Does pain modality play a role in the interruptive function of acute visceral compared with somatic pain?

Similarities and Differences in Resting-State Brain Activity Changes of Distinct Chronic Pain Types

OBJECTIVES

To explore neural similarities and differences between visceral and somatic pain by comparing spontaneous brain activity in patients with chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

METHODS

Twenty eight IBS patients, 21 TMD patients, and 28 healthy controls (HC) underwent resting-state fMRI and behavioral assessments. The correlations between fMRI metrics such as the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF), regional homogeneity (ReHo), functional connectivity (FC), and clinical manifestations were further analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with HC, both patient groups demonstrated increased ALFF in right parahippocampal gyrus (PHG), insula, medial superior frontal gyrus (SFGmed), precentral gyrus (PreCG), and increased ReHo in right SFGmed and left supplementary motor area (SMA). Compared with IBS patients, TMD patients exhibited reduced ALFF in right SFGmed and insula, increased ALFF in right PHG and PreCG, decreased ReHo in right SFGmed and left lingual gyrus, and increased ReHo in left SMA. Both patient groups exhibited enhanced right PHG-related FC in left precuneus and right cingulate gyrus, and right insula-related FC in left superior temporal gyrus and right paracentral lobule. Specifically, IBS patients showed higher FC between right PHG and orbitofrontal cortex than TMD patients, which was negatively correlated with mood and gastrointestinal symptoms. Mediation analysis revealed that pain in TMD and gastrointestinal symptoms in IBS mediated these relationships.

CONCLUSION

Visceral and somatic pain share abnormal activity in multiple brain networks. Abnormalities in affective region present potential neuroimaging markers for pain disorders, with depression in somatic pain linked to pain intensity and in visceral pain to gastrointestinal symptoms.

Pain research in a petri dish? Advantages and limitations of neuro-glial primary cell cultures from structures of the nociceptive system

How can we learn more about pain without causing pain in humans or animals? This short review focuses on neuro-glial primary cell cultures as models to study neuro-immune interactions in the context of pain and discusses their advantages and limitations. The field of basic pain research places scientists in an ethical dilemma. We aim to understand underlying mechanisms of pain for an improved pain therapy for humans and animals. At the same time, this regularly includes the induction of pain in model animals. Within the field of psychoneuroimmunology, the examination of the complexity of neuro-immune interactions in health and disease as well as the bi-directional communication between the brain and the periphery make animal experiments an inevitable part of pain research. To address ethical and legal considerations as well as the growing societal awareness for animal welfare, scientists push for the identification and characterization of complementary methods to implement the 3R principle of Russel and Burch. As such, methods to replace animal studies, reduce the number of animals used, and refine experiments are tested. Neuro-glial primary cell cultures of structures of the nociceptive system, such as dorsal root ganglia (DRG) or the spinal dorsal horn (SDH) represent useful in vitro tools, when research comes to a cellular and molecular level. They allow for studying mechanisms of neuronal sensitization, glial cell activation, or the role of specific inflammatory mediators and intracellular signaling cascades involved in the development of inflammatory and neuropathic pain. Moreover, DRG/SDH-cultures provide the opportunity to test novel strategies for interventions, such as pharmaceuticals or cell-based therapies targeting neuroinflammatory processes. Thereby, in vitro models contribute to a better understanding of neuron-glia-immune communication in the context of pain and in the advancement of pain therapies. However, this can only be one piece in a large puzzle. Our knowledge about the complexity of pain will depend on studies in humans and animals applied in vitro and in vivo and will benefit from clear and open-minded interdisciplinary communication and transparency in public outreach.

The effects of experimental pain on episodic memory and its top-down modulation: a preregistered pooled analysis

Introduction

Pain can automatically interfere with ongoing cognitive processes such as attention and memory. The extent of pain's negative effects on cognitive functioning seems to depend on a balance between top-down and bottom-up factors.

Objectives

In this large, preregistered, pooled reanalysis of 8 studies, we investigated the robustness of the detrimental effect of acute pain on recognition memory and whether top-down mechanisms such as pain-related expectations or cognitions (pain-related fear, pain catastrophizing) modulate this effect.

Methods

Two hundred forty-seven healthy participants underwent similar experimental paradigms, including a visual categorization task with images randomly paired with (or without) concomitant painful stimulation and a subsequent unannounced recognition task. Recognition memory (ie, d', recollection, and familiarity) and categorization performance (ie, reaction time, accuracy) served as proxies for the effect of pain on cognitive performance.

