Brain-specific genes contribute to chronic but not to acute back pain.

Introduction: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Although most back pain cases are acute, 20% of acute pain patients experience chronic back pain symptoms. It is unclear whether acute pain and chronic pain have similar or distinct underlying genetic mechanisms. Objectives: To characterize the molecular and cellular pathways contributing to acute and chronic pain states. Methods: Cross-sectional observational genome-wide association study. Results: A total of 375,158 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort were included in the discovery of genome-wide association study. Of those, 70,633 (19%) and 32,209 (9%) individuals met the definition of chronic and acute back pain, respectively. A total of 355 single nucleotide polymorphism grouped into 13 loci reached the genome-wide significance threshold (5x10-8) for chronic back pain, but none for acute. Of these, 7 loci were replicated in the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) cohort (19,760 chronic low back pain cases and 28,674 pain-free controls). Single nucleotide polymorphism heritability was 4.6% (P=1.4x10-78) for chronic back pain and 0.81% (P=1.4x10-8) for acute back pain. Similar differences in heritability estimates between acute and chronic back pain were found in the HUNT cohort: 3.4% (P=0.0011) and 0.6% (P=0.851), respectively. Pathway analyses, tissue-specific heritability enrichment analyses, and epigenetic characterization suggest a substantial genetic contribution to chronic but not acute back pain from the loci predominantly expressed in the central nervous system. Conclusion: Chronic back pain is substantially more heritable than acute back pain. This heritability is mostly attributed to genes expressed in the brain.

Low Back Pain With Persistent Radiculopathy; the Clinical Role of Genetic Variants in the Genes SOX5, CCDC26/GSDMC and DCC.

In a recently published genome-wide association study (GWAS) chronic back pain was associated with three loci; SOX5, CCDC26/GSDMC and DCC. This GWAS was based on a heterogeneous sample of back pain disorders, and it is unknown whether these loci are of clinical relevance for low back pain (LBP) with persistent radiculopathy. Thus, we examine if LBP with radiculopathy 12 months after an acute episode of LBP with radiculopathy is associated with the selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs); SOX5 rs34616559, CCDC26/GSDMC rs7833174 and DCC rs4384683. In this prospective cohort study, subjects admitted to a secondary health care institution due to an acute episode of LBP with radiculopathy, reported back pain, leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were genotyped and followed up at 12 months (n = 338). Kruskal-Wallis H test showed no association between the SNPs and back pain, leg pain or ODI. In conclusion, LBP with radiculopathy 12 months after an acute episode of LBP with radiculopathy, is not associated with the selected SNPs; SOX5 rs34616559, CCDC26/GSDMC rs7833174 and DCC rs4384683. This absent or weak association suggests that the SNPs previously associated with chronic back pain are not useful as prognostic biomarkers for LBP with persistent radiculopathy.

The association between selected genetic variants and individual differences in experimental pain.

OBJECTIVES: The underlying mechanisms for individual differences in experimental pain are not fully understood, but genetic susceptibility is hypothesized to explain some of these differences. In the present study we focus on three genetic variants important for modulating experimental pain related to serotonin (SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR/rs25531 A>G), catecholamine (COMT rs4680 Val158Met) and opioid (OPRM1 rs1799971 A118G) signaling. We aimed to investigate associations between each of the selected genetic variants and individual differences in experimental pain. METHODS: In total 356 subjects (232 low back pain patients and 124 healthy volunteers) were genotyped and assessed with tests of heat pain threshold, pressure pain thresholds, heat pain tolerance, conditioned pain modulation (CPM), offset analgesia, temporal summation and secondary hyperalgesia. Low back pain patients and healthy volunteers did not differ in regards to experimental test results or allelic frequencies, and were therefore analyzed as one group. The associations were tested using analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: No significant associations were observed between the genetic variants (SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR/rs25531 A>G, COMT rs4680 Val158Met and OPRM1 rs1799971 A118G) and individual differences in experimental pain (heat pain threshold, pressure pain threshold, heat pain tolerance, CPM, offset analgesia, temporal summation and secondary hyperalgesia). CONCLUSIONS: The selected pain-associated genetic variants were not associated with individual differences in experimental pain. Genetic variants well known for playing central roles in pain perception failed to explain individual differences in experimental pain in 356 subjects. The finding is an important contribution to the literature, which often consists of studies with lower sample size and one or few experimental pain assessments.

