Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Proceedings: Sex Differences and Analgesics; London, UK, 11 November 2001: Conference Paper

Sex differences in analgesic responses: evidence from experimental pain models

Fillingim, R. B.

Author Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology: 2002 - Volume 19 - Issue - p 16-24

Abstract

Introduction

Recent years have witnessed a dramatic increase in research regarding sex-related influences on the experience of pain [1]. Several lines of evidence indicate that women are at greater risk for experiencing clinical pain. For example, many common chronic pain disorders are more prevalent in women than men, and population-based studies have demonstrated more frequent pain-related symptoms among women relative to men [2-7]. In addition to these epidemiologic findings, sex differences in the severity of clinical pain have been examined. Women reported greater pain than men following colonoscopy [8], and after oral surgery, women have reported greater pain intensity than men in some [9-11] but not other [12,13] studies. In addition, women reported greater pain severity following orthopaedic surgery [14,15]. Among children, girls reported more pain from venepuncture than boys in some studies [16,17] but others have shown no sex differences in pain among children undergoing medical procedures [18,19]. Studies of persons with chronic pain provide less consistent evidence of sex differences, as some investigators have reported greater pain and disability among women [20-23], while others have reported minimal sex differences in pain severity in chronic pain populations [24,25].

While a variety of biopsychosocial factors could account for these sex differences in clinical pain, growing evidence suggests that nociceptive processing differs as a function of sex. Two lines of evidence are particularly relevant here. First, women and men differ in their responses to experimentally induced pain, and second, more recent research suggests that certain pharmacological agents produce different levels of analgesia in women and men. This paper will focus primarily on sex differences in analgesic responses. First, methodological issues regarding the use of laboratory pain models in studying analgesia will be reviewed. Then, the literature on sex differences in responses to experimental pain will be summarized, followed by an overview of sex differences in analgesic responses. Finally, several potential mechanisms underlying sex differences in analgesia will be discussed.

Experimental pain methodology

In assessing analgesic responses in the laboratory, the choice of pain induction and assessment procedures is paramount. Multiple experimental pain methods are available, including mechanical, thermal, electrical, ischaemic and chemical stimuli (for detailed reviews see [26,27]). These stimuli differ along several important dimensions, including temporal characteristics, depth of tissue stimulated, selectivity of afferent fibers stimulated, and the clinical relevance of the pain experienced (Table 1). In addition, the same stimulus class can be delivered to different tissues. For example, both electrical and mechanical stimuli can be applied to skin, muscle and visceral structures. These factors are particularly relevant when investigating sex differences in analgesia for two reasons. First, the magnitude of sex differences in pain perception varies across stimuli. A recent meta-analysis found the largest sex differences emerged for pressure and electrical pain, and the smallest effects were evident using thermal stimuli [28]. Second, analgesic responses vary across pain induction methods. In this regard, a recent study reported that cold pressor, pressure, and electrical pain stimuli were sensitive to alfentanil, while ischaemic and heat pain were not [29]. In addition, even within a pain induction method, the depth of tissue stimulated can influence results. Another study reported that remifentanil produced greater analgesia for electrical pain applied to muscle compared to skin, suggesting that different depths of tissue stimulation are differentially susceptible to opioid analgesia [30]. Clearly, no single pain induction method is ideal for all analgesic applications, and the choice of methodologies will depend on the specific aims of the research. In general, using multiple pain stimulation techniques is optimal, and the stimuli should be chosen to vary along important dimensions, such as temporal characteristics and the depth of tissue stimulated.

Table 1
Table 1:
Characteristics of different experimental pain induction procedures.

The primary criticism of experimentally-induced pain has been its inability to effectively mimic clinical pain. However, several experimental procedures produce pain that is thought to be highly clinically relevant. For example, temporal summation of thermal pain can be evoked using repetitive, brief, suprathreshold heat pulses, and the neurochemical mechanisms supporting temporal summation are thought to be involved in the central sensitization observed in many clinical pain conditions [31]. Similarly, application of capsaicin, a selective C-fibre stimulant, produces spontaneous pain, central sensitization and hyperalgesia similar to symptoms observed in neuropathic pain [32]. Because musculoskeletal pain is a common and disabling form of clinical pain, experimental models that elicit muscle pain are important. The submaximal effort tourniquet procedure produces ischaemic muscle pain, which is both clinically relevant and opioid sensitive [33,34]. Infusing hypertonic saline into a muscle can induce another form of muscle pain, and when maintained for a prolonged period of time, this pain produces perceptual qualities that match chronic clinical muscle pain [35]. Thus, several laboratory methods are capable of producing clinically relevant pain.

