Objective. To use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to evaluate the pattern of cerebral activation during the application of painful pressure and determine whether this pattern is augmented in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) compared with controls.Methods. Pressure was applied to the left thumbnail beds of 16 right-handed patients with FM and 16 right-handed matched controls. Each FM patient underwent fMRI while moderately painful pressure was being applied. The functional activation patterns in FM patients were compared with those in controls, who were tested under 2 conditions: the "stimulus pressure control" condition, during which they received an amount of pressure similar to that delivered to patients, and the "subjective pain control" condition, during which the intensity of stimulation was increased to deliver a subjective level of pain similar to that experienced by patients.Results. Stimulation with adequate pressure to cause similar pain in both groups resulted in 19 regions of increased regional cerebral blood flow in healthy controls and 12 significant regions in patients. Increased fMRI signal occurred in 7 regions common to both groups, and decreased signal was observed in 1 common region. In contrast, stimulation of controls with the same amount of pressure that caused pain in patients resulted in only 2 regions of increased signal, neither of which coincided with a region of activation in patients. Statistical comparison of the patient and control groups receiving similar stimulus pressures revealed 13 regions of greater activation in the patient group. In contrast, similar stimulus pressures produced only 1 region of greater activation in the control group.Conclusion. The fact that comparable subjectively painful conditions resulted in activation patterns that were similar in patients and controls, whereas similar pressures resulted in no common regions of activation and greater effects in patients, supports the hypothesis that FM is characterized by cortical or subcortical augmentation of pain processing.Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterized by chronic widespread pain (involving all 4 quadrants of the body as well as the axial skeleton) and diffuse tenderness (1). Population-based studies have demonstrated that FM affects ϳ2-4% of the population, with a very similar prevalence in at least 5 industrialized countries (2,3). The etiology of FM remains elusive, although there is support for the notion that altered central pain processing is a factor in the presentation of this disease. The development of functional brain imaging techniques provides an opportunity to examine central pain processing in patients with FM.Although the clinical diagnosis of FM is based on detecting 11 of 18 tender points (regions that are painful when manually palpated with 4 kg of pressure), increased sensitivity to pressure in this condition extends beyond tender points and involves the entire body (4-7). In aggregate, psychophysical studies demonstrate that patients with FM and control subjects generally dete...

Pain catastrophizing, or characterizations of pain as awful, horrible and unbearable, is increasingly being recognized as an important factor in the experience of pain. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the association between catastrophizing, as measured by the Coping Strategies Questionnaire Catastrophizing Subscale, and brain responses to blunt pressure assessed by functional MRI among 29 subjects with fibromyalgia. Since catastrophizing has been suggested to augment pain perception through enhanced attention to painful stimuli, and heightened emotional responses to pain, we hypothesized that catastrophizing would be positively associated with activation in structures believed to be involved in these aspects of pain processing. As catastrophizing is also strongly associated with depression, the influence of depressive symptomatology was statistically removed. Residual scores of catastrophizing controlling for depressive symptomatology were significantly associated with increased activity in the ipsilateral claustrum (r = 0.51, P < 0.05), cerebellum (r = 0.43, P < 0.05), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (r = 0.47, P < 0.05), and parietal cortex (r = 0.41, P < 0.05), and in the contralateral dorsal anterior cingulate gyrus (ACC; r = 0.43, P < 0.05), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (r = 0.41, P < 0.05), medial frontal cortex (r = 0.40, P < 0.05) and lentiform nuclei (r = 0.40, P < 0.05). Analysis of subjects classified as high or low catastrophizers, based on a median split of residual catastrophizing scores, showed that both groups displayed significant increases in ipsilateral secondary somatosensory cortex (SII), although the magnitude of activation was twice as large among high catastrophizers. Both groups also had significant activations in contralateral insula, SII, primary somatosensory cortex (SI), inferior parietal lobule and thalamus. High catastrophizers displayed unique activation in the contralateral anterior ACC, and the contralateral and ipsilateral lentiform. Both groups also displayed significant ipsilateral activation in SI, anterior and posterior cerebellum, posterior cingulate gyrus, and superior and inferior frontal gyrus. These findings suggest that pain catastrophizing, independent of the influence of depression, is significantly associated with increased activity in brain areas related to anticipation of pain (medial frontal cortex, cerebellum), attention to pain (dorsal ACC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), emotional aspects of pain (claustrum, closely connected to amygdala) and motor control. These results support the hypothesis that catastrophizing influences pain perception through altering attention and anticipation, and heightening emotional responses to pain. Activation associated with catastrophizing in motor areas of the brain may reflect expressive responses to pain that are associated with greater pain catastrophizing.

