Individual differences in endogenous pain modulation as a risk factor for chronic pain

Neurology ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. R. Edwards
Pain ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 161 (12) ◽  
pp. 2852-2859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Shulman ◽  
David Zurakowski ◽  
Julie Keysor ◽  
Kelsey Jervis ◽  
Navil F. Sethna

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc O. Martel ◽  
Kristian Petersen ◽  
Marise Cornelius ◽  
Lars Arendt-Nielsen ◽  
Robert Edwards

Cephalalgia ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 765-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
TS Jensen

Within the last 2 decades there has been an explosion in new information on mechanisms underlying pain. Unfortunately this information has not resulted in a similar improvement of our handling of patients with chronic pain including chronic musculoskeletal pain. Neuronal hyperexcitability, which apparently is a key phenomenon in many (if not all) types of chronic pain results in changes in the nervous system from the level of the peripheral nociceptor to the highest cortical centers in the brain. The neuronal plastic changes in chronic pain conditions makes the nociceptive system amenable for treatment with several traditional as well as untraditional types of interventions. Two treatment areas that seem worth exploring within chronic pain including headache concerns preventive measures and endogenous pain modulation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1186
Author(s):  
Philipp Graeff ◽  
Alina Itter ◽  
Katharina Wach ◽  
Ruth Ruscheweyh

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) describes the reduction in pain evoked by a test stimulus (TS) when presented together with a heterotopic painful conditioning stimulus (CS). CPM has been proposed to reflect inter-individual differences in endogenous pain modulation, which may predict susceptibility for acute and chronic pain. Here, we aimed to estimate the relative variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences compared to age, sex, and CS physical and pain intensity. We constructed linear and mixed effect models on pooled data from 171 participants of several studies, of which 97 had repeated measures. Cross-sectional analyses showed no significant effect of age, sex or CS intensity. Repeated measures analyses revealed a significant effect of CS physical intensity (p = 0.002) but not CS pain intensity (p = 0.159). Variance decomposition showed that inter-individual differences accounted for 24% to 34% of the variance in CPM while age, sex, and CS intensity together explained <3% to 12%. In conclusion, the variance in CPM explained by inter-individual differences largely exceeds that of commonly considered factors such as age, sex and CS intensity. This may explain why predictive capability of these factors has had conflicting results and suggests that future models investigating them should account for inter-individual differences.


Neuroscience ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 286 ◽  
pp. 37-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Miranda ◽  
S.M.S. Lamana ◽  
E.V. Dias ◽  
M. Athie ◽  
C.A. Parada ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document