The method used to assess pain assessment is another important issue. Unidimensional measures, such as pain threshold and tolerance, are frequently used, and have the advantages of being both quantitative and relatively easy to assess. However, they are overly simplistic and fail to reflect the multidimensional nature of the pain experience. Assessing both sensory and affective dimensions of pain is recommended, as previous research has indicated that some analgesic interventions and certain experimental manipulations may selectively influence affective versus sensory pain responses [36-39]. This has been accomplished using numerical scales, verbal descriptor scales, visual analogue scales, and combined verbal-numerical scales. Numerical scales provide the best ease of use but may not represent true ratio scales. Visual analogue scales have ratio scale properties [40]; however, they can be difficult to use in some settings and with certain populations. Verbal descriptor scales require some transformation to convert them to quantitative values, but there is evidence that these scales may discriminate sensory and affective dimensions of pain more effectively than visual analogue scales [41]. Combined numerical-verbal descriptor scales retain the advantages of verbal descriptors while providing quantitative values, and these scales have been used successfully to distinguish affective and sensory pain dimensions [42]. In addition to these perceptual measures, neurophysiological and autonomic indices can be employed, including muscle reflexes [43,44], pupil dilation [45], cardiovascular responses [46], and functional brain imaging [47,48]. As with pain induction, the ideal pain assessment methodology will depend on the question, and investigators are encouraged to include multiple measures of pain, including both perceptual and physiological responses.

Sex differences in experimental pain responses

Laboratory-based research suggests greater sensitivity to experimentally-induced pain among women relative to men across a variety of stimulus modalities and assessment methods [28,49,50]. Some of these findings are based on subjective responses, such that women have lower pain thresholds and tolerances and generally describe noxious stimuli as more painful. However, sex differences have been reported for less subjective measures as well. For example, women showed greater temporal summation of thermal pain, which is thought to reflect increasing responses to repeated pain due to sensitization in central neurons [51]. Also, the nociceptive flexion reflex, which is a spinal pain-related muscle response, occurs in women at a lower stimulus intensity than in men [44], and women exhibited greater pupil dilation in response to painful pressure than men [45]. It has also been demonstrated that some brain regions show greater activation during painful stimulation among women than men [52]. However, another group of investigators reported more robust cerebral activation among males in responses to nonpainful rectal stimulation [53].

Thus, the bulk of the experimental evidence suggests enhanced pain sensitivity among females; however, the magnitude and consistency of these differences have been questioned [49]. Recent research from our laboratory addresses this issue. We have examined sex differences in experimental pain responses using multiple modalities over the past several years, including heat pain, pressure pain, ischaemic pain, and cold pressor pain. The sample sizes are as follows: heat pain (92 F, 75 M), ischaemic pain (90 F, 70 M), pressure pain (36 F, 19 M), and cold pressor pain (36 F, 36 M). In order to examine the consistency of sex differences across pain procedures, we determined effect sizes for sex differences in pain threshold and tolerance as well as temporal summation of heat pain. The findings are presented in Figure 1. These data indicate moderate to large effect sizes across most stimulus modalities, with the exception of ischaemic pain, where effect sizes were small, indicating that sex differences are of at least moderate magnitude and emerge across multiple stimulation modalities.

Figure 1
Figure 1:
Effects sizes (Cohen'sd) for sex differences across multiple experimental pain stimuli. The three dashed horizontal lines indicate (from top to bottom) a large effect size (0.8), moderate effect size (0.5), and a small effect size (0.2) [91]. HPTH: heat pain threshold; HPTO: heat pain tolerance; IPTH: ischaemic pain threshold; IPTO: ischaemic pain tolerance; CPTH: cold pressor pain threshold; CPTO: cold pressor pain tolerance; PPTTrap: pressure pain threshold on the trapezius muscle; PPTMass: pressure pain threshold on the masseter muscle; Windup: increased pain over trials of heat stimulation. In all cases, values were higher for men than for women with the exception of windup.

