| Autor: |
Rima El-Sayed, Camille Fauchon, Junseok A. Kim, Shahrzad Firouzian, Natalie R. Osborne, Ariana Besik, Emily P. Mills, Anuj Bhatia, Karen D. Davis |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2021 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Frontiers in Pain Research, Vol 2 (2021) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2673-561X |
| DOI: |
10.3389/fpain.2021.784362 |
| Popis: |
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. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
