Apkarian A. Vania
Depression is ranked as one of the strongest predictors for low back pain. This association is observed by multiple studies, with odds ratios increasing with intensity of back pain and severity of depression ;. In order to investigate the predictive power of baseline depression on the transition from acute to chronic pain (3 months post-acute back pain), a recent prospective study evaluated the direct and indirect effects of multiple parameters on chronic pain severity and disability . The model only accounted for 26% of the variance in chronic pain. Acute pain intensity did not directly predict pain three months later, and baseline pain beliefs failed to predict chronic pain magnitude. Despite these relatively weak relationships to chronic pain, the authors argued that their findings support the growing literature contending that progression to chronic pain is more dependent on psychosocial and occupational factors than on medical characteristics of the spinal condition. In general, a long series of studies now describe psychosocial and psychological factors in predicting functional and social disability, where the interrelationship between ratings of catastrophizing, pain-related fear of (re-) injury, depression, disability, and pain severity are studied and modeled in combination with demographics in various chronic pain conditions. Although these factors may be associated with pain in certain individuals, attempts to create models of CBP based upon them have been unproductive ;;;; for further details see . It is now being recognized that psychosocial factors constitute “non-negligible risks” for the development of low back pain and cannot account for how or why a patient transitions into the chronic pain state. We have examined cognitive and sensory properties of chronic pain patients, with the simple notion that living with chronic pain may impart a cost in such processing. A long list of cognitive abnormalities has been described in chronic pain patients. The most noteworthy are attentional and memory deficits ;. However, little effort has been placed in differentiating such deficits based on chronic pain type. We reported that, in contrast to matched healthy controls, CBP and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) patients are significantly impaired on an emotional decisionmaking task . Moreover, the performance of CBP patients was highly correlated with their verbal report of pain at the time of performing the task. In contrast to CBP, CRPS patients’ performance was not modified when their pain was manipulated using a sympathetic block. The latter implies that the brain mechanisms underlying the two types of chronic pain, or the impact of each condition on the brain, may be distinct and thus also distinctly modulate emotional states. It should be noted that the CRPS patients were tested on a long battery of other cognitive tasks as well, and their performance on these was not different from healthy control subjects. Two important conclusions are drawn from these observations. Firstly, cognitive disruption in chronic pain is specific to the type of test administered, implying impact on unique brain circuitry. Secondly, there are important differences between chronic pain conditions, even on the same cognitive task, suggesting that each condition may underlie unique brain activity/reorganization, which complicates our understanding of these conditions as it demands that we study each and every chronic pain regarding its cognitive and brain signature. More importantly, the implication that distinct chronic pain conditions have unique brain signatures open the possibility that each one of them may be understood in its own right, enabling the development of novel, specific therapies for each. This theme will be repeated several times below, emphasizing that brain-derived parameters repeatedly indicate the specific properties of distinct chronic pain conditions. It should be emphasized that the impact of chronic pain does not only result in deficits. When CBP patients were contrasted to healthy subjects as to gustatory abilities, we were able to show decreased threshold to gustatory detection and increased sensitivity to supra-threshold tastants for all modalities examined . Thus, these CBP patients are generally more sensitive in taste perception. It is possible that this ability is a predisposing factor. In fact, all the brain and cognitive changes we describe here are cross-sectional studies, and thus in all cases the distinction between predisposition and a consequence to chronic pain remains unsettled. More likely, increased taste sensitivity is a result of brain representation/reorganization as a consequence of living with CBP. We ascribe the deficit in emotional decision-making in CBP and CRPS as a consequence of the representation/reorganization of brain activity between the lateral and medial prefrontal cortex. In fact, our observation of activity in medial prefrontal cortex in CRPS was the initial impetus for testing chronic pain patients with the “gambling test.” We also think that the increased taste sensitivity is a direct result of changes in activity/connectivity of the insular cortex in CBP Our earlier observation that insular cortex activity increases in CBP patients in proportion to the number of years they are in chronic pain , and given that parts of the insular cortex are considered primary gustatory cortex, led us to the hypothesis that gestation may be different in CBP Therefore, the cognitive and sensory changes we have observed in chronic pain patients are derived from observations regarding cortical representation and reorganization, and thus these domains are complementary to each other, reinforcing the idea that the brain abnormalities do result in very specific changes in information processing.
抑郁症被列为腰痛最强的预测因素之一。多项研究观察到了这种关联,优势比随着背痛强度和抑郁严重程度的增加而升高。为了研究基线抑郁对从急性疼痛转变为慢性疼痛(急性背痛后3个月)的预测能力,最近一项前瞻性研究评估了多个参数对慢性疼痛严重程度和残疾的直接和间接影响。该模型仅解释了慢性疼痛中26%的方差。急性疼痛强度并不能直接预测3个月后的疼痛,基线疼痛信念也无法预测慢性疼痛程度。尽管与慢性疼痛的关系相对较弱,但作者认为他们的研究结果支持了越来越多的文献观点,即进展为慢性疼痛更多地取决于心理社会和职业因素,而非脊柱疾病的医学特征。总体而言,现在有一系列研究描述了心理社会和心理因素在预测功能和社会残疾方面的作用,其中在各种慢性疼痛情况下,对灾难化评分、与疼痛相关的(再)受伤恐惧、抑郁、残疾和疼痛严重程度之间的相互关系进行了研究,并结合人口统计学进行了建模。尽管这些因素可能在某些个体中与疼痛相关,但基于它们创建慢性背痛模型的尝试并未取得成效;有关更多详细信息,请参阅。现在人们认识到,心理社会因素是腰痛发展的“不可忽视的风险”,但无法解释患者如何或为何转变为慢性疼痛状态。我们研究了慢性疼痛患者的认知和感觉特性,基于一个简单的观念,即长期忍受慢性疼痛可能会在这种处理过程中产生代价。慢性疼痛患者中已经描述了一长串认知异常。最值得注意的是注意力和记忆缺陷。然而,在根据慢性疼痛类型区分这些缺陷方面所做的努力很少。我们报告称,与匹配的健康对照组相比,慢性背痛患者和复杂性区域疼痛综合征(CRPS)患者在一项情感决策任务上明显受损。此外,慢性背痛患者的表现与他们在执行任务时的疼痛口头报告高度相关。与慢性背痛患者不同,当使用交感神经阻滞来控制CRPS患者的疼痛时,他们的表现并未改变。后者意味着这两种慢性疼痛背后的脑机制,或者每种情况对大脑的影响,可能是不同的,因此也会以不同方式调节情绪状态。应该注意的是,CRPS患者也接受了一系列其他认知任务的测试,他们在这些任务上的表现与健康对照受试者没有差异。从这些观察中得出了两个重要结论。首先,慢性疼痛中的认知干扰特定于所进行的测试类型,这意味着对独特脑回路的影响。其次,即使在相同的认知任务上,慢性疼痛情况之间也存在重要差异,这表明每种情况可能是独特脑活动/重组的基础,这使我们对这些情况的理解变得复杂,因为这要求我们研究每种慢性疼痛的认知和脑特征。更重要的是,不同慢性疼痛情况具有独特脑特征这一观点意味着它们中的每一种都有可能被独立理解,从而能够为每种情况开发新颖、特定的疗法。下面将多次重复这个主题,强调源自大脑的参数反复表明了不同慢性疼痛情况的特定属性。应该强调的是,慢性疼痛的影响不仅会导致缺陷。当将慢性背痛患者与健康受试者在味觉能力方面进行对比时,我们能够表明,在所检查的所有味觉模式中,慢性背痛患者的味觉检测阈值降低,对阈上味觉刺激的敏感性增加。因此,这些慢性背痛患者在味觉感知方面通常更敏感。这种能力有可能是一个 predisposing 因素。事实上,我们在这里描述的所有大脑和认知变化都是横断面研究,因此在所有情况下倾向与慢性疼痛后果之间的区别仍然没有定论。更有可能的是,味觉敏感性增加是由于长期患有慢性背痛导致大脑表征/重组的结果。我们将慢性背痛患者和CRPS患者在情感决策方面的缺陷归因于外侧和内侧前额叶皮质之间脑活动的表征/重组。事实上,我们对CRPS患者内侧前额叶皮质活动的观察是用“赌博测试”对慢性疼痛患者进行测试的最初动力。我们还认为,味觉敏感性增加是慢性背痛患者岛叶皮质活动/连接性变化的直接结果。我们早期的观察发现,慢性背痛患者岛叶皮质活动随着他们处于慢性疼痛状态的年数成比例增加,并且鉴于岛叶皮质的部分区域被认为是主要味觉皮质,这使我们提出假设,即慢性背痛患者的味觉可能不同。因此,我们在慢性疼痛患者中观察到的认知和感觉变化源自关于皮质表征和重组的观察,因此这些领域相互补充,强化了大脑异常确实会导致信息处理中非常特定变化的观点。