Methods: We reviewed published articles in which pain-related catastrophizing was assessed in the context of one or more rheumatic conditions. Because much of the available information on catastrophizing is derived from the more general chronic pain literature, seminal studies in other disease states were also considered.
Results: Catastrophizing is positively related, in both cross-sectional and prospective studies across different musculoskeletal conditions, to the reported severity of pain, affective distress, muscle and joint tenderness, pain-related disability, poor outcomes of pain treatment, and, potentially, to inflammatory disease activity. Moreover, these associations generally persist after controlling for symptoms of depression. There appear to be multiple mechanisms by which catastrophizing exerts its harmful effects, from maladaptive influences on the social environment to direct amplification of the central nervous system’s processing of pain.
Conclusion: Catastrophizing is a critically important variable in understanding the experience of pain in rheumatologic disorders as well as other chronic pain conditions. Pain-related catastrophizing may be an important target for both psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment of pain.
Evidence of augmented central pain processing in idiopathic chronic low back pain.
(Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:613–623.)
Abstract
Objective: For many individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is no identifiable cause. In other idiopathic chronic pain conditions, sensory testing and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have identified the occurrence of generalized increased pain sensitivity, hyperalgesia, and altered brain processing, suggesting central augmentation of pain processing in such conditions. We compared the results of both of these methods as applied to patients with idiopathic CLBP (n=11), patients with widespread pain (fibromyalgia; n=16), and healthy control subjects (n=11).
Methods: Patients with CLBP had low back pain persisting for at least 12 months that was unexplained by MRI/radiographic changes. Experimental pain testing was performed at a neutral site (thumbnail) to assess the pressure-pain threshold in all subjects. For fMRI studies, stimuli of equal pressure (2 kg) and of equal subjective pain intensity (slightly intense pain) were applied to this same site.
Results: Despite low numbers of tender points in the CLBP group, experimental pain testing revealed hyperalgesia in this group as well as in the fibromyalgia group; the pressure required to produce slightly intense pain was significantly higher in the controls (5.6 kg) than in the patients with CLBP (3.9 kg) (P=0.03) or the patients with fibromyalgia (3.5 kg) (P=0.006). When equal amounts of pressure were applied to the three groups, fMRI detected five common regions of neuronal activation in pain-related cortical areas in the CLBP and fibromyalgia groups (in the contralateral primary and secondary [S2] somatosensory cortices, inferior parietal lobule, cerebellum, and ipsilateral S2). This same stimulus resulted in only a single activation in controls (in the contralateral S2 somatosensory cortex). When subjects in the three groups received stimuli that evoked subjectively equal pain, fMRI revealed common neuronal activations in all three groups.