Pain and Disability in Low Back Pain Can be Reduced Despite No Significant Improvements in Mechanistic Pain Biomarkers

The influence of education on pain during and following acute exercise in people with knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Explicit education about exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) reduces experimental pain after a single exercise session in pain-free individuals. However, the effect in people with chronic pain is unclear. This study aimed to determine the effect of EIH education on pain during and following exercise in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

All procedures were administered online. Participants were randomised to receive 15-min of explicit EIH education or 15-min of general education about knee OA. Participants then completed a questionnaire on their beliefs about exercise and pain, followed by a bout of home-based lower limb resistance exercise. Pain intensity (0-10) was assessed before, during and immediately after exercise.

RESULTS

40 participants completed the study (67.3 ± 10.8 years old, 73 % female). Participants only somewhat agreed pain could be reduced following a single session of exercise and that the education changed what they thought about exercise and pain, but these beliefs were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.053 and p = 0.104, respectively). Pain was similar between groups (adjusted mean difference [95 % CI]) during exercise (0.51 [-0.72 to 1.74], p = 0.410) and following exercise (-0.75 [-1.62 to 1.11], p = 0.087. Compared to baseline, pain (mean difference [95 % CI]) was lower during exercise (-1.01 [-1.66 to -0.36], p = 0.003) and following exercise (-0.96 [-1.5 to -0.42], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A single exercise session reduces pain in people with knee OA, but this was not influenced by pre-exercise education about EIH. Further research is needed to understand if and how EIH can be modulated in people with knee OA.

Quantitative sensory testing and exercise-induced hypoalgesia protocols in low back pain: A scoping review

A significant driver of pain in individuals with low back pain (LBP) is alterations to endogenous pain modulation (EPM). EPM can be measured using quantitative sensory testing (QST), however; there are inconsistencies in the way QST has been implemented across the low back pain literature. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize protocols used to assess EPM using QST (pain pressure threshold (PPT), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM)) or exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) in LBP. Databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL and AMED were searched on June 15, 2023, for articles that used QST or EIH protocols in LBP populations. Data was extracted on participants, study design, setting and details on QST and EIH protocols. Of the 221 studies included in the review, 196 used PPT, 62 used TS and 60 used CPM; only 5 studies investigated EIH. For all QST, there was high variability in the type of equipment, timing, trials, and testing location with many studies not reporting this information. There were 4 testing modalities used for TS, and 7 different test stimuli, and 3 different conditioning stimuli used across the studies for CPM. For CPM and EIH, PPT was the most common testing modality. There were 4 types of exercises used across the 5 EIH studies. This scoping review provides a summary of QST and EIH protocols in LBP that may be used as a guide for assessment in future studies. These results demonstrate a need for the development of standardized protocols and reporting guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a summary of measures used to assess EPM in LBP. The results show the wide variability of protocols used in the literature. Future research should focus on creating standardized protocols, reporting guidelines and providing more guidance for researchers in selecting appropriate tests for their research questions.

Comparisons of the effects of psychologically-informed and usual physiotherapy on pain sensitivity in chronic low back pain: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The presence of altered central pain processing and modulation, as well as negative psychological factors, have been suggested to impede recovery in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Psychologically-informed physiotherapy (PiP) aims to specifically address the latter factors-in addition to physical factors-to improve treatment effects. This study aims to determine if the effect of PiP is superior to usual physiotherapy (UP) on pain sensitivity and modulation in participants with CLBP and if changes in these variables were associated with changes in clinical outcomes.

Methods

Forty participants with CLBP were randomly allocated to PiP or UP. Seven physiotherapy sessions over 6 weeks plus a booster session at an 11-week follow-up were delivered. Pressure pain threshold (PPT), temporal summation of pain (TSP), and exercise-induced hypoalgesia were assessed on lumbar, upper, and lower limb sites at baseline and after 6 weeks. Linear mixed models tested if PiP was superior to UP on pain sensitivity/modulation. Linear regressions tested if pain sensitivity/modulation changes were associated with changes in clinical outcomes (pain intensity, physical functioning, symptoms of central sensitization).

