Low Back PainB~MapsNCT06143319
Structural White and Gray Matter Correlates of Impaired Muscle Control and Deficient Pain Processing
An observational study of Low Back Pain and Low Back Pain, Recurrent, run by University Ghent at 1 site in Belgium.
Trial summary
Although the cause of persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP) remains unknown, structural and functional alterations of the brain, alterations in the lumbar muscles and dysfunction of the central nervous system have been proposed as underlying mechanisms. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 45 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Low Back Pain, Low Back Pain, Recurrent, Low Back Pain, Chronic
- How many people
- 80 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBelgium
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2015to 30 Oct 2021
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 45 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Study population: All participants are women, recruited through advertisement in hospitals, patient groups and organizations, flyers, social media etc.
Who may be able to join
- Dutch speaking female participants (age between 18 and 45 years).
- Non-specific recurrent LBP patients experiencing a period of remission at the moment of testing. Patients have to meet the criteria for recurrent LBP (in remission) as described by De Vet et al. (2002) and D'Hooge et al. (2013).
- Non-specific recurrent LBP patients experiencing a pain flare at the moment of testing. Patients have to meet the criteria for recurrent LBP (during pain flare) as described by De Vet et al. (2002) and D'Hooge et al. (2013).
- Participants experiencing non-specific chronic LBP (meeting the International Association for the Study of Pain [IASP] criteria)
- Participants diagnosed with fibromyalgia according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (2010)
- Healthy volunteers with no history of serious respiratory, orthopedic, neurologic or circulatory conditions. No history of low back pain (i.e. low back pain in this case is defined as a period of symptoms lasting a minimum of 2 consecutive days and for which a paramedic is consulted). Participants with a history of spinal surgery, spinal trauma or spinal deformities are also excluded. Healthy participants will be matched for age and BMI with included participants experiencing chronic/recurrent LBP or fibromyalgia.
Who cannot join
- Pregnancy or breastfeeding in the past year
- Contraindications for MRI (e.g. electrical/mechanical implants or electrodes in de body, eye/skin injury by metal fragments in the past, etc)
- BMI lower than 18 or higher than 30
- Participant performed specific trunk muscle training in the past year.
- Participating in sports at a professional level
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Belgium1 site
Ghent University, vakgroep revalidatiewetenschappen
Ghent, Oost-Vlaanderen, 9000
About this study
Official title: The Chronic Pain Brain: Structural White and Gray Matter Correlates of Impaired Muscle Control and Deficient Pain Processing
Although the cause of persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP) remains unknown, structural and functional alterations of the brain, alterations in the lumbar muscles and dysfunction of the central nervous system have been proposed as underlying mechanisms. In this case-control study, 1) brain structure/function, 2) lumbar muscle function and 3) central pain processing are compared across four groups: 1) healthy participants, 2) recurrent LBP (both during pain flare and during pain remission), 3) chronic LBP and 4) fibromyalgia. According to previous research, healthy participants and fibromyalgia patients are two extremes of a "musculoskeletal pain continuum". Healthy participants representing one extreme of the continuum with no pain and fibromyalgia representing the other extreme of the continuum with chronic widespread pain. It is thought that different LBP populations (i.e. (sub)acute, recurrent, chronic LBP) float between the aforementioned extremes. Past studies already highlighted the need for studies comparing the pathophysiological mechanisms for different pain syndromes to identify common underlying mechanisms across pain syndromes. For this reason, the goal of the current study is to compare alterations in brain structure/function, alterations in lumbar muscle function and alterations in central pain processing across the aforementioned "musculoskeletal pain continuum". It is hypothesized that longer duration of pain (recurrent vs chronic) and the extensiveness of the pain (one location vs widespread pain) are associated with more pronounced alterations in 1) brain structure/function, 2) lumbar muscle function and 3) central pain processing.