Results

Acute painful stimulation significantly impaired recognition performance (d', familiarity). However, recognition performance was not significantly modulated by participants' expectations regarding the effect of pain on task performance or pain-related cognitions in this sample of healthy participants.

Conclusion

Our results corroborate the negative effects of pain on (visual) memory encoding reported in previous studies and reports of "memory problems" from patients with chronic pain. To characterize the role of bottom-up and top-down factors for the detrimental effects of pain, large-scale studies with more nuanced study designs are necessary. Future studies in patient cohorts must unravel the interaction of maladaptive pain-related cognitions and the often-reported impaired cognitive performance in chronic pain patients.

Do we perceive sensations inside and outside of our body differently? Perceptual, emotional, and behavioral differences between visceral and somatic sensation, discomfort, and pain

BACKGROUND

Experimental research evaluating differences between the visceral and somatic stimulation is limited to pain and typically uses different induction methods for visceral and somatic stimulation (e.g., rectal balloon distention vs. tactile hand stimulation). Our study aimed to compare differences in response time, intensity, unpleasantness, and threat between identical electrical visceral and somatic stimulations at both painful and non-painful perceptual thresholds.

METHODS

Electrical stimulation was applied to the wrist and distal esophagus in 20 healthy participants. A double pseudorandom staircase determined perceptual thresholds of Sensation, Discomfort, and Pain for the somatic and visceral stimulations, separately. Stimulus reaction time (ms, via button press), and intensity, unpleasantness, and threat ratings were recorded after each stimulus. General linear mixed models compared differences in the four outcomes by stimulation type, threshold, and the stimulation type-by-threshold interaction. Sigmoidal maximum effect models evaluated differences in outcomes across all delivered stimulation intensities.

KEY RESULTS

Overall, visceral stimulations were perceived as more intense, threatening, and unpleasant compared to somatic stimulations, but participants responded faster to somatic stimulations. There was no significant interaction effect, but planned contrasts demonstrated differences at individual thresholds. Across all delivered intensities, higher intensity stimulations were needed to reach the half-maximum effect of self-reported intensity, unpleasantness, and threat ratings in the visceral domain.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Differences exist between modalities for both non-painful and painful sensations. These findings may have implications for translating paradigms and behavioral treatments from the somatic domain to the visceral domain, though future research in larger clinical samples is needed.

Wenn aus einem Bauchgefühl viszerale Schmerzen werden: Placebo- und Nocebo-Mechanismen entlang der Darm-Hirn-Achse

Das Erleben von Schmerz ist nach heutigem Verständnis durch eine Vielzahl biologischer, psychologischer und sozialer Faktoren geprägt und somit eine komplexe, von der Nozizeption abzugrenzende, psychologische Erfahrung. Entsprechend ist das Schmerzerleben durch psychologische Faktoren modulierbar und chronische Schmerzen werden als biopsychosoziale Erkrankungen verstanden. Dies gilt auch für den Viszeralschmerz, dem spezifische psychophysiologische Prinzipien und neurobiologische Mechanismen zugrunde liegen, was eine interdisziplinäre Betrachtung unter Einbeziehung der Psychologie und der Neurowissenschaften erforderlich macht. Ausgehend von den bidirektionalen Verbindungen zwischen Darm und Hirn und aufbauend auf einem biopsychosozialen Krankheitsmodell beschreibt dieser Übersichtsbeitrag psychologische Mechanismen, die bei der Entstehung, Aufrechterhaltung und Therapie viszeraler Schmerzen wichtig sind. Dabei liegt der Fokus auf positiven und negativen Erwartungseffekten im psychosozialen Behandlungskontext. Therapieerwartungen können Krankheitssymptome sowohl positiv als auch negativ beeinflussen. Diese gemeinhin als Placebo- und Noceboeffekte bekannten Phänomene, die durch die Arzt-Patient Kommunikation, Lernprozesse, Stress und Furcht vermittelt werden, sind auch für den Viszeralschmerz bei gastrointestinalen Erkrankungen zunehmend anerkannt und Gegenstand aktueller grundlagenwissenschaftlicher und klinischer Forschungsaktivitäten. Neue interdisziplinäre und translationale Forschungsansätze aus der Forschung zu Placebo- und Noceboeffekten liefern spannende Einblicke in die zahlreichen Verbindungen und Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Darm und Gehirn bei normalen wie auch pathologischen Darm-Hirn Interaktionen und können dazu beitragen, die Pathophysiologie von Erkrankungen, die mit viszeralen Schmerzen einhergehen, besser zu verstehen und wichtige Erkenntnisse für neue Therapieansätze zu gewinnen.

