The Potential Clinical Utility of Pressure-Based vs. Heat-Based Paradigms to Measure Conditioned Pain Modulation in Healthy Individuals and Those With Chronic Pain

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a physiological measure thought to reflect an individual's endogenous pain modulation system. CPM varies across individuals and provides insight into chronic pain pathophysiology. There is growing evidence that CPM may help predict individual pain treatment outcome. However, paradigm variabilities and practical issues have impeded widespread clinical adoption of CPM assessment. This study aimed to compare two CPM paradigms in people with chronic pain and healthy individuals. A total of 30 individuals (12 chronic pain, 18 healthy) underwent two CPM paradigms. The heat CPM paradigm acquired pain intensity ratings evoked by a test stimulus (TS) applied before and during the conditioning stimulus (CS). The pressure CPM paradigm acquired continuous pain intensity ratings of a gradually increasing TS, before and during CS. Pain intensity was rated from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable); Pain50 is the stimulus level for a response rated 50. Heat and pressure CPM were calculated as a change in TS pain intensity ratings at Pain50, where negative CPM scores indicate pain inhibition. We also determined CPM in the pressure paradigm as change in pressure pain detection threshold (PDT). We found that in healthy individuals the CPM effect was significantly more inhibitory using the pressure paradigm than the heat paradigm. The pressure CPM effect was also significantly more inhibitory when based on changes at Pain50 than at PDT. However, in individuals with chronic pain there was no significant difference in pressure CPM compared to heat or PDT CPM. There was no significant correlation between clinical pain measures (painDETECT and Brief Pain Inventory) and paradigm type (heat vs. pressure), although heat-based CPM and painDETECT scores showed a trend. Importantly, the pressure paradigm could be administered in less time than the heat paradigm. Thus, our study indicates that in healthy individuals, interpretation of CPM findings should consider potential modality-dependent effects. However, in individuals with chronic pain, either heat or pressure paradigms can similarly be used to assess CPM. Given the practical advantages of the pressure paradigm (e.g., short test time, ease of use), we propose this approach to be well-suited for clinical adoption.

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

Background Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is measured by comparing pain induced by a test stimulus with pain induced by the same test stimulus, either during (parallel design) or after (sequential design) the conditioning stimulus. Whether design, conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection affect CPM remains unclear. Methods CPM effects were evaluated in healthy participants (N = 89) at the neck, forearm and lower leg using the cold pressor test as the conditioning stimulus. In three separate experiments, we compared the impact of (1) design (sequential versus parallel), (2) conditioning stimulus intensity (VAS 40/100 versus VAS 60/100), and (3) test stimulus selection (single versus dual, i.e., mechanical and thermal). Statistical analyses of the main effect of design (adjusted for order) and experiment were conducted using linear mixed models with random intercepts. Results No significant differences were identified in absolute CPM data. In relative CPM data, a sequential design resulted in a slightly lower CPM effect compared to a parallel design, and only with a mechanical test stimulus at the neck (−6.1%; 95% CI [−10.1 to −2.1]) and lower leg (−5.9%; 95% CI [−11.7 to −0.1]) but not forearm (−4.5%; 95% CI [−9.0 to 0.1]). Conditioning stimulus intensity and test stimulus selection did not influence the CPM effect nor the difference in CPM effects derived from parallel versus sequential designs. Conclusions Differences in CPM effects between protocols were minimal or absent. A parallel design may lead to a minimally higher relative CPM effect when using a mechanical test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus intensities assessed in this study and performing two test stimuli did not substantially influence the differences between designs nor the magnitude of the CPM effect.

Conditioned Pain Modulation Is Not Impaired in Individuals with Frozen Shoulder: A Case-Control Study

Frozen shoulder (FS) is a poorly understood condition resulting in substantial shoulder pain and mobility deficits. The mechanisms behind FS are not yet fully understood, but, similar to other persistent pain states, central pain mechanisms may contribute to ongoing symptoms in this population. The objective of this research was to investigate conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in people with FS compared with pain-free individuals. A total of 64 individuals with FS and 64 healthy volunteers participated in this cross-sectional study. CPM was assessed by using the pressure pain threshold (PPT) and an occlusion cuff (tourniquet test) as the test and conditioning stimulus, respectively. The absolute and percentage of change in PPT (CPM effect) as well as pain profiles (pro-nociceptive vs. anti-nociceptive) of individuals with FS and healthy controls were calculated. No significant differences in the absolute change in the PPT or CPM effect were found in people with FS compared to pain-free controls. Moreover, no between-group differences in the percentage of subjects with pro-nociceptive and anti-nociceptive pain profiles were observed. These results suggest that endogenous pain inhibition is normally functioning in people with FS. Altered central pain-processing mechanisms may thus not be a characteristic of this population.

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

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.