Read the detailed description
Introduction: Chronic pain is one of the most disabling symptoms in several medical conditions, including LBP and fibromyalgia. A crucial factor for the persistence of recurrent/chronic pain are alterations in lumbar muscle structure and function in patients experiencing recurrent/chronic LBP. Previous studies revealed that these alterations in lumbar muscle structure and function do not resolve when patients with recurrent LBP experience a pain-free episode. According to other recent studies, dysfunction of the central nervous system is another crucial factor to the maintenance of chronic pain. The aforementioned alterations in lumbar muscle structure and function could constitute constant nociceptive input leading to the development of central sensitization (i.e. heightened sensitivity or hyperexcitability of central nervous system). Although it is plausible that central sensitization and disturbed pain processing do exist in patients experiencing chronic LBP, previous studies investigating these mechanisms are scant and results are inconsistent. These inconsistent results might be explained by the fact that previous studies used mixed back pain populations (i.e. different types of back pain are included in one study). In contrast to the inconsistent evidence for the presence of central sensitization in chronic LBP, previous studies in fibromyalgia populations have shown convincing evidence for central sensitization and disturbed pain processing in fibromyalgia. It could be possible that the long-term presence of pain and nociceptive input not only influence pain processing, but also motor control. To support this hypothesis, past studies have revealed altered organization of brain areas involved in trunk and lumbar motor control in patients experiencing recurrent LBP. In addition to alterations in brain function, changes in brain structure are also probable in patients experiencing persistent pain and nociceptive input. Previous studies in fibromyalgia already confirmed the presence of structural brain alterations. To date, only two studies investigated the presence of structural brain alterations in gray matter in patients experiencing LBP and the results are contradicting. Whether structural brain alterations in white matter exist in patients experiencing LBP has not yet explored in previous studies. Past studies in fibromyalgia do confirm that white matter structural changes exist. It is still unclear which specific properties of white matter change in patients with fibromyalgia, because more advanced imaging techniques are necessary to answer this question. In our current study we want to elaborate on the aforementioned results obtained in fibromyalgia patients to investigate whether the same alterations in central mechanisms (i.e. altered pain processing and alterations in brain structure/function) occur in patients experiencing recurrent/chronic LBP. Past studies already highlighted the need for studies comparing similarities and differences in the pathophysiological mechanisms for different pain syndromes to identify similarities in underlying mechanisms across different pain syndromes (e.g. fibromyalgia and LBP). For this reason, the current study will include both patients with fibromyalgia and patients experiencing recurrent/chronic LBP to allow for comparison of the pathophysiological mechanisms.
This case-control study has multiple goals: 1) investigate whether central sensitization and disturbed central pain processing are present in patients experiencing recurrent and chronic LBP. 2) investigate whether structural alterations in gray and white matter exist in patients experiencing recurrent and chronic LBP. 3) investigate whether alterations in white matter microstructure exist in patients experiencing recurrent and chronic LBP and if these alterations are comparable to alterations in white matter structure in fibromyalgia reported in previous studies. 4) investigate whether there is an association between alterations in brain structure/functional connectivity and the degree of disturbances in pain processing. 5) investigate whether there is an association between alterations in brain structure/functional connectivity and lumbar muscle dysfunction. 6) investigate to what extent the duration of pain (i.e. (sub)acute, recurrent, chronic) and the extensiveness of pain (i.e. one location vs widespread pain) influences lumbar motor control, pain processing and brain structure/function.
Method: In this case-control study, 80 female participants will be divided over 4 groups: 1) healthy participants (N=20), 2) recurrent non-specific LBP patients, both during pain remission and during pain flare pain (N = 20), 3) chronic non-specific LBP (N = 20) and 4) fibromyalgia patients (N = 20). The test protocol consists of three parts: 1) participants complete a series of questionnaires measuring several clinical characteristics, including: sociodemographic variables, pain intensity, functional disability, central sensitization and psychosocial factors (i.e. coping, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, hypervigilance and anxiety/depression). 2) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will be used to measure brain structure. Functional MRI (fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) will be used to measure brain function (i.e. resting state and functional connectivity respectively). 3) a series of clinical tests will be performed to measure lumbar muscle function and central pain processing. Lumbar muscle function will be evaluated by using surface electromyography (EMG) for testing anticipatory postural adjustments (APA) in a rapid arm movement (RAM) task and compensatory postural adjustments (CPA) in a quick force release test (QFRT). Central pain processing will be assessed by using 1) pressure algometry for determining pain pressure thresholds (PPT), 2) measuring PPT after a conditioned pain modulation paradigm (CPM) and 3) by determining the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) threshold by using repetitive transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the n. suralis.
