No relevant differences in conditioned pain modulation effects between parallel and sequential test design. A cross-sectional observational study

Differences in the organization of the primary motor cortex in people with and without low back pain and associations with motor control and sensory tests

Differences in organization of the primary motor cortex and altered trunk motor control (sensing, processing and motor output) have been reported in people with low back pain (LBP). Little is known to what extent these differences are related. We investigated differences in 1) organization of the primary motor cortex and 2) motor and sensory tests between people with and without LBP, and 3) investigated associations between the organization of the primary motor cortex and motor and sensory tests. We conducted a case-control study in people with (N=25) and without (N=25) LBP. The organization of the primary motor cortex (Center of Gravity (CoG) and Area of the cortical representation of trunk muscles) was assessed using neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, based on individual MRIs. Sensory tests (quantitative sensory testing, graphaesthesia, two-point discrimination threshold) and a motor test (spiral-tracking test) were assessed. Participants with LBP had a more lateral and lower location of the CoG and a higher temporal summation of pain. For all participants combined, better vibration test scores were associated with a more anterior, lateral, and lower CoG and a better two-point discrimination threshold was associated with a lower CoG. A small subset of variables showed significance. Although this aligns with the concept of altered organization of the primary motor cortex in LBP, there is no strong evidence of the association between altered organization of the primary motor cortex and motor and sensory test performance in LBP. Focusing on subgroup analyses regarding pain duration can be a topic for future research.

CPM-Related Mechanisms Could Play a Key Role in the Effects on Pain Sensitivity Induced by Manual Therapy: Three Crossover Trials Investigating the Effects of Manual Pressure

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess whether pain-inducing manual pressure (PIMP) leads to effects on pressure pain threshold (PPT) mediated by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and whether these effects are influenced by the intensity and repetition of the stimulus. Additionally, the influence of psychological factors and physical activity on the response to PIMP was explored. Methods: A total of 72 pain-free students were randomly assigned to three crossover trials. Trial 1 compared the effects of PIMP with the cold pressor task and pain-inducing electrostimulation. Trial 2 compared the effects of manual pressure that elicited moderate pain, mild pain, and no pain. Trial 3 compared a single PIMP stimulation with four stimuli applied at the same site or at different sites. Results: PIMP produced a lower increase in PPT than cold pressor task and no difference with electrostimulation. Manual pressure that caused moderate pain led to a greater increase in PPT compared to mild pain and pain-free application. Repetition of PIMP stimulus, whether at the same or different sites, did not significantly increase PPT compared to a single stimulation. No association with psychological factors or physical activity was found. Conclusions: PIMP produces an increase in PPT, suggesting the involvement of CPM-related mechanisms.

Exercise induced hypoalgesia during different intensities of a dynamic resistance exercise: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Exercise produces an immediate lessening of pain sensitivity (Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia (EIH)) in healthy individuals at local and distant sites, possibly through a shared mechanism with conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Dynamic resistance exercise is a recommended type of exercise to reduce pain, yet limited research has examined the effects of intensity on EIH during this type of exercise. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to compare changes in PPT at a local and distant site during a leg extension exercise at a high intensity, a low intensity, or a quiet rest condition. A secondary purpose is to examine if CPM changes after each intervention. The final purpose is to examine if baseline pain sensitivity measures are correlated with response to each intervention.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial of 60 healthy participants, participants completed baseline pain sensitivity testing (heat pain threshold, temporal summation, a cold pressor test as measure of CPM) and were randomly assigned to complete a knee extension exercise at: 1) high intensity (75% of a 1 Repetition Maximum (RM), 2) low intensity (30% 1RM), or 3) Quiet Rest. PPT was measured between each set at a local (quadriceps) and distant (trapezius) site during the intervention. CPM was then repeated after the intervention. To test the first purpose of the study, a three-way ANOVA examined for time x site x intervention interaction effects. To examine for changes in CPM by group, a mixed-model ANOVA was performed. Finally, a Pearson Correlation examined the association between baseline pain sensitivity and response to each intervention.

RESULTS

Time x site x intervention interaction effects were not significant (F(5.3, 150.97) = 0.87, p = 0.51, partial eta2 = 0.03). CPM did not significantly change after the interventions (time x intervention F(1,38) = 0.81, p = 0.37, partial eta2 = 0.02. EIH effects at the quadriceps displayed a significant, positive moderate association with baseline HPT applied over the trapezius (r = 0.61, p<0.01) and TS (r = 0.46, p = 0.04).

