Does human serotonin-1A receptor polymorphism (rs6295) code for pain and associated symptoms in fibromyalgia syndrome?

Genetic predisposition may play an important role in the development of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Serotonin is known to be involved in pain modulation and serotonin-1A receptor plays a considerable role in determining the central 5-HT tone. Consequently, variation in 5-HT1A receptor gene (HTR1A) may be responsible for inter-individual variability in pain sensitivity and other clinical symptoms of FMS. Therefore, the objectives of this research work were to study the gene polymorphism of 5-HTR1A gene and to explore the correlation between rs6295 genotype (−1019C/G HTR1A) and duration of pain, pain intensity and pain related depression and anxiety, if any, in FMS. 5-HTR1A genotype for the C(-1019)G polymorphism was typed in 62 patients with FMS and 42 healthy subjects. Present pain intensity, components of pain and pain related depression and anxiety were assessed using the numerical pain rating scale, McGill pain questionnaire and Hamilton depression and anxiety rating scale respectively. 5-HTR1A gene was represented by three different genotypes, homozygous C/C, heterozygous C/G and homozygous G/G. Analysis of the 5-HTR1A gene showed a frequency of 58%, 31% and 11% for the C/C, C/G and G/G genotypes, respectively in FMS group. This proportion was 69%, 23% and 8% in healthy subjects. No significant correlation was observed between 5-HTR1A gene polymorphism and pain and related symptoms in FMS patients. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study which investigated the correlation between the 5-HTR1A gene polymorphism and pain intensity, the affective component of pain, pain related depression and anxiety in FMS.

Download Full-text

Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

BMC Neuroscience ◽

10.1186/s12868-020-00604-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

A. T. L. Do ◽

E. K. Enax-Krumova ◽

Ö. Özgül ◽

L. B. Eitner ◽

S. Heba ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Evoked Potentials ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Cold Water ◽

Cognitive Task ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽

Cognitive Distraction ◽

Painful Sensation ◽

Back Task

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. Methods PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0–100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n = 38, analyzed: n = 23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10 °C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. Results Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6 ± 12.0 μV to 20.2 ± 9.5 μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3 ± 14.2 µV to 13.6 ± 5.2 μV, p < 0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58 ± 4 to 41.1 ± 12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3 ± 4.4 to 38.0 ± 13.0, p < 0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p = 0.001). Conclusions CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

Download Full-text

Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

10.21203/rs.3.rs-26882/v4 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

A. T. Lisa Do ◽

Elena Enax-Krumova ◽

Özüm Özgül ◽

Lynn B. Eitner ◽

Stefanie Heba ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Evoked Potentials ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Cold Water ◽

Cognitive Task ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽

Cognitive Distraction ◽

Painful Sensation ◽

Back Task

Abstract BackgroundConditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. MethodsPCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0-100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n=38, analyzed: n=23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10°C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. ResultsBoth CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6±12.0μV to 20.2±9.5μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3±14.2µV to 13.6±5.2μV, p<0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58±4 to 41.1±12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3±4.4 to 38.0±13.0, p<0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p=0.001).ConclusionsCPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

Download Full-text

Traditional Acupuncture and Laser Acupuncture in Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

10.21203/rs.3.rs-853159/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

RAFAELA PERON ◽

Érika Patrícia Rampazo ◽

Richard Eloin Liebano

Keyword(s):

Neck Pain ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Acupuncture Treatment ◽

Numerical Rating Scale ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Pressure Pain Threshold ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Laser Acupuncture ◽

Acupuncture Points

Abstract Background: Nonspecific neck pain is a multifactorial and very common condition in adult individuals. No reports were found in the literature comparing the effectiveness of Traditional Acupuncture (TA) and Laser Acupuncture (LA) in cases of chronic nonspecific neck pain. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of TA and LA therapies in individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain.Methods/design: This study will be a controlled and randomized clinical trial. A total of 60 individuals will be randomized into two groups (30 each). The TA group will receive the acupuncture treatment using needles, while the LA group will receive the laser acupuncture treatment. The acupuncture points (Tianzhu, Fengchi, Jianjing, and Jianzhongshu) will be stimulated bilaterally with needles or laser. The primary outcome will be pain intensity, determined using the numerical rating scale. The secondary outcomes will be pressure pain threshold, temporal summation of pain, conditioned pain modulation, use of analgesic drugs after treatment, and the global perceived effect scale. The assessments will be performed immediately before and after treatment. At the follow-up, 1 months after the end of the treatments, evaluation will be made of the pain intensity and the global perceived effect. Statistical analysis of the data obtained will consider a significance level of p < 0.05.Discussion: This study will provide evidence concerning the effects of LA treatment, in comparison to TA, leading to benefits for individuals suffering from chronic nonspecific neck pain.Trial registration: RBR-7vbw5gd (Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials - ReBEC)

Download Full-text

Fixed or adapted conditioning intensity for repeated conditioned pain modulation

Scandinavian Journal of Pain ◽

10.1016/j.sjpain.2017.04.034 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 176-176

Author(s):