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain, Low Back Pain, Recurrent, Low Back Pain, Chronic, Healthy Volunteers, Fibromyalgia
- Keywords
- low back pain, motor control, central sensitization, brain structure, brain function, central pain processing, fibromyalgia
- Medical subject headings
- Low Back Pain, Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome, Fibromyalgia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Recurrent low back pain | 20 non-specific recurrent LBP patients, both experiencing a period of pain remission or a pain flare at the moment of testing, will be included in the current study. | |
| Chronic low back pain | 20 participants experiencing non-specific chronic LBP will be included in the current study. | |
| Healthy volunteers | 20 healthy participants, matched for age and Body Mass Index (BMI) with the participants experiencing chronic/recurrent low back pain or fibromyalgia will be included in the current study. | |
| Fibromyalgia | 20 participants diagnosed with fibromyalgia will be included in the current study |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Brain structure and function
The scanning session will comprise of (1) whole-brain T1-weighted structural MRI, (2) whole-brain DTI and (3) whole-brain resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI).
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Pressure pain thresholds
Pressure algometry for determining the PPT with a digital algometer bilaterally at three body locations, namely on the forearm (on the muscle belly of the extensor carpi radialis muscle), the erector spinae (5cm lateral to the processus spinosus of vertebra L3), and the calf (at the upper third of the distance between the knee crease and the distal border of the calcaneus)
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Conditioned pain modulation
A CPM paradigm during which the PPT (= test stimulus) is repeated during and after immersion of the non-dominant hand in a warm water bath (= conditioned stimulus) of 45.5°C for six minutes.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Nociceptive flexion reflex thresholds
Repetitive TENS of the sural nerve of the dominant leg to determine the NFR threshold and temporal summation of the NFR threshold. A bar stimulating electrode will be connected to a constant current stimulator. Elicitation of the NFR will be evaluated by measuring the involuntary contraction of the ipsilateral biceps femoris.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Lumbar muscle function
Lumbar muscle function will be measured by using surface EMG for testing APAs in a RAM test and CPAs in a QFRT.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Secondary outcomes (10)
Pain intensity
Pain intensity was measured with two visual analogue scales (0 - 100) for average pain and worst pain. The anchors are 'no pain' and 'unbearable pain' respectively. No grid lines are shown on the scale.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Functional disability
To measure functional disability the Dutch version (Beurskens, De Vet et al. 1995) of the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (Roland and Morris 1983) was used. The RMDQ consists of 24 items, with dichotomous answers: 'Yes' (coded = 1) or 'No' (coded = 0). Scores range from 0-24. Higher scores indicate higher disability.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Coping
Coping was measured by using the Dutch version of the Pain Coping Inventory (PCI) (Kraaimaat, Bakker et al. 1997). The PCI consists of 33 questions divided over six subscales: pain transformation, distraction, reducing demands, retreating, worrying and resting (Kraaimaat and Evers 2003). Participants have to rate on 4-point Likert scales to what extend they perform the described behaviors in the statements (e.g. "I take a bath or shower"). Based on the scores of the 33 items, 2 higher order scores are derived for active coping (i.e. transformation, reducing demands, distraction) and passive coping (i.e. retreating, worrying and resting).
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Kinesiophobia
To measure pain related fear, the Dutch version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) was used (Vlaeyen, Kole-Snijders et al. 1995). The TSK is used to measure the extend of pain-related fear and the influence on activity level in LBP populations. The questionnaire consists of 17 items, with higher scores indicating a higher degree of kinesiophobia. Items are scored on 4-point Likert scales and participants have to rate to what degree they agree/disagree to the statements (e.g. "I'm afraid that I might injure myself if I exercise").
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Catastrophizing
To measure pain catastrophizing the Dutch version (Crombez 1996) of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was used. The PCS consist of 13 items about past painful experiences. Participants were requested to indicate to what degree they experience certain thoughts or feelings when experiencing pain on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g.: "I worry all the time about whether the pain will end"). The total score ranges from 0-52, with higher scores indicating more pain catastrophizing.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Depression and anxiety
To measure symptoms of depression and anxiety, the Dutch version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used (Zigmond and Snaith, 1983). The HADS consists of two subscales with 7 items. Scores on both subscales ranges from 0 - 20, with higher scores indicating more anxiety and/or depression. Participants have to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale if they have experienced the emotions described in each statement during the last week (e.g. "I feel restless as I have to be on the move").
