| Literature DB >> 29868449 |
Jian Kong1, Zengjian Wang2, Jaclyn Leiser2, Domenic Minicucci2, Robert Edwards3, Irving Kirsch4, Ajay D Wasan5, Courtney Lang2, Jessica Gerber6, Siyi Yu2, Vitaly Napadow6, Ted J Kaptchuk4, Randy L Gollub7.
Abstract
Objectives: Expectation can significantly modulate pain and treatment effects. This study aims to investigate if boosting patients' expectancy can enhance the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and its underlying brain mechanism.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; Expectancy; Knee osteoarthritis; Resting state functional connectivity; Reward
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29868449 PMCID: PMC5984593 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.01.021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1A: Details of expectancy manipulation paradigm. We first used a marker to draw three boxes identical in size on the medial side of the most affected knee. Then, we placed the thermal probe in one of the boxes at a time. One box received random pain (RP), consisting of four moderate intensity pain stimuli and four low intensity pain stimuli in a random order. RP stimuli were applied to ensure subjects could consistently rate pain stimuli. The other two boxes received identical pain (IP) sequences consisting of 6 identical moderate pain stimuli. After acupuncture treatment (boosted or standard) or waiting for 20 min (TAU group), decreased identical pain sequences (dIP), consisting of 6 identical low intensity pain stimuli, were applied on all the two IP boxes in the same order as above. Those in the boosted acupuncture group were informed they were going to receive identical pain stimuli similar to before the treatment to test the analgesic effect of acupuncture. Those in the other groups (standard and TAU) were informed they were going to receive lowered intensity stimuli to investigate brain responses to different levels of pain. After this manipulation, patients in the boosted acupuncture group felt acupuncture significantly relieved the heat pain. Expectancy scores were collected before and after expectancy manipulation. B: Locations of 6 acupoints. C: Stimulation parameters applied for acupuncture treatment. This procedure was applied twice. S, needle stimulation.
Fig. 2KOOS pain score changes measured at the midpoint and the end of the study compared to baseline (mean ± SE).
Demographics and KOOS scores (mean + SD). Higher KOOS scores indicate less pain. ADL, activities of daily living. QOL, Quality of Life. TAU, treatment as usual.
| Characteristic | Boosted Acu | Standard Acu | TAU |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 61.3 ± 6.9 | 61.2 ± 7.7 | 60.1 ± 7.1 |
| N (Female/Male) | 17 (9/8) | 17 (10/7) | 12 (8/4) |
| Baseline | |||
| KOOS Pain | 57.7 ± 13.9 | 68.6 ± 13.2 | 63.7 ± 15.6 |
| KOOS Symptoms | 57.6 ± 15.2 | 64.1 ± 12.4 | 68.7 ± 16.9 |
| KOOS ADL | 64.4 ± 18.2 | 75.7 ± 17.6 | 76.1 ± 16.3 |
| KOOS Sport | 35.3 ± 25.3 | 52.1 ± 25.1 | 43.3 ± 26.5 |
| KOOS QOL | 32.7 ± 18.9 | 43.4 ± 19.2 | 46.9 ± 17.4 |
| Midpoint after 6 treatments | |||
| KOOS Pain | 70.1 ± 15.6 | 66.0 ± 13.4 | 61.3 ± 15.2 |
| KOOS Symptoms | 64.7 ± 14.8 | 62.2 ± 14.5 | 65.2 ± 19.2 |
| KOOS ADL | 73.5 ± 15.0 | 75.7 ± 12.8 | 71.2 ± 15.7 |
| KOOS Sport | 52.6 ± 25.9 | 50.9 ± 19.0 | 49.2 ± 23.1 |
| KOOS QOL | 47.1 ± 16.8 | 51.8 ± 10.5 | 50.0 ± 17.5 |
| Endpoint after 10 treatments | |||
| KOOS Pain | 71.4 ± 14.7 | 69.9 ± 15.5 | 60.4 ± 14.7 |
| KOOS Symptoms | 66.0 ± 17.2 | 65.5 ± 19.4 | 64.3 ± 19.3 |
| KOOS ADL | 74.7 ± 15.1 | 79.6 ± 16.0 | 69.7 ± 16.5 |
| KOOS Sport | 44.7 ± 25.4 | 59.1 ± 25.6 | 46.2 ± 28.7 |
| KOOS QOL | 47.4 ± 19.1 | 54.0 ± 17.8 | 47.4 ± 16.7 |
| Change between baseline and midpoint | |||
| KOOS Pain | 12.4 ± 12.4 | −2.6 ± 11.6 | −2.3 ± 14.4 |
| KOOS Symptoms | 7.1 ± 14.2 | −1.9 ± 12.8 | −3.6 ± 11.9 |
| KOOS ADL | 9.2 ± 13.5 | 0.0 ± 11.7 | −4.9 ± 12.1 |
| KOOS Sport | 17.4 ± 23.7 | −1.2 ± 19.7 | 5.8 ± 18.8 |
| KOOS QOL | 14.3 ± 14.6 | 8.5 ± 15.3 | 3.1 ± 17.8 |
| Change between baseline and endpoint | |||
| KOOS Pain | 13.9 ± 14.4 | 1.3 ± 14.9 | −3.2 ± 7.4 |
| KOOS Symptoms | 8.4 ± 16.8 | 1.5 ± 16.7 | −4.5 ± 11.3 |
| KOOS ADL | 10.3 ± 15.9 | 3.9 ± 15.2 | −6.4 ± 6.4 |
| KOOS Sport | 9.4 ± 34.4 | 7.1 ± 19.5 | 2.9 ± 13.9 |
| KOOS QOL | 14.7 ± 13.6 | 10.7 ± 17.6 | 0.5 ± 15.6 |
Indicates significant difference in change when compared to boosted acupuncture group.
