Cutaneous nociception and neurogenic inflammation evoked by PACAP38 and VIP

Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide-38 (PACAP38) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) belong to the same secretin–glucagon superfamily and are present in nerve fibers in dura and skin. Using a model of acute cutaneous pain we explored differences in pain perception and vasomotor responses between PACAP38 and VIP in 16 healthy volunteers in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. All participants received intradermal injections of 200 pmol PACAP38, 200 pmol VIP and placebo into the volar forearm. Measurements included pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS), blood flow by laser Doppler flowmetry, visual flare and wheal. Pain intensities after PACAP38 and VIP were mild and limited to a short time of about 100 s after injection. The area under the VAS-time curve was larger following PACAP38 (P = 0.004) and VIP (P = 0.01) compared to placebo. We found no statistical difference in pain perception between PACAP38 and VIP. Skin blood flow increase, flare and wheal were larger after both PACAP38 (P = 0.011) and VIP (P = 0.001) compared to placebo. VIP induced a considerably larger increase in skin blood flow, flare and wheal than PACAP38 (P = 0.002). In conclusion, we found that peripheral nociceptive cutaneous responses elicited by PACAP38 and VIP are similar in healthy volunteers. This suggests that acute pain and vasomotor responses following intradermal injections of PACAP38 and VIP are primarily mediated by VPAC receptors

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background: With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation. Methods: Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation. Results: A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement. Conclusions: A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-21-3