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Central sensitization
The Dutch version of the Central Sensitization Index (CSI) was used to measure for symptoms and clinical features related to central sensitization (i.e. hyperexcitability of the central nervous system) (Kregel, Vuijk et al. 2016). The CSI consists of two parts. The first part measures to what extend somatic and emotional symptoms related to central sensitization are present (e.g. "I get tired very easily when I am physically active") and the second part measures whether participants had earlier diagnosis which are frequently observed in central sensitization of the central nervous system (e.g. fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, etc).
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Attention to pain
To measure attention to pain, the Dutch version of the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ) was used (Roelofs, Peters et al. 2003). The PVAQ consists of 16 items with two subscales: 'attention to pain' and 'attention to changes in pain'. Participants have to rate on a 6-point Likert scale to what extend they react in a certain way to pain as described in the statements (e.g. "I am quick to notice changes in pain intensity").
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Physical activity
The Dutch version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was used to obtain a self-reported estimate of physical activity in the last seven days (Craig, Marshall et al. 2003). The IPAQ consists of 31 items about physical activity divided over 5 areas: job-related, transportation, housework (i.e. house maintenance, caring for family), recreation/sport/leisure and time spent sitting. The overall score places participants in one of three categories: 1) low/inactive, 2) moderately active and 3) highly active.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
General health status
To measure general health status and health-related quality of life the Short Form Health Survey-36 items (SF-36) was used (Van der Zee and Sanderman 1993, Aaronson, Muller et al. 1998). The SF-36 measures several domains of health-related areas: physical functioning, physical role limitations, bodily pain, general health perception, energy/vitality, social functioning, emotional role limitations and mental health. Scores range from 0 - 100, higher scores indicating higher subjective health status.
Measured: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Nov 2023
- Study start1 Oct 2015
- Primary completion30 Oct 2021
- Study completion30 Oct 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (32)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University GhentThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 80 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Ghent
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders, Belgium
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Jessica Oosterwijck, Prof, Principal investigator, Ghent University, Pain in MotionLieven Danneels, Prof, Principal investigator, University Ghent
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06143319
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- B670201422908 - EC/2014/1245
- Acronym
- B~Maps
- Status last verified
- Nov 2023
- First submitted
- 18 Nov 2022
- Last updated
- 22 Nov 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Hodges PW, Moseley GL. Pain and motor control of the lumbopelvic region: effect and possible mechanisms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003 Aug;13(4):361-70. doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00042-7.
PubMed 12832166Danneels LA, Coorevits PL, Cools AM, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, De CH. Differences in electromyographic activity in the multifidus muscle and the iliocostalis lumborum between healthy subjects and patients with sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2002 Feb;11(1):13-9. doi: 10.1007/s005860100314.
PubMed 11931058Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, De Cuyper HJ. CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects. Eur Spine J. 2000 Aug;9(4):266-72. doi: 10.1007/s005860000190.
PubMed 11261613D'hooge R, Cagnie B, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Dolphens M, Danneels L. Increased intramuscular fatty infiltration without differences in lumbar muscle cross-sectional area during remission of unilateral recurrent low back pain. Man Ther. 2012 Dec;17(6):584-8. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jul 10.
PubMed 22784801D'hooge R, Cagnie B, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Achten E, Danneels L. Lumbar muscle dysfunction during remission of unilateral recurrent nonspecific low-back pain: evaluation with muscle functional MRI. Clin J Pain. 2013 Mar;29(3):187-94. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31824ed170.
PubMed 23369927D'hooge R, Hodges P, Tsao H, Hall L, Macdonald D, Danneels L. Altered trunk muscle coordination during rapid trunk flexion in people in remission of recurrent low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013 Feb;23(1):173-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Oct 15.
PubMed 23079004Nijs J, Daenen L, Cras P, Struyf F, Roussel N, Oostendorp RA. Nociception affects motor output: a review on sensory-motor interaction with focus on clinical implications. Clin J Pain. 2012 Feb;28(2):175-81. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318225daf3.
