RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare nociceptive event-related brain potentials elicited by a high-speed contact-thermode vs an infrared CO2 laser stimulator. METHODS: Contact heat-evoked potentials (CHEPs) and CO2 laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) were recorded in healthy volunteers using a high-speed contact-thermode (>200 °C/s) and a temperature-controlled CO2 laser. In separate experiments, stimuli were matched in terms of target surface temperature (55 °C) and intensity of perception. A finite-element model of skin heat transfer was used to explain observed differences. RESULTS: For 55 °C stimuli, CHEPs were reduced in amplitude and delayed in latency as compared to LEPs. For perceptually matched stimuli (CHEPs: 62 °C; LEPs: 55 °C), amplitudes were similar, but CHEPs latencies remained delayed. These differences could be explained by skin thermal inertia producing differences in the heating profile of contact vs radiant heat at the dermo-epidermal junction. CONCLUSIONS: Provided that steep heating ramps are used, and that target temperature is matched at the dermo-epidermal junction, contact and radiant laser heat stimulation elicit responses of similar magnitude. CHEPs are delayed compared to LEPs. SIGNIFICANCE: CHEPs could be used as an alternative to LEPs for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. Dedicated normative values must be used to account for differences in skin thermal transfer.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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 < 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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The development of novel analgesics to treat acute or chronic pain has been a challenge due to a lack of translatable measurements. Preclinical end points with improved translatability are necessary to more accurately inform clinical testing paradigms, which may help guide selection of viable drug candidates. METHODS: In this study, a nonhuman primate biomarker which is sensitive to standard analgesics at clinically relevant plasma concentrations, can differentiate analgesia from sedation and utilizes a protocol very similar to that which can be employed in human clinical studies is described. Specifically, acute heat stimuli were delivered to the volar forearm using a contact heat thermode in the same manner as the clinical setting. RESULTS: Clinically efficacious exposures of morphine, fentanyl, and tramadol produced robust analgesic effects, whereas doses of diazepam that produce sedation had no effect. CONCLUSION: We propose that this assay has predictive utility that can help improve the probability of success for developing novel analgesics.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The experience of psychological stress has not yet been adequately tackled with digital technology by catering to healthy individuals who wish to reduce their acute stress levels. For the design of digitally mediated solutions, physiological mechanisms need to be investigated that have the potential to induce relaxation with the help of technology. Research has shown that physiological mechanisms embodied in the face and neck regions are effective for diminishing stress-related symptoms. Our study expands on these areas with the design for a wearable in mind. As this study charts new territory in research, it also is a first evaluation of the viability for a wearables concept to reduce stress. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess whether (1) heart rate variability would increase and (2) heart rate would decrease during cold stimulation using a thermode device compared with a (nonstimulated) control condition. We expected effects in particular in the neck and cheek regions and less in the forearm area. METHODS: The study was a fully randomized, within-participant design. Volunteer participants were seated in a laboratory chair and tested with cold stimulation on the right side of the body. A thermode was placed on the neck, cheek, and forearm. We recorded and subsequently analyzed participants' electrocardiogram. The cold stimulation was applied in 16-second intervals over 4 trials per testing location. The control condition proceeded exactly like the cold condition, except we manipulated the temperature variable to remain at the baseline temperature. We measured heart rate as interbeat intervals in milliseconds and analyzed root mean square of successive differences to index heart rate variability. We analyzed data using a repeated-measures ANOVA (analysis of variance) approach with 2 repeated-measures factors: body location (neck, cheek, forearm) and condition (cold, control). RESULTS: Data analysis of 61 participants (after exclusion of outliers) showed a main effect and an interaction effect for body location and for condition, for both heart rate and heart rate variability. The results demonstrate a pattern of cardiovascular reactivity to cold stimulation, suggesting an increase in cardiac-vagal activation. The effect was significant for cold stimulation in the lateral neck area. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirmed our main hypothesis that cold stimulation at the lateral neck region would result in higher heart rate variability and lower heart rate than in the control condition. This sets the stage for further investigations of stress reduction potential in the neck region by developing a wearable prototype that can be used for cold application. Future studies should include a stress condition, test for a range of temperatures and durations, and collect self-report data on perceived stress levels to advance findings.

RESUMEN

Previous studies suggested that pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy can decrease pain. To date, however, it remains difficult to determine whether the analgesic effect observed in patients are attributable to a direct effect of PEMF on pain or to an indirect effect of PEMF on inflammation and healing. In the present study, we used an experimental pain paradigm to evaluate the direct effect of PEMF on pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and temporal summation of pain. Twenty-four healthy subjects (mean age 22 ± 2 years; 9 males) participated in the experiment. Both real and sham PEMF were administered to every participant using a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. For each visit, PEMF was applied for 10 minutes on the right forearm using a portable device. Experimental pain was evoked before (baseline) and after PEMF with a 9 cm(2) Pelletier-type thermode, applied on the right forearm (120 s stimulation; temperature individually adjusted to produce moderate baseline pain). Pain intensity and unpleasantness were evaluated using a 0-100 numerical pain rating scale. Temporal summation was evaluated by comparing pain intensity ratings obtained at the end of tonic nociceptive stimulation (120 s) with pain intensity ratings obtained after 60 s of stimulation. When compared to baseline, there was no change in pain intensity and unpleasantness following the application of real or sham PEMF. PEMF did not affect temporal summation. The present observations suggest that PEMF does not directly influence heat pain perception in healthy individuals.

Asunto(s)