Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) may experience several types of chronic pain, including peripheral and central neuropathic pain, pain secondary to overuse, painful muscle spasms, and visceral pain. An accurate classification of the patient's pain is important for choosing the optimal treatment strategy. In particular, neuropathic pain appears to be persistent despite various treatment attempts. In recent years, we have gained increasing knowledge of SCI pain mechanisms from experimental models and clinical studies. Nevertheless, treatment remains difficult and inadequate. In line with the recommendations for peripheral neuropathic pain, evidence from randomized controlled treatment trials suggests that tricyclic antidepressants and pregabalin are first-line treatments. This review highlights the diagnosis and classification of SCI pain and recent improvements in the understanding of underlying mechanisms, and provides an update on treatment of SCI pain.

Pain is a frequent consequence of spinal cord injury (SCI) which may profoundly impair the patients' quality of life. Valid experimental models and methods are therefore desirable in the search for better treatments. Usually, experimental pain assays depend on stimulus-evoked withdrawal responses; however, this spinal-mediated reflex response may be particularly problematic when evaluating below-level SCI pain due to the development of hyperactive reflex circuitries. In this study, we applied and compared assays measuring cold (acetone), static (von Frey filaments), and dynamic mechanical (soft brush) hypersensitivity at different levels of the neuroaxis at and below the level of injury in a rat model of SCI. We induced an experimental SCI (MASCIS 25 mm weight-drop) and evaluated the development of spinal reflexes (withdrawal), spinal-brainstem-spinal reflexes (licking, guarding, struggling, vocalizing, jumping, and biting) and cerebral-dependent behavior (place escape/avoidance paradigm (PEAP)). We demonstrated increased brainstem reflexes and cerebrally mediated aversive reactions to stimuli applied at the level of SCI, suggesting development of at-level evoked pain behavior. Furthermore, stimulation below-level increased innate reflex responses without increasing brainstem reflexes or aversive behavior in the PEAP, suggesting development of the spasticity syndrome rather than pain-like behavior. While spinal reflex measures are acceptable for studying changes in the spinal reflex pathways and spinal cord, they are not suited as nociceptive behavioral measures. Measuring brainstem organized responses eliminates the bias associated with the spastic syndrome, but pain requires cortical involvement. Methods depending on cortical structures, as the PEAP, are therefore optimal endpoints in animal models of central pain.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) has a number of severe and disabling consequences, including chronic pain, and around 40% of patients develop persistent neuropathic pain. Pain following SCI has a detrimental impact on the patient's quality of life and is a major specific healthcare problem in its own right. Thus far, there is no cure for the pain and oral pharmaceutical intervention is often inadequate, commonly resulting in a reduction of only 20-30% in pain intensity. Neuropathic pain sensations are characterized by spontaneous persistent pain and a range of abnormally evoked responses, e.g. allodynia (pain evoked by normally non-noxious stimuli) and hyperalgesia (an increased response to noxious stimuli). Neuropathic pain following SCI may be present at or below the level of injury. Oral pharmacological agents used in the treatment of neuropathic pain act either by depressing neuronal activity, by blocking sodium channels or inhibiting calcium channels, by increasing inhibition via GABA agonists, by serotonergic and noradrenergic reuptake inhibition, or by decreasing activation via glutamate receptor inhibition, especially by blocking the NMDA receptor. At present, only ten randomized, double-blind, controlled trials have been performed on oral drug treatment of pain after SCI, the results of most of which were negative. The studies included antidepressants (amitriptyline and trazodone), antiepileptics (gabapentin, pregabalin, lamotrigine and valproate) and mexiletine. Gabapentin, pregabalin and amitriptyline showed a significant reduction in neuropathic pain following SCI. Cannabinoids have been found to relieve other types of central pain, and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors as well as opioids relieve peripheral neuropathic pain and may be used to treat patients with SCI pain.