PubMed 21712714Roussel NA, Nijs J, Meeus M, Mylius V, Fayt C, Oostendorp R. Central sensitization and altered central pain processing in chronic low back pain: fact or myth? Clin J Pain. 2013 Jul;29(7):625-38. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31826f9a71.
PubMed 23739534Meeus M, Nijs J. Central sensitization: a biopsychosocial explanation for chronic widespread pain in patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Apr;26(4):465-73. doi: 10.1007/s10067-006-0433-9. Epub 2006 Nov 18.
PubMed 17115100Tsao H, Danneels LA, Hodges PW. ISSLS prize winner: Smudging the motor brain in young adults with recurrent low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 1;36(21):1721-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821c4267.
PubMed 21508892Apkarian AV, Sosa Y, Sonty S, Levy RM, Harden RN, Parrish TB, Gitelman DR. Chronic back pain is associated with decreased prefrontal and thalamic gray matter density. J Neurosci. 2004 Nov 17;24(46):10410-5. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2541-04.2004.
PubMed 15548656Schmidt-Wilcke T, Leinisch E, Ganssbauer S, Draganski B, Bogdahn U, Altmeppen J, May A. Affective components and intensity of pain correlate with structural differences in gray matter in chronic back pain patients. Pain. 2006 Nov;125(1-2):89-97. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.05.004. Epub 2006 Jun 5.
PubMed 16750298Fayed N, Garcia-Campayo J, Magallon R, Andres-Bergareche H, Luciano JV, Andres E, Beltran J. Localized 1H-NMR spectroscopy in patients with fibromyalgia: a controlled study of changes in cerebral glutamate/glutamine, inositol, choline, and N-acetylaspartate. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12(4):R134. doi: 10.1186/ar3072. Epub 2010 Jul 7.
PubMed 20609227Kang DH, Son JH, Kim YC. Neuroimaging studies of chronic pain. Korean J Pain. 2010 Sep;23(3):159-65. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2010.23.3.159. Epub 2010 Aug 26.
PubMed 20830260Lutz J, Jager L, de Quervain D, Krauseneck T, Padberg F, Wichnalek M, Beyer A, Stahl R, Zirngibl B, Morhard D, Reiser M, Schelling G. White and gray matter abnormalities in the brain of patients with fibromyalgia: a diffusion-tensor and volumetric imaging study. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Dec;58(12):3960-9. doi: 10.1002/art.24070.
PubMed 19035484
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Nov 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Chronic Pain Brain: Structural White and Gray Matter Correlates of Impaired Muscle Control and Deficient Pain Processing
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06143319
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- B~Maps / B670201422908 - EC/2014/1245
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain, Low Back Pain, Recurrent, Low Back Pain, Chronic, Healthy Volunteers, Fibromyalgia
- Keywords
- low back pain, motor control, central sensitization, brain structure, brain function, central pain processing, fibromyalgia
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 80 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University GhentUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders, Belgium
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Oct 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Oct 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Nov 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Although the cause of persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP) remains unknown, structural and functional alterations of the brain, alterations in the lumbar muscles and dysfunction of the central nervous system have been proposed as underlying mechanisms. In this case-control study, 1) brain structure/function, 2) lumbar muscle function and 3) central pain processing are compared across four groups: 1) healthy participants, 2) recurrent LBP (both during pain flare and during pain remission), 3) chronic LBP and 4) fibromyalgia. According to previous research, healthy participants and fibromyalgia patients are two extremes of a "musculoskeletal pain continuum". Healthy participants representing one extreme of the continuum with no pain and fibromyalgia representing the other extreme of the continuum with chronic widespread pain. It is thought that different LBP populations (i.e. (sub)acute, recurrent, chronic LBP) float between the aforementioned extremes. Past studies already highlighted the need for studies comparing the pathophysiological mechanisms for different pain syndromes to identify common underlying mechanisms across pain syndromes. For this reason, the goal of the current study is to compare alterations in brain structure/function, alterations in lumbar muscle function and alterations in central pain processing across the aforementioned "musculoskeletal pain continuum". It is hypothesized that longer duration of pain (recurrent vs chronic) and the extensiveness of the pain (one location vs widespread pain) are associated with more pronounced alterations in 1) brain structure/function, 2) lumbar muscle function and 3) central pain processing.
