Search

Laura F Cavallone,1 Karen Frey,1 Michael C Montana,1 Jeremy Joyal,1 Karen J Regina,1 Karin L Petersen,2 Robert W Gereau IV11Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA; 2California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USAIntroduction: Heat/capsaicin skin sensitization is a well-characterized human experimental model to induce hyperalgesia and allodynia. Using this model, gabapentin, among other drugs, was shown to significantly reduce cutaneous hyperalgesia compared to placebo. Since the larger thermal probes used in the original studies to produce heat sensitization are now commercially unavailable, we decided to assess whether previous findings could be replicated with a currently available smaller probe (heated area 9 cm2 versus 12.5–15.7 cm2).Study design and methods: After Institutional Review Board approval, 15 adult healthy volunteers participated in two study sessions, scheduled 1 week apart (Part A). In both sessions, subjects were exposed to the heat/capsaicin cutaneous sensitization model. Areas of hypersensitivity to brush stroke and von Frey (VF) filament stimulation were measured at baseline and after rekindling of skin sensitization. Another group of 15 volunteers was exposed to an identical schedule and set of sensitization procedures, but, in each session, received either gabapentin or placebo (Part B).Results: Unlike previous reports, a similar reduction of areas of hyperalgesia was observed in all groups/sessions. Fading of areas of hyperalgesia over time was observed in Part A. In Part B, there was no difference in area reduction after gabapentin compared to placebo.Conclusion: When using smaller thermal probes than originally proposed, modifications of other parameters of sensitization and/or rekindling process may be needed to allow the heat/capsaicin sensitization protocol to be used as initially intended. Standardization and validation of experimental pain models is critical to the advancement of translational pain research.Keywords: experimental pain model, hyperalgesia, peripheral sensitization, central sensitization

Importance: Healthcare concepts for chronic diseases based on tele-monitoring have become increasingly important during COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To study the effectiveness of a novel integrated care concept (NICC) that combines tele-monitoring with the support of a call centre in addition to guideline therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or treatment-resistant hypertension. Design: A prospective, parallel-group, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Setting: Between December 2017 and August 2019 at the Rostock University Medical Center (Germany). Participants: Including 960 patients with either atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or treatment-resistant hypertension. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either NICC (n = 478) or standard-of-care (SoC) (n = 482) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the NICC group received a combination of tele-monitoring and intensive follow-up and care through a call centre. Main outcomes and measures: Three primary endpoints were formulated: (1) composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction; (2) number of inpatient days; (3) the first plus cardiac decompensation, all measured at 12-months follow-up. Superiority was evaluated using a hierarchical multiple testing strategy for the 3 primary endpoints, where the first step is to test the second primary endpoint (hospitalization) at two-sided 5%-significance level. In case of a non-significant difference between the groups for the rate of hospitalization, the superiority of NICC over SoC is not shown. Results: The first primary endpoint occurred in 1.5% of NICC and 5.2% of SoC patients (OR: 3.3 [95%CI 1.4–8.3], p = 0.009). The number of inpatient treatment days did not differ significantly between both groups (p = 0.122). The third primary endpoint occurred in 3.6% of NICC and 8.1% of SoC patients (OR: 2.2 [95%CI 1.2–4.2], p = 0.016). Four patients died of all-cause death in the NICC and 23 in the SoC groups (OR: 4.4 [95%CI 1.6–12.6], p = 0.006). Based on the prespecified hierarchical statistical analysis protocol for multiple testing, the trial did not meet its primary outcome measure. Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or treatment-resistant hypertension, the NICC approach was not superior over SoC, despite a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and cardiac decompensation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03317951. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]