Clusters of facilitatory and inhibitory conditioned pain modulation responses in a large sample of children, adolescents, and young adults with chronic pain

• Published in: Pain reports Vol. 7; no. 6; p. e1032
• Main Authors: Ocay, Don Daniel, Ye, Diana-Luk, Larche, Cynthia L., Potvin, Stéphane, Marchand, Serge, Ferland, Catherine E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Philadelphia, PA Wolters Kluwer 01.11.2022
• Subjects: Pediatric
• ISSN: 2471-2531; 2471-2531
• DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001032

When investigating the role of facilitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms such as conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP), it is important to take both into consideration in a single experimental model to provide the most information on subgroups of patients. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify subgroups in a large population of pediatric patients with chronic pain based on their facilitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms and compare them with control subjects.IntroductionWhen investigating the role of facilitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms such as conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP), it is important to take both into consideration in a single experimental model to provide the most information on subgroups of patients. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify subgroups in a large population of pediatric patients with chronic pain based on their facilitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms and compare them with control subjects.Five hundred twenty-one female subjects and 147 male subjects between 8 and 21 years old underwent a CPM assessment using a 2-minute tonic noxious heat stimulation as the test stimulus and a 2-minute cold-pressor task (CPT) (12°C) as the conditioning stimulus.MethodsFive hundred twenty-one female subjects and 147 male subjects between 8 and 21 years old underwent a CPM assessment using a 2-minute tonic noxious heat stimulation as the test stimulus and a 2-minute cold-pressor task (CPT) (12°C) as the conditioning stimulus.The best partition of clusters of patients was 3 clusters accounting for 27.15% of the total variation in the data. Cluster 1 (n = 271) was best characterized by high pain intensity during the CPT, lack of TSP during the test stimuli, and efficient inhibitory CPM. Cluster 2 (n = 186) was best characterized by low pain intensity during the CPT, lack of TSP during the test stimuli, and efficient inhibitory CPM. Cluster 3 (n = 151) was best characterized by high pain intensity during the CPT, presence of TSP during the test stimuli, and inefficient inhibitory CPM.ResultsThe best partition of clusters of patients was 3 clusters accounting for 27.15% of the total variation in the data. Cluster 1 (n = 271) was best characterized by high pain intensity during the CPT, lack of TSP during the test stimuli, and efficient inhibitory CPM. Cluster 2 (n = 186) was best characterized by low pain intensity during the CPT, lack of TSP during the test stimuli, and efficient inhibitory CPM. Cluster 3 (n = 151) was best characterized by high pain intensity during the CPT, presence of TSP during the test stimuli, and inefficient inhibitory CPM.A single thermal CPM experimental design can identify combinations of facilitatory and inhibitory pain modulation responses. Findings from the current study add to the literature by describing different clinical phenotypes of central pain mechanisms of youth with chronic pain.DiscussionA single thermal CPM experimental design can identify combinations of facilitatory and inhibitory pain modulation responses. Findings from the current study add to the literature by describing different clinical phenotypes of central pain mechanisms of youth with chronic pain.