The need for previous knowledge does not render quantitative sensory testing a "failure" but part of a larger picture of the relationship between nociception and pain

Quantitative Sensory Testing - From bench to bedside

The methodology of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) comprises standardized testing procedures, which provide information of the integrity of the somatosensory nervous system. Over the years, different protocols have been established, which utilize similar but distinct testing procedures. They pursue the same overall objective to identify loss or gain of function of the respective sensory parameter to better understand the degree of abnormal nervous function and thereby improve patient care in the long-term. Laboratory-based QST protocols, which apply highly standardized testing procedures in pre-defined order and body regions, are considered as the gold standard in sensory testing. However, those protocols often require specifically trained personal, high equipment investment, and are time consuming. Thus, in recent years several attempts have been made to simplify testing protocols as well as reduce high costs of testing equipment such as thermal probe systems. These attempts have culminated in an array of sensory bedside testing protocols subserving the need for protocols that are easy to implement in and provide a standardized assessment within clinical trials. While laboratory and bedside QST that focus on static responses of single stimuli, protocols for testing dynamic QST focus on the functional response to pain also exist. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is often applied, which offers the ability to study endogenous inhibition of pain. All of these mentioned methodologies are considered as psychophysical measures and thus rely heavily on the cooperation of the patient or participant. In this chapter we provide an overview of QST along three main lines: (i) laboratory QST, (ii) bedside QST and (iii) dynamic QST. In addition, we discuss advantages and pitfalls of each modality. While we discuss along these lines, it should be noted that methodologies are overlapping: some bedside tests are similar or identical to lab-QST, many lab-QST protocols include a dynamic component, and assessment of dynamic QST requires to start with static assessments.

Improving neuropathic pain treatment - by rigorous stratification from bench to bedside

Chronic pain is a constantly recurring and persistent illness, presenting a formidable healthcare challenge for patients and physicians alike. Current first-line analgesics offer only low-modest efficacy when averaged across populations, further contributing to this debilitating disease burden. Moreover, many recent trials for novel analgesics have not met primary efficacy endpoints, which is particularly striking considering the pharmacological advances have provided a range of highly relevant new drug targets. Heterogeneity within chronic pain cohorts is increasingly understood to play a critical role in these failures of treatment and drug discovery, with some patients deriving substantial benefits from a given intervention while it has little-to-no effect on others. As such, current treatment failures may not result from a true lack of efficacy, but rather a failure to target individuals whose pain is driven by mechanisms which it therapeutically modulates. This necessitates a move towards phenotypical stratification of patients to delineate responders and non-responders in a mechanistically driven manner. In this article, we outline a bench-to-bedside roadmap for this transition to mechanistically informed personalised pain medicine. We emphasise how the successful identification of novel analgesics is dependent on rigorous experimental design as well as the validity of models and translatability of outcome measures between the animal model and patients. Subsequently, we discuss general and specific aspects of human trial design to address heterogeneity in patient populations to increase the chance of identifying effective analgesics. Finally, we show how stratification approaches can be brought into clinical routine to the benefit of patients.

Quantitative sensory testing and chronic pain syndromes: a cross-sectional study from TwinsUK

OBJECTIVE

The chronic pain syndromes (CPS) include syndromes such as chronic widespread pain (CWP), dry eye disease (DED) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Highly prevalent and lacking pathognomonic biomarkers, the CPS are known to cluster in individuals in part due to their genetic overlap, but patient diagnosis can be difficult. The success of quantitative sensory testing (QST) and inflammatory biomarkers as phenotyping tools in conditions such as painful neuropathies warrant their investigation in CPS. We aimed to examine whether individual QST modalities and candidate inflammatory markers were associated with CWP, DED or IBS in a large, highly phenotyped population sample.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Community-dwelling cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

Twins from the TwinsUK cohort PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared 10 QST modalities, measured in participants with and without a CWP diagnosis between 2007 and 2012. We investigated whether inflammatory markers measured by Olink were associated with CWP, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, IL-10, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and tumour necrosis factor. All analyses were repeated in DED and IBS with correction for multiple testing.

RESULTS

In N=3022 twins (95.8% women), no association was identified between individual QST modalities and CPS diagnoses (CWP, DED and IBS). Analyses of candidate inflammatory marker levels and CPS diagnoses in n=1368 twins also failed to meet statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Our findings in a large population cohort suggest a lack of true association between singular QST modalities or candidate inflammatory markers and CPS.

Maximizing treatment efficacy through patient stratification in neuropathic pain trials

Treatment of neuropathic pain remains inadequate despite the elucidation of multiple pathophysiological mechanisms and the development of promising therapeutic compounds. The lack of success in translating knowledge into clinical practice has discouraged pharmaceutical companies from investing in pain medicine; however, new patient stratification approaches could help bridge the translation gap and develop individualized therapeutic approaches. As we highlight in this article, subgrouping of patients according to sensory profiles and other baseline characteristics could aid the prediction of treatment success. Furthermore, novel outcome measures have been developed for patients with neuropathic pain. The extent to which sensory profiles and outcome measures can be employed in routine clinical practice and clinical trials and across distinct neuropathic pain aetiologies is yet to be determined. Improvements in animal models, drawing on our knowledge of human pain, and robust public-private partnerships will be needed to pave the way to innovative and effective pain medicine in the future.

Continuum of sensory profiles in diabetes mellitus patients with and without neuropathy and pain

BACKGROUND

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) assesses the functional integrity of small and large nerve fibre afferents and central somatosensory pathways; QST was assumed to provide insight into the mechanisms of neuropathy. We analysed QST profiles and phenotypes in patients with diabetes mellitus to study whether these could differentiate patients with and without pain and neuropathy.

