Central sensitization in CRPS patients with widespread pain: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Widespread pain hypersensitivity and enhanced temporal summation of pain (TSP) are commonly reported in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and discussed as proxies for central sensitization. This study aimed to directly relate such signs of neuronal hyperexcitability to the pain phenotype of CRPS patients. METHODS: Twenty-one CRPS patients and 20 healthy controls (HC) were recruited. The pain phenotype including spatial pain extent (assessed in % body surface) and intensity were assessed and related to widespread pain hypersensitivity, TSP, and psychological factors. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in the affected, the contralateral and a remote (control) area. RESULTS: CRPS patients showed decreased pressure pain thresholds in all tested areas (affected: t(34) = 4.98, P < .001, contralateral: t(35) = 3.19, P = .005, control: t(31) = 2.65, P = .012). Additionally, patients showed increased TSP in the affected area (F(3,111) = 4.57, P = .009) compared to HC. TSP was even more enhanced in patients with a high compared to a low spatial pain extent (F(3,51) = 5.67, P = .008), suggesting pronounced spinal sensitization in patients with extended pain patterns. Furthermore, the spatial pain extent positively correlated with the Bath Body Perception Disturbance Scale (ρ = 0.491; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we provide evidence that the pain phenotype in CRPS, that is, spatial pain extent, might be related to sensitization mechanism within the central nociceptive system. This study points towards central neuronal excitability as a potential therapeutic target in patients with more widespread CRPS.

Contact-Heat Evoked Potentials: Insights into Pain Processing in CRPS Type I.

Purpose: The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of chronic pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are diverse and involve both peripheral and central changes in pain processing, such as sensitization of the nociceptive system. The aim of this study was to objectively distinguish the specific changes occurring at both peripheral and central levels in nociceptive processing in individuals with chronic CRPS type I. Patients and Methods: Nineteen individuals with chronic CRPS type I and 16 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HC) were recruited. All individuals underwent a clinical examination and pain assessment in the most painful limb, the contralateral limb, and a pain-free control area to distinguish between peripheral and central mechanisms. Contact-heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) were recorded after heat stimulation of the three different areas and amplitudes and latencies were analyzed. Additionally, quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in all three areas. Results: Compared to HC, CHEP amplitudes in CRPS were only increased after stimulation of the painful area (p=0.025), while no increases were observed for the pain-free control area (p=0.14). None of the CHEP latencies were different between the two cohorts (all p>0.23). Furthermore, individuals with CRPS showed higher pain ratings after stimulation of the painful limb compared to their contralateral limb (p=0.013). Lastly, compared to HC, mechanical (p=0.012) and thermal (p=0.046) sensitivity was higher in the painful area of the CRPS cohort. Conclusion: This study provides neurophysiological evidence supporting an intact thermo-nociceptive pathway with signs of peripheral sensitization, such as hyperexcitable primary afferent nociceptors, in individuals with CRPS type I. This is further supported by the observation of mechanical and thermal gain of sensation only in the painful limb. Additionally, the increased CHEP amplitudes might be related to fear-induced alterations of nociceptive processing.

Indication for spinal sensitization in chronic low back pain: mechanical hyperalgesia adjacent to but not within the most painful body area.

