Review of neuroimaging studies related to pain modulation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A noxious stimulus does not necessarily cause pain. Nociceptive signals arising from a noxious stimulus are subject to modulation via endogenous inhibitory and facilitatory mechanisms as they travel from the periphery to the dorsal horn or brainstem and on to higher brain sites. Research on the neural structures underlying endogenous pain modulation has largely been restricted to animal research due to the invasiveness of such studies (e.g., spinal cord transection, brain lesioning, brain site stimulation). Neuroimaging techniques (e.g., magnetoencephalography (MEG), positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)) provide non-invasive means to study neural structures in humans. The aim is to provide a narrative review of neuroimaging studies related to human pain control mechanisms. METHODS: The approach taken is to summarise specific pain modulation mechanisms within the somatosensory (diffuse noxious inhibitory controls, acupuncture, movement), affective (depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, stress) and cognitive (anticipation/placebo, attention/distraction, hypnosis)domains with emphasis on the contribution of neuroimaging studies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings from imaging studies are complex reflecting activation or deactivation in numerous brain areas. Despite this, neuroimaging techniques have clarified supraspinal sites involved in a number of pain control mechanisms. The periaqueductal grey (PAG) is one area that has consistently been shown to be activated across the majority of pain mechanisms. Activity in the rostral ventromedial medulla known to relay descending modulation from the PAG, has also been observed both during acupuncture analgesia and anxiety-induced hyperalgesia. Other brain areas that appear to be involved in a number of mechanisms are the anterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens, but their exact role is less clear. IMPLICATIONS: Neuroimaging studies have provided essential information about the pain modulatory pathways under normal conditions, but much is still to be determined. Understanding the mechanisms of pain control is important for understanding the mechanisms that contribute to failed pain control in chronic pain. Applying fMRI outside the brain, such as in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis of the spinotrigeminal pathway and in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, and coupling brain activity with activity at these sites may help improve our understanding of the function of brain sites and shed light on functional connectivity in the pain pathway. © 2011 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Placebo effects in idiopathic and neuropathic pain conditions.

The magnitude of placebo analgesia effect appears to be large in chronic pain patients experiencing hyperalgesic states. So far, placebo effects have primarily been investigated in idiopathic pain conditions, such as irritable bowel pain syndrome, but more recently they have also been investigated in neuropathic pain patients, in which the underlying nerve injury is known. Expected pain levels and emotional feelings are central to placebo effects in both types of pain. They appear to help patients to engage in a mindset for pain relief and activate the pain-modulating system. Furthermore, expectations, emotional feelings, and the experience of pain seem to interact over time, thereby maintaining or enhancing the pain-relieving effect. Expectations and emotional feelings also contribute to the effect of active drugs, and recent studies indicate that drug effects and placebo effects interact in ways that may complicate the interpretations of the findings from clinical trials. It is suggested that expectations and emotional feelings may act as additional or alternative measures in the testing of new pharmacological agents, thereby improving the understanding of the interaction between pharmacological effects and placebo effects, which may have far-reaching implications for research and clinical practice.

The magnitude of nocebo effects in pain: a meta-analysis.

The investigation of nocebo effects is evolving, and a few literature reviews have emerged, although so far without quantifying such effects. This meta-analysis investigated nocebo effects in pain. We searched the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register with the term "nocebo." Only studies that investigated nocebo effects as the effects that followed the administration of an inert treatment along with verbal suggestions of symptom worsening and that included a no-treatment control condition were eligible. Ten studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d and Hedges' g. The overall magnitude of the nocebo effect was moderate to large (lowest g=0.62 [0.24-1.01] and highest g=1.03 [0.63-1.43]) and highly variable (range of g=-0.43 to 4.05). The magnitudes and range of effect sizes was similar to those of placebo effects (d=0.81) in mechanistic studies. In studies in which nocebo effects were induced by a combination of verbal suggestions and conditioning, the effect size was larger (lowest g=0.76 [0.39-1.14] and highest g=1.17 [0.52-1.81]) than in studies in which nocebo effects were induced by verbal suggestions alone (lowest g=0.64 [-0.25 to 1.53] and highest g=0.87 [0.40-1.34]). These findings are similar to those in the placebo literature. As the magnitude of the nocebo effect is variable and sometimes large, this meta-analysis demonstrates the importance of minimizing nocebo effects in clinical practice.

Placebo manipulations reduce hyperalgesia in neuropathic pain.

Several studies have shown that placebo analgesia effects can be obtained in healthy volunteers, as well as patients suffering from acute postoperative pain and chronic pain conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome. However, it is unknown whether placebo analgesia effects can be elicited in chronic pain conditions with a known pathophysiology such as a nerve injury. Nineteen patients who had developed neuropathic pain after thoracotomy were exposed to a placebo manipulation in which they received either open or hidden administrations of lidocaine. Before the treatment, the patients rated their levels of spontaneous pain and expected pain and completed a questionnaire on their emotional feelings (Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule) and went through quantitative sensory testing of evoked pain (brush and cold allodynia, heat pain tolerance, area of pinprick hyperalgesia, wind-up-like pain after pinprick stimulation). The placebo manipulation significantly reduced the area of pinprick hyperalgesia (P=.027), and this placebo effect was significantly related to low levels of negative affect (P=.008; R(2)=0.362) but not to positive affect or expected pain levels. No placebo effect was observed in relation to spontaneous pain or evoked pain, which is most likely due to low pain levels resulting in floor effects. This is the first study to demonstrate a placebo effect in neuropathic pain. The possible mechanisms underlying the placebo effects in hyperalgesia are discussed, and implications for treatment are outlined.

Patients' direct experiences as central elements of placebo analgesia.

Placebo analgesic effects appear to be related to patients' perception of the therapeutic intervention. In this paper, we review quantitative findings of how the relationship with the physician and the verbal suggestions given for relief may influence patients' perception of a treatment and how patients' expectations and emotional feelings may affect treatment outcome. We also present qualitative data from interviews with patients who have experienced pain relief following a placebo or an active treatment. A special focus is given to the temporal development of placebo analgesia at psychological and neurophysiological levels. Finally, we discuss the extent to which the quantitative and qualitative findings supplement or contrast with each other, and we touch upon possible implications of patients' direct experience as central for placebo analgesia.

Factors contributing to large analgesic effects in placebo mechanism studies conducted between 2002 and 2007.

Recent meta-analyses find various magnitudes of placebo analgesia effects in placebo mechanism trials versus placebo control trials, which have led to debate. To further investigate the magnitude of placebo analgesia in placebo mechanism trials the databases "PubMed", "PsycINFO" and "Web of Science" (2002-2007) were searched with the term "placebo analgesia". Twenty-one articles including 24 studies fulfilled the selection criteria (concerning: mechanisms, control, placebo treatment, randomization and pain measures). The validity of studies was assessed by the authors and effect sizes were calculated via difference scores. The magnitude of placebo analgesia in placebo mechanism studies was large (d=1.00) and about five times larger than placebo analgesia effects in placebo control studies (d=0.15-0.27). Differences in magnitude between the two types of studies appear to result from different types of suggestions given for pain relief. The magnitude of placebo effects was larger in studies that used long-term pain stimuli >20s (d=0.96) as opposed to short-term stimuli (d=0.81) and the largest placebo effects were found in studies wherein hyperalgesia was present (d=1.88). These results replicate our previous finding that placebo analgesic effects are higher in mechanism studies than in placebo control studies. However, since magnitudes of placebo analgesic effects are highly variable it may be valuable to investigate the factors and mechanisms that contribute to this variability as well as differences in magnitudes across types of studies.