M. Hoegh ◽

K.K. Petersen ◽

T. Graven-Nielsen

Keyword(s):

Pain Intensity ◽

Repeated Measures ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Cuff Pressure ◽

Detection Threshold ◽

Conditioning Stimulus ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Pain Tolerance ◽

Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽

The Difference

Abstract Aims Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is used to assess descending pain modulation through a test stimulation (TS) and a conditioning stimulation (CS). Due to potential carry-over effects, sequential CPM paradigms might alter the intensity of the CS, which potentially can alter the CPM-effect. This study aimed to investigate the difference between a fixed and adaptive CS intensity on CPM-effect. Methods On the dominant leg of 20 healthy subjects the cuff pressure detection threshold (PDT) was recorded as TS and the pain tolerance threshold (PTT) was assessed on the non-dominant leg for estimating the CS. The difference in PDT before and during CS defined the CPM-effect. The CPM-effect was assessed four times using a CS with intensities of 70% of baseline PTT (fixed) or 70% of PTT measured throughout the session (adaptive). Pain intensity of the conditioning stimulus was assessed on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA. Results No difference was found comparing the four PDTs assessed before CSs for the fixed and the adaptive paradigms. The CS pressure intensity for the adaptive paradigm was increasing during the four repeated assessments (P < 0.01). The pain intensity was similar during the fixed (NRS: 5.8±0.5) and the adjusted paradigm (NRS: 6.0±0.4). The CPM-effect was higher using the fixed condition compared with the adaptive condition (P < 0.05). Conclusions The current study found that sequential CPM paradigms using a fixed conditioning stimulus produced an increased CPM-effect compared with adaptive and increasing conditioning intensities.

Download Full-text

Interferential current and photobiomodulation in knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial

Clinical Rehabilitation ◽

10.1177/02692155211012004 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 026921552110120

Author(s):

Renata Alqualo-Costa ◽

Érika Patrícia Rampazo ◽

Gustavo Ribeiro Thome ◽

Mônica Rodrigues Perracini ◽

Richard Eloin Liebano

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Double Blind ◽

Time Points ◽

Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽

Interferential Current

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of interferential current and photobiomodulation in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Design: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Setting: Physiotherapy Clinic of City University of São Paulo. Subjects: A total of 184 patients with knee osteoarthritis were recruited and, of these, 168 were included and randomized into four groups with 42 each: interferential current, photobiomodulation, interferential current plus photobiomodulation or placebo groups. One hundred and sixty-four patients completed the study. Intervention: Patients received 12 sessions (three times a week) of treatment: 30 minutes of interferential current (active or placebo) followed by photobiomodulation (active or placebo). Main measures: Primary outcome: pain intensity at rest and during movement (numeric rating scale) after 12 sessions. Secondary outcomes: functional capacity (Timed Up & Go and Sit and Lift tests and Lequesne and WOMAC questionnaires), pressure pain threshold, conditioned pain modulation, and muscle strength production (isokinetic evaluation). Patients were assessed at baseline, after 12 sessions, and three and six months after the end of the treatment. Results: Interferential current plus photobiomodulation reduced pain intensity at rest and during movement compared to placebo and interferential current at all time points ( P < 0.05). Photobiomodulation reduced pain intensity at rest compared to placebo at all time points ( P < 0.05) and compared to interferential current at six months follow-up ( P < 0.05). Photobiomodulation reduced pain intensity during movement compared to placebo at six months follow-up ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: Interferential current plus photobiomodulation or isolated photobiomodulation improve pain intensity in knee osteoarthritis.

Download Full-text

Painful Cutaneous Electrical Stimulation vs. Heat Pain as Test Stimuli in Conditioned Pain Modulation

Brain Sciences ◽

10.3390/brainsci10100684 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (10) ◽

pp. 684

Author(s):

Elena Enax-Krumova ◽

Ann-Christin Plaga ◽

Kimberly Schmidt ◽

Özüm S. Özgül ◽

Lynn B. Eitner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Electrical Stimulation ◽

Test Stimulus ◽

Evoked Potentials ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽

Heat Pain ◽

Dominant Hand ◽

Group Level

Different paradigms can assess the effect of conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of the present study was to compare heat pain, as an often used test stimulus (TS), to painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES), having the advantage of the additional recording of PCES-related evoked potentials. In 28 healthy subjects we applied heat and PCES at the dominant hand as test stimulus (TS) to compare the CPM-effect elicited by hand immersion into cold water (10 °C) as conditioning stimulus (CS). Subjects rated the pain intensity of TS at baseline, during and 5 min after CS application and additionally of CS, on a numerical rating scale (NRS) (0–100). The ‘early’ (during CS–before CS) and ‘late’ (after CS–before CS) CPM-effects were analyzed. Parallel to the PCES, the related evoked potentials were recorded via Cz to evaluate any changes in PCES-amplitudes. CS reduced significantly the pain intensity of both PCES and heat pain as TS. On a group level, the CPM-effect did not differ significantly between both paradigms. Both early and late CPM-effect based on PCES correlated significantly with the CS pain intensity (r = −0.630 and −0.503, respectively), whereas using heat pain the correlation was not significant. We found a significant reduction of PCES-amplitudes during CS, but this did not correlate with the PCES-induced pain intensity. Correlation with the CS painfulness (r = −0.464) did not achieve the significance level after Bonferroni correction. The extent of the CPM effects was similar in both testing paradigms at group level, despite intraindividual differences. Future studies should further elicit the exact mechanisms explaining the modality of these specific differences.