Sex differences in analgesic responses

Non-human animal research

Considerable non-human animal research has examined sex differences in analgesic responses to a variety of pharmacological agents. In a recent review, Kest and colleagues [54] examined 50 opioid analgesic assays from studies conducted in rodents. These authors found that males exhibited greater analgesic responses than females in 28 (56%) assays, females showed greater analgesia in 2 (4%) assays, and no sex differences emerged in 20 (40%) assays, suggesting greater opioid analgesia among males. Even more recently, Craft [55] reviewed the data and concluded that both μ- and κ-agonists generally produced greater analgesia in males than females. Sex differences in the analgesia produced by non-opioid agents have also been reported. For example, cocaine produced analgesia in male but not female rats [56]. In contrast, nicotinic agonists [56-58] and cannabinoids [59] produce greater analgesic responses in female than male rats.

Human research

Much information regarding sex differences in analgesic responses among human beings has derived from clinical research. In reviewing the literature on patient controlled analgesia for postsurgical pain, Miaskowski and Levine [60] found that women demanded less postoperative opioid medication; however, because pain relief was not assessed in many of the studies, sex differences in analgesic responses could not be directly determined. These investigators have also conducted a series of studies examining opioid analgesic responses among women and men using the third molar extraction postoperative pain model (for review see [60]). The first study reported greater analgesic responses among females compared to males for pentazocine but not morphine [13], and a follow-up study replicated this finding [12]. Subsequently, these researchers found that females experienced more prolonged analgesia than males with the κ-opioid agonists nalbuphine and butorphanol [61]. More recently, they have demonstrated that low dose nalbuphine (5 mg) produced hyperalgesia in men but no effect in women, while higher doses (10 and 20 mg) produced analgesia of longer duration in women than men [62]. Using the same clinical model, no sex differences were reported in analgesic responses to ibuprofen [9].

While investigating analgesic responses in clinical settings has the advantage of direct clinical relevance, laboratory studies offer other advantages. For example, in clinical populations there is minimal experimental control over the painful stimulus, which can contribute to increased variability in patient responses. Laboratory pain induction methods offer tremendous stimulus control and even allow the experimenter to deliver multiple stimulus intensities. Also, using experimental pain, it is possible to deliver multiple pain stimuli that differ along important dimensions, such as temporal characteristics, sensory qualities, and depth of tissue stimulated. Moreover, experimental pain can be studied in healthy subjects in the absence of any pathophysiological process or potentially interacting medications, which represent more optimal conditions for answering basic scientific questions regarding analgesic responses.

In recent years, investigators have begun to examine sex differences in analgesia using experimentally-induced pain. Similar to their work in rodents, Eisenach and colleagues found that analgesic responses to spinally administered neostigmine were greater for women than men using a cold pressor pain stimulus [63]. In contrast, the anti-inflammatory ibuprofen produced greater analgesia for electrical pain among men than women [64]. Robinson and colleagues [65] used a mechanical pain stimulus and found that lidocaine produced greater cutaneous anaesthesia in men than women. With respect to opioid analgesia, Sarton and colleagues reported greater morphine analgesia among women than men using an electrical pain stimulus, and they also found that analgesia occurred earlier in men but lasted longer in women [66,67]. Zacny [68] has also recently examined sex differences in analgesic responses to three μ-agonists, morphine, meperidine, and hydromorphone, using two analgesic assays, mechanical pressure pain and cold pressor pain. The findings indicated that all three drugs produced equipotent analgesia in females and males for pressure pain; however, for cold pressor pain, analgesic responses were greater among females across all three drugs.

In an ongoing study in our laboratory we are examining sex differences in responses to morphine and pentazocine, using three different experimental pain induction procedures: cutaneous heat pain, mechanical pressure pain and ischaemic arm pain. Some preliminary findings from that project are presented below. This protocol involves double blind intravenous administration of pentazocine (0.5 mg kg−1) and placebo (saline) in counterbalanced order over two experimental sessions. In each experimental session, the three pain assessment procedures are conducted at baseline, and after a rest period drug is administered, and the pain assessment procedures are repeated post-drug. The pain measures include: pressure pain threshold assessed at the trapezius, heat pain threshold and tolerance assessed on the ventral forearm, temporal summation of heat pain assessed on the dorsal forearm, and ischaemic pain tolerance assessed using the submaximal effort tourniquet procedure. Methodological details of these procedures can be found elsewhere [51,69]. At this point, data for nine females, tested during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, and 11 males are available and are presented above.

For heat pain threshold, no significant effect of drug emerged (data not shown); however, for heat pain tolerance and pressure pain threshold, pentazocine produced a significant analgesic effect that was similar for females and males (Figs 2 and 3). Likewise, for temporal summation of thermal pain, similar reductions in pain were evident for females and males following pentazocine administration (data not shown). For the ischaemic pain procedure, pain tolerance was significantly increased by pentazocine among women but not men, and this sex × drug interaction was significant (P < 0.05, Fig. 4). These data suggest that pentazocine produced equipotent analgesia for women and men on the thermal and mechanical pain assays; however, sex differences in analgesia emerged for the ischaemic pain procedure. These data are based on a small sample and are preliminary in nature; however, along with the recent data by Zacny [68] they illustrate the importance of including multiple analgesic assays when investigating sex differences.