Development of a novel brief quantitative sensory testing protocol that integrates static and dynamic pain assessments: Test-retest performance in healthy adults

Objective Quantitative sensory testing is an expanding pain research domain with numerous clinical and research applications. There is a recognized need for brief reliable quantitative sensory testing protocols that enhance assessment feasibility. This study aimed to integrate static (pain threshold, tolerance, suprathreshold) and dynamic (conditioned pain modulation, offset analgesia, temporal summation) pain reactivity measures into a brief 20-minute protocol that uses a single portable device. The test-retest performance of this optimized protocol was evaluated. Design Using a test-retest design, the brief quantitative sensory testing assessment was administered to participants on two occasions separated by exactly 7 days. Setting A clinical psychology research laboratory at Syracuse University. Subjects Participants were 33 healthy adults recruited from Syracuse University’s online research participation pool. Methods A portable computerized quantitative sensory testing device delivered contact-heat pain to assess static and dynamic pain measures in participants. Dynamic responses were continuously recorded using a computerized visual analog scale. Results Pain threshold, tolerance, and suprathreshold exhibited excellent reliability (intraclass correlations ranged from 0.80 to 0.83). Conditioned pain modulation, offset analgesia, temporal summation yielded reliability in the good to excellent range (intraclass correlations ranged from 0.66 to 0.71). Conclusions Findings suggested that this brief integrated QST protocol may reliably monitor human pain reactivity over brief periods. This protocol may enhance quantitative sensory testing feasibility in clinical and research settings.

The effect of one dry needling session on pain, central pain processing, muscle co-contraction and gait characteristics in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives To assess the immediate and three days postintervention effect of one dry needling session compared to one sham needling session on pain, central pain processing, muscle co-contraction and spatiotemporal parameters during gait in knee osteoarthritis patients. Methods A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. Sixty-one knee osteoarthritis patients were randomly assigned to the dry needling or sham needling group. Primary outcomes were pain and central pain processing. Secondary outcomes included muscle co-contraction and spatiotemporal parameters during gait. Patients were assessed at baseline and 15 min after the intervention, and pain also three days after the intervention. Linear mixed models were used to examine between- and within-group differences. Results No significant between-group differences for pain were found, but within-group scores showed a significant decrease 15 min after sham needling and three days after dry needling. The mean conditioned pain modulation effect measured at the m. Trapezius worsened significantly 15 min after sham needling compared to after dry needling (between-group difference). However, individual conditioned pain modulation percentage scores remained stable over time. Various significant within-group differences were found 15 min after sham needling: a decrease of conditioned pain modulation measured at m. Quadriceps and m. Trapezius and stride- and step-time scores, and an increase in step length and widespread pain pressure threshold. A significant decrease in muscle co-contraction index of the m. Vastus Medialis and Semitendinosus was found as within-group difference 15 min after dry needling. Conclusions Dry needling has no larger effect on pain, central pain processing, muscle co-contraction and gait pattern 15 min and three days postintervention compared to sham needling. Mean conditioned pain modulation scores worsened after sham needling compared to after dry needling. Further research remains necessary.

Comparison of Thermal and Electrical Modalities in the Assessment of Temporal Summation of Pain and Conditioned Pain Modulation

Temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and a cold pressor test (CPT). Unfortunately, these tools are complex, expensive, and are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Building on the results from an exploratory study that attempted to use transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to measure CPM and TSP, the present study assesses whether a “new” TENS protocol can be used instead of the thermode and CPT to measure CPM and TSP. The objective of this study was to compare the thermode/CPT protocol with the new TENS protocol, by (1) measuring the association between the TSP evoked by the two protocols; (2) measuring the association between the CPM evoked by the two protocols; and by (3) assessing whether the two protocols successfully trigger TSP and CPM in a similar number of participants. We assessed TSP and CPM in 50 healthy participants, using our new TENS protocol and a thermode/CPT protocol (repeated measures and randomized order). In the TENS protocol, both the test stimulus (TS) and the conditioning stimulus (CS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode/CPT protocol, the TS was delivered using a thermode and the CS consisted of a CPT. There was no association between the response evoked by the two protocols, neither for TSP nor for CPM. The number of participants showing TSP [49 with TENS and 29 with thermode (p < 0.001)] and CPM [16 with TENS and 30 with thermode (p = 0.01)] was different in both protocols. Our results suggest that response to one modality does not predict response to the other; as such, TENS cannot be used instead of a thermode/CPT protocol to assess TSP and CPM without significantly affecting the results. Moreover, while at first glance it appears that TENS is more effective than the thermode/CPT protocol to induce TSP, but less so to induce CPM, these results should be interpreted carefully. Indeed, TSP and CPM response appear to be modality-dependent as opposed to an absolute phenomenon, and the two protocols may tap into entirely different mechanisms, especially in the case of TSP.