ContextVisceral pain is a leading symptom for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) that affects 10% - 20 % of the world population. Conventional pharmacological treatments to manage IBS-related visceral pain is unsatisfactory. Recently, medications have emerged to treat IBS patients by targeting the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and peripheral nerves to alleviate visceral pain while avoiding adverse effects on the central nervous system (CNS). Several investigational drugs for IBS also target the periphery with minimal CNS effects.Evidence of AcquisitionIn this paper, reputable internet databases from 1960 - 2016 were searched including Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.org, and 97 original articles analyzed. Search was performed based on the following keywords and combinations: irritable bowel syndrome, clinical trial, pain, visceral pain, narcotics, opioid, chloride channel, neuropathy, primary afferent, intestine, microbiota, gut barrier, inflammation, diarrhea, constipation, serotonin, visceral hypersensitivity, nociceptor, sensitization, hyperalgesia.ResultsCertain conventional pain managing drugs do not effectively improve IBS symptoms, including NSAIDs, acetaminophen, aspirin, and various narcotics. Anxiolytic and antidepressant drugs (Benzodiazepines, TCAs, SSRI and SNRI) can attenuate pain in IBS patients with relevant comorbidities. Clonidine, gabapentin and pregabalin can moderately improve IBS symptoms. Lubiprostone relieves constipation predominant IBS (IBS-C) while loperamide improves diarrhea predominant IBS (IBS-D). Alosetron, granisetron and ondansetron can generally treat pain in IBS-D patients, of which alosetron needs to be used with caution due to cardiovascular toxicity. The optimal drugs for managing pain in IBS-D and IBS-C appear to be eluxadoline and linaclotide, respectively, both of which target peripheral GI tract.ConclusionsConventional pain managing drugs are in general not suitable for treating IBS pain. Medications that target the GI tract and peripheral nerves have better therapeutic profiles by limiting adverse CNS effects.

Electrode arrays interfacing with peripheral nerves are essential for neuromodulation devices targeting peripheral organs to relieve symptoms. To modulate (i.e., single-unit recording and stimulating) individual peripheral nerve axons remains a technical challenge. Here, we report an in vitro setup to allow simultaneous single-unit recordings from multiple mouse sciatic nerve axons. The sciatic nerve (~30 mm) was harvested and transferred to a tissue chamber, the ~5mm distal end pulled into an adjacent recording chamber filled with paraffin oil. A custom-built multi-wire electrode array was used to interface with split fine nerve filaments. Single-unit action potentials were evoked by electrical stimulation and recorded from 186 axons, of which 49.5% were classed A-type with conduction velocities (CV) greater than 1 m/s and 50.5% were C-type (CV < 1 m/s). The single-unit recordings had no apparent bias towards A- or C-type axons, were robust and repeatable for over 60 minutes, and thus an ideal opportunity to assess different neuromodulation strategies targeting peripheral nerves. For instance, ultrasonic modulation of action potential transmission was assessed using the setup, indicating increased nerve conduction velocity following ultrasound stimulus. This setup can also be used to objectively assess the design of next-generation electrode arrays interfacing with peripheral nerves.

Abstract. Ultrasound that is widely used in medical diagnosis has drawn growing interests as a noninvasive means of neuromodulation. Focused pulsed ultrasound (FPUS) effectively modulates neural encoding and transmission in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) with unclear mechanism of action, which is further confounded by contradictory experimental outcomes from recordings of compound action potentials (CAP). To address that, we developed a novel in vitro set up to achieve simultaneous single-unit recordings from individual mouse sciatic nerve axon and systematically studied the neuromodulation effects of FPUS on individual axon. Unlike previous CAP recordings, our single-unit recordings afford superior spatial and temporal resolution to reveal the subtle but consistent effects of ultrasonic neuromodulation. Our results indicate that, 1) FPUS did not evoke action potentials directly in mouse sciatic nerve at all the tested intensities (spatial peak temporal average intensity, ISPTA of 0.91 to 28.2 W/cm 2 ); 2) FPUS increases the nerve conduction velocity (CV) in both fast-conducting A-and slow-conducting C-type axons with effects more pronounced at increased stimulus duration and intensity; and 3) effects of increased CV is reversible and cannot be attributed to the change of local temperature. Our results support existing theories of non-thermal mechanisms underlying ultrasonic neuromodulation with low-intensity FPUS, including NICE, flexoelectricity, and solition models. This work also provides a solid experimental basis to further advance our mechanistic understandings of ultrasonic neuromodulation in the PNS. IntroductionUltrasound (US) has prevailed the field of medical diagnosis for long but yet to be established as a therapeutic paradigm. Neuromodulatory effects of US were first reported in 1929 when Harvey showed that innervated skeletal muscles from frogs and turtles responded to US stimulation in vitro (1). More recent researches focus on the US effects at the central nervous system (CNS), including the disruption of blood brain barrier, motor and sensory responses, and suppressed or evoked action potentials e.g., (2-12), which culminated in the approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat refractory patients with essential tremor using MRI-guided focused ultrasound (13). In addition, ex vivo studies on hippocampal slice cultures have shown that, low-intensity FPUS can elicit electrical activities as indicated by calcium imaging from mouse (14) and simultaneously enhance (at fiber volley) and suppress (at dendritic layers) compound action potentials (CAP) from rat hippocampal dentate gyrus (15).In contrast, the effects of US on the peripheral nervous system (PNS) is comparatively understudied with inconsistent reports. US appears to evoke or enhance the peripheral neural activities in frog sciatic nerve in vitro (16), sensitize neuron in C. elegans (17), cause deqi sensations (i.e., tingling, numbness, heaviness, and fullness) by stimulation of an acupuncture point (LI4, He Gu) (18), an...

Ultrasonic (US) neuromodulation has emerged as a promising therapeutic means by delivering focused energy deep into the nervous tissue. Low-intensity ultrasound (US) directly activates and/or inhibits neurons in the central nervous system (CNS). US neuromodulation of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) is less developed and rarely used clinically. The literature on the neuromodulatory effects of US on the PNS is controversial, with some studies documenting enhanced neural activities, some showing suppressed activities, and others reporting mixed effects. US, with different ranges of intensity and strength, is likely to generate distinct physical effects in the stimulated neuronal tissues, which underlies different experimental outcomes in the literature. In this review, we summarize all the major reports that document the effects of US on peripheral nerve endings, axons, and/or somata in the dorsal root ganglion. In particular, we thoroughly discuss the potential impacts of the following key parameters on the study outcomes of PNS neuromodulation by US: frequency, pulse repetition frequency, duty cycle, intensity, metrics for peripheral neural activities, and type of biological preparations used in the studies. Potential mechanisms of peripheral US neuromodulation are summarized to provide a plausible interpretation of the seemly contradictory effects of enhanced and suppressed neural activities of US neuromodulation.

No abstract