Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.Phenotype stratification of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain can be conducted with a novel algorithm based on sensory profiles.

As an indirect approach to relate previously identified sensory phenotypes of patients suffering from peripheral neuropathic pain to underlying mechanisms, we used a published sorting algorithm to estimate the prevalence of denervation, peripheral and central sensitization in 657 healthy subjects undergoing experimental models of nerve block (NB) (compression block and topical lidocaine), primary hyperalgesia (PH) (sunburn and topical capsaicin), or secondary hyperalgesia (intradermal capsaicin and electrical high-frequency stimulation), and in 902 patients suffering from neuropathic pain. Some of the data have been previously published. Randomized split-half analysis verified a good concordance with a priori mechanistic sensory profile assignment in the training (79%, Cohen κ = 0.54, n = 265) and the test set (81%, Cohen κ = 0.56, n = 279). Nerve blocks were characterized by pronounced thermal and mechanical sensory loss, but also mild pinprick hyperalgesia and paradoxical heat sensations. Primary hyperalgesia was characterized by pronounced gain for heat, pressure and pinprick pain, and mild thermal sensory loss. Secondary hyperalgesia was characterized by pronounced pinprick hyperalgesia and mild thermal sensory loss. Topical lidocaine plus topical capsaicin induced a combined phenotype of NB plus PH. Topical menthol was the only model with significant cold hyperalgesia. Sorting of the 902 patients into these mechanistic phenotypes led to a similar distribution as the original heuristic clustering (65% identity, Cohen κ = 0.44), but the denervation phenotype was more frequent than in heuristic clustering. These data suggest that sorting according to human surrogate models may be useful for mechanism-based stratification of neuropathic pain patients for future clinical trials, as encouraged by the European Medicines Agency.

BackgroundConditioned pain modulation (CPM) evaluates the pain modulating effect of a noxious conditioning stimulus (CS) on another noxious test stimulus (TS), mostly based solely on subjective pain ratings. We used painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES) to induce TS in a novel CPM-model. Additionally, to evaluate a more objective parameter, we recorded the corresponding changes of cortical evoked potentials (PCES-EP).MethodsWe examined the CPM-effect in 17 healthy subjects in a randomized controlled cross-over design during immersion of the non-dominant hand into 10 °C or 24 °C cold water (CS). Using three custom-built concentric surface electrodes, electrical stimuli were applied on the dominant hand, inducing pain of 40–60 on NRS 0–100 (TS). At baseline, during and after CS we assessed the electrically induced pain intensity and electrically evoked potentials recorded over the central electrode (Cz).ResultsOnly in the 10 °C-condition, both pain (52.6 ± 4.4 (baseline) vs. 30.3 ± 12.5 (during CS)) and amplitudes of PCES-EP (42.1 ± 13.4 μV (baseline) vs. 28.7 ± 10.5 μV (during CS)) attenuated during CS and recovered there after (all p < 0.001). In the 10 °C-condition changes of subjective pain ratings during electrical stimulation and amplitudes of PCES-EP correlated significantly with each other (r = 0.5) and with CS pain intensity (r = 0.5).ConclusionsPCES-EPs are a quantitative measure of pain relief, as changes in the electrophysiological response are paralleled by a consistent decrease in subjective pain ratings. This novel CPM paradigm is a feasible method, which could help to evaluate the function of the endogenous pain modulation processes.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012779, retrospectively registered on 24 July 2017.

Efficacy of capsaicin does not correlate with the induced loss of function of small fibres, measured by QST. Presence of cold and pinprick hyperalgesia seems to be predictive of response to capsaicin (8%).

The pathophysiology of pain in neuropathy is complex and may be linked to sensory phenotypes. Quantitative sensory testing, a standardized method to evaluate sensory profiles in response to defined stimuli, assesses functional integrity of small and large nerve fiber afferents and central somatosensory pathways. It has revealed detailed insights into mechanisms of neuropathy, yet it remains unclear if pain directly affects sensory profiles. The main objective of this study was to investigate sensory profiles in patients with various neuropathic conditions, including polyneuropathy, mononeuropathy, and lesions to the central nervous system, in relation to self-reported presence or absence of pain and pain sensitivity using the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire. A total of 443 patients (332 painful and 111 painless) and 112 healthy participants were investigated. Overall, loss of sensation was equally prevalent in patients with and without spontaneous pain. Pain thresholds were equally lowered in both patient groups, demonstrating that hyperalgesia and allodynia are just as present in patients not reporting any pain. Remarkably, this was similar for dynamic mechanical allodynia. Hypoalgesia was more pronounced in painful polyneuropathy, whereas hyperalgesia was more frequent in painful mononeuropathy (compared with painless conditions). Self-reported pain sensitivity was significantly higher in painful than in painless neuropathic conditions. Our results reveal the presence of hyperalgesia and allodynia in patients with central and peripheral lesions of the somatosensory system not reporting spontaneous pain. This shows that symptoms and signs of hypersensitivity may not necessarily coincide and that painful and painless neuropathic conditions may mechanistically blend into one another.