Detailed description
Introduction: Chronic pain is one of the most disabling symptoms in several medical conditions, including LBP and fibromyalgia. A crucial factor for the persistence of recurrent/chronic pain are alterations in lumbar muscle structure and function in patients experiencing recurrent/chronic LBP. Previous studies revealed that these alterations in lumbar muscle structure and function do not resolve when patients with recurrent LBP experience a pain-free episode. According to other recent studies, dysfunction of the central nervous system is another crucial factor to the maintenance of chronic pain. The aforementioned alterations in lumbar muscle structure and function could constitute constant nociceptive input leading to the development of central sensitization (i.e. heightened sensitivity or hyperexcitability of central nervous system). Although it is plausible that central sensitization and disturbed pain processing do exist in patients experiencing chronic LBP, previous studies investigating these mechanisms are scant and results are inconsistent. These inconsistent results might be explained by the fact that previous studies used mixed back pain populations (i.e. different types of back pain are included in one study). In contrast to the inconsistent evidence for the presence of central sensitization in chronic LBP, previous studies in fibromyalgia populations have shown convincing evidence for central sensitization and disturbed pain processing in fibromyalgia. It could be possible that the long-term presence of pain and nociceptive input not only influence pain processing, but also motor control. To support this hypothesis, past studies have revealed altered organization of brain areas involved in trunk and lumbar motor control in patients experiencing recurrent LBP. In addition to alterations in brain function, changes in brain structure are also probable in patients experiencing persistent pain and nociceptive input. Previous studies in fibromyalgia already confirmed the presence of structural brain alterations. To date, only two studies investigated the presence of structural brain alterations in gray matter in patients experiencing LBP and the results are contradicting. Whether structural brain alterations in white matter exist in patients experiencing LBP has not yet explored in previous studies. Past studies in fibromyalgia do confirm that white matter structural changes exist. It is still unclear which specific properties of white matter change in patients with fibromyalgia, because more advanced imaging techniques are necessary to answer this question. In our current study we want to elaborate on the aforementioned results obtained in fibromyalgia patients to investigate whether the same alterations in central mechanisms (i.e. altered pain processing and alterations in brain structure/function) occur in patients experiencing recurrent/chronic LBP. Past studies already highlighted the need for studies comparing similarities and differences in the pathophysiological mechanisms for different pain syndromes to identify similarities in underlying mechanisms across different pain syndromes (e.g. fibromyalgia and LBP). For this reason, the current study will include both patients with fibromyalgia and patients experiencing recurrent/chronic LBP to allow for comparison of the pathophysiological mechanisms.
This case-control study has multiple goals: 1) investigate whether central sensitization and disturbed central pain processing are present in patients experiencing recurrent and chronic LBP. 2) investigate whether structural alterations in gray and white matter exist in patients experiencing recurrent and chronic LBP. 3) investigate whether alterations in white matter microstructure exist in patients experiencing recurrent and chronic LBP and if these alterations are comparable to alterations in white matter structure in fibromyalgia reported in previous studies. 4) investigate whether there is an association between alterations in brain structure/functional connectivity and the degree of disturbances in pain processing. 5) investigate whether there is an association between alterations in brain structure/functional connectivity and lumbar muscle dysfunction. 6) investigate to what extent the duration of pain (i.e. (sub)acute, recurrent, chronic) and the extensiveness of pain (i.e. one location vs widespread pain) influences lumbar motor control, pain processing and brain structure/function.
Method: In this case-control study, 80 female participants will be divided over 4 groups: 1) healthy participants (N=20), 2) recurrent non-specific LBP patients, both during pain remission and during pain flare pain (N = 20), 3) chronic non-specific LBP (N = 20) and 4) fibromyalgia patients (N = 20). The test protocol consists of three parts: 1) participants complete a series of questionnaires measuring several clinical characteristics, including: sociodemographic variables, pain intensity, functional disability, central sensitization and psychosocial factors (i.e. coping, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, hypervigilance and anxiety/depression). 2) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will be used to measure brain structure. Functional MRI (fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) will be used to measure brain function (i.e. resting state and functional connectivity respectively). 3) a series of clinical tests will be performed to measure lumbar muscle function and central pain processing. Lumbar muscle function will be evaluated by using surface electromyography (EMG) for testing anticipatory postural adjustments (APA) in a rapid arm movement (RAM) task and compensatory postural adjustments (CPA) in a quick force release test (QFRT). Central pain processing will be assessed by using 1) pressure algometry for determining pain pressure thresholds (PPT), 2) measuring PPT after a conditioned pain modulation paradigm (CPM) and 3) by determining the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) threshold by using repetitive transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the n. suralis.
