Jeffrey D. Kennedy

One night of total sleep deprivation promotes a state of generalized hyperalgesia: A surrogate pain model to study the relationship of insomnia and pain

Summary One night of total sleep deprivation results in generalized hyperalgesia and mood changes. TSD emerges a translational surrogate pain model for studies on the relationship between insomnia and pain. ABSTRACT Sleep disturbances are highly prevalent in chronic pain patients. Understanding their relationship has become an important research topic since poor sleep and pain are assumed to closely interact. To date, human experimental studies exploring the impact of sleep disruption/deprivation on pain perception have yielded conflicting results. This inconsistency may be due to the large heterogeneity of study populations and study protocols previously used. In addition, none of the previous studies investigated the entire spectrum of nociceptive modalities. To address these shortcomings, a standardized comprehensive quantitative sensory protocol was used in order to compare the somatosensory profile of 14 healthy subjects (6 female, 8 male, 23.5 ± 4.1 year; mean ± SD) after a night of total sleep deprivation (TSD) and a night of habitual sleep in a cross‐over design. One night of TSD significantly increased the level of sleepiness (P < 0.001) and resulted in higher scores of the State Anxiety Inventory (P < 0.01). In addition to previously reported hyperalgesia to heat (P < 0.05) and blunt pressure (P < 0.05), study participants developed hyperalgesia to cold (P < 0.01) and increased mechanical pain sensitivity to pinprick stimuli (P < 0.05) but no changes in temporal summation. Paradoxical heat sensations or dynamic mechanical allodynia were absent. TSD selectively modulated nociception, since detection thresholds of non‐nociceptive modalities remained unchanged. Our findings show that a single night of TSD is able to induce generalized hyperalgesia and to increase State Anxiety scores. In the future, TSD may serve as a translational pain model to elucidate the pathomechanisms underlying the hyperalgesic effect of sleep disturbances.

Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A mechanism-related organizing principle based on sensory profiles

Abstract Patients with neuropathic pain are heterogeneous in etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical appearance. They exhibit a variety of pain-related sensory symptoms and signs (sensory profile). Different sensory profiles might indicate different classes of neurobiological mechanisms, and hence subgroups with different sensory profiles might respond differently to treatment. The aim of the investigation was to identify subgroups in a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain using hypothesis-free statistical methods on the database of 3 large multinational research networks (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), IMI-Europain, and Neuropain). Standardized quantitative sensory testing was used in 902 (test cohort) and 233 (validation cohort) patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies. For subgrouping, we performed a cluster analysis using 13 quantitative sensory testing parameters. Three distinct subgroups with characteristic sensory profiles were identified and replicated. Cluster 1 (sensory loss, 42%) showed a loss of small and large fiber function in combination with paradoxical heat sensations. Cluster 2 (thermal hyperalgesia, 33%) was characterized by preserved sensory functions in combination with heat and cold hyperalgesia and mild dynamic mechanical allodynia. Cluster 3 (mechanical hyperalgesia, 24%) was characterized by a loss of small fiber function in combination with pinprick hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia. All clusters occurred across etiologies but frequencies differed. We present a new approach of subgrouping patients with peripheral neuropathic pain of different etiologies according to intrinsic sensory profiles. These 3 profiles may be related to pathophysiological mechanisms and may be useful in clinical trial design to enrich the study population for treatment responders.

Who is healthy? Aspects to consider when including healthy volunteers in QST-based studies - A consensus statement by the EUROPAIN and NEUROPAIN consortia

Abstract Clinical and human experimental pain studies often include so-called “healthy” controls in investigations of sensory abnormalities, using quantitative sensory testing (QST) as an outcome measure. However, the criteria for what is considered “healthy” vary among the different studies and between study centers and investigators, partly explaining the high variability of the results. Therefore, several aspects should be considered during inclusion of healthy volunteers in QST-based trials to have homogenous groups of healthy controls with less variability between human experimental studies, so that results are less likely to be false negative or false positive because of subject-related factors. The EUROPAIN and NEUROPAIN consortia aimed to define factors influencing the variability in selection of healthy subjects in QST-based studies before the start of both projects and to give recommendations how to minimize it based on the current literature and expertise of the participants. The present suggestions for inclusion criteria of healthy volunteers into QST-based trials describe a 2-level approach including standardized questionnaires enabling the collection of relevant information on sociodemographic data, medical history, current health status, coping strategies in dealing with pain, and the motivation of the volunteer to participate in the study. These suggestions are believed to help researchers interpret their results in comparison with others and improve the quality of clinical studies including healthy volunteers as controls or in human experimental pain studies. They aim to reduce any confounding factors. Furthermore, the acquired information will allow post hoc analyses of variance for different potential influencing factors.

Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research: PPRECISE considerations

Abstract There is growing concern about lack of scientific rigor and transparent reporting across many preclinical fields of biological research. Poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting can result in conscious or unconscious experimental bias, producing results that are not replicable. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public–private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a consensus meeting of the Preclinical Pain Research Consortium for Investigating Safety and Efficacy (PPRECISE) Working Group. International participants from universities, funding agencies, government agencies, industry, and a patient advocacy organization attended. Reduction of publication bias, increasing the ability of others to faithfully repeat experimental methods, and increased transparency of data reporting were specifically discussed. Parameters deemed essential to increase confidence in the published literature were clear, specific reporting of an a priori hypothesis and definition of primary outcome measure. Power calculations and whether measurement of minimal meaningful effect size to determine these should be a core component of the preclinical research effort provoked considerable discussion, with many but not all agreeing. Greater transparency of reporting should be driven by scientists, journal editors, reviewers, and grant funders. The conduct of high-quality science that is fully reported should not preclude novelty and innovation in preclinical pain research, and indeed, any efforts that curtail such innovation would be misguided. We believe that to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

Cross-centre replication of suppressed burrowing behaviour as an ethologically relevant pain outcome measure in the rat: a prospective multicentre study.

Abstract Burrowing, an ethologically relevant rodent behaviour, has been proposed as a novel outcome measure to assess the global impact of pain in rats. In a prospective multicentre study using male rats (Wistar, Sprague-Dawley), replication of suppressed burrowing behaviour in the complete Freund adjuvant (CFA)-induced model of inflammatory pain (unilateral, 1 mg/mL in 100 µL) was evaluated in 11 studies across 8 centres. Following a standard protocol, data from participating centres were collected centrally and analysed with a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures. The total population (TP—all animals allocated to treatment; n = 249) and a selected population (SP—TP animals burrowing over 500 g at baseline; n = 200) were analysed separately, assessing the effect of excluding “poor” burrowers. Mean baseline burrowing across studies was 1113 g (95% confidence interval: 1041-1185 g) for TP and 1329 g (1271-1387 g) for SP. Burrowing was significantly suppressed in the majority of studies 24 hours (7 studies/population) and 48 hours (7 TP, 6 SP) after CFA injections. Across all centres, significantly suppressed burrowing peaked 24 hours after CFA injections, with a burrowing deficit of −374 g (−479 to −269 g) for TP and −498 g (−609 to −386 g) for SP. This unique multicentre approach first provided high-quality evidence evaluating suppressed burrowing as robust and reproducible, supporting its use as tool to infer the global effect of pain on rodents. Second, our approach provided important informative value for the use of multicentre studies in the future.

Development and pharmacological characterization of a model of sleep disruption-induced hypersensitivity in the rat

Sleep disturbance is a commonly reported co‐morbidity in chronic pain patients, and conversely, disruption of sleep can cause acute and long‐lasting hypersensitivity to painful stimuli. The underlying mechanisms of sleep disruption‐induced pain hypersensitivity are poorly understood. Confounding factors of previous studies have been the sleep disruption protocols, such as the ‘pedestal over water’ or ‘inverted flower pot’ methods, that can cause large stress responses and therefore may significantly affect pain outcome measures.

Hedonic and motivational responses to food reward are unchanged in rats with neuropathic pain.

Abstract Rewards influence responses to acute painful stimuli, but the relationship of chronic pain to hedonic or motivational aspects of reward is not well understood. We independently evaluated hedonic qualities of sweet or bitter tastants and motivation to seek food reward in rats with experimental neuropathic pain induced by L5/6 spinal nerve ligation. Hedonic response was measured by implantation of intraoral catheters to allow passive delivery of liquid solutions, and “liking/disliking” responses were scored according to a facial reactivity scale. Spinal nerve ligation rats did not differ from controls in either “liking” or “disliking” reactions to intraoral sucrose or quinine, respectively, at postsurgery day 21, suggesting no differences in perceived hedonic value of sweet or bitter tastants. To assess possible motivational deficits during acute and chronic pain, we used fixed- and progressive-ratio response paradigms of sucrose pellet presentation in rats with transient inflammatory or chronic neuropathic pain. Assessment of response acquisition and break points under the progressive ratio schedule revealed no differences between sham and spinal nerve ligation rats for up to 120 days after injury. However, rats with inflammation showed decrements in lever pressing and break points on days 1 and 2 after complete Freund adjuvant injection that normalized by day 4, consistent with transient ongoing pain. Thus, although acute ongoing inflammatory pain may transiently reduce reward motivation, we did not detect influences of chronic neuropathic pain on hedonic or motivational responses to food rewards. Adaptations that allow normal reward responding to food regardless of chronic pain may be of evolutionary benefit to promote survival.

Broad spectrum efficacy with LY2969822, an oral prodrug of metabotropic glutamate 2/3 receptor agonist LY2934747, in rodent pain models

A body of evidence suggests activation of metabotropic glutamate 2/3 (mGlu2/3) receptors would be an effective analgesic in chronic pain conditions. Thus, the analgesic properties of a novel mGlu2/3 receptor agonist prodrug were investigated.

Experimental design and reporting standards for improving the internal validity of pre-clinical studies in the field of pain: Consensus of the IMI-Europain consortium

Abstract Background and aims Pain is a subjective experience, and as such, pre-clinical models of human pain are highly simplified representations of clinical features. These models are nevertheless critical for the delivery of novel analgesics for human pain, providing pharmacodynamic measurements of activity and, where possible, on-target confirmation of that activity. It has, however, been suggested that at least 50% of all pre-clinical data, independent of discipline, cannot be replicated. Additionally, the paucity of “negative” data in the public domain indicates a publication bias, and significantly impacts the interpretation of failed attempts to replicate published findings. Evidence suggests that systematic biases in experimental design and conduct and insufficiencies in reporting play significant roles in poor reproducibility across pre-clinical studies. It then follows that recommendations on how to improve these factors are warranted. Methods Members of Europain, a pain research consortium funded by the European Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), developed internal recommendations on how to improve the reliability of pre-clinical studies between laboratories. This guidance is focused on two aspects: experimental design and conduct, and study reporting. Results Minimum requirements for experimental design and conduct were agreed upon across the dimensions of animal characteristics, sample size calculations, inclusion and exclusion criteria, random allocation to groups, allocation concealment, and blinded assessment of outcome. Building upon the Animals in Research: Reportingin vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, reporting standards were developed for pre-clinical studies of pain. These include specific recommendations for reporting on ethical issues, experimental design and conduct, and data analysis and interpretation. Key principles such as sample size calculation, a priori definition of a primary efficacy measure, randomization, allocation concealments, and blinding are discussed. In addition, considerations of how stress and normal rodent physiology impact outcome of analgesic drug studies are considered. Flow diagrams are standard requirements in all clinical trials, and flow diagrams for preclinical trials, which describe number of animals included/excluded, and reasons for exclusion are proposed. Creation of a trial registry for pre-clinical studies focused on drug development in order to estimate possible publication bias is discussed. Conclusions More systematic research is needed to analyze how inadequate internal validity and/or experimental bias may impact reproducibility across pre-clinical pain studies. Addressing the potential threats to internal validity and the sources of experimental biases, as well as increasing the transparency in reporting, are likely to improve preclinical research broadly by ensuring relevant progress is made in advancing the knowledge of chronic pain pathophysiology and identifying novel analgesics. Implications We are now disseminating these Europain processes for discussion in the wider pain research community. Any benefit from these guidelines will be dependent on acceptance and disciplined implementation across pre-clinical laboratories, funding agencies and journal editors, but it is anticipated that these guidelines will be a first step towards improving scientific rigor across the field of pre-clinical pain research.