Article

Determinants of endogenous analgesia magnitude in a diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC) paradigm: Do conditioning stimulus painfulness, gender and personality variables matter?

Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Studies, University of Haifa, Israel.
Pain (Impact Factor: 5.84). 06/2008; 136(1-2):142-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.06.029
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Descending modulation of pain can be demonstrated psychophysically by dual pain stimulation. This study evaluates in 31 healthy subjects the association between parameters of the conditioning stimulus, gender and personality, and the endogenous analgesia (EA) extent assessed by diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC) paradigm. Contact heat pain was applied as the test stimulus to the non-dominant forearm, with stimulation temperature at a psychophysical intensity score of 60 on a 0-100 numerical pain scale. The conditioning stimulus was a 60s immersion of the dominant hand in cold (12, 15, 18 degrees C), hot (44 and 46.5 degrees C), or skin temperature (33 degrees C) water. The test stimulus was repeated on the non-dominant hand during the last 30s of the conditioning immersion. EA extent was calculated as the difference between pain scores of the two test stimuli. State and trait anxiety and pain catastrophizing scores were assessed prior to stimulation. EA was induced only for the pain-generating conditioning stimuli at 46.5 degrees C (p=0.011) and 12 degrees C (p=0.003). EA was independent of conditioning pain modality, or personality, but a significant gender effect was found, with greater EA response in males. Importantly, pain scores of the conditioning stimuli were not correlated with EA extent. The latter is based on both our study population, and on additional 82 patients, who participated in another study, in which EA was induced by immersion at 46.5 degrees C. DNIC testing, thus, seems to be relatively independent of the stimulation conditions, making it an easy to apply tool, suitable for wide range applications in pain psychophysics.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Michal Granot, Mar 04, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Protocols for testing conditioned pain modulation (CPM) vary between different labs/clinics. In order to promote research and clinical application of this tool, we summarize the recommendations of interested researchers consensus meeting regarding the practice of CPM and report of its results.
    European journal of pain (London, England) 11/2014; 19(6). DOI:10.1002/ejp.605 · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Chemo-somatosensory evoked potentials (CSSEPs) elicited by chemical stimulation (CO2 gas) of the nasal mucosa have been shown to be sensitive enough to pick up even weak analgesic effects. With the present study we wanted to investigate whether CSSEPs are also a sensitive tool to capture endogenous pain inhibitory mechanisms elicited by conditioned pain modulation (CPM; where a first conditioning stimulus reduces the sensitivity for a second test stimulus) with a conditioning stimulus of rather low noxious load. Methods: Seventeen healthy participants were tested for CPM effects (conditioning stimulus: tonic heat pain with intensities around the pain threshold induced via a thermode; test stimulus: chemonasal stimulation (73% and 78% CO2)) on CSSEPs and on self-report ratings. Results: We found significant CPM effects in the CSSEPS, with reduced amplitudes and prolonged latencies at several electroencephalogram (EEG) recording positions when using the lower CO2 concentration (73% CO2). In contrast to the visible inhibitory effects on the CSSEPs, subjective ratings of the test stimulus did not reflect CPM action. Discussion: The experimental pain model using CO2 stimuli to elicit CSSEPs proved to be sensitive enough to capture weak CPM effects elicited by a conditioning stimulus of rather low noxious load. The usage of such mild noxious conditioning stimuli-in contrast to stimuli of higher noxious load (e.g., cold pressor test)-has the advantage that the activation of other types of pain inhibitory mechanisms in parallel (like attentional distraction, stress-induced analgesia) can be avoided.
    Somatosensory & Motor Research 02/2014; 31(2). DOI:10.3109/08990220.2014.887562 · 0.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purposeConditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a testing paradigm representing features of diffuse noxious inhibitory control. There is large diversity in the paradigms applied to induce CPM, and the consistency in CPM responses assessed by different paradigms is largely unknown. We aimed to characterize and explore the associations between the CPM responses assessed by different paradigms in the same cohort.Methods Thirty-three healthy middle-aged subjects underwent six CPM paradigms. The ‘test-stimuli’, consisted of thermal and mechanical modalities, using pain thresholds, suprathreshold pain and temporal summation types of measurements. The ‘conditioning-stimulus’ consisted of a contact heat stimulus applied to the thener of the left hand for 60 s at an intensity of 46.5 °C.ResultsLarge variability was observed among the responses to the different CPM paradigms. Surprisingly, no correlations were found between the various CPM responses.Conclusions The variability in the CPM responses may suggest that the capacity of pain modulation is a multifaceted trait, whose expression varies with the application of different CPM paradigms.ImplicationsConsidering that CPM responses may represent different processes when assessed by different paradigms, we encourage the use of more than one CPM paradigm.
    Scandinavian Journal of Pain 01/2013; 4(1):10–14. DOI:10.1016/j.sjpain.2012.08.001