Evaluation of bone mineral density and body compositions interrelation in young and middle-aged male patients with Crohn's disease by quantitative computed tomography

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of bone mineral density (BMD) and body compositions, and the impact of body compositions on BMD in young and middle-aged male patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

Patients with CD (n = 198) and normal controls (n = 123) underwent quantitative computed tomography (QCT) examination of lumbar vertebrae 1-3 (L1-3). The BMD and bone geometric parameters were measured and outputted by QCT post-process software. Meanwhile, body composition parameters, including subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), lean mass (LM), and muscles mass around lumbar vertebrae were also acquired by QCT. Blood indicators [interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), C-reactive protein (CRP), Ca, and P] were collected from clinical medical records. Independent t-test was used to compare these variables between the CD group and the normal control group.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, height, and weight between the CD group and the control group (p > 0.05), indicating that the sample size was relatively balanced. Mean BMD in the CD group were lower than those in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The bone geometric parameters of the CD group, including cortical area/density (Ct. Ar, Ct. BMD) and trabecular area/density (Tb. Ar and Tb. BMD), were significantly lower than those of the control group (p < 0.05), so were the body composition parameters including total adipose tissue (TAT), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), lean mass (LM), and muscles mass (p < 0.05). In addition, the level of plasma IL-6, IL-8, CRP, and TNF-α of the CD group were higher than those of the control group (p < 0.05). On the contrary, the body mass index (BMI) and serum Ca and P levels of the CD group were lower than those of the control group (p < 0.05). Through multiple linear regression analysis, Tb. BMD, VAT, Ct. Ar, LM, Ca, and IL-8 entered the regression model and revealed a significant contribution to BMD.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CD could suffer from reduction in BMD. However, the parameters of bone geometric parameters are more sensitive and accurate than BMD changes. Among them, Tb. BMD, VAT, Ct. Ar, and LM have significant effects on BMD reduction.

Positive Treatment Expectations Shape Perceived Medication Efficacy in a Translational Placebo Paradigm for the Gut-Brain Axis

Placebo research has established the pivotal role of treatment expectations in shaping symptom experience and patient-reported treatment outcomes. Perceived treatment efficacy constitutes a relevant yet understudied aspect, especially in the context of the gut-brain axis with visceral pain as key symptom. Using a clinically relevant experimental model of visceral pain, we elucidated effects of pre-treatment expectations on post-treatment perceived treatment efficacy as an indicator of treatment satisfaction in a translational placebo intervention. We implemented positive suggestions regarding intravenous treatment with a spasmolytic drug (in reality saline), herein applied in combination with two series of individually calibrated rectal distensions in healthy volunteers. The first series used distension pressures inducing pain (pain phase). In the second series, pressures were surreptitiously reduced, modeling pain relief (pain relief phase). Using visual analog scales (VAS), expected and perceived treatment efficacy were assessed, along with perceived pain intensity. Manipulation checks supported that the induction of positive pre-treatment expectations and the modeling of pain relief were successful. Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were implemented to assess the role of inter-individual variability in positive pre-treatment expectations in perceived treatment efficacy and pain perception. GLM indicated no association between pre-treatment expectations and perceived treatment efficacy or perceived pain for the pain phase. For the relief phase, pre-treatment expectations (p = 0.024) as well as efficacy ratings assessed after the preceding pain phase (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with treatment efficacy assessed after the relief phase, together explaining 54% of the variance in perceived treatment efficacy. The association between pre-treatment expectations and perceived pain approached significance (p = 0.057) in the relief phase. Our data from an experimental translational placebo intervention in visceral pain support that reported post-treatment medication efficacy is shaped by pre-treatment expectations. The observation that individuals with higher positive expectations reported less pain and higher treatment satisfaction after pain relief may provide first evidence that perceived symptom improvement may facilitate treatment satisfaction. The immediate experience of symptoms within a given psychosocial treatment context may dynamically change perceptions about treatment, with implications for treatment satisfaction, compliance and adherence of patients with conditions of the gut-brain axis.