Introduction: In 85% of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), no specific pathoanatomical cause can be identified. Besides primary peripheral drivers within the lower back, spinal or supraspinal sensitization processes might contribute to the patients' pain. Objectives: The present study conceptualized the most painful area (MP) of patients with nonspecific CLBP as primarily affected area and assessed signs of peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal sensitization using quantitative sensory testing (QST) in MP, a pain-free area adjacent to MP (AD), and a remote, pain-free control area (CON). Methods: Fifty-nine patients with CLBP (51 years, SD = 16.6, 22 female patients) and 35 pain-free control participants individually matched for age, sex, and testing areas (49 years, SD = 17.5, 19 female participants) underwent a full QST protocol in MP and a reduced QST protocol assessing sensory gain in AD and CON. Quantitative sensory testing measures, except paradoxical heat sensations and dynamic mechanical allodynia (DMA), were Z-transformed to the matched control participants and tested for significance using Z-tests (α = 0.001). Paradoxical heat sensations and DMA occurrence were compared between cohorts using Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05). The same analyses were performed with a high-pain and a low-pain CLBP subsample (50% quantile). Results: Patients showed cold and vibration hypoesthesia in MP (all Ps < 0.001) and mechanical hyperalgesia (P < 0.001) and more frequent DMA (P = 0.044) in AD. The results were mainly driven by the high-pain CLBP subsample. In CON, no sensory alterations were observed. Conclusion: Mechanical hyperalgesia and DMA adjacent to but not within MP, the supposedly primarily affected area, might reflect secondary hyperalgesia originating from spinal sensitization in patients with CLBP.

Understanding inter-individual variability of experimental pain habituation and conditioned pain modulation in healthy individuals.

Although reduced experimental pain habituation is proposed as a proxy of diminished endogenous pain modulatory capacity in chronic pain, prior studies show contradictory findings. Even across healthy participants, pain habituation varies substantially, which may relate to another measure of endogenous pain modulation, i.e., conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Hence, this study investigated the relationship between pain habituation and CPM. Pain habituation was assessed in 45 healthy participants between two blocks of 15-20 contact-heat stimuli applied to the hand. Habituation of subjective pain ratings and objective neurophysiological readouts (contact-heat evoked potential (CHEP) and palmar sympathetic skin response (SSR)) was investigated. CPM was assessed by comparing heat pain thresholds before and after hand immersion in a noxious cold (9 °C) and lukewarm water bath (32 °C, to control for repeated measures effects). Pain habituation showed a large variability, with subjective but not objective pain habituation correlating with cold-induced CPM effects (r = 0.50; p = 0.025). This correlation was not observed for 'true' CPM effects (corrected for repeated measures effects) nor for CPM effects induced by a lukewarm water bath. These findings suggest that the observed variability in subjective pain habituation may be influenced by both descending endogenous pain modulation and peripheral adaptation processes associated with repeated measures. Objective pain habituation readouts, i.e., CHEPs and SSRs, capture different, complementary aspects of endogenous pain modulation.

Novel neurophysiological evidence for preserved pain habituation across chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to investigate whether subjective and objective measures of pain habituation can be used as potential markers for central sensitization across various chronic pain patients. METHODS: Two blocks of contact-heat stimuli were applied to a non-painful area in 93 chronic pain patients (low back pain, neuropathic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome) and 60 healthy controls (HC). Habituation of pain ratings, contact-heat evoked potentials (CHEP), and sympathetic skin responses (SSR) was measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in any measure of pain habituation between patients and HC. Even patients with apparent clinical signs of central sensitization showed no reduced pain habituation. However, prolonged baseline CHEP and SSR latencies (stimulation block 1) were found in patients compared to HC (CHEP: Δ-latency = 23 ms, p = 0.012; SSR: Δ-latency = 100 ms, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Given the performed multimodal neurophysiological testing protocol, we provide evidence indicating that pain habituation may be preserved in patients with chronic pain and thereby be of limited use as a sensitive marker for central sensitization. These results are discussed within the framework of the complex interactions between pro- and antinociceptive mechanism as well as methodological issues. The prolonged latencies of CHEP and SSR after stimulation in non-painful areas may indicate subclinical changes in the integrity of thermo-nociceptive afferents, or a shift towards antinociceptive activity. This shift could potentially affect the relay of ascending signals. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings challenge the prevailing views in the literature and may encourage further investigations into the peripheral and central components of pain habituation, using advanced multimodal neurophysiological techniques.

