The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Review Meta Analysis
Assay Sensitivity of Pain Intensity Versus Pain Relief in Acute Pain Clinical Trials: ACTTION Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity. ⋯ The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Effects of Milnacipran on Clinical Pain and Hyperalgesia of Patients With Fibromyalgia: Results of a 6-Week Randomized Controlled Trial.
Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as effective therapy for fibromyalgia (FM) symptoms. However, its analgesic mechanism of action is not well understood. We hypothesized that improvement of mechanical and heat hyperalgesia would be a critical component of overall milnacipran efficacy in FM. We used a novel quantitative sensory testing protocol for assessment of mechanical and heat pain sensitivity that can be used for testing of peripheral and central pain mechanisms and their impact on clinical pain over time. We applied tonic mechanical and heat pain stimuli to 46 patients with FM during a randomized controlled trial with either 50 mg milnacipran (n = 23) or placebo (n = 23) twice daily over 6 weeks. During this trial, mean clinical pain (standard deviation) was evaluated daily, and mechanical and heat pain sensitivity every 2 weeks. At study entry, clinical pain was 5.0 (1.8) and 5.5 (1.8) visual analog scale units for patients with FM randomized to placebo and milnacipran, respectively (P > .05). Over 6 weeks, clinical pain of patients with FM significantly declined by 15%, but this improvement was not statistically different between milnacipran and placebo. However, repeated measures of mechanical and heat pain sensitivity reliably predicted up to 80% of the variance in clinical FM pain at every time point. Clinical pain and mechanical/heat pain sensitivity of patients with FM steadily declined during this trial, but the effects of milnacipran were not found to be superior to placebo. Repeated measures of mechanical/heat hyperalgesia reliably predicted large amounts of the variance in clinical pain across all participants, indicating their relevance for FM pain. ⋯ Although clinical pain and hyperalgesia decreased during this 6-week trial, the efficacy of milnacipran was not superior to placebo. The high correlations between clinical pain and hyperalgesia ratings at every time point seem to emphasize the relevant contributions of mechanical and heat hyperalgesia to clinical FM pain.
-
This study investigated the cross-cultural factor stability and internal consistency of the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R), a measure of the quality of postoperative pain management used internationally. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of APS-POQ-R data from 2 point prevalence studies comprising 268 and 311 surveys of Danish and Australian medical-surgical patients, respectively. Parallel analysis indicated 4- and 3-factor solutions for Danish and Australian patients, respectively, which accounted for 58.1% and 52.9% of variance. Internal consistency was unsatisfactory among both Danish (Cronbach α = .54) and Australian (Cronbach α = .63) cohorts. There was a high degree of between-group similarity in item-factor loadings of variables coded as "pain experience," but not "pain management." This finding reflected cross-cultural differences in ratings of treatment satisfaction. For Danish patients, satisfaction was associated with the degree of pain severity and activity interference, whereas for Australian patients, satisfaction was associated with their perceived ability to participate in treatment. To facilitate further cross-cultural comparison, we compared our findings with past research conducted in the United States and Iceland. EFA supported the construct validity of the APS-POQ-R as a measure of "pain experience" but indicated that items measuring "pain management" may vary cross-culturally. Findings highlighted the need for further validation of the APS-POQ-R internationally. ⋯ This study revealed the APS-POQ-R as a valid measure of postoperative pain experience for Danish and Australian patients. Measures of patients' perception of pain management were not robust to group differences in treatment expectations and demonstrated cross-cultural instability. Results highlighted the difficulties in establishing stable cross-cultural, cross-population subscales for the APS-POQ-R.
-
Habituation and sensitization are important features of individual sensitivity to repetitive noxious stimulation and have been investigated in numerous studies. However, it is unclear whether these phenomena vary depending on the site of stimulation. Here we compared short-term and long-term effects of painful heat stimulation on the forehead and limb using an established longitudinal heat pain paradigm performed over 8 consecutive days in 36 healthy volunteers. Participants were randomized into 2 groups; participants received repetitive heat pain stimulation either on the left volar forearm or on the left side of the forehead. Our data show a comparable degree of habituation over the course of 8 days in both groups. However, participants in the trigeminal stimulation group exhibited stronger within-session sensitization (indexed by a higher within-session increase in pain intensity ratings) than those who received the forearm stimulation. Furthermore, over the course of the experiment we found a correlation between habituation and anxiety, showing less habituation in participants with higher trait anxiety scores. Our findings are in line with somatotopic differences in response to painful stimulation and a higher proneness of trigeminal pain to sensitization processes, which might be explained by the biological relevance of the head and facial area for vital functions. The contribution of this sensitivity to the development and maintenance of clinical facial pain and headache disorders warrants further investigation. ⋯ This study uses psychophysical methods to evaluate the differences in long-term habituation and short-term sensitization to heat pain between the trigeminal and spinal systems. We found stronger sensitization for trigeminal compared with nociceptive stimuli on the forearm. The contribution of this sensitivity to clinical pain states warrants further investigation.
-
The use of placebo to reduce pain is well documented; however, knowledge of the neural mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia remains incomplete. This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 30 healthy individuals and dynamic causal modeling to investigate changes in effective connectivity associated with the placebo analgesic response. Before scanning, participants were conditioned to expect less thermal pain at 2 of 4 sites on their feet. Visual analog scale pain ratings revealed a significant but small difference between the baseline and placebo sites (mean difference = 6.63, t(29) = 3.91, P ≤ .001, d = .97), confirming an analgesic effect. However, no significant differences in the magnitude of brain activation between conditions were observed via traditional random effects general linear modeling. Dynamic causal modeling was then used to investigate changes in effective connectivity during placebo analgesia. The results indicate that during placebo analgesia but not baseline condition, couplings between brain regions, including those involved in cognitive processes (eg, attention, expectation, evaluation), were significantly enhanced. Specifically, a significantly consistent decrease in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex → periaqueductal gray coupling was found. These findings highlight the differences between pain processing and modulation at the network level. Moreover, our results suggest that small placebo effects may be better characterized via changes in the temporal dynamics among pain modulatory regions than only via changes in the magnitude of blood oxygenation level dependent activation. Further application of nuanced analytical approaches that are sensitive to temporal dynamics of pain-related processes such as dynamic causal modeling are necessary to better understand the neural mechanisms underlying pain processing in patient populations. ⋯ Changes in effective connectivity among pain-related brain regions may be more sensitive detectors of the neural representation of small placebo effects than are changes in the magnitude of brain activation. Knowledge of these mechanisms highlights the importance of integrated neural networks in the understanding of pain modulation.