No abstract

Placebo effects have been reported in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Expected pain levels and positive emotions are involved in the observed pain relief, but the underlying neurobiology is largely unknown. Patients with neuropathic pain are highly motivated for pain relief, and as motivational factors such as expectations of reward, as well as pain processing in itself, are related to the dopaminergic system, it can be speculated that dopamine release contributes to placebo effects in neuropathic pain. Nineteen patients with neuropathic pain after thoracic surgery were tested during a placebo intervention consisting of open and hidden applications of the pain-relieving agent lidocaine (2 mL) and no treatment. The dopamine antagonist haloperidol (2 mg) and the agonist levodopa/carbidopa (100/25 mg) were administered to test the involvement of dopamine. Expected pain levels, desire for pain relief, and ongoing and evoked pain were assessed on mechanical visual analog scales (0-10). Significant placebo effects on ongoing (P ≤ 0.003) and evoked (P ≤ 0.002) pain were observed. Expectancy and desire accounted for up to 41.2% and 71.5% of the variance in ongoing and evoked pain, respectively, after the open application of lidocaine. We found no evidence for an effect of haloperidol and levodopa/carbidopa on neuropathic pain levels (P = 0.071-0.963). Dopamine seemed to influence the levels of expectancy and desire, yet there was no evidence for indirect or interaction effects on the placebo effect. This is the first study to suggest that dopamine does not contribute to placebo effects in chronic neuropathic pain.

The investigation of neurotransmitter systems in placebo and nocebo effects has improved our understanding of these phenomena. Yet, most studies involve healthy participants. Because the pain modulatory system may differ in healthy participants and patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate the evidence for neurotransmitter involvement in placebo and nocebo effects in each of these populations. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles investigating the endogenous opioid, endocannabinoid, dopaminergic, oxytocinergic, vasopressinergic, and cholecystokininergic (CCKergic) systems in placebo and nocebo effects in pain. Twenty-eight placebo and 2 nocebo studies were included. Vote counting was used to balance the number of positive vs negative findings. In healthy participants, the endogenous opioid, endocannabinoid, and vasopressinergic systems were involved in placebo effects, whereas findings on the dopaminergic and oxytocinergic systems were mixed. In patients with chronic pain, only 4 studies investigated neurotransmitters showing no involvement of the endogenous opioid system and mixed findings regarding the dopaminergic system. As to nocebo effects, 2 studies suggest that the CCKergic system is involved in nocebo effects in healthy participants. Overall, research has come a long way in specifying the neurotransmitter systems involved in placebo effects in healthy participants. Yet, evidence for the involvement of neurotransmitter systems in placebo effects in patients with chronic pain and in nocebo effects in healthy participants and patients is scarce. Based on the existing evidence, this systematic review suggests that knowledge obtained in healthy participants may not necessarily be transferred to chronic pain.

Background and aims Pain is a subjective experience, and as such, pre-clinical models of human pain are highly simplified representations of clinical features. These models are nevertheless critical for the delivery of novel analgesics for human pain, providing pharmacodynamic measurements of activity and, where possible, on-target confirmation of that activity. It has, however, been suggested that at least 50% of all pre-clinical data, independent of discipline, cannot be replicated. Additionally, the paucity of "negative" data in the public domain indicates a publication bias, and significantly impacts the interpretation of failed attempts to replicate published findings. Evidence suggests that systematic biases in experimental design and conduct and insufficiencies in reporting play significant roles in poor reproducibility across pre-clinical studies. It then follows that recommendations on how to improve these factors are warranted. Methods Members of Europain, a pain research consortium funded by the European Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), developed internal recommendations on how to improve the reliability of pre-clinical studies between laboratories. This guidance is focused on two aspects: experimental design and conduct, and study reporting. Results Minimum requirements for experimental design and conduct were agreed upon across the dimensions of animal characteristics, sample size calculations, inclusion and exclusion criteria, random allocation to groups, allocation concealment, and blinded assessment of outcome. Building upon the Animals in Research: Reportingin vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, reporting standards were developed for pre-clinical studies of pain. These include specific recommendations for reporting on ethical issues, experimental design and conduct, and data analysis and interpretation. Key principles such as sample size calculation, a priori definition of a primary efficacy measure, randomization, allocation concealments, and blinding are discussed. In addition, considerations of how stress and normal rodent physiology impact outcome of analgesic drug studies are considered. Flow diagrams are standard requirements in all clinical trials, and flow diagrams for preclinical trials, which describe number of animals included/excluded, and reasons for exclusion are proposed. Creation of a trial registry for pre-clinical studies focused on drug development in order to estimate possible publication bias is discussed. Conclusions More systematic research is needed to analyze how inadequate internal validity and/or experimental bias may impact reproducibility across pre-clinical pain studies. Addressing the potential threats to internal validity and the sources of experimental biases, as well as increasing the transparency in reporting, are likely to improve preclinical research broadly by ensuring relevant progress is made in advancing the knowledge of chronic pain pathophysiology and identifying novel analgesics. Implications We are now disseminating these Europain processes for...

No abstract