Genetic variation in catechol‐O‐methyltransferase is associated with individual differences in conditioned pain modulation in healthy subjects

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga A. Korczeniewska ◽  
Fengshen Kuo ◽  
Ching‐Yu Huang ◽  
Cibele Nasri‐Heir ◽  
Junad Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Variation ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation

scholarly journals Cerebral responses and role of the prefrontal cortex in conditioned pain modulation: an fMRI study in healthy subjects

2015 ◽  
Vol 281 ◽  
pp. 187-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volodymyr B. Bogdanov ◽  
Alessandro Viganò ◽  
Quentin Noirhomme ◽  
Olena V. Bogdanova ◽  
Nathalie Guy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Fmri Study

The effect of a mental stressor on conditioned pain modulation in healthy subjects

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristian B. Nilsen ◽  
Sunniva E. Christiansen ◽  
Line B. Holmen ◽  
Trond Sand
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Mental Stress ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Pain Threshold ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Heat Pain ◽  
Stressful Task ◽  
Medically Unexplained

AbstractBackground and purposeIn animal studies, enhanced sensitivity to painful stimuli succeeding chronic stress has been reported, while acute stress is reported to induce analgesia. Human studies on the effect of mental stress on pain are more equivocal. A disturbed stress-response resulting in an increased sensitivity to painful stimuli has also been discussed as a potential mechanism for e.g., the fibromyalgia syndrome. Endogenous analgesia may be studied in humans by measuring the analgesic effect of heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation. In neurophysiological animal studies this phenomenon was originally denoted “diffuse noxious inhibitory controls” (DNIC), but for human studies it has been suggested to use the term conditioned pain modulation (CPM).The clinical relevance of aberrances in CPM is not clear. Inhibitory CPM is reported as being reduced in several medically unexplained syndromes with musculoskeletal pain aggravated by mental stress. However, whether the reported reduced CPM effects are causally related to clinical pain is unknown.In the present study the effect of a mental stressor on CPM is studied.MethodsWith tourniquet-induced pain as the conditioning stimulus we estimated the CPM effect in twenty healthy subjects. Heat pain threshold (HPT), supra-threshold heat pain level (SHPL) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) were used as test stimuli. Measurements were performed at baseline, after a stressful task and after a non-stressful task presented in a blinded cross-over design. We used repeated-measures ANOVAs in the analysis with simple contrasts for post hoc analysis.ResultsWith a ANOVA repeated measures model we found a significant task effect (F = 18.5, p ≤ 0.001), indicating that CPM was successfully induced. In our ANOVA model, we found a significant effect of stress in the contrast analysis (F = 5.2, p = 0.037), indicating that CPM was affected by the stressful task. The effects on PPT could not be analyzed due to a significant carry-over effect (for PPT only).ConclusionsIn the present blinded crossover study, we found a significant small to medium inhibitory effect of mental stress upon the CPM of thermal pain.ImplicationsOur results suggest that previously reported reduced inhibitory CPM in several medically unexplained syndromes with musculoskeletal pain aggravated by mental stress possibly can be related to confounding or clinically relevant stress level differences. However, the result might be modality-specific. Further studies in patients are obviously needed, and the impact of mental stress on CPM should be investigated also with other stressors.

Modulation of offset analgesia in patients with chronic pain and healthy subjects – a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Boye Larsen ◽  
Xenia Jørgensen Uth ◽  
Lars Arendt-Nielsen ◽  
Kristian Kjær Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Current Systematic Review

Abstract Objectives Offset analgesia (OA) induces a brief pain inhibition and studies suggest OA impairment in patients with chronic pain when compared to healthy subjects. Conditioned pain modulation remains the most studied descending pain inhibitory control mechanism and is modulated by centrally-acting analgesics. Since OA may be mediated by similar neural substrates as conditioned pain modulation, understanding if OA is a peripheral or central proxy of pain modulation is important. The modulatory effect of centrally-acting drugs on OA in healthy and chronic pain populations has not yet been systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed, and this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify studies employing interventions for modulating OA magnitude. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library yielded 146 records of which 11 (172 healthy pain-free subjects, 106 chronic pain patients) were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and 10 for meta-analysis on overall modulatory effect of interventions on OA, and subgroup analysis of patients and healthy pain-free subjects. Results Risk of bias was evident for study participation and study confounding in the included studies. Several different methods for assessing and calculating OA magnitude were identified, which may affect interpretability of findings and warrants standardization. The meta-analysis showed no modulatory effects on OA overall (standardized mean difference (SMD) [95%CI]: 0.04 [−0.22, 0.30], Z=0.29, p=0.77), or in the subgroup analysis for patients (SMD [95%CI]: −0.04 [−0.63, 0.71], Z=0.13, p=0.90) or healthy pain-free subjects (SMD [95%CI]: 0.01 [−0.21, 0.24], Z=0.11, p=0.91). Moderate to substantial heterogeneity was found for the overall analysis (I2=47%, p=0.03) and patient subgroup analysis (I2=75%, p=0.003). Conclusions The current systematic review and meta-analysis conclude that centrally-acting drugs and exercise do not influence OA. Evidence on the peripheral contribution to OA response requires further investigations. Preclinical models of OA should be established to identify the neurophysiology and -biology behind OA.

EPV 13. Pain-related evoked potentials depict the effect of conditioned pain modulation in healthy subjects

2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (9) ◽  
pp. e218-e219
Author(s):  
O. Höffken ◽  
Î. Özgül ◽  
E. Enax-Krumova ◽  
M. Tegenthoff ◽  
C. Maier
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation

scholarly journals Inter-Individual Differences Explain More Variance in Conditioned Pain Modulation Than Age, Sex and Conditioning Stimulus Intensity Combined

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1186
Author(s):  
Philipp Graeff ◽  
Alina Itter ◽  
Katharina Wach ◽  
Ruth Ruscheweyh
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Conditioning Stimulus ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Mixed Effect Models ◽  
Endogenous Pain Modulation

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) describes the reduction in pain evoked by a test stimulus (TS) when presented together with a heterotopic painful conditioning stimulus (CS). CPM has been proposed to reflect inter-individual differences in endogenous pain modulation, which may predict susceptibility for acute and chronic pain. Here, we aimed to estimate the relative variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences compared to age, sex, and CS physical and pain intensity. We constructed linear and mixed effect models on pooled data from 171 participants of several studies, of which 97 had repeated measures. Cross-sectional analyses showed no significant effect of age, sex or CS intensity. Repeated measures analyses revealed a significant effect of CS physical intensity (p = 0.002) but not CS pain intensity (p = 0.159). Variance decomposition showed that inter-individual differences accounted for 24% to 34% of the variance in CPM while age, sex, and CS intensity together explained <3% to 12%. In conclusion, the variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences largely exceeds that of commonly considered factors such as age, sex and CS intensity. This may explain why predictive capability of these factors has had conflicting results and suggests that future models investigating them should account for inter-individual differences.

Cardiovascular influences on conditioned pain modulation

Pain ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 154 (8) ◽  
pp. 1377-1382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Chalaye ◽  
Laurent Devoize ◽  
Sylvie Lafrenaye ◽  
Radhouane Dallel ◽  
Serge Marchand
Keyword(s):  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document