Increased GABA+ in People With Migraine, Headache, and Pain Conditions- A Potential Marker of Pain.

Treatment outcomes for migraine and other chronic headache and pain conditions typically demonstrate modest results. A greater understanding of underlying pain mechanisms may better inform treatments and improve outcomes. Increased GABA+ has been identified in recent studies of migraine, however, it is unclear if this is present in other headache, and pain conditions. We primarily investigated GABA+ levels in the posterior cingulate gyrus (PCG) of people with migraine, whiplash-headache and low back pain compared to age- and sex-matched controls, GABA+ levels in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and thalamus formed secondary aims. Using a cross-sectional design, we studied people with migraine, whiplash-headache or low back pain (n = 56) and compared them with a pool of age- and sex-matched controls (n = 22). We used spectral-edited magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 3T (MEGA-PRESS) to determine levels of GABA+ in the PCG, ACC and thalamus. PCG GABA+ levels were significantly higher in people with migraine and low back pain compared with controls (eg, migraine 4.89 IU ± 0.62 vs controls 4.62 IU ± 0.38; P = .02). Higher GABA+ levels in the PCG were not unique to migraine and could reflect a mechanism of chronic pain in general. A better understanding of pain at a neurochemical level informs the development of treatments that target aberrant brain neurochemistry to improve patient outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides insights into the underlying mechanisms of chronic pain. Higher levels of GABA+ in the PCG may reflect an underlying mechanism of chronic headache and pain conditions. This knowledge may help improve patient outcomes through developing treatments that specifically address this aberrant brain neurochemistry.

The Importance of Perceived Relevance: A Qualitative Evaluation of Patient's Perceptions of Value and Impact Following a Low-Intensity Group-Based Pain Management Program.

Background and objectives: Limited evidence exists exploring perceptions of which aspects of a pain management program are perceived as valuable and impactful. The aim of this study was to explore patient beliefs about which aspects of a pain management program were valued and/or had perceived impact. Materials and Methods: One-on-one structured interviews were conducted with 11 adults three months after their completion of the Spark Pain Program at Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Concepts in the transcripts were inductively identified and explored, utilizing thematic analysis to better understand their relevance to the study aim. Results: Four themes emerged: (1) "The program overall was positive, but…"; (2) "I valued my improved knowledge and understanding of pain, but…"; (3) "I valued the stretching/relaxation/pacing/activity monitoring"; and (4) "I valued being part of a supportive and understanding group". Participants reported that they liked being treated as an individual within the group. A lack of perceived personal relevance of key messages was identified in some participants; it appears that patients in pain programs must determine that changes in knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes are personally relevant in order for the changes to have a significant impact on them. Conclusions: This study provides new insights into aspects of a pain management program that were perceived as valuable and impactful, areas that "missed the mark", and hypotheses to guide the implementation of service delivery and program redesign.

The clinical significance of immediate symptom responses to manual therapy treatment for neck pain: observational secondary data analysis of a randomized trial.

The objective was to explore aspects of symptom responses to manual therapy treatment for neck pain. An observational secondary data analysis of a randomized trial was conducted. 181 participants seeking care from a physiotherapist or chiropractor for a new episode of neck pain were included. Outcome variables included recovery-time and participant-perceived effect of treatment (GPE) at 3-months. There was a significant reduction of ≥1.4 points (95%CI 1.2-1.5) in pre- and post-treatment pain scores at each occasion of treatment. There was also small but significant increases in pain of ≤0.7 points (95%CI 0.4-1.0) between each treatment session, without regression to the preceding pre-treatment level. The relationships between immediate post-treatment effects and longer-term outcomes were explored using multivariate regression analyses. There was significant univariate association between recovery time and cumulative post-treatment changes in pain from the second, third and fourth (Exp(B) = 1.2) treatment sessions, as well as the presence of post-treatment headache (Exp(B) = 0.7) and other minor adverse symptoms (Exp(B) = 0.6). There was significant univariate association between GPE at 3-months and cumulative pain responses from first (B = 0.2), second (B = 0.3), third (B = 0.3) and fourth (B = 0.4) treatment sessions. The change in pain after session 1 was independently associated with GPE (B = 0.2). There was a consistently significant difference of ≥0.7 points (95%CI 0.43-0.89) in the different methods of reporting pain. Our results showed that manual therapy for neck pain involves a "two-steps forward, one-step back" recovery pattern. Whilst minor adverse events are undesirable, they do not seem to be significantly associated with long-term recovery.

People seeking treatment for a new episode of neck pain typically have rapid improvement in symptoms: an observational study.

