Can quantitative sensory testing predict responses to analgesic treatment?

Authors

  • K. Grosen,

    1. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
    Search for more papers by this author
  • I.W.D. Fischer,

    1. Mech-Sense, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Aalborg Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
    2. Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
    Search for more papers by this author
  • A.E. Olesen,

    1. Mech-Sense, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Aalborg Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
    Search for more papers by this author
  • A.M. Drewes

    Corresponding author
    1. Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark
    • Mech-Sense, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Aalborg Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Funding sources

    The study was supported by The Danish Council for Strategic Research, The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation; grant No.10–092786, The Obel Family Foundation and The M. L. Jørgensen and Gunnar Hansen's Foundation.

  • Conflicts of interest

    None declared.

Correspondence

Asbjørn Mohr Drewes

E-mail: amd@rn.dk

Abstract

The role of quantitative sensory testing (QST) in prediction of analgesic effect in humans is scarcely investigated. This updated review assesses the effectiveness in predicting analgesic effects in healthy volunteers, surgical patients and patients with chronic pain. A systematic review of English written, peer-reviewed articles was conducted using PubMed and Embase (1980–2013). Additional studies were identified by chain searching. Search terms included ‘quantitative sensory testing’, ‘sensory testing’ and ‘analgesics’. Studies on the relationship between QST and response to analgesic treatment in human adults were included. Appraisal of the methodological quality of the included studies was based on evaluative criteria for prognostic studies. Fourteen studies (including 720 individuals) met the inclusion criteria. Significant correlations were observed between responses to analgesics and several QST parameters including (1) heat pain threshold in experimental human pain, (2) electrical and heat pain thresholds, pressure pain tolerance and suprathreshold heat pain in surgical patients, and (3) electrical and heat pain threshold and conditioned pain modulation in patients with chronic pain. Heterogeneity among studies was observed especially with regard to application of QST and type and use of analgesics. Although promising, the current evidence is not sufficiently robust to recommend the use of any specific QST parameter in predicting analgesic response. Future studies should focus on a range of different experimental pain modalities rather than a single static pain stimulation paradigm.

Ancillary