Pain-autonomic measures reveal nociceptive sensitization in complex regional pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Allodynia and hyperalgesia are common signs in individuals with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), mainly attributed to sensitization of the nociceptive system. Appropriate diagnostic tools for the objective assessment of such hypersensitivities are still lacking, which are essential for the development of mechanism-based treatment strategies. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the use of pain-autonomic readouts to objectively detect sensitization processes in CRPS. METHODS: Twenty individuals with chronic CRPS were recruited for the study alongside 16 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HC). All individuals underwent quantitative sensory testing and neurophysiological assessments. Sympathetic skin responses (SSRs) were recorded in response to 15 pinprick and 15 noxious heat stimuli of the affected (CRPS hand/foot) and a control area (contralateral shoulder/hand). RESULTS: Individuals with CRPS showed increased mechanical pain sensitivity and increased SSR amplitudes compared with HC in response to pinprick and heat stimulation of the affected (p < 0.001), but not in the control area (p > 0.05). Habituation of pinprick-induced SSRs was reduced in CRPS compared to HC in both the affected (p = 0.018) and slightly in the control area (p = 0.048). Habituation of heat-induced SSR was reduced in CRPS in the affected (p = 0.008), but not the control area (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study demonstrating clinical evidence that pain-related autonomic responses may represent objective tools to quantify sensitization processes along the nociceptive neuraxis in CRPS (e.g. widespread hyperexcitability). Pain-autonomic readouts could help scrutinize mechanisms underlying the development and maintenance of chronic pain in CRPS and provide valuable metrics to detect mechanism-based treatment responses in clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides clinical evidence that autonomic measures to noxious stimuli can objectively detect sensitization processes along the nociceptive neuraxis in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) (e.g. widespread hyperexcitability). Pain-autonomic readouts may represent valuable tools to explore pathophysiological mechanisms in a variety of pain patients and offer novel avenues to help guide mechanism-based therapeutic strategies.

Sensory phenotypes in complex regional pain syndrome and chronic low back pain-indication of common underlying pathomechanisms.

Introduction: First-line pain treatment is unsatisfactory in more than 50% of chronic pain patients, likely because of the heterogeneity of mechanisms underlying pain chronification. Objectives: This cross-sectional study aimed to better understand pathomechanisms across different chronic pain cohorts, regardless of their diagnoses, by identifying distinct sensory phenotypes through a cluster analysis. Methods: We recruited 81 chronic pain patients and 63 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls (HC). Two distinct chronic pain cohorts were recruited, ie, complex regional pain syndrome (N = 20) and low back pain (N = 61). Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in the most painful body area to investigate somatosensory changes related to clinical pain. Furthermore, QST was conducted in a pain-free area to identify remote sensory alterations, indicating more widespread changes in somatosensory processing. Results: Two clusters were identified based on the QST measures in the painful area, which did not represent the 2 distinct pain diagnoses but contained patients from both cohorts. Cluster 1 showed increased pain sensitivities in the painful and control area, indicating central sensitization as a potential pathomechanism. Cluster 2 showed a similar sensory profile as HC in both tested areas. Hence, either QST was not sensitive enough and more objective measures are needed to detect sensitization within the nociceptive neuraxis or cluster 2 may not have pain primarily because of sensitization, but other factors such as psychosocial ones are involved. Conclusion: These findings support the notion of shared pathomechanisms irrespective of the pain diagnosis. Conversely, different mechanisms might contribute to the pain of patients with the same diagnosis.