Download Full-text

Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

10.21203/rs.3.rs-26882/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

A. T. Lisa Do ◽

Elena Enax-Krumova ◽

Özüm Özgül ◽

Lynn B. Eitner ◽

Stefanie Heba ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Evoked Potentials ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Cold Water ◽

Cognitive Task ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽

Cognitive Distraction ◽

Painful Sensation ◽

Back Task

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. Methods PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0-100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n=38, analyzed: n=23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10°C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. Results Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6±12.0μV to 20.2±9.5μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3±14.2µV to 13.6±5.2μV, p<0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58±4 to 41.1±12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3±4.4 to 38.0±13.0, p<0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p=0.001). Conclusions CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

Download Full-text

Distraction by a cognitive task has a higher impact on electrophysiological measures compared with conditioned pain modulation

10.21203/rs.3.rs-26882/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

A. T. Lisa Do ◽

Elena Enax-Krumova ◽

Özüm Özgül ◽

Lynn B. Eitner ◽

Stefanie Heba ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Evoked Potentials ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Cold Water ◽

Cognitive Task ◽

Pain Modulation ◽

Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽

Cognitive Distraction ◽

Painful Sensation ◽

Back Task

Abstract Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the effect of a painful conditioning stimulus (CS) on a painful test stimulus (TS). Using painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) as TS and painful cold water as CS, the pain relief was paralleled by a decrease in evoked potentials (PCES-EPs). We now aimed to compare the effect of CPM with cognitive distraction on PCES-induced pain and PCES-EP amplitudes. Methods PCES was performed using surface electrodes inducing a painful sensation of 60 (NRS 0-100) on one hand. In a crossover design healthy subjects (included: n=38, analyzed: n=23) immersed the contralateral hand into 10°C cold water (CS) for CPM evaluation and performed the 1-back task for cognitive distraction. Before and during the CS and 1-back task, respectively, subjects rated the pain intensity of PCES and simultaneously cortical evoked potentials were recorded. Results Both CPM and cognitive distraction significantly reduced PCES-EP amplitudes (CPM: 27.6±12.0μV to 20.2±9.5μV, cognitive distraction: 30.3±14.2µV to 13.6±5.2μV, p<0.001) and PCES-induced pain (on a 0–100 numerical rating scale: CPM: 58±4 to 41.1±12.3, cognitive distraction: 58.3±4.4 to 38.0±13.0, p<0.001), though the changes in pain intensity and PCES-amplitude did not correlate. The changes of the PCES-EP amplitudes during cognitive distraction were more pronounced than during CPM (p=0.001).Conclusions CPM and cognitive distraction reduced the PCES-induced pain to a similar extent. The more pronounced decrease of PCES-EP amplitudes after distraction by a cognitive task implies that both conditions might not represent the general pain modulatory capacity of individuals, but may underlie different neuronal mechanisms with the final common pathway of perceived pain reduction.

Download Full-text

Coping, Anxiety, and Pain Intensity in Patients Requiring Thoracic Surgery

Journal of Personalized Medicine ◽

10.3390/jpm11111221 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (11) ◽

pp. 1221

Author(s):

Elisei Moise Hasan ◽

Crenguta Livia Calma ◽

Anca Tudor ◽

Cristian Oancea ◽

Voicu Tudorache ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chest Pain ◽

Anxiety Disorder ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Coping Style ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽

Generalized Anxiety ◽

Pain Rating ◽

Numeric Pain Rating Scale ◽

Pain Rating Scale

Stress, anxiety, and post-surgical chest pain are common problems among patients with thoracic surgical pathology. The way in which psychological distress is managed—the coping style—can influence the postsurgical evolution and quality of life of patients. In our study, we monitored the influence of coping style on patients’ anxiety and the intensity of post-operative chest pain. We conducted a cross-sectional study on 90 subjects with thoracic surgical pathology. One month after their surgeries, patients completed the following scales and questionnaires, translated, adapted, and validated for the Romanian population: COPE scale inventory, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Questionnaire, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Anxiety (evaluated using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Questionnaire) and postoperative thoracic pain intensity (evaluated by means of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Number of Words Chosen, and McGill Pain Questionnaire) were significantly higher in patients exhibiting social-focused coping than in patients presenting emotion-focused or problem-focused coping as their main coping style (Kruskal–Wallis, p = 0.028, p = 0.022, p = 0.042, p = 0.007). In our study, there were no differences observed in pain intensity relative to level of anxiety. Coping style is an important concept in the management of anxiety and pain experienced by patients undergoing chest surgery. Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach should be considered in clinical practice.

Download Full-text