Study design
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Recurrent low back pain | – | –20 non-specific recurrent LBP patients, both experiencing a period of pain remission or a pain flare at the moment of testing, will be included in the current study. |
| Chronic low back pain | – | –20 participants experiencing non-specific chronic LBP will be included in the current study. |
| Healthy volunteers | – | –20 healthy participants, matched for age and Body Mass Index (BMI) with the participants experiencing chronic/recurrent low back pain or fibromyalgia will be included in the current study. |
| Fibromyalgia | – | –20 participants diagnosed with fibromyalgia will be included in the current study |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 45 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
- Study population
- All participants are women, recruited through advertisement in hospitals, patient groups and organizations, flyers, social media etc.
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Dutch speaking female participants (age between 18 and 45 years).
- Non-specific recurrent LBP patients experiencing a period of remission at the moment of testing. Patients have to meet the criteria for recurrent LBP (in remission) as described by De Vet et al. (2002) and D'Hooge et al. (2013).
- Non-specific recurrent LBP patients experiencing a pain flare at the moment of testing. Patients have to meet the criteria for recurrent LBP (during pain flare) as described by De Vet et al. (2002) and D'Hooge et al. (2013).
- Participants experiencing non-specific chronic LBP (meeting the International Association for the Study of Pain [IASP] criteria)
- Participants diagnosed with fibromyalgia according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (2010)
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Pregnancy or breastfeeding in the past year
- Contraindications for MRI (e.g. electrical/mechanical implants or electrodes in de body, eye/skin injury by metal fragments in the past, etc)
- BMI lower than 18 or higher than 30
- Participant performed specific trunk muscle training in the past year.
- Participating in sports at a professional level
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Brain structure and function
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
The scanning session will comprise of (1) whole-brain T1-weighted structural MRI, (2) whole-brain DTI and (3) whole-brain resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI).
Pressure pain thresholds
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Pressure algometry for determining the PPT with a digital algometer bilaterally at three body locations, namely on the forearm (on the muscle belly of the extensor carpi radialis muscle), the erector spinae (5cm lateral to the processus spinosus of vertebra L3), and the calf (at the upper third of the distance between the knee crease and the distal border of the calcaneus)
Conditioned pain modulation
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
A CPM paradigm during which the PPT (= test stimulus) is repeated during and after immersion of the non-dominant hand in a warm water bath (= conditioned stimulus) of 45.5°C for six minutes.
Nociceptive flexion reflex thresholds
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Repetitive TENS of the sural nerve of the dominant leg to determine the NFR threshold and temporal summation of the NFR threshold. A bar stimulating electrode will be connected to a constant current stimulator. Elicitation of the NFR will be evaluated by measuring the involuntary contraction of the ipsilateral biceps femoris.
Lumbar muscle function
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Lumbar muscle function will be measured by using surface EMG for testing APAs in a RAM test and CPAs in a QFRT.
10 secondary outcomes
Pain intensity
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Functional disability
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Coping
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Kinesiophobia
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Catastrophizing
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Depression and anxiety
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Central sensitization
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Attention to pain
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Physical activity
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
General health status
Time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Nov 2023.
- Background: PubMed 12832166Hodges PW, Moseley GL. Pain and motor control of the lumbopelvic region: effect and possible mechanisms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003 Aug;13(4):361-70. doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00042-7.
- Background: PubMed 11931058Danneels LA, Coorevits PL, Cools AM, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, De CH. Differences in electromyographic activity in the multifidus muscle and the iliocostalis lumborum between healthy subjects and patients with sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2002 Feb;11(1):13-9. doi: 10.1007/s005860100314.