METHODS

A standardized QST protocol was performed and 'loss and gain of function' abnormalities were analysed in four groups of subjects: diabetic patients with painful (pDSPN; n = 220) and non-painful distal symmetric polyneuropathy (nDSPN; n = 219), diabetic patients without neuropathy (DM; n = 23) and healthy non-diabetic subjects (n = 37). Based on the QST findings, diabetic subjects were further stratified into four predefined prototypic phenotypes: sensory loss (SL), thermal hyperalgesia (TH), mechanical hyperalgesia (MH) and healthy individuals.

RESULTS

Patients in the pDSPN group showed the greatest hyposensitivity ('loss of function'), and DM patients showed the lowest, with statistically significant increases in thermal, thermal pain, mechanical and mechanical pain sensory thresholds. Accordingly, the frequency of the SL phenotype was significantly higher in the pDSPN subgroup (41.8%), than expected (p < 0.0042). The proportion of 'gain of function' abnormalities was low in both pDSPN and nDSPN patients without significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a continuum in the sensory profiles of diabetic patients, with a more pronounced sensory loss in pDSPN group probably reflecting somatosensory nerve fibre degeneration. An analysis of 'gain of function' abnormalities (allodynia, hyperalgesia) did not offer a key to understanding the pathophysiology of spontaneous diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article, using quantitative sensory testing profiles in large cohorts of diabetic patients with and without polyneuropathy and pain, presents a continuum in the sensory profiles of diabetic patients, with more pronounced 'loss of function' abnormalities in painful polyneuropathy patients. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy probably represents a 'more progressed' type of neuropathy with more pronounced somatosensory nerve fibre degeneration. The proportion of 'gain of function' sensory abnormalities was low, and these offer limited understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms of spontaneous neuropathic pain.

Migraine disability, pain catastrophizing, and headache severity are associated with evoked pain and targeted by mind-body therapy

ABSTRACT

Meta-analysis suggests that migraine patients are no more sensitive to experimentally evoked pain than healthy control subjects. At the same time, studies have linked some migraine symptoms to quantitative sensory testing (QST) profiles. Unfortunately, previous studies associating migraine symptoms and QST have important methodological shortcomings, stemming from small sample sizes, and frequent use of univariate statistics for multivariate research questions. In the current study, we seek to address these limitations by using a large sample of episodic migraine patients (n = 103) and a multivariate analysis that associates pain ratings from many thermal intensities simultaneously with 12 clinical measures ranging from headache frequency to sleep abnormalities. We identified a single dimension of association between thermal QST and migraine symptoms that relates to pain ratings for all stimulus intensities and a subset of migraine symptoms relating to disability (Headache Impact Test 6 and Brief Pain Inventory interference), catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and pain severity (average headache pain, Brief Pain Inventory severity, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2). Headache frequency, allodynia, affect, and sleep disturbances were unrelated to this dimension. Consistent with previous research, we did not observe any difference in QST ratings between migraine patients and healthy control subjects. Additionally, we found that the linear combination of symptoms related to QST was modified by the mind-body therapy enhanced mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR+). These results suggest that QST has a selective relationship with pain symptoms even in the absence of between-subjects differences between chronic pain patients and healthy control subjects.

Sensitization of supra-threshold pain responses-Translational aspects and mechanisms

A substantial translational gap in pain research has been reflected by a mismatch of relevant primary pain assessment endpoints in preclinical vs. clinical trials. Since activity-dependent mechanisms may be neglected during reflexive tests, this may add as a confounding factor during preclinical pain assessment. In this perspective, we consider the evidence for a need for supra-threshold pain assessment in the pain research literature. In addition to that, we focus on previous results that may demonstrate an example mechanism, where the detection of neuron-glial interactions on pain seems to be substantially depending on the assessment of pain intensity beyond threshold levels.

Classification of Qualitative Fieldnotes Collected During Quantitative Sensory Testing: A Step Towards the Development of a New Mixed Methods Approach in Pain Research

PURPOSE

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a standardized method to assess somatosensory function. The collection of qualitative information, during the QST procedure, could be an interesting way to facilitate the characterization of altered sensory perception and the identification of different pain phenotypes. The aims of this study were 1) to classify qualitative fieldnotes of sensory abnormalities collected during an independent QST study, and 2) to generate a qualitative interview guide that could be included in the traditional QST procedure as a step towards the implementation of a mixed methods approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

QST data were collected from 48 chronic neuropathic pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Three body areas, with or without SCS, were tested: the painful limb targeted by SCS, the contralateral area, and the ipsilateral upper limb. After each trial of each QST modality, patients were encouraged to report any sensory abnormalities they could identify with a pain quality scale or using their own words.

RESULTS

Qualitative self-reported sensory abnormalities were dichotomized into two groups: altered sensory intensities and altered sensory perceptions. Altered sensory intensities were classified as sensory loss or sensory gain subgroups. Altered sensory perceptions were classified as paresthesia and dysesthesia subgroups Overall, 630 qualitative fieldnotes of altered sensations were collected: 385 on the painful limb, 173 at the contralateral area, and 72 at the ipsilateral upper limb. Based on these qualitative data, we propose a standardized method to collect qualitative data involving 9 open- and close-ended questions and 21 codes.

CONCLUSION

Our findings have highlighted the value of qualitative sensory evaluation during QST and constitute an important milestone in the development of a mixed methods protocol in phenotyping research.