Expectancy (mean (SD)) at different time points across three treatment groups (n = 46).
| Modalities | Groups | Baseline Visit | First Scan | Second Scan | Last Visit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | ||||
| Heat pain expectancy | Boosted Acu | 6.1 (1.8) | 5. 8 (2.8) | 7.5 (1.8) | 6.1 (2.8) | 7.2 (2.4) | 5.2 (3.2) |
| Standard Acu | 5.6 (2.1) | 5.2 (2.9) | 5.4 (2.7) | 5.2 (2.9) | 5.4 (3.2) | 4.5 (2.6) | |
| TAU | 6.1 (2.6) | 4.5 (3.3) | 4.1 (2.9) | 5.5 (2.6) | 5.1 (2.3) | 5.3 (2.9) | |
| Knee pain expectancy | Boosted Acu | 6.9 (1.8) | 6.7 (2.1) | 7.9 (1.8) | 6.9 (2.3) | 7.5 (2.2) | 6.4 (2.7) |
| Standard Acu | 6.2 (2.1) | 5.3 (2.8) | 5.7 (2.5) | 5.4 (2.8) | 5.9 (2.7) | 5.6 (2.6) | |
| TAU | 6.1 (1.4) | 6.1 (2.8) | 5.9 (2.7) | 5.9 (2.3) | 5.4 (2.1) | 5.8 (2.4) | |
Indicates a significant difference in change when compared to boosted acupuncture group.
Fig. 3A. Partial plot showing the positive association between the expectancy scores after the expectancy manipulation in session 2 (x axis) and KOOS pain increases (clinical improvement) after six acupuncture treatments (y axis), including age and gender as covariates (p = 0.04) across the two acupuncture groups (solid dot indicates standard acupuncture group, hollow dot indicates boosted acupuncture group). B. Representative brain regions showed a significant rsFC increase in boosted acupuncture as compared to standard acupuncture (voxel-wise p < 0.005, and cluster-level p < 0.05 FWE corrected). C. The scatter plot represents the partial plot showing the positive association between the expectancy score (x axis) after expectancy manipulation in session 2 and NAc and rACC/MPFC connectivity changes (y axis), including age and gender as covariates (p = 0.002). MCC, middle cingulate cortex; rACC, rostral anterior cingulate cortex; MPFC, medial prefrontal cortex.
NAc rsFC change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment) differences among the three treatment groups.
| Comparison | Brain Region | Cluster Size | MNI Peak (X, Y, Z) | Z Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boosted > Standard | Left MCC | 1027 | −12 | −12 | 36 | 4.54 |
| Left paracentral gyrus | −10 | −16 | 66 | 4.09 | ||
| Left postcentral gyrus | −34 | −42 | 72 | 3.89 | ||
| Left MPFC/rACC | 695 | −4 | 40 | 32 | 4.48 | |
| Right postcentral gyrus | 445 | 4 | −42 | 80 | 3.69 | |
| Left DLPFC | 749 | −30 | 18 | 26 | 3.68 | |
| Standard > Boosted | None | |||||
| Boosted > TAU | Left MPFC | 616 | −6 | 40 | 32 | 4.88 |
| TAU > Boosted | None | |||||
| Standard > TAU | None | |||||
| TAU > Standard | None | |||||