Figure 2
Figure 2:
Change scores (post-drug-pre-drug) for heat pain tolerance for females (▪) and males (□) after administration of pentazocine and saline. Positive change scores represent an analgesic effect. There is a significant drug effect (P < 0.05) but no effect of sex and no interaction.
Figure 3
Figure 3:
Change scores (post-drug-pre-drug) for pressure pain threshold for females (▪) and males (□) after administration of pentazocine and saline. Positive change scores represent an analgesic effect. There is a significant drug effect (P < 0.05) but no effect of sex and no interaction.
Figure 4
Figure 4:
Change scores (post-drug-pre-drug) for ischaemic pain tolerance for females (▪) and males (□) after administration of pentazocine and saline. Positive change scores represent an analgesic effect. There is a significant drug × sex interaction (P < 0.05), as females demonstrated a significant analgesic response to pentazocine, while males did not.

Thus, pharmacological interventions for pain often produce different effects in women and men; however, the pattern of results is not consistent across drugs and test conditions. Two recent reviews have noted that in contrast to the non-human animal literature, research in humans generally suggests greater opioid analgesia among women [54,55]. More limited data are available regarding sex differences in analgesic responses to non-opioid compounds. In addition, for opioids, it may be the case that sex differences in analgesia are more robust for tonic, deep pain stimuli (e.g. cold pressor, ischemic pain) than for phasic, superficial pains (e.g. thermal, pressure pain). Obviously more work is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Mechanisms underlying sex differences in responses to analgesics

Addressing the mechanisms underlying sex differences in analgesia is complicated by several factors. First, the opposite direction of the sex differences in non-human animal versus human research makes it difficult to generalize mechanistic findings derived from non-human animal research to humans. Second, as Craft [55] has noted, several methodological (e.g. pain assay, efficacy of the opioid) and other (e.g. hormonal status, genotype) variables may influence findings regarding sex differences in analgesia. Third, multiple mechanisms inevitably interact to produce sex differences in analgesia, and these mechanisms likely differ across species, analgesic agent and pain assay.

Several possible mechanisms have been suggested to explain sex differences in opioid analgesia [54,55,70], and these may apply to other analgesic agents. For example, sex differences in drug metabolism or disposition could contribute to sex differences in analgesia. Indeed, differences in metabolism of morphine have been reported in rodents (see [55]), but a recent study found no differences among humans [66]. Another possibility is that the sensitivity or density of receptors for a given drug may differ across sex. Conflicting findings exist regarding sex differences in opioid receptor density among rodents [55], but human research suggests greater μ-opioid receptor binding among women than men in certain brain regions [71], and μ-opioid receptor binding in the amygdala and hypothalamus was inversely correlated with circulating oestrogen among women in the follicular phase [72]. The relevance of these findings to opioid analgesic responses remains to be determined.

Another potential mechanism explaining sex differences in analgesia is the influence of gonadal steroids. In a recent review, we [70] noted that 'hormonal conditions characterized by elevated oestrogen either alone or accompanied by increased progesterone levels are associated with increased responses to painful stimuli and diminished analgesic responses to stress and opioid pharmacotherapy (p 490).' For example, Banerjee et al.[73] reported decreased analgesic responses to morphine in female rats in late pro oestrus. In addition, gonadectomy was reported to produce increased analgesia in females and decreased analgesia in males to clonidine and pilocarpine [74]. Following ovariectomy, oestrogen and progesterone replacement, either alone or in combination, reduced morphine analgesia in female rats [75]. Interestingly, long-term oestrogen replacement in ovariectomized rhesus monkeys enhanced κ-opioid analgesia but did not alter analgesic responses to μ-agonists [76]. These findings indicate hormonal effects on analgesia; however, it is important to recognize that these results derive exclusively from non-human animal research, and their generalizability to humans is not known.

