Predicting drug efficacy in chronic low back pain by quantitative sensory tests.

BACKGROUND: Drugs are prescribed for chronic low back pain without knowing in advance whether a patient will respond to them or not. Quantitative sensory tests (QST) can discriminate patients according to sensory phenotype, possibly reflecting underlying mechanisms of pain processing. QST may therefore be a screening tool to identify potential responders to a certain drug. The aim of this study was to investigate whether QST can predict analgesic effects of oxycodone, imipramine and clobazam in chronic low back pain. METHODS: Oxycodone 15 mg (n = 50), imipramine 75 mg (n = 50) and clobazam 20 mg (n = 49) were compared to active placebo tolterodine 1 mg in a randomized, double-blinded, crossover fashion. Electrical, pressure and thermal QST were performed at baseline and after 1 and 2 h. Pain intensity was assessed on a 0-10 numeric rating scale every 30 min for up to 2 h. The ability of baseline QST to predict pain reduction after 2 h was analysed using linear mixed models. Genetic variants of drug-metabolizing enzymes and genes affecting pain sensitivity were examined as covariables. RESULTS: No predictor of analgesic effect was found for oxycodone and clobazam. Thermal QST was associated with analgesic effect of imipramine: patients more sensitive to heat or cold were more likely to experience an effect of imipramine. Pharmacogenetic variants and pain-related candidate genes were not associated with drug efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Thermal QST have the potential to predict imipramine effect in chronic low back pain. Oxycodone and clobazam effects could not be predicted by any of the selected QST or genetic variants. SIGNIFICANCE: Predicting drug efficacy in chronic low back pain remains difficult. There is some evidence that patients more sensitive to heat and cold pain respond better to imipramine.

Analgesic effect of clobazam in chronic low-back pain but not in experimentally induced pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is frequently associated with hypersensitivity of the nervous system, and drugs that increase central inhibition are therefore a potentially effective treatment. Benzodiazepines are potent modulators of GABAergic neurotransmission and are known to exert antihyperalgesic effects in rodents, but translation into patients are lacking. This study investigates the effect of the benzodiazepine clobazam in chronic low-back pain in humans. The aim of this study is to explore the effect of GABA modulation on chronic low-back pain and on quantitative sensory tests. METHODS: In this double-blind cross-over study, 49 patients with chronic low-back pain received a single oral dose of clobazam 20 mg or active placebo tolterodine 1 mg. Pain intensity on the 0-10 numeric rating scale and quantitative sensory tests were assessed during 2 h after drug intake. RESULTS: Pain intensity in the supine position was significantly reduced by clobazam compared to active placebo (60 min: 2.9 vs. 3.5, p = 0.008; 90 min: 2.7 vs. 3.3, p = 0.024; 120 min: 2.4 vs. 3.1, p = 0.005). Pain intensity in the sitting position was not significantly different between groups. No effects on quantitative sensory tests were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that clobazam has an analgesic effect in patients with chronic low-back pain. Muscle relaxation or sedation may have contributed to the effect. Development of substances devoid of these side effects would offer the potential to further investigate the antihyperalgesic action of GABAergic compounds. SIGNIFICANCE: Modulation of GABAergic pain-inhibitory pathways may be a potential future therapeutic target.

The prevalence of widespread central hypersensitivity in chronic pain patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is associated with generalized hypersensitivity and impaired endogenous pain modulation (conditioned pain modulation; CPM). Despite extensive research, their prevalence in chronic pain patients is unknown. This study investigated the prevalence and potential determinants of widespread central hypersensitivity and described the distribution of CPM in chronic pain patients. METHODS: We examined 464 consecutive chronic pain patients for generalized hypersensitivity and CPM using pressure algometry at the second toe and cold pressor test. Potential determinants of generalized central hypersensitivity were studied using uni- and multivariate regression analyses. Prevalence of generalized central hypersensitivity was calculated for the 5th, 10th and 25th percentile of normative values for pressure algometry obtained by a previous large study on healthy volunteers. CPM was addressed on a descriptive basis, since normative values are not available. RESULTS: Depending on the percentile of normative values considered, generalized central hypersensitivity affected 17.5-35.3% of patients. 23.7% of patients showed no increase in pressure pain threshold after cold pressor test. Generalized central hypersensitivity was more frequent and CPM less effective in women than in men. Unclearly classifiable pain syndromes showed higher frequencies of generalized central hypersensitivity than other pain syndromes. CONCLUSIONS: Although prevalent in chronic pain, generalized central hypersensitivity is not present in every patient. An individual assessment is therefore required in order to detect altered pain processing. The broad basic knowledge about central hypersensitivity now needs to be translated into concrete clinical consequences, so that patients can be offered an individually tailored mechanism-based treatment.