- Background: PubMed 11261613Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE, De Cuyper HJ. CT imaging of trunk muscles in chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects. Eur Spine J. 2000 Aug;9(4):266-72. doi: 10.1007/s005860000190.
- Background: PubMed 22784801D'hooge R, Cagnie B, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Dolphens M, Danneels L. Increased intramuscular fatty infiltration without differences in lumbar muscle cross-sectional area during remission of unilateral recurrent low back pain. Man Ther. 2012 Dec;17(6):584-8. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jul 10.
- Background: PubMed 23369927D'hooge R, Cagnie B, Crombez G, Vanderstraeten G, Achten E, Danneels L. Lumbar muscle dysfunction during remission of unilateral recurrent nonspecific low-back pain: evaluation with muscle functional MRI. Clin J Pain. 2013 Mar;29(3):187-94. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31824ed170.
- Background: PubMed 23079004D'hooge R, Hodges P, Tsao H, Hall L, Macdonald D, Danneels L. Altered trunk muscle coordination during rapid trunk flexion in people in remission of recurrent low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013 Feb;23(1):173-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Oct 15.
- Background: PubMed 21712714Nijs J, Daenen L, Cras P, Struyf F, Roussel N, Oostendorp RA. Nociception affects motor output: a review on sensory-motor interaction with focus on clinical implications. Clin J Pain. 2012 Feb;28(2):175-81. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318225daf3.
- Background: PubMed 23739534Roussel NA, Nijs J, Meeus M, Mylius V, Fayt C, Oostendorp R. Central sensitization and altered central pain processing in chronic low back pain: fact or myth? Clin J Pain. 2013 Jul;29(7):625-38. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31826f9a71.
- Background: PubMed 17115100Meeus M, Nijs J. Central sensitization: a biopsychosocial explanation for chronic widespread pain in patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Apr;26(4):465-73. doi: 10.1007/s10067-006-0433-9. Epub 2006 Nov 18.
- Background: PubMed 21508892Tsao H, Danneels LA, Hodges PW. ISSLS prize winner: Smudging the motor brain in young adults with recurrent low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 1;36(21):1721-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821c4267.
- Background: PubMed 15548656Apkarian AV, Sosa Y, Sonty S, Levy RM, Harden RN, Parrish TB, Gitelman DR. Chronic back pain is associated with decreased prefrontal and thalamic gray matter density. J Neurosci. 2004 Nov 17;24(46):10410-5. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2541-04.2004.
- Background: PubMed 16750298Schmidt-Wilcke T, Leinisch E, Ganssbauer S, Draganski B, Bogdahn U, Altmeppen J, May A. Affective components and intensity of pain correlate with structural differences in gray matter in chronic back pain patients. Pain. 2006 Nov;125(1-2):89-97. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.05.004. Epub 2006 Jun 5.
- Goubert, D. (2017). Peripheral back muscle dysfunctions and central pain mechanisms : an innovative perspective on differences between recurrent and chronic pain. Ghent University. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent, Belgium.Link provided by the sponsor.
- Van der Zee, K. and R. Sanderman (1993). "RAND-36." Groningen: Northern Centre for Health Care Research, University of Groningen, the Netherlands 28(6).Link provided by the sponsor.
- Crombez, G. (1996). "De Pain Catastrophizing scale (PCS)."Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Hip Hinge Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Disability in Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Lumbar Stabilization Exercises With and Without YTWL (Scapular Stabilization Exercises) on Reducing Chronic Low Back Pain and Related Disability. A Randomized Clinical Trial,
Chronic Non Specific Mechanical Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Comparing Non-Medicine Strategies for Improving Low Back Pain
Chronic Low-back Pain (cLBP), High-Impact Chronic Pain (HICP)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Whole-Body Vibration and Cervical Stabilization With Core Stabilization in Young Adults With Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Spinery Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for Vertebrogenic Chronic Low Back Pain
Low Back Pain, Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Jessica Oosterwijck, Prof principal investigator
Ghent University, Pain in Motion
Lieven Danneels, Prof principal investigator
University Ghent
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Low Back Pain and Low Back Pain, Recurrent, run by University Ghent at 1 site in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Nov 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Brain structure and function (time frame: The entirety of the protocol for each patient is administered in a single day, spanning approximately 4 to 5 hours.). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06143319, which also lists 32 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Nov 2023.