It is also important to consider psychosocial factors that may contribute sex differences in analgesic responses among humans. For example, both placebo analgesia and nocebo anti-analgesia have been well-documented, and these are based on expectancies of decreased pain and increased pain, respectively [77-80]. Sex differences in placebo/nocebo responses have not been investigated; however, it is possible that women and men possess dissimilar pain-related expectancies, which may differentially influence pain and analgesia. In addition, other psychosocial factors, including mood and pain coping, differ in women and men [81], which may impact analgesic responses. For example, women report higher levels of anxiety [82], which has been associated with both increased reporting of physical symptoms [83] and greater sensitivity to experimental pain [84-86]. Moreover, preoperative anxiety predicts postoperative pain and analgesic consumption [87-90]; therefore, it seems feasible that anxiety could affect analgesic responses. The contribution of such psychosocial factors to sex differences in analgesia has received minimal empirical attention, and future research in this area is needed.

Conclusions and future directions

The findings reviewed herein suggest several conclusions. First, experimental pain models can provide important and unique information regarding sex differences in analgesic responses. Second, non-human animal research suggests larger opioid analgesic responses among males, while human studies indicate that women experience greater opioid analgesia. Whether this is a species effect or is related to other aspects of the methodologies used remains to be determined. Several potential mechanisms underlying sex differences in analgesia have been suggested, including gonadal steroids, genotype, differences in central opioid receptor density or sensitivity, and psychosocial factors. At this point, sex differences in analgesia are well documented, but the nature and practical implications of these effects have not been fully delineated.

Previous authors have suggested important avenues for future research, including using more clinically relevant experimental pain models to test analgesic responses, examining sex differences in non-analgesic effects of opioids (e.g. side effects, physiological responses), further investigation of hormonal influences on analgesia, and analysis of data by sex in analgesic clinical trials [55,70]. In addition, most research on sex differences in analgesia has examined opioids, and investigation of responses to other analgesic compounds is needed. Also, whether long-term administration of opioids or other centrally acting analgesics differentially affects females and males should be determined, since most studies have involved only acute drug administration. Finally, the clinical relevance of sex differences in analgesic responses needs to be established. Are the effects of sufficient magnitude to warrant different dosing schedules in women and men? Should the choice of analgesic agent be based on the sex of the patient? The answers to these questions are not yet available; however, continued research using both clinical and experimental pain models will yield such answers and lead to enhanced pain management for patients of both sexes.

Acknowledgements

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL. This work was supported by NIH/NINDS grant NS41670.