Pain-autonomic interaction is a reliable measure of pain habituation in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Habituation is a response decrement resulting from repeated stimuli. Reduced habituation to noxious stimuli is considered to be a proxy for central sensitization in subjects with chronic pain. Despite numerous investigations of pain habituation in relation to central sensitization, there is no consensus on the most sensitive and reliable readout, as well as analysis approach. Therefore, this study compared the usability and reliability of different readouts and habituation analysis approaches to measure pain habituation in response to repetitive heat simulation. METHODS: Three blocks of 20 contact heat stimuli were applied on the volar forearm of 20 healthy subjects on two separate visits. Habituation was assessed by three different readouts: pain ratings, contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) and heat-induced sympathetic skin responses (SSRs). In addition, two different habituation analysis approaches were used: between the three stimulation blocks (between-block) and within the first stimulation block (within-block). RESULTS: Significant between-block habituation for SSRs (p < 0.001), but not for pain ratings (p = 1.000) and CHEPs (p = 0.078) was found. There was significant within-block habituation for pain ratings (p = 0.012) and SSRs (p < 0.001), but not for CHEPs (p = 0.246). Only the between-block habituation of heat-induced SSR was reliable between the two visits (first to second block: intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.58, p = 0.030; first to third block: ICC = 0.64, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Heat-induced SSR as a measure of pain-autonomic interaction revealed the strongest pain habituation and showed the highest test-retest reliability.

Anti- and Pro-Nociceptive mechanisms in neuropathic pain after human spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Deficient endogenous pain modulation and increased nociceptive excitability are key features of central sensitization and can be assessed in humans by conditioned pain modulation (CPM, anti-nociceptive) and temporal summation of pain (TSP, pro-nociceptive), respectively. This study aimed to investigate these measures as proxies for central sensitization in subjects with chronic neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: In paraplegic subjects with NP (SCI-NP; n = 17) and healthy controls (HC; n = 17), parallel and sequential sham-controlled CPM paradigms were performed using pressure pain threshold at the hand, that is, above lesion level, as test stimulus. The conditioning stimulus was a noxious cold (verum) or lukewarm water bath (sham) applied contralaterally. Regarding pro-nociceptive mechanisms, a TSP protocol with individually-adjusted pressure pain stimuli at the thenar eminence was used. CPM and TSP magnitudes were related to intensity and spatial extent of spontaneous NP. RESULTS: Neither the parallel nor sequential sham-controlled CPM paradigm showed any significant inhibition of above-level pressure pain thresholds for SCI-NP or HC. Accordingly, no group difference in CPM capacity was found, however, subjects with more intense spontaneous NP showed lower inhibitory CPM capacity. TSP was observed for both groups but was not enhanced in SCI-NP. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support altered above-level anti- or pro-nociceptive mechanisms in SCI-NP compared with HC; however, they also highlight the relevance of spontaneous NP intensity with regards to the capacity of endogenous pain modulation in SCI subjects. SIGNIFICANCE: Central sensitization encompasses deficient endogenous pain modulation and increased nociceptive excitability. These two mechanisms can be assessed in humans by conditioned pain modulation and temporal summation of pain, respectively. Our data demonstrates a lack of descending pain inhibition only in subjects with severe neuropathic pain which may hint towards central sensitization at spinal and/or supra-spinal levels. Disentangling the mechanisms of endogenous pain modulation and neuronal hyperexcitability might improve mechanism-based treatment of neuropathic pain in subjects with spinal cord injury.

An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked potentials.

Previous studies comparing laser (LEPs) and contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) consistently reported higher amplitudes following laser compared to contact heat stimulation. However, none of the studies matched the perceived pain intensity, questioning if the observed difference in amplitude is due to biophysical differences between the two methods or a mismatch in stimulation intensity. The aims of the current study were twofold: (1) to directly compare the brain potentials induced by intensity matched laser and contact heat stimulation and (2) investigate how capsaicin-induced secondary hyperalgesia modulates LEPs and CHEPs. Twenty-one healthy subjects were recruited and measured at four experimental sessions: (1) CHEPs + sham, (2) LEPs + sham, (3) CHEPs + capsaicin, and (4) LEPs + capsaicin. Baseline (sham) LEPs latency was significantly shorter and amplitude significantly larger compared to CHEPs, even when matched for perceived pain. Neither CHEPs nor LEPs was sensitive enough to detect secondary hyperalgesia. These differences provide evidence that a faster heating rate results in an earlier and more synchronized LEPs than CHEPs. To our knowledge, this was the first study to match perceived intensity of contact heat and laser stimulations, revealing distinct advantages associated with the acquisition of LEPs.