Clinical and human experimental pain studies often include so-called "healthy" controls in investigations of sensory abnormalities, using quantitative sensory testing (QST) as an outcome measure. However, the criteria for what is considered "healthy" vary among the different studies and between study centers and investigators, partly explaining the high variability of the results. Therefore, several aspects should be considered during inclusion of healthy volunteers in QST-based trials to have homogenous groups of healthy controls with less variability between human experimental studies, so that results are less likely to be false negative or false positive because of subject-related factors. The EUROPAIN and NEUROPAIN consortia aimed to define factors influencing the variability in selection of healthy subjects in QST-based studies before the start of both projects and to give recommendations how to minimize it based on the current literature and expertise of the participants. The present suggestions for inclusion criteria of healthy volunteers into QST-based trials describe a 2-level approach including standardized questionnaires enabling the collection of relevant information on sociodemographic data, medical history, current health status, coping strategies in dealing with pain, and the motivation of the volunteer to participate in the study. These suggestions are believed to help researchers interpret their results in comparison with others and improve the quality of clinical studies including healthy volunteers as controls or in human experimental pain studies. They aim to reduce any confounding factors. Furthermore, the acquired information will allow post hoc analyses of variance for different potential influencing factors.

Pain is a common symptom accompanying the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Nonspecific discomfort such as sore throat and body ache are frequent. Parainfectious pain such as headache, myalgia, or neuropathic pain has also been reported. The latter seems to be associated with an autoimmune response or an affection of the peripheral neuromuscular system or the central nervous system because of the viral infection. Furthermore, chronic pain can be a complication of intensive care unit treatment due to COVID-19 itself (such as intensive care-acquired weakness) or of secondary diseases associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, including Guillain-Barr é syndrome, polyneuritis, critical illness polyneuropathy, or central pain following cerebrovascular events. Data on long-lasting painful symptoms after clinically manifest COVID-19 and their consequences are lacking. In addition, preexisting chronic pain may be exacerbated by limited and disrupted health care and the psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical providers should be vigilant on pain during and after COVID-19.

BackgroundConditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) is often used to assess human descending pain inhibition. Nine different studies on the test-retest-reliability of different CPM paradigms have been published, but none of them has investigated the commonly used heat-cold-pain method. The results vary widely and therefore, reliability measures cannot be extrapolated from one CPM paradigm to another. Aim of the present study was to analyse the test-retest-reliability of the common heat-cold-pain method and its correlation to pain thresholds.MethodsWe tested the short-term test-retest-reliability within 40 ± 19.9 h using a cold-water immersion (10 °C, left hand) as conditioning stimulus (CS) and heat pain (43-49 °C, pain intensity 60 ± 5 on the 101-point numeric rating scale, right forearm) as test stimulus (TS) in 25 healthy right-handed subjects (12females, 31.6 ± 14.1 years). The TS was applied 30s before (TSbefore), during (TSduring) and after (TSafter) the 60s CS. The difference between the pain ratings for TSbefore and TSduring represents the early CPM-effect, between TSbefore and TSafter the late CPM-effect. Quantitative sensory testing (QST, DFNS protocol) was performed on both sessions before the CPM assessment. Statistics: paired t-tests, Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest real difference (SRD), Pearson’s correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, significance level p < 0.05 with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, when necessary.ResultsPain ratings during CPM correlated significantly (ICC: 0.411…0.962) between both days, though ratings for TSafter were lower on day 2 (p < 0.005). The early (day 1: 16.7 ± 11.7; day 2: 19.5 ± 11.9; ICC: 0.618, SRD: 20.2) and late (day 1: 1.7 ± 9.2; day 2: 7.6 ± 11.5; ICC: 0.178, SRD: 27.0) CPM effect did not differ significantly between both days. Both early and late CPM-effects did not correlate with the pain thresholds.ConclusionsThe short-term test-retest-reliability of the early CPM-effect using the heat-cold-pain method in healthy subjects achieved satisfying results in terms of the ICC. The SRD of the early CPM effect showed that an individual change of > 20 NRS can be attributed to a real change rather than chance. The late CPM-effect was weaker and not reliable.