References

1. Fillingim RB, ed. Sex, Gender, and Pain. Seattle, USA: IASP Press, 2000.
2. Andersson HI, Ejlertsson G, Leden I, Rosenberg C. Chronic pain in a geographically defined general population: studies of differences in age, gender, social class, and pain localization. Clin J Pain 1993; 9: 174-182.
3. Forgays DG, Rzewnicki R, Ober AJ, Forgays DK. Headache in college students: a comparison of four populations. Headache 1993; 33: 182-190.
4. Lester N, Lefebvre JC, Keefe FJ. Pain in young adults: I. Relationship to gender and family pain history. Clin J Pain 1994; 10: 282-289.
5. Rajala U, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S, Uusimaki A, Kivela SL. Musculoskeletal pains and depression in a middle-aged Finnish population. Pain 1995; 61: 451-457.
6. Skovron ML, Szpalski M, Nordin M, Melot C, Cukier D. Sociocultural factors and back pain. A population-based study in Belgian adults. Spine 1994; 19: 129-137.
7. Sternbach RA. Survey of pain in the United States: the nuprin pain report. Clin J Pain 1986; 2: 49-53.
8. Froehlich F, Thorens J, Schwizer W, et al. Sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: patient tolerance, pain, and cardiorespiratory parameters. Gastroint Endoscopy 1997; 45: 1-9.
9. Averbuch M, Katzper M. A search for sex differences in response to analgesia. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 3424-3428.
10. Coulthard P, Pleuvry BJ, Dobson M, Price M. Behavioural measurement of postoperative pain after oral surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 38: 127-131.
11. Faucett J, Gordon N, Levine J. Differences in postoperative pain severity among four ethnic groups. J Pain Symptom Manage 1994; 9: 383-389.
12. Gear RW, Gordon NC, Heller PH, Paul S, Miaskowski C, Levine JD. Gender difference in analgesic response to the kappa-opioid pentazocine. Neurosci Lett 1996; 205: 207-209.
13. Gordon NC, Gear RW, Heller PH, Paul S, Miaskowski C, Levine JD. Enhancement of morphine analgesia by the GABAB agonist baclofen. Neuroscience 1995; 69: 345-349.
14. Taenzer AH, Clark C, Curry CS. Gender affects report of pain and function after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 670-675.
15. Thomas T, Robinson C, Champion D, McKell M, Pell M. Prediction and assessment of the severity of postoperative pain and of satisfaction with management. Pain 1998; 75: 177-185.
16. Goodenough B, Kampel L, Champion GD, et al. An investigation of the placebo effect and age-related factors in the report of needle pain from venepuncture in children. Pain 1997; 72: 383-391.
17. Goodenough B, Thomas W, Champion GD, et al. Unravelling age effects and sex differences in needle pain: ratings of sensory intensity and unpleasantness of venepuncture pain by children and their parents. Pain 1999; 80: 179-190.
18. Lander J, Fowler-Kerry S, Hargreaves A. Gender effects in pain perception. Percept Motor Skills 1989; 68: 1088-1090.
19. Lander J, Fowler-Kerry S, Hill A. Comparison of pain perceptions among males and females. Can J Nurs Res 1990; 22: 39-49.
20. Mullersdorf M, Soderback I. The actual state of the effects, treatment and incidence of disabling pain in a gender perspective - a Swedish study. Disabil Rehab 2000; 22: 840-854.
21. Affleck G, Tennen H, Keefe FJ, et al. Everyday life with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: independent effects of disease and gender on daily pain, mood, and coping. Pain 1999; 83: 601-609.
22. Keefe FJ, Lefebvre JC, Egert JR, Affleck G, Sullivan MJ, Caldwell DS. The relationship of gender to pain, pain behavior, and disability in osteoarthritis patients: the role of catastrophizing. Pain 2000; 87: 325-334.
23. Warnell P. The pain experience of a multiple sclerosis population: a descriptive study. Axone 1991; 13: 26-28.
24. Robinson ME, Wise EA, Riley JL III. Sex differences in clinical pain: a multi-sample study. J Clin Psychol Medical Settings 1998; 5: 413-423.
25. Turk DC, Okifuji A. Does sex make a difference in the prescription of treatments and the adaptation to chronic pain by cancer and non-cancer patients? Pain 1999; 82: 139-148.
26. Curatolo M, Petersen-Felix S, Arendt-Nielsen L. Sensory assessment of regional analgesia in humans: a review of methods and applications. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 1517-1530.
27. Gracely RH. Studies of pain in normal man. Melzack R, Wall PD, eds. Textbook of Pain, 3rd edn. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1994: 315-336.
28. Riley JL, Robinson ME, Wise EA, Myers CD, Fillingim RB. Sex differences in the perception of noxious experimental stimuli: a meta-analysis. Pain 1998; 74: 181-187.
29. Luginbuhl M, Schnider TW, Petersen-Felix S, Arendt-Nielsen L, Zbinden AM. Comparison of five experimental pain tests to measure analgesic effects of alfentanil. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 22-29.
30. Curatolo M, Petersen-Felix S, Gerber A, Arendt-Nielsen L. Remifentanil inhibits muscular more than cutaneous pain in humans. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 529-532.
