain catastrophizing was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05), but this effect was not significant after accounting for changes in clinical pain. Although the reduction of segmental mechanical hyperalgesia likely contributes to the clinical benefits of SMT, the role of pain catastrophizing remains to be clarified. PERSPECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial found that 12 sessions of SMT yield greater relief of CPLBP than a control intervention. These clinical effects were independent of expectations, and accompanied by an attenuation of hyperalgesia in the targeted segment and a modulation of pain catastrophizing.

No effect of social interaction on experimental pain sensitivity: a randomized experimental study

ABSTRACT

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a commonly applied paradigm to investigate pain, which is a subjective experience influenced by a myriad of social and contextual factors. Therefore, it is important to consider the potential sensitivity of QST to the test setting and the social interaction that naturally is a part of it. This may particularly be the case in clinical settings where patients have something at stake. Therefore, we investigated differences in pain responses using QST in different test setups with varying degrees of human interaction. In a parallel three-armed randomized experimental study, we included 92 participants with low back pain and 87 healthy volunteers allocated to 1 of the 3 QST setups: 1 setup with manual tests performed by a human tester, 1 setup with automated tests performed by a robot and orally guided by a human tester, and 1 setup with automated tests performed solely by a robot without social interaction with a human tester. All 3 setups consisted of the same pain tests in the same order, including pressure pain threshold and cold pressor tests. We found no statistically significant differences between setups on the primary outcome of conditioned pain modulation nor any secondary QST outcomes. While this study is not without limitations, the results indicate that QST procedures are robust enough not to be influenced by social interaction to an appreciable degree.

Validity of the Central Sensitization Inventory to Address Human Assumed Central Sensitization: Newly Proposed Clinically Relevant Values and Associations

Central sensitization cannot be directly demonstrated in humans and thus a gold standard is missing. Therefore, we used human assumed central sensitization (HACS) when associated with humans. The central sensitization inventory (CSI) is a screening questionnaire for addressing symptoms that are associated with HACS. This cross-sectional study compared patients with chronic pain and at least one central sensitivity syndrome with healthy, pain-free controls via ROC analyses. Analyses were performed for all participants together and for each sex separately. Regression analyses were performed on patients with chronic pain with and without central sensitivity syndromes. Based on 1730 patients and 250 healthy controls, cutoff values for the CSI for the total group were established at 30 points: women: 33 points; men: 25 points. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify possible predictors for the CSI score in 2890 patients with chronic pain. The CSI score is associated with all independent factors and has a low association with pain severity in women and a low association with pain severity, age, and body mass index in men. The newly established CSI cutoff values are lower than in previous studies and different per sex, which might be of clinical relevance in daily practice and importance in research.

Mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for patients with chronic primary low back pain: protocol for a mechanistic randomised placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Identifying subgroups of patients afflicted with CLBP is a current research priority, for which a classification system based on pain mechanisms was proposed. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the management of CLBP. Yet, little data are available regarding its mechanisms of action, making it difficult to match this intervention to the patients who may benefit the most. It was suggested that SMT may influence mechanisms associated with central sensitisation. Therefore, classifying patients with CLBP according to central sensitisation mechanisms may help predict their response to SMT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes a randomised placebo-controlled trial aiming to examine which variables linked to central sensitisation may help predict the clinical response to SMT in a cohort of patients with CLBP. One hundred patients with chronic primary low back pain will be randomised to receive 12 sessions of SMT or placebo SMT over a 4-week period. Pain intensity and disability will be assessed as primary outcomes after completing the 4-week treatment (primary endpoint), and at 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. Baseline values of two pain questionnaires, lumbar pressure pain thresholds, concentrations of an inflammatory cytokine and expectations of pain relief will be entered as predictors of the response to SMT in a multiple regression model. Changes in these variables after treatment will be used in a second multiple regression model. The reference values of these predictors will be measured from 50 age and sex-matched healthy controls to allow interpretation of values in patients. Mixed analyses of variance will also be conducted to compare the primary outcomes and the predictors between groups (SMT vs placebo) over time (baseline vs post-treatment).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by the Fundación Jiménez Díaz Clinical Research Ethics Committee.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05162924.

Association between Experimental Pain Measurements and the Central Sensitization Inventory in Patients at Least 3 Months after COVID-19 Infection: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study

Fatigue, pain, headache, brain fog, anosmia, ageusia, mood symptoms, and sleep disorders are symptoms commonly experienced by people with post-COVID-19 condition. These symptoms could be considered as manifestations of central sensitization. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether there are indicators of central sensitization by using experimental pain measurements and to determine their association with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A cross-sectional study including 42 patients after COVID-19 infection was conducted. The central sensitization inventory (CSI) was administered as a PROM to evaluate central-sensitization-associated symptoms. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT), temporal summation, and descending nociceptive pain inhibition (CPM) were assessed as experimental pain measurements. The median score on the CSI was 46.5 (Q1-Q3: 33-54). The presence of central-sensitization-associated symptoms was seen in 64.3% of patients based on the CSI (≥40/100 points). A deficient CPM was seen in 12% and 14% of patients when measured at the trapezius and rectus femoris, respectively. A negative correlation between pressure sensitivity on the rectus femoris and the CSI score (r = -0.36, 95%CI -0.13 to -0.65, p = 0.007) was observed. Central-sensitization-associated symptoms were present in up to 64.3% of patients post-COVID-19 infection, based on a PROM, i.e., the CSI. A more objective evaluation of nociceptive processing through experimental pain measurements was less suggestive of indicators of central sensitization. Only a small negative correlation between pressure sensitivity and the CSI was observed, thereby pointing towards the discrepancy between the CSI and experimental pain measurements and presumably the complementary need for both to evaluate potential indicators of central sensitization in this population.

Pressure pain thresholds in a real-world chiropractic setting: topography, changes after treatment, and clinical relevance?

BACKGROUND

Changes in pain sensitivity are a commonly suggested mechanism for the clinical effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Most research has examined pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and has primarily been conducted in controlled experimental setups and on asymptomatic populations. Many important factors are likely to differ between research and clinical settings, which may affect PPT changes following SMT. Therefore, we planned to investigate PPT before and after clinical chiropractic care and investigate relationships with various potentially clinically-relevant factors.

METHODS

We recruited participants from four Danish chiropractic clinics between May and August 2021. A total of 129 participants (72% of the invited) were included. We measured PPT at eight pre-determined test sites (six spinal and two extra-spinal) immediately before (pre-session) and immediately after (post-session) the chiropractic consultation. We used regression analyses to investigate PPT changes, including the following factors: (i) vertebral distance to the nearest SMT site, (ii) rapid clinical response, (iii) baseline PPT, (iv) number of SMTs performed, (v) at the region of clinical pain compared to other regions, and (vi) if other non-SMT treatment was provided. We also performed topographic mapping of pre-session PPTs.

RESULTS

After the consultation, there was a non-significant mean increase in PPT of 0.14 kg (95% CIs = - 0.01 to 0.29 kg). No significant associations were found with the distance between the PPT test site and nearest SMT site, the clinical response of participants to treatment, the pre-session PPT, the total number of SMTs performed, or the region/s of clinical pain. A small increase was observed if myofascial treatment was also provided. Topographic mapping found greater pre-session PPTs in a caudal direction, not affected by the region/s of clinical pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of real-world chiropractic patients failed to demonstrate a substantial local or generalized increase in PPT following a clinical encounter that included SMT. This runs counter to prior laboratory research and questions the generalizability of highly experimental setups investigating the effect of SMT on PPT to clinical practice.