DISCUSSION

In healthy participants, PPT and CPM did not significantly differ after a leg extension exercise performed at a high intensity, low intensity, or quiet rest condition. It is possible pre-intervention CPM testing with a noxious stimuli may have impaired inhibitory effects frequently observed during exercise but future research would need to examine this hypothesis.

Conditioned Pain Modulation and Temporal Summation of Pain in Patients With Traumatic and Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In patients with neck pain, it is unclear whether pain inhibition and facilitation endogenous pain mechanisms are altered. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to improve their understanding by assessing conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in patients with neck pain associated with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or of a nonspecific neck pain (NSNP) nature compared to pain-free controls. Very low certainty evidence suggests: impaired CPM when assessed remotely in chronic WAD patients (n = 7, 230 patients and 204 controls, standardized mean differences (SMD) = -.47 [-.89 to -.04]; P = .04) but not locally (n = 6, 155 patients and 150 controls; SMD = -.34 [-.68 to .01]; P = .05), impaired CPM in chronic NSNP patients when assessed locally (n = 5, 223 patients and 162 controls; SMD = -.55 [-1.04 to -.06]; P = .04) but not remotely (n = 3, 72 patients and 66 controls; SMD = -.33 [-.92 to .25]; P = .13), TSP not facilitated in either chronic WAD (local TSP: n = 4, 90 patients and 87 controls; SMD = .68 [-.62 to 1.99]) (remote TSP: n = 8, 254 patients and 214 controls; SMD = .18 [-.12 to .48]) or chronic NSNP (local TSP: n = 2, 139 patients and 92 controls; SMD = .21 [-1.00 to 1.41]), (remote TSP: n = 3; 91 patients and 352 controls; SMD = .60 [-1.33 to 2.52]). The evidence is very uncertain whether CPM is impaired and TSP facilitated in patients with WAD and NSNP. PERSPECTIVE: This review and meta-analysis present the current evidence on CPM and TSP in patients with WAD and NSNP. Standardization of measurement methodology is needed to draw clear conclusions. Subsequently, future studies should investigate the clinical relevance of these measurements as prognostic variables or predictors of treatment success.

Concurrent validity of dynamic bedside quantitative sensory testing paradigms in breast cancer survivors with persistent pain

BACKGROUND

Studies on the concurrent validity of clinically applicable testing protocols for conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with persistent pain are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the concurrent validity of two bedside protocols for CPM and TSP in comparison to a respective reference protocol. The participants' preferences for bedside CPM and TSP protocols were assessed.

METHODS

Thirty BCS experiencing persistent pain were included in this study. Each participant underwent a reference test along with two bedside alternatives for assessing both TSP and CPM. For CPM, a cold pressor test (CPT) and blood pressure cuff (BPC) were used as conditioning stimulus. The test stimulus was elicited in parallel by pressure pain threshold after 45 and 90 s of conditioning at the lower limb. The CPM reference test consisted of parallel heat stimuli at the forearms using a two-thermode system. TSP was elicited using a von Frey monofilament (256 mN) and an algometer (98 kPa) at the affected site and opposite lower limb. The TSP reference test consisted of heat stimuli at the affected site and opposite lower limb. Participants' testing preference was examined using a purpose-designed questionnaire. Spearman's rank test examined the correlation between protocols.

RESULTS

The two bedside CPM protocols were strongly correlated (r = 0.787-0.939, p < 0.005). A strong correlation was found between the BPC protocol and reference test using the relative effect magnitude (r = 0.541-0.555, p < 0.005). The bedside TSP protocols were moderately correlated with each other only at the lower limb using absolute change scores (r = 0.455, p = 0.012). No significant correlation was found between the bedside and reference TSP protocols.

CONCLUSION

The significantly moderate to very strong correlations between the bedside protocols validate their interchangeability. Researchers and clinicians should be able to choose which bedside protocol they utilize; however, participants favored the use of a BPC and algometer for the evaluation of CPM and TSP, respectively.