31. Eide PK. Wind-up and the NMDA receptor complex from a clinical perspective. Eur J Pain 2000; 4: 5-15.
32. Simone DA, Baumann TK, Lamotte RH. Dose-dependent pain and mechanical hyperalgesia in humans after intradermal injection of capsaicin. Pain 1989; 38: 99-107.
33. Fillingim RB, Maixner W, Kincaid S, Sigurdsson A, Harris MB. Pain sensitivity in patients with temporomandibular disorders: relationship to clinical and psychosocial factors. Clin J Pain 1996; 12: 260-269.
34. Smith GM, Egbert LD, Markowtiz RA, Mosteller F, Beecher HK. An experimental pain method sensitive to morphine in man: the submaximum effort tourniquet technique. J Pharmacol Exp Therap 1966; 154: 324-332.
35. Stohler CS, Kowalski CJ. Spatial and temporal summation of sensory and affective dimensions of deep somatic pain. Pain 1999; 79: 165-173.
36. Price DD, Barrell JJ, Gracely RH. A psychophysical analysis of experimental factors that selectively influence the affective dimension of pain. Pain 1980; 8: 137-149.
37. Price DD, Von der Gruen A, Miller J, Rafii A, Price C. A psychophysical analysis of morphine analgesia. Pain 1985; 22: 261-269.
38. Price DD, Harkins SW, Rafii A, Price C. A simultaneous comparison of fentanyl's analgesic effects on experimental and clinical pain. Pain 1986; 24: 197-203.
39. Rainville P, Duncan GH, Price DD, Carrier B, Bushnell MC. Pain affect encoded in human anterior cingulate but not somatosensory cortex. Science 1997; 277: 968-971.
40. Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983; 17: 45-56.
41. Duncan GH, Bushnell MC, Lavigne GJ. Comparison of verbal and visual analogue scales for measuring the intensity and unpleasantness of experimental pain. Pain 1989; 37: 295-303.
42. Rainville P, Feine JS, Bushnell MC, Duncan GH. A psychophysical comparison of sensory and affective responses to four modalites of experimental pain. Somatosensory Motor Res 1992; 9: 265-277.
43. Arendt-Nielsen L, Petersen-Felix S, Fischer M, Bak P, Bjerring P, Zbinden AM. The effect of N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist (ketamine) on single and repeated nociceptive stimuli: a placebo-controlled experimental human study. Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 63-68.
44. France CR, Suchowiecki S. A comparison of diffuse noxious inhibitory controls in men and women. Pain 1999; 81: 77-84.
45. Ellermeier W, Westphal W. Gender differences in pain ratings and pupil reactions to painful pressure stimuli. Pain 1995; 61: 435-439.
46. Posner J, Telekes A, Crowley D, Phillipson R, Peck AW. Effects of an opiate on cold-induced pain and the CNS in healthy volunteers. Pain 1985; 23: 73-82.
47. Casey KL. Forebrain mechanisms of nociception and pain: analysis through imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96: 7668-7674.
48. Derbyshire SW. Meta-analysis of thirty-four independent samples studied using PET reveals a significantly attenuated central response to noxious stimulation in clinical pain patients. Curr Rev Pain 1999; 3: 265-280.
49. Berkley KJ. Sex differences in pain. Behav Brain Sci 1997; 20: 371-380.
50. Fillingim RB, Maixner W. Gender differences in the responses to noxious stimuli. Pain Forum 1995; 4: 209-221.
51. Fillingim RB, Maixner W, Kincaid S, Silva S. Sex differences in temporal summation but not sensory-discriminative processing of thermal pain. Pain 1998; 75: 121-127.
52. Paulson PE, Minoshima S, Morrow TJ, Casey KL. Gender differences in pain perception and patterns of cerebral activation during noxious heat stimulation in humans. Pain 1998; 76: 223-229.
53. Berman S, Munakata J, Naliboff BD, et al. Gender differences in regional brain response to visceral pressure in IBS patients. Eur J Pain 2000; 4: 157-172.
54. Kest B, Sarton E, Dahan A. Gender differences in opioid-mediated analgesia: animal and human studies. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 539-547.
55. Craft RM. Sex differences in opioid analgesia: from mouse to man. Clin J Pain 2001; in press.
56. Craft RM, Milholland RB. Sex differences in cocaine- and nicotine-induced antinociception in the rat. Brain Res 1998; 809: 137-140.
57. Chiari A, Tobin JR, Pan HL, Hood DD, Eisenach JC. Sex differences in cholinergic analgesia I: a supplemental nicotinic mechanism in normal females. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 1447-1554.
58. Lavand'homme PM, Eisenach JC. Sex differences in cholinergic analgesia II: differing mechanisms in two models of allodynia. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 1455-1461.
59. Tseng AH, Craft RM. Sex differences in antinociceptive and motoric effects of cannabinoids. Eur J Pharmacol 2001; 430: 41-47.
60. Miaskowski C, Levine JD. Does opioid analgesia show a gender preference for females? Pain Forum 1999; 8: 34-44.
61. Gear RW, Miaskowski C, Gordon NC, Paul SM, Heller PH, Levine JD. Kappa-opioids produce significantly greater analgesia in women than in men. Nature Med 1996; 2: 1248-1250.
62. Gear RW, Miaskowski C, Gordon NC, Paul SM, Heller PH, Levine JD. The kappa-opioid nalbuphine produces gender- and dose-dependent analgesia and antianalgesia in patients with postoperative pain. Pain 1999; 83: 339-345.