Results

PiP was not superior to UP to modulate pain sensitivity/modulation variables. All PPTs increased after 6 weeks regardless of the approach. Lumbar PPT and lumbar and lower limb TSP changes were associated with physical functioning changes.

Conclusion

Although our study suggests that neither approach has a superiority to impact on pain sensitivity, both approaches elicited widespread hypoalgesia. Future powered trials should verify if pain sensitivity can be a mediator of physical functioning improvement, as suggested by our results.

Inpatient Rehabilitation is Effective for Severe Daily Activity Deficits Related to Chronic Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain disability (CLBPD) is a syndrome that includes pain, disability, emotional impairments, and social problems. The study was conducted to examine the effect of an inpatient rehabilitation program on the performance of everyday life tasks (daily activities), and report on pain in CLBPD patients with primary activities of daily living (ADL) deficits.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, demographic and clinical data were retrieved from records of inpatients admitted consecutively to the program. Scores of the Spinal Pain Independence Measure (SPIM) and of changes in reported pain levels were used to assess improvement in the performance of daily activities and pain reduction. T-tests were used to assess the significance of score changes. Spearman's correlations and analysis of variance were used to assess relationships of SPIM gain and affecting factors.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients were included. Daily task performance improved in 71 patients (71.7%). The SPIM score increased from 48.7 (SD 16.3) at admission to the rehabilitation program to 57.8 (SD 12.5) at discharge (P<0.001). The SPIM score at admission negatively affected SPIM gain (P<0.001). The SPIM gain was significant for admission SPIM scores of 50 or lower (P<0.05), but differences in SPIM scores were not as noticeable for patients with admission SPIM scores above 50. Relief in pain was reported in 59 patients (59.6%) and was not associated with function.

CONCLUSIONS

The multidisciplinary rehabilitation program, which improved function and provided limited pain relief in inpatients with CLBPD primary ADL deficits, can be effective for the most severe CLBPD cases.

Systemic Inflammation, Sleep, and Psychological Factors Determine Recovery Trajectories for People With Neck Pain: An Exploratory Study

We conducted an explorative prospective cohort study with 6 months follow-up to 1) identify different pain and disability trajectories following an episode of acute neck pain, and 2) assess whether neuroimmune/endocrine, psychological, behavioral, nociceptive processing, clinical outcome, demographic and management-related factors differ between these trajectories. Fifty people with acute neck pain (ie, within 2 weeks of onset) were included. At baseline, and at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 26 weeks follow-up, various neuroimmune/endocrine (eg, inflammatory cytokines and endocrine factors), psychological (eg, stress symptoms), behavioral (eg, sleep disturbances), nociceptive processing (eg, condition pain modulation), clinical outcome (eg, trauma), demographic factors (eg, age), and management-related factors (eg, treatment received) were assessed. Latent class models were performed to identify outcome trajectories for neck pain and disability. Linear mixed models or the Pearson chi-square test were used to evaluate differences in these factors between the trajectories at baseline and at each follow-up assessment and over the entire 6 months period. For pain, 3 trajectories were identified. The majority of patients were assigned to the "Moderate pain - Favourable recovery" trajectory (n = 25; 50%) with smaller proportions assigned to the "Severe pain - Favourable recovery" (n = 16; 32%) and the "Severe pain - Unfavourable recovery" (n = 9; 18%) trajectories. For disability, 2 trajectories were identified: "Mild disability - Favourable recovery" (n = 43; 82%) and "Severe disability - Unfavourable recovery" (n = 7; 18%). Ongoing systemic inflammation (increased high-sensitive C-reactive protein), sleep disturbances, and elevated psychological factors (such as depression, stress and anxiety symptoms) were mainly present in the unfavorable outcome trajectories compared to the favorable outcome trajectories. PERSPECTIVE: Using exploratory analyses, different recovery trajectories for acute neck pain were identified based on disability and pain intensity. These trajectories were influenced by systemic inflammation, sleep disturbances, and psychological factors.