Sensory Profiling in Classical Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: A Case-Control Study Revealing Pain Characteristics, Somatosensory Changes, and Impaired Pain Modulation

Pain is one of the most important yet poorly understood complaints in heritable connective tissue disorders (HCTDs) caused by monogenic defects in extracellular matrix molecules. This is particularly the case for the Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), paradigm collagen-related disorders. This study aimed to identify the pain signature and somatosensory characteristics in the rare classical type of EDS (cEDS) caused by defects in type V or rarely type I collagen. We used static and dynamic quantitative sensory testing and validated questionnaires in 19 individuals with cEDS and 19 matched controls. Individuals with cEDS reported clinically relevant pain/discomfort (Visual Analogue Scale ≥5/10 in 32% for average pain intensity the past month) and worse health-related quality of life. An altered somatosensory profile was found in the cEDS group with higher (P = .04) detection thresholds for vibration stimuli at the lower limb, indicating hypoesthesia, reduced thermal sensitivity with more (P < .001) paradoxical thermal sensations (PTSs), and hyperalgesia with lower pain thresholds to mechanical (P < .001) stimuli at both the upper and lower limbs and cold (P = .005) stimulation at the lower limb. Using a parallel conditioned pain modulation paradigm, the cEDS group showed significantly smaller antinociceptive responses (P-value .005-.046) suggestive of impaired endogenous pain modulation. In conclusion, individuals with cEDS report chronic pain and worse health-related quality of life and present altered somatosensory perception. This study is the first to systematically investigate pain and somatosensory characteristics in a genetically defined HCTD and provides interesting insights into the possible role of the ECM in the development and persistence of pain. PERSPECTIVE: Chronic pain compromises the quality of life in individuals with cEDS. Moreover, an altered somatosensory perception was found in the cEDS group with hypoesthesia for vibration stimuli, more PTSs, hyperalgesia for pressure stimuli, and impaired pain modulation.

Sensory profiling in classical Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a case-control study revealing pain characteristics, somatosensory changes, and impaired pain modulation

Pain is one of the most important, yet poorly understood complaints in heritable connective tissue disorders (HCTD) caused by monogenic defects in extracellular matrix molecules. This is particularly the case for Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS), paradigm collagen-related disorders. This study aimed to identify the pain signature and somatosensory characteristics in the rare classical type of EDS (cEDS) caused by defects in type V or rarely type I collagen. We used static and dynamic quantitative sensory testing and validated questionnaires in 19 individuals with cEDS and 19 matched controls. Individuals with cEDS reported clinically relevant pain/discomfort (VAS ≥5/10 in 32% for average pain intensity the past month) and worse health -related quality of life. Altered sensory profile was found in the cEDS group with higher (p=0.04) detection thresholds for vibration stimuli at the lower limb indicating hypoesthesia, reduced thermal sensitivity with more (p<0.001) paradoxical thermal sensations, and hyperalgesia with lower pain thresholds to mechanical (p<0.001) stimuli at both the upper and lower limbs and to cold (p=0.005) stimulation at the lower limb. Using a parallel conditioned pain paradigm, the cEDS group showed significantly smaller antinociceptive responses (p-value between 0.005 and 0.046) suggestive of impaired endogenous central pain modulation. In conclusion, Individuals with cEDS report chronic pain and worse health-related quality of life, and present altered somatosensory perception. This study is the first to systematically investigate pain and somatosensory characteristics in a genetically defined HCTD and provides interesting insights on the possible role of the ECM in the development and persistence of pain.

Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study

Background

Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type.

Methods

Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC_1,1).

Results

Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC_1,1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers.

Conclusions

Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.

Associations between primary motor cortex organization, motor control and sensory tests during the clinical course of low back pain. A protocol for a cross-sectional and longitudinal case-control study

Background

In people with low back pain (LBP), altered motor control has been related to reorganization of the primary motor cortex (M1). Sensory impairments in LBP have also been suggested to be associated with reorganization of M1. Little is known about reorganization of M1 over time in people with LBP, and whether it relates to changes in motor control and sensory impairments and recovery. This study aims to investigate 1) differences in organization of M1 of trunk muscles between people with and without LBP, and whether the organization of M1 relates to motor control and sensory impairments (cross-sectional component) and 2) reorganization of M1 over time and its relation with changes in motor control and sensory impairments and experienced recovery (longitudinal component).

Methods

A case-control study with a cross-sectional and five-week longitudinal component is conducted in participants with LBP (N = 25) and participants without LBP (N = 25). Participants with LBP received usual care physiotherapy. Various tests were administered at baseline and follow-up. Following an anatomical MRI, organization of M1 (Center of Gravity and Area of the cortical representation of trunk muscles) was determined using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Quantitative sensory testing, a spiral-tracking motor control test, graphesthesia, two-point discrimination threshold and various self-reported questionnaires were also assessed. Multivariate multilevel analysis will be used for statistical analysis.

