6 research outputs found

    Role of nucleus accumbens in neuropathic pain: Linked multi-scale evidence in the rat transitioning to neuropathic pain

    Get PDF
    Despite recent evidence implicating the nucleus accumbens (NAc) as causally involved in the transition to chronic pain in humans, underlying mechanisms of this involvement remain entirely unknown. Here we elucidate mechanisms of NAc reorganizational properties (longitudinally and cross-sectionally), in an animal model of neuropathic pain (spared nerve injury, SNI). We observed inter-related changes: 1) In resting-state fMRI, functional connectivity of the NAc to dorsal striatum and cortex was reduced 28 days (but not 5 days) after SNI; 2) contralateral to SNI injury, gene expression of NAc dopamine 1A, 2, and κ-opioid receptors decreased 28 days after SNI; 3) In SNI (but not sham) covariance of gene expression was upregulated at 5 days and settled to a new state at 28 days; and 4) NAc functional connectivity correlated with dopamine receptor gene expression and with tactile allodynia. Moreover, interruption of NAc activity (via lidocaine infusion) reversibly alleviated neuropathic pain in SNI animals. Together, these results demonstrate macroscopic (fMRI) and molecular reorganization of NAc and indicate that NAc neuronal activity is necessary for full expression of neuropathic pain-like behavior

    On the relationship between pain variability and relief in randomized clinical trials

    Get PDF
    Previous research reports suggest greater baseline variability is associated with greater pain relief in those who receive a placebo. However, studies that evidence this association do not control for confounding effects from regression to the mean and natural history. In this report, we analyzed data from two randomized clinical trials (Placebo I and Placebo II, total N = 139) while adjusting for the effects of natural history and regression to the mean via a no treatment group. Results agree between the two placebo groups in each study: both placebo groups showed negligible semi-partial correlations between baseline variability and adjusted response [rsp (CI95%) = 0.22 (0.03, 0.42) and 0 (−0.07, 0.07) for Placebo I and II, respectively]. The no-treatment group in Placebo I showed a negative correlation [−0.22(−0.43,−0.02)], but the no-treatment and drug groups in Placebo II’s correlations were negligible [−0.02(−0.08,0.02) and 0.00 (−0.10, 0.12) for the no-treatment and drug groups, respectively]. When modeled as a linear covariate, baseline pain variability accounted for less than 1% of the variance in post-intervention pain across both studies. Even after adjusting for baseline pain and natural history, the inability of baseline pain variability to account for substantial variance in pain response highlights that previous results concerning pain variability and treatment response may be inconsistent. Indeed, the relationship appears to be neither consistently specific nor sensitive to improvements in the placebo group. More work is needed to understand and establish the prognostic value of baseline pain variability—especially its placebo specificity and generalizability across patient populations
    corecore