Motor corticospinal excitability abnormalities differ between distinct chronic low back pain syndromes

OBJECTIVES

It is not known whether cortical plastic changes reported in low-back pain (LBP) are present in all etiologies of LBP. Here we report on the assessment of patients with three LBP conditions: non-specific-LBP (ns-LBP), failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and sciatica (Sc).

METHODS

Patients underwent a standardized assessment of clinical pain, conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and measures of motor evoked potential (MEPs)-based motor corticospinal excitability (CE) by transcranial magnetic stimulation, including short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), and intracortical facilitation (ICF). Comparisons were also made with normative data from sex- and age-matched healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

60 patients (42 women, 55.1±9.1 years old) with LBP were included (20 in each group). Pain intensity was higher in patients with neuropathic pain [FBSS (6.8±1.3), and Sc (6.4±1.4)] than in those with ns-LBP (4.7±1.0, P<0.001). The same was shown for pain interference (5.9±2.0, 5.9±1.8, 3.2±1.9, P<0.001), disability (16.4±3.3, 16.3±4.3, 10.4±4.3, P<0.001), and catastrophism (31.1±12.3, 33.0±10.4, 17.4±10.7, P<0.001) scores for FBSS, Sc, and ns-LBP groups, respectively. Patients with neuropathic pain (FBSS, Sc) had lower CPM (-14.8±1.9, -14.1±16.7, respectively) compared to ns-LBP (-25.4±16.6; P<0.02). 80.0% of the FBSS group had defective ICF compared to the other two groups (52.5% for ns-LBP, P=0.025 and 52.5% for Sc, P=0.046). MEPs (140%-rest motor threshold) were low in 50.0% of patients in the FBSS group compared to 20.0% of ns-LBP (P=0.018) and 15.0% of Sc (P=0.001) groups. Higher MEPs were correlated with mood scores (r=0.489), and with lower neuropathic pain symptom scores(r=-0.415) in FBSS.

CONCLUSIONS

Different types of LBP were associated with different clinical, CPM and CE profiles, which were not uniquely related to the presence of neuropathic pain. These results highlight the need to further characterize patients with LBP in psychophysics and cortical neurophysiology studies.

Pressure Pain Threshold Protocols With Pressure Algometer in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The pressure pain threshold is commonly employed to assess pain in various conditions. Despite its widespread use, the measurement of pressure pain thresholds is not consistently described across studies. Therefore, this review aimed to systematically examine the evidence regarding the assessment of pressure pain thresholds in patients with low back pain, including the protocols and body sites employed.

METHODS

Six databases were systematically screened from their earliest records to May 2023 to identify studies utilizing pressure pain thresholds. Eligibility screening was conducted for the identified studies, and the included studies underwent appraisal using the appropriate tool corresponding to their study design.

RESULTS

Upon categorizing based on the type of pain, we included 5 studies involving acute low back pain and 43 studies with chronic pain. The meta-analysis was conducted to compare subjects with and without pain, revealing no significant difference for the paraspinal region (SMD = -4.19, 95%CI = -11.7 to 3.32, z = -1.09, p = .27), piriformis (SMD = -1.24, 95%CI = -4.25 to 1.76, z = -0.81, p = .42) and quadratus lumborum musculature (SMD = -0.37, 95%CI = -1.35 to 0.60, z = -0.75, p = .45).

CONCLUSION

The paraspinal and gluteal musculature are the most frequently evaluated. Concerning the protocols for assessment, no consensus was identified. However, studies that assessed chronic low back pain typically adhered to a similar approach regarding the number of measures and a constant increase in pressure.