Conclusion

We will address the gaps in knowledge about the association between reorganization of M1 and motor control and sensory tests during the clinical course of LBP. This study is registered at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5C8ZG.

•

We assess relations between the organization of M1 and motor and sensory tests.

•

This study provides insight in the organization of M1 in LBP in relation to recovery.

•

The organization of M1 is assessed via TMS.

•

We used whole-brain MRI's for high accuracy of representation of muscles on M1.

•

We will use multivariate mixed model analysis to relate M1, motor and sensory tests.

Inter-subject variability of pleasant pain relief using a data-driven approach in healthy volunteers

Background

The offset of a painful and unpleasant sensation can elicit pleasure. This phenomenon, namely pleasant pain relief (PPR), is attracting growing interest in research. While the cold pressor test (CPT) has been frequently used to study the inhibition of pain by the administration of another painful stimulation (inhibitory conditioned pain modulation; ICPM), a preliminary study from our research team has shown that CPT can also elicit a robust and long-lasting PPR. However, its effects on pain relief and inhibition vary greatly between subjects. Although substantial research has been carried out on inter-individual variability in the case of ICPM, the same cannot be said of PPR. Therefore, the current study sought to identify clusters of healthy volunteers with similar dynamic pain responses during the CPT, using a data-driven approach, and to investigate the inter-subject variability for PPR and ICPM.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-two healthy volunteers were recruited. A sequential ICPM paradigm was carried out with CPT (water at 10°C) and a Peltier Thermode to evaluate pain intensity and unpleasantness. Moreover, PPR was measured for four minutes at CPT offset. Statistical analyses were performed using group-based trajectory modelling.

Results

Four trajectories (groups) were identified for CPT pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings with varying levels of tonic pain and pain sensitization (e.g., temporal summation). PPR scores were correlated with both pain ratings trajectories (p &lt; 0.001). On the other hand, no differences were found between groups regarding ICPM efficacy (percentage pain inhibition).

Discussion

This study has provided a first step into the investigation of PPR and ICPM interindividual variability. Using a data-driven approach, it was shown that PPR at CPT offset differs between clusters of participants identified based on dynamic pain intensity and unpleasantness responses from CPT. Thus, it was brought to light that both the levels of tonic pain and pain sensitization underlie individual differences in PPR. The lack of correlation between CPT pain trajectories and ICPM efficacy may be explained by the hypotheses that eliciting ICPM requires only a certain threshold of stimulation which doesn’t need to be noxious. In the future, studies on the inter-subject variability of PPR in large samples of chronic pain patients are warranted.

The influence of exercise on clinical pain and pain mechanisms in patients with subacromial pain syndrome

Background

Few studies have investigated the underlying mechanisms for unilateral subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). Therefore, this study examined (1) if 8‐weeks of exercise could modulate clinical pain or temporal summation of pain (TSP), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and exercise‐induced hypoalgesia (EIH) and (2) if any of these parameters could predict the effect of 8‐weeks of exercise in patients with unilateral SAPS.

Methods

Thirty‐seven patients completed a progressive abduction exercise program every other day for 8‐weeks. Worst shoulder pain in full abduction was rated on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Pain pressure thresholds (PPTs), TSP, CPM, EIH, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), PainDETECT questionnaire (PD‐Q), Pain Self‐Efficacy Questionnaire (PSE‐Q) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were assessed before and after intervention.

Results

The intervention improved worst pain intensity (p < 0.001), increased the CPM (p < 0.001), improved the sleep scores (p < 0.005) and reduced the PainDETECT ratings (p < 0.001). No changes were observed in PPT, TSP, EIH, SPADI, PCS and PSE‐Q (all p > 0.05). In a linear regression, the combination of all baseline parameters predicted 23.2% variance in absolute change in pain after 8 weeks. Applying backwards elimination to the linear regression yielded that baseline pain intensity combined with TSP predicted 33.8% variance.

Conclusion

This explorative study suggested reduction in pain, improved sleep quality and increased CPM after 8‐weeks of exercise. Furthermore, the results suggests that low pain intensity and high TSP scores (indicative for pain sensitisation) may predict a lack of pain improvement after exercise.