QUESTION: What is the clinical course of a new episode of non-specific neck pain in people who are treated with multimodal physical therapies in a primary care setting? DESIGN: Observational study with 3-month follow-up, run in conjunction with a randomised trial. PARTICIPANTS: 181 adults who consulted a physiotherapist or chiropractor for a new episode of nonspecific neck pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to recover from the episode of neck pain, time to recover normal activity, and pain and neck-related disability at three months. Clinical and demographic characteristics were investigated as potential predictors of recovery. RESULTS: Within 3 months, 53% of participants reported complete recovery from the episode of neck pain. On a scale from 0 (none) to 10 (worst), pain improved from 6.1 (SD 2.0) at baseline to 2.5 (SD 2.1) at 2 weeks and to 1.5 (SD 1.8) at 3 months. On a scale from 0 (none) to 50 (worst), disability improved from 15.5 (SD 7.4) at baseline to 5.4 (SD 6.4) at 3 months. Faster recovery was independently associated with better self-rated general health, shorter duration of symptoms, being a smoker, and absence of concomitant upper back pain or headache. Higher disability at 3 months was independently associated with higher disability at baseline, concomitant upper or lower back pain, older age, and previous sick leave for neck pain. CONCLUSION: People who seek physical treatments for a new episode of neck pain in this primary care setting typically have high pain scores that improve rapidly after commencing treatment. Although almost half of those who seek treatment do not recover completely within three months, residual pain and disability in this group is relatively low. Physiotherapists should reassure people with a new episode of neck pain that rapid improvement in symptoms is common, modifying this advice where applicable based on risk factors.

A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain.

UNLABELLED: A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neck manipulation is more effective for neck pain than mobilization. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with blind assessment of outcome. SETTING: Primary care physiotherapy, chiropractic, and osteopathy clinics in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=182) with nonspecific neck pain less than 3 months in duration and deemed suitable for treatment with manipulation by the treating practitioner. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with neck manipulation (n=91) or mobilization (n=91). Patients in both groups received 4 treatments over 2 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain. RESULTS: The median number of days to recovery of pain was 47 in the manipulation group and 43 in the mobilization group. Participants treated with neck manipulation did not experience more rapid recovery than those treated with neck mobilization (hazard ratio=.98; 95% confidence interval, .66-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Neck manipulation is not appreciably more effective than mobilization. The use of neck manipulation therefore cannot be justified on the basis of superior effectiveness.

Conservative interventions provide short-term relief for non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.

QUESTION: Which interventions for non-specific neck pain are effective in reducing pain or disability? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with non-specific neck pain. INTERVENTION: All interventions for neck pain that were evaluated in trials with a placebo, minimal- or no-intervention control. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and disability outcomes (0-100 scale) at the conclusion of a course of treatment (short term), and in the medium (3 to 9 months) and long (> 9 months) term. RESULTS: 33 trials were identified. The interventions with significant short-term effects on pain were manipulation (MD -22, 95% CI -32 to -11), multimodal intervention (MD -21, 95% CI -34 to -7), specific exercise (MD -12, 95% CI -22 to -2), combination orphenadrine/paracetamol (MD -17, 95% CI -32 to -2), and manual therapy (MD -12, 95% CI -16 to -7). There was a significant short-term effect on disability for acupuncture (MD -8, 95% CI -13 to -2) and manual therapy (MD -6, 95% CI -11 to -2). Treatment with laser therapy resulted in better pain outcomes at medium-term follow-up but not at short-term follow-up. No other intervention demonstrated medium- or long-term effects. CONCLUSION: Some conservative interventions for neck pain are effective in the short term. Few interventions that have been investigated have shown longer term effects that are better than placebo or minimal intervention.

Efficacy of manipulation for non-specific neck pain of recent onset: design of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation is a common treatment for non-specific neck pain. Neck manipulation, unlike gentler forms of manual therapy such as mobilisation, is associated with a small risk of serious neurovascular injury and can result in stroke or death. It is thought however, that neck manipulation provides better results than mobilisation where clinically indicated. There is long standing and vigorous debate both within and between the professions that use neck manipulation as well as the wider scientific community as to whether neck manipulation potentially does more harm than good. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether neck manipulation provides more rapid resolution of an episode of neck pain than mobilisation. METHODS/DESIGN: 182 participants with acute and sub-acute neck pain will be recruited from physiotherapy, chiropractic and osteopathy practices in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either manipulation or mobilisation. Randomisation will occur after the treating practitioner decides that manipulation is an appropriate treatment for the individual participant. Both groups will receive at least 4 treatments over 2 weeks. The primary outcome is number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain. Cox regression will be used to compare survival curves for time to recovery for the manipulation and mobilisation treatment groups. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of neck manipulation and neck mobilisation for acute and subacute neck pain.