OBJECTIVE: Pain is a significant burden for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite advancements in treatment. We undertook this study to examine the independent contribution of pain centralization to the pain experience of patients with active RA. METHODS: A total of 263 RA patients with active disease underwent quantitative sensory testing (QST), including assessment of extraarticular pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The pain experience was assessed by a pain intensity numeric rating scale and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference computerized adaptive test. We examined associations between QST measures and pain intensity and pain interference. Multiple linear regression models were adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, including swollen joint count and C-reactive protein level. RESULTS: Patients with the lowest PPTs (most central dysregulation) reported higher pain intensity than patients with the highest PPTs (adjusted mean difference 1.02 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.37, 1.67]). Patients with the highest TS (most central dysregulation) had higher pain intensity than those with the lowest TS (adjusted mean difference 1.19 [95% CI 0.54, 1.84]). CPM was not associated with differences in pain intensity. PPT and TS were not associated with pain interference. Patients with the lowest CPM (most centrally dysregulated) had lower pain interference than patients with the highest CPM (adjusted mean difference -2.35 [95% CI -4.25, -0.44]). CONCLUSION: Pain centralization, manifested by low PPTs and high TS, was associated with more intense pain. Clinicians should consider pain centralization as a contributor to pain intensity, independent of inflammation.
OBJECTIVE:Pain is a significant burden for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite advancements in treatment. We undertook this study to examine the independent contribution of pain centralization to the pain experience of patients with active RA. METHODS: A total of 263 RApatients with active disease underwent quantitative sensory testing (QST), including assessment of extraarticular pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The pain experience was assessed by a pain intensity numeric rating scale and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference computerized adaptive test. We examined associations between QST measures and pain intensity and pain interference. Multiple linear regression models were adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, including swollen joint count and C-reactive protein level. RESULTS:Patients with the lowest PPTs (most central dysregulation) reported higher pain intensity than patients with the highest PPTs (adjusted mean difference 1.02 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.37, 1.67]). Patients with the highest TS (most central dysregulation) had higher pain intensity than those with the lowest TS (adjusted mean difference 1.19 [95% CI 0.54, 1.84]). CPM was not associated with differences in pain intensity. PPT and TS were not associated with pain interference. Patients with the lowest CPM (most centrally dysregulated) had lower pain interference than patients with the highest CPM (adjusted mean difference -2.35 [95% CI -4.25, -0.44]). CONCLUSION:Pain centralization, manifested by low PPTs and high TS, was associated with more intense pain. Clinicians should consider pain centralization as a contributor to pain intensity, independent of inflammation.
Authors: Daniel Aletaha; Tuhina Neogi; Alan J Silman; Julia Funovits; David T Felson; Clifton O Bingham; Neal S Birnbaum; Gerd R Burmester; Vivian P Bykerk; Marc D Cohen; Bernard Combe; Karen H Costenbader; Maxime Dougados; Paul Emery; Gianfranco Ferraccioli; Johanna M W Hazes; Kathryn Hobbs; Tom W J Huizinga; Arthur Kavanaugh; Jonathan Kay; Tore K Kvien; Timothy Laing; Philip Mease; Henri A Ménard; Larry W Moreland; Raymond L Naden; Theodore Pincus; Josef S Smolen; Ewa Stanislawska-Biernat; Deborah Symmons; Paul P Tak; Katherine S Upchurch; Jirí Vencovský; Frederick Wolfe; Gillian Hawker Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2010-09
Authors: Sine Skovbjerg; Torben Jørgensen; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Jeanette F Ebstrup; Tina Carstensen; Thomas Graven-Nielsen Journal: J Pain Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Yvonne C Lee; Bing Lu; Robert R Edwards; Ajay D Wasan; Nicholas J Nassikas; Daniel J Clauw; Daniel H Solomon; Elizabeth W Karlson Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2013-01
Authors: Xia Jiang; Maria E C Sandberg; Saedis Saevarsdottir; Lars Klareskog; Lars Alfredsson; Camilla Bengtsson Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Andrew C Heisler; Jing Song; Lutfiyya N Muhammad; Alyssa Wohlfahrt; Wendy Marder; Marcy B Bolster; Clifton O Bingham; Daniel J Clauw; Dorothy D Dunlop; Tuhina Neogi; Yvonne C Lee Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Lisa C Carlesso; Laura Frey Law; Na Wang; Michael Nevitt; Cora E Lewis; Tuhina Neogi Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Beth I Wallace; Meriah N Moore; Andrew C Heisler; Lutfiyya N Muhammad; Jing Song; Daniel J Clauw; Clifton O Bingham; Marcy B Bolster; Wendy Marder; Tuhina Neogi; Alyssa Wohlfahrt; Dorothy D Dunlop; Yvonne C Lee Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 7.046
Authors: Ellen Dalen Arnstad; Johanne Marie Iversen; Martin Uglem; Mia Glerup; Pål Richard Romundstad; Trond Sand; Marite Rygg Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Daniel F McWilliams; Divya Thankaraj; Julie Jones-Diette; Rheinallt Morgan; Onosi S Ifesemen; Nicholas G Shenker; David A Walsh Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 7.580