Brain Network to Placebo and Nocebo Responses in Acute Experimental Lower Back Pain: A Multivariate Granger Causality Analysis of fMRI Data

Abstract

Background and Objective: Placebo and nocebo responses are widely observed. Herein, we investigated the nocebo hyperalgesia and placebo analgesia responses in brain network in acute lower back pain (ALBP) model using multivariate Granger causality analysis (GCA). This approach analyses functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data for lagged-temporal correlation between different brain areas.Method: After completing the ALBP model, 20 healthy subjects were given two interventions, once during a placebo intervention and once during a nocebo intervention, pseudo-randomly ordered. fMRI scans were performed synchronously during each intervention, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected at the end of each intervention. The fMRI data were then analyzed using multivariate GCA.Results: Our results found statistically significant differences in VAS scores from baseline (pain status) for both placebo and nocebo interventions, as well as between placebo and nocebo interventions. In placebo network, we found a negative lagged-temporal correlation between multiple brain areas, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), secondary somatosensory cortex area, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and insular cortex (IC); and a positive lagged-temporal correlation between multiple brain areas, including IC, thalamus, ACC, as well as the supplementary motor area (SMA). In the nocebo network, we also found a positive lagged-temporal correlation between multiple brain areas, including the primary somatosensory cortex area, caudate, DLPFC and SMA.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that both pain-related network and reward system are involved in placebo and nocebo responses. The placebo response mainly works by activating the reward system and inhibiting pain-related network, while the nocebo response is the opposite. Placebo network also involves the activation of opioid-mediated analgesia system (OMAS) and emotion pathway, while nocebo network involves the deactivation of emotional control. At the same time, through the construction of the GC network, we verified our hypothesis that nocebo and placebo networks share part of the same brain regions, but the two networks also have their own unique structural features.

Diffusion tensor imaging reveals sex differences in pain sensitivity of rats

“…Numerous studies on pain processing have recognized the activation of S1 and S2 regions and this evidence has led to the understanding that during the processing of nociceptive stimuli, S1 and S2 regions of the brain perceive the sensory features of pain (Coghill et al, 1999;Craig, 2002). Additionally, the ACC and IC, components of the limbic system, found to be activated in most PET or fMRI studies of thermal and mechanical pain, are implicated in the emotional processing of pain (Orenius et al, 2017;Cha et al, 2020;Henderson et al, 2020;Shi et al, 2021). It has been reported that the parietal association area and the prefrontal cortex are involved in the processing of thermal pain and are related to cognitive factors such as memory or stimulus evaluation (Strigo et al, 2003).…”

A new experimental rat model of nocebo‐related nausea involving double mechanisms of observational learning and conditioning

“…When the nocebo occurs, significant changes in brain function are observed; however, no definitive conclusion has been reached. The available evidence is primarily based on human neuroimaging studies of nocebo hyperalgesia, and some brain regions have been suggested to be clearly activated, such as the thalamus, insula, hippocampus, ACC, PAG, amygdala, etc 45–47 . We noted that few studies had examined changes in brain activation in nocebo nausea.…”

Acupuncture modulates the frequency-specific functional connectivity density in primary dysmenorrhea

“…The result implied that SA, similar to VA, could modulate pain emotions in patients with PDM. The studies on SA or phantom acupuncture have concluded that SA can specifically activate DLPFC to provide the placebo effect ( Makary et al, 2018 ; Shi et al, 2021 ). However, this study suggested that SA did not exhibit a placebo effect associated with self-control in pain.…”