Neuroplasticity mediators could play a role as screening tools for pain clinicians, and as validation of the complex and diffuse symptoms of these patients.

BackgroundCentral disinhibition is a mechanism involved in the physiopathology of fibromyalgia. Melatonin can improve sleep quality, pain and pain threshold. We hypothesized that treatment with melatonin alone or in combination with amitriptyline would be superior to amitriptyline alone in modifying the endogenous pain-modulating system (PMS) as quantified by conditional pain modulation (CPM), and this change in CPM could be associated with serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). We also tested whether melatonin improves the clinical symptoms of pain, pain threshold and sleep quality.MethodsSixty-three females, aged 18 to 65, were randomized to receive bedtime amitriptyline (25 mg) (n = 21), melatonin (10 mg) (n = 21) or melatonin (10 mg) + amitriptyline (25 mg) (n = 21) for a period of six weeks. The descending PMS was assessed with the CPM-TASK. It was assessed the pain score on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS 0-100 mm), the score on Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), heat pain threshold (HPT), sleep quality and BDNF serum. Delta values (post- minus pre-treatment) were used to compare the treatment effect. The outcomes variables were collected before, one and six weeks after initiating treatment.ResultsMelatonin alone or in combination with amitriptyline reduced significantly pain on the VAS compared with amitriptyline alone (P < 0.01). The delta values on the VAS scores were-12.85 (19.93),-17.37 (18.69) and-20.93 (12.23) in the amitriptyline, melatonin and melatonin+amitriptyline groups, respectively. Melatonin alone and in combination increased the inhibitory PMS as assessed by the Numerical Pain Scale [NPS(0-10)] reduction during the CPM-TASK:-2.4 (2.04) melatonin + amitriptyline,-2.65 (1.68) melatonin, and-1.04 (2.06) amitriptyline, (P < 0.05). Melatonin + amitriptyline treated displayed better results than melatonin and amitriptyline alone in terms of FIQ and PPT improvement (P < 0.05, fort both).ConclusionMelatonin increased the inhibitory endogenous pain-modulating system as assessed by the reduction on NPS(0-10) during the CPM-TASK. Melatonin alone or associated with amitriptyline was better than amitriptyline alone in improving pain on the VAS, whereas its association with amitriptyline produced only marginal additional clinical effects on FIQ and PPT.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trail is registered at clinical trials.gov upon under number NCT02041455. Registered January 16, 2014.

We evaluated the efficacy of acupuncture as a useful adjuvant treatment in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A pilot, randomized, double-blind, and controlled clinical trial was conducted. Forty RA patients with active disease despite stable therapy for at least the preceding 1 month were randomized to receive a standard protocol of acupuncture (AC) or superficial acupuncture at non-acupuncture points (controlAC) for 9 weeks. The primary outcome was achievement of 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 criteria after five and ten treatment sessions and after 1 month of follow-up. Secondary measures included Disease Assessment Scale (DAS), tender and swollen joint count, morning stiffness, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, physician global assessment of activity disease, physician and patient global assessment of treatment, and inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein). There was not significant difference between the groups regarding the number of patients that reached ACR20 at the end of the treatment (p=0.479). However, after 1 month of follow-up, there was a trend in favor of the AC group, with p=0.068. Compared with the controlAC, the AC group also demonstrated significant improvement in the patient and physician global assessment of treatment and physician global assessment of disease activity, but there was no difference on other clinical and laboratorial measures. On the other hand, only the AC patients had within group improvement on the variables DAS, HAQ, morning stiffness, patient and physician global assessment of treatment, and physician global assessment of disease activity in comparison to baseline visit. Despite the improvement of some studied variables, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients that reached ACR20 between the AC and controlAC groups. This negative result can be related to the small sample size, selection of patients, type of acupuncture protocol applied, and difficulties in establishing an innocuous and trustworthy placebo group to studies involving acupuncture.