The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society
-
Clinical observations suggest that the perceived intensity of a painful event increases as the unpredictability of its occurrence increases. We examined the effect of varying stimulus predictability on the Somatosensory Evoked Potential (SEP), Pupil Diameter Response (PDR), Pain Report (PR), and Fear Report (FR) in 25 healthy female volunteers experiencing repeated noxious fingertip shocks. Each volunteer underwent high- and low-stimulus intensities in 4 stimulus patterns defined by stimulus sequence (SEQ) and interstimulus interval (ISI) as follows: A) serial stimulus intensity SEQ with fixed ISI; B) serial stimulus intensity SEQ with varied ISI; C) random stimulus intensity SEQ with fixed ISI; and D) random stimulus intensity SEQ with varied ISI. Results revealed that: (1) lower stimulus predictability led to higher PR and FR, greater PDR magnitude, and greater SEP amplitude; and (2) the 4 dependent measures showed the same response pattern across levels of stimulus predictability. These findings support the hypothesis that lower stimulus predictability is associated with higher reported pain and fear as well as greater physiological arousal. ⋯ Patients undergoing painful procedures experience more distress when the occurrence of a painful event is unpredictable. Poor predictability increases pain, fear, and associated physiological arousal. Maximizing the predictability of painful events may improve the quality of patient care by minimizing associated levels of pain and fear.
-
Noxious mechanical stimulation evokes a complex and sustained hyperalgesic motor response after peripheral nerve injury that contrasts with a brief and simple withdrawal seen after noxious stimulation in control animals or after threshold punctate mechanical stimulation by the von Frey technique. To test which of these behaviors indicate pain, the aversiveness of the experience associated with each was determined using a passive avoidance test in rats after sciatic nerve ligation (SNL) or skin incision alone. After 18 days, step-down latency was measured during 9 sequential trials at 10-minute intervals. At each trial, rats received either no stimulus, needle stimuli, or threshold Semmes Weinstein (SW) filament stimuli after stepping down. Reactions were either a hyperalgesic response or a brief reflexive withdrawal. In SNL animals, needle stimulation produced substantial learned avoidance when animals showed hyperalgesic responses but produced minimal prolonged latency in SNL animals that showed only simple withdrawal responses. No learned avoidance developed using threshold SW testing in SNL animals. These findings show that needle stimulation is aversive in rats responding with hyperalgesic behavior. In contrast, SW stimulation, as well as needle stimulation that produced mere withdrawal, is minimally aversive. ⋯ The validity of measures of pain in animals is open to question. We demonstrated that needle stimulation is aversive in rats that respond with hyperalgesic-type behavior and is therefore a valid indicator of pain. Stimulation by SW is minimally aversive and is a problematic indicator of pain.
-
Pain catastrophizing is an important variable in the context of acute and chronic pain. The neurophysiological correlates of pain catastrophizing, however, have not been rigorously evaluated. We examined the relationship between trait-pain catastrophizing and morning salivary cortisol levels before and following a 45-minute laboratory pain-testing session in healthy, pain-free (n = 22), and temporomandibular disorder (TMD) participants (n = 39). We also examined whether TMD patients evidenced generalized hyperalgesia and hypercortisolism. Pain catastrophizing was associated with a flattened morning salivary cortisol profile in the context of pain testing, irrespective of pain status. Cortisol profiles did not differ between healthy and TMD participants. TMD was associated with mechanical hyperalgesia only at the masseter. These data are the first to show an association between pain catastrophizing and elevated salivary cortisol profiles in the context of standardized experimental pain testing. These findings in both healthy individuals and those with chronic orofacial pain suggest that aberrant adrenocortical responses to pain may serve as a neurophysiologic pathway by which pain catastrophizing enhances vulnerability for development of chronic pain and maintains and/or exaggerates existing pain and associated morbidity. ⋯ Neurophysiological mechanisms by which pain catastrophizing is related to acute and chronic pain recently have come under empirical study. Understanding of these mechanisms has the unique potential to shed light on key central-nervous-system factors that mediate catastrophizing-pain relations and therapeutic benefits associated with changes in catastrophizing and related cognitive processes.
-
Do past pain events systematically impact pain ratings of healthy subjects or fibromyalgia patients?
We previously reported that 3 different electronic visual analogue and numerical pain scales are useful in providing refined capacity to discriminate discrete levels of pain intensity. Using the same subjects and scales, we now investigated whether pain scaling is influenced by past pain events and by recalled memories of these events in the rating of pain. Normal control subjects (NC: 19 male, 30 female) and female fibromyalgia (FM) (n = 17) patients received 5-second suprathreshold heat stimuli (45-49 degrees C) to both forearms. The participants rated these experimental heat stimuli using the previously described electronic pain scales. Subsequently, they were asked to report whether they used any prior pain experiences during the process of rating their pain. Out of 49 NC, only 6 females (12.2%) and 7 males (14.3%), and out of 17 FM patients, only 3 females (17.6%) stated that they had used past pain experiences during scaling. Notably, pain ratings of experimental heat stimuli did not statistically differ between subjects who used past pain experiences during scaling as compared to those who did not. Furthermore, ratings of their most severe past pains were not significantly correlated with ratings of experimental pain stimuli. These results do not provide support for the strong assertion that pain rating scales are elastic, ie, being used differently depending on the severity of past pain events such as childbirth. ⋯ Less than 25% of subjects used memories of past pain events during pain scaling. In addition, if they were used, these pain memories did not influence pain scaling with electronic eVAS and eNUM scales. Thus, use of these scales allows reliable comparisons of experimental and clinical pain ratings within and between subjects.
-
Data on 1,700 patients pooled from 5 randomized, placebo-controlled duloxetine studies (3 in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain and 2 in fibromyalgia) were analyzed to determine clinically important differences (CIDs) in the 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity (NRS-PI) for patient-reported "worst" and "least" pain intensity while validating the previously published level for "average" pain. The correspondence between the baseline-to-endpoint raw and percentage change in the NRS-PI for the worst, least, and average pain were compared to patients' perceived improvements at endpoint as measured by the 7-point Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales. Stratification by baseline pain separated the raw but not the percent change scores. The PGI-I category of "much better" or above was our a priori definition of a CID. Cutoff points for the NRS-PI change scores were determined using a receiver operator curve analysis. A consistent relationship between the worst and average NRS-PI percent change and the PGI-I was demonstrated regardless of the study, pain type, age, sex, or treatment group with a reduction of approximately 34%. The least pain item CID was slightly higher at 41%. Raw change CID cutoff points were approximately -2, -2.5 and -3 for least, average, and worst pain respectively. ⋯ We determined an anchor-based value for the change in the worst, least, and average pain intensity items of the Brief Pain Inventory that best represents a clinically important difference. Our findings support a standard definition of a clinically important difference in clinical trials of chronic-pain therapies.