Does conditioned pain modulation predict the magnitude of placebo effects in patients with neuropathic pain?

BACKGROUND: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a validated measure of the function of endogenous pain inhibitory pathways. Placebo effects reflect top-down inhibitory modulation of pain. CPM and placebo effects are both influenced by expectations, albeit to varying degrees, and are related to neurotransmitter systems such as the endogenous opioid system, and it can be speculated that CPM responses are positively associated with the magnitude of placebo effects. Yet, no studies have tested this. METHODS: The study included 19 patients with neuropathic pain. CPM was quantified as the difference in pressure pain threshold (PPT) as measured at the middle deltoid muscle before and after 5-min exposure to the cold pressor test (CPT) (conditioning pain stimulus). Placebo effects were tested via open and hidden applications of the pain-relieving agent lidocaine (2 mL) using a disinfection napkin controlled for no treatment. RESULTS: The mean (SD) PPT was 668.7 (295.7) kPa before and 742.3 (370.8) kPa after the CPT. The mean (SD) CPM response was -73.6 (214.0) kPa corresponding to an 11% increase in PPT, reflecting a normally functioning endogenous pain modulatory system. Large and significant placebo effects were observed in ongoing neuropathic pain intensity (p = 0.002). The CPM response did not predict the magnitude of the placebo effect (p = 0.765). Moreover, there were no interaction effects for the moderator variables: clinical pain level (p = 0.136), age (p = 0.347) and gender (p = 0.691). CONCLUSIONS: Conditioned pain modulation and placebo effects do not seem to be associated in patients with neuropathic pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Conditioned pain modulation and placebo effects are endogenous pain-modulating phenomena that are influenced by some of the same mechanisms. This study suggests that CPM and placebo effects in neuropathic pain are independent phenomena that may be mediated by different mechanisms.

A preclinical model of hyperalgesia following spinal stenosis/compression.

BACKGROUND: Identification of mechanisms for pain/hyperalgesia following spinal cord injury requires long-term evaluation of individual subjects because of the variability in effect over time for humans. METHODS: Rats were trained on an operant escape task that determined their preference for occupancy of a brightly lit compartment versus a dark compartment with a floor preheated to 10, 32 or 44.5 °C. Following determination of baseline preferences, the animals received extradural implantation of a small piece of polymer in the thoracic spinal canal. The polymer narrowed the spinal canal and compressed the spinal cord. Post-operative tests of escape preference were conducted over 23 weeks (experiments 1 and 2) and 62 weeks (experiment 3), permitting statistical evaluation of individual effects. RESULTS: Spinal stenosis/compression produced hyperalgesia for cold and/or heat stimulation (17 animals; 77%), no post-operative change in sensitivity (4 animals) or hypoalgesia for cold or heat (2 animals). When hyperalgesia occurred, it developed gradually over 4 months. Following removal of the polymer in experiment 3, heat sensitivity returned to baseline levels for four of four animals that had been hyperalgesic when the polymer was in place, but cold hyperalgesia was retained for four of five animals. Overall, post-operative changes in cold and heat sensitivity were not strongly related, indicating that different mechanisms were responsible for enhanced sensitivity to 10 and 44.5 °C. CONCLUSIONS: Histology revealed that hyperalgesia occurred when there was: (1) damage to spinal white matter; or (2) cystic cavitation; or (3) compression and distortion of the spinal cord without an obvious loss of grey or white matter.

Experimental design and reporting standards for improving the internal validity of pre-clinical studies in the field of pain: Consensus of the IMI-Europain consortium.

Background and aims Pain is a subjective experience, and as such, pre-clinical models of human pain are highly simplified representations of clinical features. These models are nevertheless critical for the delivery of novel analgesics for human pain, providing pharmacodynamic measurements of activity and, where possible, on-target confirmation of that activity. It has, however, been suggested that at least 50% of all pre-clinical data, independent of discipline, cannot be replicated. Additionally, the paucity of "negative" data in the public domain indicates a publication bias, and significantly impacts the interpretation of failed attempts to replicate published findings. Evidence suggests that systematic biases in experimental design and conduct and insufficiencies in reporting play significant roles in poor reproducibility across pre-clinical studies. It then follows that recommendations on how to improve these factors are warranted. Methods Members of Europain, a pain research consortium funded by the European Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), developed internal recommendations on how to improve the reliability of pre-clinical studies between laboratories. This guidance is focused on two aspects: experimental design and conduct, and study reporting. Results Minimum requirements for experimental design and conduct were agreed upon across the dimensions of animal characteristics, sample size calculations, inclusion and exclusion criteria, random allocation to groups, allocation concealment, and blinded assessment of outcome. Building upon the Animals in Research: Reportingin vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, reporting standards were developed for pre-clinical studies of pain. These include specific recommendations for reporting on ethical issues, experimental design and conduct, and data analysis and interpretation. Key principles such as sample size calculation, a priori definition of a primary efficacy measure, randomization, allocation concealments, and blinding are discussed. In addition, considerations of how stress and normal rodent physiology impact outcome of analgesic drug studies are considered. Flow diagrams are standard requirements in all clinical trials, and flow diagrams for preclinical trials, which describe number of animals included/excluded, and reasons for exclusion are proposed. Creation of a trial registry for pre-clinical studies focused on drug development in order to estimate possible publication bias is discussed. Conclusions More systematic research is needed to analyze how inadequate internal validity and/or experimental bias may impact reproducibility across pre-clinical pain studies. Addressing the potential threats to internal validity and the sources of experimental biases, as well as increasing the transparency in reporting, are likely to improve preclinical research broadly by ensuring relevant progress is made in advancing the knowledge of chronic pain pathophysiology and identifying novel analgesics. Implications We are now disseminating these Europain processes for discussion in the wider pain research community. Any benefit from these guidelines will be dependent on acceptance and disciplined implementation across pre-clinical laboratories, funding agencies and journal editors, but it is anticipated that these guidelines will be a first step towards improving scientific rigor across the field of pre-clinical pain research.