Mapping of Pain Phenotypes in Female Patients with Bladder Pain Syndrome/Interstitial Cystitis and Controls

Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
European Urology (Impact Factor: 13.94). 05/2012; 62(6). DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.023
Source: PubMed


BACKGROUND: Many bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) patients report multiple pain locations outside the pelvis. No research has examined pain using a whole-body diagram, pain-associated adjustment factors, or the impact of pain in multiple body areas on patients' quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVE: Compare and contrast pain in BPS/IC patients and controls using a whole-body diagram (visible body areas). Examine the association between patient adjustment factors and greater number of body pain areas (pain phenotypes). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Validated questionnaires were collected from diagnosed, tertiary-care, outpatient, female BPS/IC patients (n=193) and age-matched controls (n=115). Scales included a body pain area diagram, demographics/history, pain severity, BPS/IC symptoms, pain, depression, catastrophizing, and QoL. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cross-tabulation and analysis of variance models addressed the patient and control differences. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients reported more pain than controls in all reported body areas. Four pain phenotypes were created based on increasing counts of body locations (BPS/IC only, BPS/IC+plus 1-3 additional locations, BPS/IC plus 4-9, BPS/IC ≥10). Patients reported more body pain locations, pain, urinary symptoms, depression, catastrophizing, and diminished QoL than controls. The increased-pain phenotype was associated with poorer psychosocial adjustment and diminished physical QoL, but catastrophizing and low scores for mental QoL remained stable across all patient groups. This study was cross-sectional, relying on correlation-based analyses, thus causality cannot be established. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported numerous systemic pain symptoms outside the areas associated with the bladder/pelvic region, and increased numbers of body pain sites were associated with poorer patient outcomes (ie, pain severity, depression). This study illustrates the significant negative impact of pain on patient adjustment in BPS/IC. These findings suggest that clinicians carefully consider pain location distributions and the potential impact of body pain phenotypes during patient evaluation and treatment planning.

Download full-text


Available from: Dean A Tripp, Jan 23, 2015
15 Reads
  • European Urology 06/2012; 62(4):e74. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.037 · 13.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most commonly performed pain procedures. Despite numerous studies, controversy continues to surround their effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to determine whether a standard, clinical local anesthetic injection can predict outcomes for ESI. In this multicenter study, 103 patients received two ESI 2 weeks apart. Prior to their first injection, subjects rated the pain intensity of a standardized subcutaneous (SQ) injection of lidocaine prior to the full dose. Numerical rating scale pain scores were correlated with leg and back pain relief, and functional improvement, through 3-month follow-up. A composite successful outcome was predetermined to be a ≥2-point decrease in leg pain score, coupled with a positive global perceived effect. A small but significant relationship was found between SQ pain score and reduction in leg (r = −0.21, 95% CI −0.38 to −0.04; P = 0.03) and back pain (r = −0.22, 95% CI −0.36 to −0.07; P = 0.03). Subjects with a positive outcome at 1 month had a mean SQ pain score of 2.5 (SD 1.9) vs 4.1 (SD 2.7) in those with a negative outcome (P = 0.04). Subjects with SQ pain scores <4/10 had lower leg and back pain scores than those with pain scores ≥4 at 1-month (mean 3.2, SD 2.6 vs 5.1, SD 2.7 for leg, P < 0.01; mean 3.7, SD 2.6 vs 5.0, SD 3.0 for back, P = 0.02) and 3-month (mean 3.8, SD 2.7 vs 5.2, SD 3.1 for leg, P = 0.01; mean 4.0, SD 2.6 vs 4.9, SD 3.1 for back; P = 0.14) follow-up. The results of this study found a weak positive correlation between SQ pain scores and treatment results. Further research should consider whether pain perception in conjunction with other variables might prove to be a reliable predictor for ESI and other procedural outcomes.
    Pain Medicine 01/2013; 14(3). DOI:10.1111/pme.12027 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cannabinoids have been shown to exert analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, and the effects of cannabinoids are mediated primarily by cannabinoid receptors 1 and 2 (CB1and CB2). Both CB1 and CB2 are present in bladders of various species, including human, monkey, and rodents and it appears that CB2 is highly expressed in urothelial cells. We investigated whether treatment with the CB2 agonist GP1a alters severity of experimental cystitis induced by acrolein and referred mechanical hyperalgesia associated with cystitis. We also investigated whether the mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK), ERK1/2, p38, and JNK are involved in the functions of CB2. We found that treatment with the selective CB2 agonist GP1a (1-10 mg/kg, ip) inhibited the severity of bladder inflammation 3 hours after intravesical instillation of acrolein in a dose-dependent manner, and inhibition reached significance at a dose of 10 mg/kg (p < 0.05). Treatment with GP1a (10 mg/kg) inhibited referred mechanical hyperalgesia associated with cystitis (p < 0.05). The inhibitory effects of the CB2 agonist were prevented by the selective CB2 antagonist AM630 (10 mg/kg, sc). We further demonstrated the inhibitory effects of CB2 appear to be at least partly mediated by reducing bladder inflammation-induced activation of ERK1/2 MAPK pathway. The results of the current study indicate that CB2 is a potential therapeutic target for treatment of bladder inflammation and pain in patients.
    AJP Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology 03/2013; 304(10). DOI:10.1152/ajpregu.00585.2012 · 3.11 Impact Factor
Show more