Effects of a single exercise session on pain intensity in adults with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is prevalent amongst society, making it necessary to find strategies to manage chronic pain. Regular exercise is efficacious; however, pain is a barrier to initiating exercise. A single exercise session is also believed to acutely reduce pain, however, the evidence for this is less robust.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the effect of a single exercise session on pain intensity in adults with chronic pain.

METHODS

We searched eight databases and trial registries to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of a single exercise session on pain intensity in adults with chronic pain compared to a non-exercise control. Literature screening, data extraction, risk of bias (Cochrane 2.0) and quality assessment (GRADE) were conducted independently and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the metafor package in R.

RESULTS

We included 17 trials (46 study arms with 664 adults [44% female]). There were no significant differences in pain intensity (mean difference on a 0-10 scale) immediately post-exercise -0.02 (95% CI = -0.06, 0.62; I² = 77.1%) or up to 45-min post-exercise -0.17 (95% CI = -0.49, 0.16; I² = 34.2%). All trials were at high risk of bias and the overall confidence in these findings was very low.

CONCLUSION

A single exercise session did not reduce pain intensity up to 1-h post-exercise. Notably, increases in pain were not observed either, suggesting that while pain can be a barrier to initiating exercise, clinicians can educate patients on the unlikelihood of exercise acutely increasing pain intensity.

Temporomandibular disorders cases with high-impact pain are more likely to experience short-term pain fluctuations

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients can present clinically significant jaw pain fluctuations which can be debilitating and lead to poor global health. The Graded Chronic Pain Scale evaluates pain-related disability and its dichotomous grading (high/low impact pain) can determine patient care pathways and in general high-impact pain patients have worse treatment outcomes. Individuals with low-impact TMD pain are thought to have better psychosocial functioning, more favorable disease course, and better ability to control pain, while individuals with high-impact pain can present with higher levels of physical and psychological symptoms. Thereby, there is reason to believe that individuals with low- and high-impact TMD pain could experience different pain trajectories over time. Our primary objective was to determine if short-term jaw pain fluctuations serve as a clinical marker for the impact status of TMD pain. To this end, we estimated the association between high/low impact pain status and jaw pain fluctuations over three visits (≤ 21-day-period) in 30 TMD cases. Secondarily, we measured the association between jaw pain intensity and pressure pain thresholds (PPT) over the face and hand, the latter measurements compared to matched pain-free controls (n = 17). Jaw pain fluctuations were more frequent among high-impact pain cases (n = 15) than low-impact pain cases (n = 15) (OR 5.5; 95% CI 1.2, 26.4; p value = 0.033). Jaw pain ratings were not associated with PPT ratings (p value > 0.220), suggesting different mechanisms for clinical versus experimental pain. Results from this proof-of-concept study suggest that targeted treatments to reduce short-term pain fluctuations in high-impact TMD pain is a potential strategy to achieve improved patient perception of clinical pain management outcomes.

Brain Imaging Biomarkers for Chronic Pain

The prevalence of chronic pain has reached epidemic levels. In addition to personal suffering chronic pain is associated with psychiatric and medical co-morbidities, notably substance misuse, and a huge a societal cost amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually in medical cost, lost wages, and productivity. Chronic pain does not have a cure or quantitative diagnostic or prognostic tools. In this manuscript we provide evidence that this situation is about to change. We first start by summarizing our current understanding of the role of the brain in the pathogenesis of chronic pain. We particularly focus on the concept of learning in the emergence of chronic pain, and the implication of the limbic brain circuitry and dopaminergic signaling, which underly emotional learning and decision making, in this process. Next, we summarize data from our labs and from other groups on the latest brain imaging findings in different chronic pain conditions focusing on results with significant potential for translation into clinical applications. The gaps in the study of chronic pain and brain imaging are highlighted in throughout the overview. Finally, we conclude by discussing the costs and benefits of using brain biomarkers of chronic pain and compare to other potential markers.