Psychophysical or spinal reflex measures when assessing conditioned pain modulation?

BACKGROUND: Assessing conditioning pain modulation (CPM) with spinal reflex measures may produce more objective and stable CPM effects than using psychophysical measures. The aim of the study was to compare the CPM effect and test-retest reliability between a psychophysical protocol with thermal test-stimulus and a spinal reflex protocol with electrical test-stimulus. METHODS: Twenty-five healthy volunteers participated in two identical experiments separated by minimum 1 week. The thermal test-stimulus was a constant heat stimulation of 120 s on the subjects' forearm with continuous ratings of pain intensity on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. The electrical test-stimulus was repeated electrical stimulation on the arch of the foot for 120 s, which elicited a nociceptive withdrawal reflex recorded from the anterior tibial muscle. Conditioning stimulus was a 7°C water bath. Differences in the magnitude and test-retest reliability were investigated with repeated-measures analysis of variance and by relative and absolute reliability indices. RESULTS: The CPM effect was -46% and 4.5% during the thermal and electrical test-stimulus (p < 0.001) respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.5 and 0.4 was found with the electrical and thermal test-stimulus respectively. Wide limits of agreement were found for both the electrical (-3.4 to 3.8 mA) and the thermal test-stimulus (-3.2 to 3.6 cm). CONCLUSIONS: More pronounced CPM effect was demonstrated when using a psychophysical protocol with thermal test-stimulus compared to a spinal reflex protocol with electrical test-stimulus. Fair relative reliability and poor absolute reliability (due to high intraindividual variability) was found in both protocols. SIGNIFICANCE: The large difference in CPM effect between the two protocols suggests that the CPM effect relates to pain perception rather than nociception on the spinal level. Due to poor absolute intrarater reliability, we recommend caution and further research before using any of the investigated CPM protocols in clinical decision making on an individual level.

A tonic heat test stimulus yields a larger and more reliable conditioned pain modulation effect compared to a phasic heat test stimulus.

INTRODUCTION: The interest in conditioned pain modulation (CPM) as a clinical tool for measuring endogenously induced analgesia is increasing. There is, however, large variation in the CPM methodology, hindering comparison of results across studies. Research comparing different CPM protocols is needed in order to obtain a standardized test paradigm. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess whether a protocol with phasic heat stimuli as test-stimulus is preferable to a protocol with tonic heat stimulus as test-stimulus. METHODS: In this experimental crossover study, we compared 2 CPM protocols with different test-stimulus; one with tonic test-stimulus (constant heat stimulus of 120-second duration) and one with phasic test-stimuli (3 heat stimulations of 5 seconds duration separated by 10 seconds). Conditioning stimulus was a 7°C water bath in parallel with the test-stimulus. Twenty-four healthy volunteers were assessed on 2 occasions with minimum 1 week apart. Differences in the magnitude and test-retest reliability of the CPM effect in the 2 protocols were investigated with repeated-measures analysis of variance and by relative and absolute reliability indices. RESULTS: The protocol with tonic test-stimulus induced a significantly larger CPM effect compared to the protocol with phasic test-stimuli (P < 0.001). Fair and good relative reliability was found with the phasic and tonic test-stimuli, respectively. Absolute reliability indices showed large intraindividual variability from session to session in both protocols. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that a CPM protocol with a tonic test-stimulus is preferable to a protocol with phasic test-stimuli. However, we emphasize that one should be cautious to use the CPM effect as biomarker or in clinical decision making on an individual level due to large intraindividual variability.