63. Eisenach JC, Hood DD. Sex differences in analgesia from intrathecal neostigmine in humans. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: A1106.
64. Walker JS, Carmody JJ. Experimental pain in healthy human subjects: gender differences in nociception and in response to ibuprofen. Anesth Analgesia 1998; 86: 1257-1262.
65. Robinson ME, Riley JL, Brown FF, Gremillion H. Sex differences in response to cutaneous anesthesia - a double blind randomized study. Pain 1998; 77: 143-149.
66. Sarton E, Olofsen E, Romberg R, et al. Sex differences in morphine analgesia: an experimental study in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 1245-1254.
67. Sarton E, Teppema L, Dahan A. Sex differences in morphine induced ventilatory depression reside in the peripheral chemoreflex loop. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 1329-1338.
68. Zacny JP. Gender differences in opioid analgesia in human volunteers: cold pressor and mechanical pain (CPDD abstract). NIDA Research Monograph 2002; 182: 22-23.
69. Edwards RR, Fillingim RB. Age-associated differences in responses to noxious stimuli. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: M180-M185.
70. Fillingim RB, Ness TJ. Sex-related hormonal influences on pain and analgesic responses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2000; 24: 485-501.
71. Zubieta JK, Dannals RF, Frost JJ. Gender and age influences on human brain mu-opioid receptor binding measured by PET. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 842-848.
72. Smith YR, Zubieta JK, del Carmen MG, et al. Brain opioid receptor measurements by positron emission tomography in normal cycling women: relationship to luteinizing hormone pulsatility and gonadal steroid hormones. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998; 83: 4498-4505.
73. Banerjee P, Chatterjee T, Ghosh J. Ovarian steroids and modulation of morphine-induced analgesia and catalepsy in female rats. Eur J Pharmacol 1983; 96: 291-294.
74. Kiefel JM, Bodnar RJ. Roles of gender and gonadectomy in pilocarpine and clonidine analgesia in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1992; 41: 153-158.
75. Ratka A, Simpkins JW. Effects of estradiol and progesterone on the sensitivity to pain and on morphine-induced antinociception in female rats. Horm Behav 1991; 25: 217-228.
76. Negus SS, Mello NK. Opioid antinociception in ovariectomized monkeys: comparison with antinociception in males and effects of estradiol replacement. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999; 290: 1132-1140.
77. Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Casadio C, Oliaro A, Maggi G. Blockade of nocebo hyperalgesia by the cholecystokinin antagonist proglumide. Pain 1997; 71: 135-140.
78. Benedetti F, Amanzio M. The neurobiology of placebo analgesia: from endogenous opioids to cholecystokinin. Prog Neurobiol 1997; 52: 109-125.
79. Staats P, Hekmat H, Staats A. Suggestion/placebo effects on pain: negative as well as positive. J Pain Symptom Manage 1998; 15: 235-243.
80. ter Riet G, de Craen AJ, de Boer A, Kessels AG. Is placebo analgesia mediated by endogenous opioids? A systematic review. Pain 1998; 76: 273-275.
81. Robinson ME, Riley JL III, Myers CD. Psychosocial contributions to sex-related differences in pain responses. In: Fillingim RB, ed. Seattle. USA: IASP Press, 2000: 41-68.
82. Linzer M, Spitzer R, Kroenke K, et al. Gender, quality of life, and mental disorders in primary care: results from the PRIME-MD 1000 study. Am J Med 1996; 101: 526-533.
83. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosom Med 1998; 60: 150-155.
84. Fillingim RB, Keefe FJ, Light KC, Booker DK, Maixner W. The influence of gender and psychological factors on pain perception. J Gender Cult Health 1996; 1: 21-36.
85. Graffenried, Bv, Adler R, Abt K, Nuesch E, Spiegel R. The influence of anxiety and pain sensitivity on experimental pain in man. Pain 1978; 4: 253-263.
86. Robin O, Vinard H, Vernet Maury E, Saumet JL. Influence of sex and anxiety on pain threshold and tolerance. Funct Neurol 1987; 2: 173-179.
87. Gil KM, Ginsberg B, Muir M, Sykes D, Williams DA. Patient-controlled analgesia in postoperative pain: the relation of psychological factors to pain and analgesic use. Clin J Pain 1990; 2: 137-42.
88. Jamison RN, Taft K, O'Hara JP, Ferrante FM. Psychosocial and pharmacologic predictors of satisfaction with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 121-125.
89. Perry F, Parker RK, White PF, Clifford PA. Role of psychological factors in postoperative pain control and recovery with patient-controlled analgesia. Clin J Pain 1994; 10: 57-63.
90. Thomas V, Heath M, Rose D, Flory P. Psychological characteristics and the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia. Br J Anaesth 1995; 74: 271-276.
91. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Orlando, USA: Academic Press, 1977.
    Keywords:

    analgesic responses, sex differences, experimental pain, PAIN THRESHOLD; opioid analgesia, SEX HORMONES

    © 2002 European Society of Anaesthesiology