Objective. For many individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is no identifiable cause. In other idiopathic chronic pain conditions, sensory testing and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have identified the occurrence of generalized increased pain sensitivity, hyperalgesia, and altered brain processing, suggesting central augmentation of pain processing in such conditions. We compared the results of both of these methods as applied to patients with idiopathic CLBP (n ‫؍‬ 11), patients with widespread pain (fibromyalgia; n ‫؍‬ 16), and healthy control subjects (n ‫؍‬ 11).Methods. Patients with CLBP had low back pain persisting for at least 12 months that was unexplained by MRI/radiographic changes. Experimental pain testing was performed at a neutral site (thumbnail) to assess the pressure-pain threshold in all subjects. For fMRI studies, stimuli of equal pressure (2 kg) and of equal subjective pain intensity (slightly intense pain) were applied to this same site.Results. Despite low numbers of tender points in the CLBP group, experimental pain testing revealed hyperalgesia in this group as well as in the fibromyalgia group; the pressure required to produce slightly intense pain was significantly higher in the controls (5.6 kg) than in the patients with CLBP (3.9 kg) (P ‫؍‬ 0.03) or the patients with fibromyalgia (3.5 kg) (P ‫؍‬ 0.006).When equal amounts of pressure were applied to the 3 groups, fMRI detected 5 common regions of neuronal activation in pain-related cortical areas in the CLBP and fibromyalgia groups (in the contralateral primary and secondary [S2] somatosensory cortices, inferior parietal lobule, cerebellum, and ipsilateral S2). This same stimulus resulted in only a single activation in controls (in the contralateral S2 somatosensory cortex). When subjects in the 3 groups received stimuli that evoked subjectively equal pain, fMRI revealed common neuronal activations in all 3 groups.Conclusion. At equal levels of pressure, patients with CLBP or fibromyalgia experienced significantly more pain and showed more extensive, common patterns of neuronal activation in pain-related cortical areas. When stimuli that elicited equally painful responses were applied (requiring significantly lower pressure in both patient groups as compared with the control group), neuronal activations were similar among the 3 groups. These findings are consistent with the occurrence of augmented central pain processing in patients with idiopathic CLBP.Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common and expensive musculoskeletal disorders in developed countries (1,2). Back pain in general affects 70-85% of all people at some time in their lives, but 90% of affected individuals recover, typically within 12 weeks (3). Recovery after 12 weeks is slow and uncertain, and this subset of patients with CLBP accounts for major expenses in the health care and disability systems (2,4).Despite the magnitude of the problem, little is known about the precise cause of CLBP. There is often a mismatch between objectiv...

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Main resultsWe included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plantderived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderatequality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate. Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk di erence (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, lowquality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabisbased medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed. Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not di er in tolerability (very low-quality evi...

Over the years, many have viewed Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) as a so-called "functional disorder" and patients have experienced a concomitant lack of interest and legitimacy from the medical profession. The symptoms have not been explained by peripheral mechanisms alone nor by specific central nervous system mechanisms. In this study, we objectively evaluated the cerebral response to individually calibrated pain provocations of a pain-free body region (thumbnail). The study comprised 16 female FMS patients and 16 individually age-matched controls. Brain activity was measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during individually calibrated painful pressures representing 50 mm on a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100 mm. Patients exhibited higher sensitivity to pain provocation than controls as they required less pressure to evoke equal pain magnitudes (U(A)=48, p<.002). Despite lower pressures applied in patients at VAS 50 mm, the fMRI-analysis revealed no difference in activity in brain regions relating to attention and affect or regions with sensory projections from the stimulated body area. However, in the primary link in the descending pain regulating system (the rostral anterior cingulate cortex) the patients failed to respond to pain provocation. The attenuated response to pain in this brain region is the first demonstration of a specific brain region where the impairment of pain inhibition in FMS patients is expressed. These results validate previous reports of dysfunctional endogenous pain inhibition in FMS and advance the understanding of the central pathophysiologic mechanisms, providing a new direction for the development of successful treatments in FMS.