Dataset Information

Acute Low Back Pain: Differential Somatosensory Function and Gene Expression Compared With Healthy No-Pain Controls.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Low back pain (LBP) is the second most frequently diagnosed pain condition in the United States, and although a majority of individuals have resolution of pain during the acute period, an estimated 40% of individuals will experience persistent pain. Given the heterogenous nature of LBP, this study sought to describe and compare somatosensory and molecular (gene expression) profiles between individuals with acute LBP and healthy no-pain controls. METHODS:Using a previously established protocol, we comprehensively assessed somatosensory parameters among 31 no-pain control participants and 31 participants with acute LBP. Samples of whole blood were drawn to examine mRNA expression of candidate genes involved in the transduction, maintenance, and modulation of pain. RESULTS:The acute LBP group exhibited increased pain sensitivity to cold stimuli, mechanical stimuli, including mechanical temporal summation at both the painful back area and remote location suggesting a mechanism of enhanced central nervous system excitability. In addition, deep tissue-specific peripheral sensitization was suggested due to significant differences in pressure pain threshold of the painful back area, but not the remote body site. Several genes that were differentially expressed were significantly associated with somatosensory alterations identified in the acute LBP group. DISCUSSION:Acute LBP participants showed selective pain sensitivity enhancement and differential gene expression profiles compared with pain-free controls. Further research to characterize pain-associated somatosensory changes in the context of altered mRNA expression levels may provide insight on the molecular underpinnings of maladaptive chronic pain.

SUBMITTER: Starkweather AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5207793 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Acute Low Back Pain: Differential Somatosensory Function and Gene Expression Compared With Healthy No-Pain Controls.

Starkweather Angela R AR Ramesh Divya D Lyon Debra E DE Siangphoe Umaporn U Deng Xioayan X Sturgill Jamie J Heineman Amy A Elswick R K RK Dorsey Susan G SG Greenspan Joel J

The Clinical journal of pain 20161101 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is the second most frequently diagnosed pain condition in the United States, and although a majority of individuals have resolution of pain during the acute period, an estimated 40% of individuals will experience persistent pain. Given the heterogenous nature of LBP, this study sought to describe and compare somatosensory and molecular (gene expression) profiles between individuals with acute LBP and healthy no-pain controls.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a previous ...[more]

PMID: 26736025

Similar Datasets

Project description:The underlying mechanism of pain reduction by acupuncture is still unclear, because acupuncture treatment involves multidimensional factors. In this study, we investigated the differential influence of acupuncture components on brain functional connectivity and on pain reduction. We used a specific form of sham acupuncture (phantom acupuncture; PHNT), which only has a needling-credibility (a belief that they were treated with real acupuncture needles), while real acupuncture (REAL) has a somatosensory needling stimulation, as well as a needling-credibility. Forty-three patients with low back pain were randomized into the REAL group (n = 25) and the PHNT group (n = 18). They underwent two pain steady-state fMRI runs implemented by a low back extension (LBE) pain model (lifting the low back using air-cuff inflation) before and after REAL or PHNT stimulation. Subjective pain ratings, perceived throughout the LBE runs due to the posture, were reported (LBEpain). The regions of interest (ROI) were (1) the main nodes of the default mode network (DMN) - the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), (2) the main nodes of the salience network (SN) - the anterior/posterior insular cortices (a/pINS), and (3) the low back-specific region of sensorimotor network (SMN), S1back. Significant reductions in LBEpain were observed in both groups (REAL = -1.02 ± 1.53, PHNT = -1.26 ± 2.20). In REAL group, decreased LBEpain was positively correlated with decreased functional connectivity between the mPFC and pINS (r = 0.58, P < 0.05). Reduced LBEpain in PHNT was negatively correlated with increased PCC-aINS connectivity (r = -0.48, P < 0.05) and tended toward positive correlation with decreased S1back-pINS connectivity (r = 0.44, P = 0.07). Our findings might suggest different brain mechanisms of observed pain reduction; REAL seems to involve detachment of the self from the sensory aspect of pain, while PHNT does to shift attention to self and disengages physical pain processing hubs. This exploratory study proposes a sham methodology to dissociate the influence of different acupuncture components in acupuncture research. Further studies need to be followed with more elaborated hypothesis, study design, and analysis considering various cognitive/affective factors for better understanding of brain mechanisms of pain reduction regarding the different acupuncture aspects.

Project description:Reduced postural control is thought to contribute to the development and persistence of chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP). It is therefore frequently assessed in affected patients and commonly reported as the average amount of postural sway while standing upright under a variety of sensory conditions. These averaged linear outcomes, such as mean centre of pressure (CP) displacement or mean CP surface areas, may not reflect the true postural status. Adding nonlinear outcomes and multi-segmental kinematic analysis has been reported to better reflect the complexity of postural control and may detect subtler postural differences. In this cross-sectional study, a combination of linear and nonlinear postural parameters were assessed in patients with CNLBP (n = 24, 24-75 years, 9 females) and compared to symptom-free controls (CG, n = 34, 22-67 years, 11 females). Primary outcome was postural control measured by variance of joint configurations (uncontrolled manifold index, UI), confidence ellipse surface areas (CEA) and approximate entropy (ApEn) of CP dispersion during the response phase of a perturbed postural control task on a swaying platform. Secondary outcomes were segment excursions and clinical outcome correlates for pain and function. Non-parametric tests for group comparison with P-adjustment for multiple comparisons were conducted. Principal component analysis was applied to identify patterns of segmental contribution in both groups. CNLBP and CG performed similarly with respect to the primary outcomes. Comparison of joint kinematics revealed significant differences of hip (P < .001) and neck (P < .025) angular excursion, representing medium to large group effects (r's = .36 - .51). Significant (P's < .05), but moderate correlations of ApEn (r = -.42) and UI (r = -.46) with the health-related outcomes were observed. These findings lend further support to the notion that averaged linear outcomes do not suffice to describe subtle postural differences in CNLBP patients with low to moderate pain status.

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Dataset Information

Acute Low Back Pain: Differential Somatosensory Function and Gene Expression Compared With Healthy No-Pain Controls.

Publications

Acute Low Back Pain: Differential Somatosensory Function and Gene Expression Compared With Healthy No-Pain Controls.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure