Sanmugananthan Vaidhehi Veena, Cheng Joshua C, Hemington Kasey S, Rogachov Anton, Osborne Natalie Rae, Bosma Rachael L, Kim Junseok Andrew, Inman Robert D, Davis Karen Deborah
Division of Brain, Imaging and Behaviour, Krembil Brain Institute, Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2023 Feb 15;4:1057659. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2023.1057659. eCollection 2023.
Two behavioural phenotypes in healthy people have been delineated based on their intrinsic attention to pain (IAP) and whether their reaction times (RT) during a cognitively-demanding task are slower (-type) or faster (A-type) during experimental pain. These behavioural phenotypes were not previously studied in chronic pain populations to avoid using experimental pain in a chronic pain context. Since pain rumination (PR) may serve as a supplement to IAP without needing noxious stimuli, we attempted to delineate A-P/IAP behavioural phenotypes in people with chronic pain and determined if PR can supplement IAP. Behavioural data acquired in 43 healthy controls (HCs) and 43 age-/sex-matched people with chronic pain associated with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) was retrospectively analyzed. A-P behavioural phenotypes were based on RT differences between pain and no-pain trials of a numeric interference task. IAP was quantified based on scores representing reported attention towards or mind-wandering away from experimental pain. PR was quantified using the pain catastrophizing scale, rumination subscale. The variability in RT was higher during no-pain trials in the AS group than HCs but was not significantly different in pain trials. There were no group differences in task RTs in no-pain and pain trials, IAP or PR scores. IAP and PR scores were marginally significantly positively correlated in the AS group. RT differences and variability were not significantly correlated with IAP or PR scores. Thus, we propose that experimental pain in the A-P/IAP protocols can confound testing in chronic pain populations, but that PR could be a supplement to IAP to quantify attention to pain.
基于健康人群对疼痛的内在关注度（IAP）以及他们在一项认知要求较高的任务中，面对实验性疼痛时反应时间（RT）是较慢（-型）还是较快（A-型），已经确定了两种行为表型。此前尚未在慢性疼痛人群中研究这些行为表型，以避免在慢性疼痛背景下使用实验性疼痛。由于疼痛沉思（PR）可能作为IAP的补充，而无需有害刺激，我们试图在慢性疼痛患者中确定A-P/IAP行为表型，并确定PR是否可以补充IAP。对43名健康对照者（HCs）和43名年龄/性别匹配的患有强直性脊柱炎（AS）相关慢性疼痛的患者所获取的行为数据进行了回顾性分析。A-P行为表型基于数字干扰任务中疼痛和无疼痛试验之间的RT差异。IAP根据代表对实验性疼痛的报告关注度或注意力分散程度的分数进行量化。PR使用疼痛灾难化量表的沉思子量表进行量化。AS组在无疼痛试验期间RT的变异性高于HCs，但在疼痛试验中无显著差异。在无疼痛和疼痛试验、IAP或PR分数方面，两组在任务RT上没有差异。在AS组中，IAP和PR分数呈微弱的显著正相关。RT差异和变异性与IAP或PR分数没有显著相关性。因此，我们提出，A-P/IAP方案中的实验性疼痛可能会混淆慢性疼痛人群的测试，但PR可能是IAP的补充，用于量化对疼痛的关注度。
