Journal Logo

General Section

Stress-induced analgesia: an evaluation of effects on temporal summation of pain and the role of endogenous opioid mechanisms

Bruehl, Stephena,*; Morris, Matthew C.b; al'Absi, Mustafac

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000987
  • Open
  • Editor's Choice

1. Introduction

Acute stress is associated with decreased pain responsiveness6,17,47 (stress-induced analgesia [SIA]). Human SIA studies have historically focused on effects of acute stress on static evoked pain measures, such as pain threshold and tolerance.2,9,16,24,25,36,51–53 Such measures are nonspecific, broadly indexing overall pain sensitivity. In contrast, dynamic evoked pain measures capture specific pain modulatory processes. For example, temporal summation of pain protocols that elicit increases in perceived pain intensity during rapid application of the same brief stimulus at 2- to 3-sec intervals index central sensitization.15 A few studies using temporal summation protocols have begun addressing the question of whether SIA inhibits temporal summation. In 2 studies of individuals without chronic pain, laboratory stress protocols (public speaking and cognitive tasks) were shown to reduce temporal summation, although only in Anglo-American participants in one study.14,19 In contrast, a more recent study reported no effect of an acute laboratory social stressor on temporal summation.32

To the extent that SIA inhibits expression of central sensitization, mechanisms underlying those effects remain untested. In animals, it is well-accepted that SIA has an endogenous opioid (EO) component.17,35 Human studies, although not entirely consistent, also suggest a likely EO component to SIA. Studies using laboratory stressors have reported that pharmacological opioid blockade reduces or eliminates SIA.2,9,16,24,25,36,51–53 Such findings have also been extended to acute naturalistic stress (eg, parachute jumping).24,36 All these studies have focused solely on static evoked pain measures. Whether opioid-mediated SIA effects inhibit central sensitization (indexed by temporal summation) is unknown.

The limited human work evaluating whether EO activity inhibits temporal summation in the absence of acute stress has been negative; temporal summation under resting conditions was unaltered by opioid blockade in 2 studies.21,38 However, 2 animal studies suggest possible EO inhibition of temporal summation.20,54 In the current work, we sought to test whether SIA in response to acute laboratory stressors altered temporal summation and whether these effects were EO-mediated. We hypothesized that under placebo, temporal summation would be significantly lower in the stress than the no-stress condition. Moreover, we hypothesized that opioid blockade would eliminate the SIA in the placebo condition. Because age and sex both may moderate temporal summation,10,41,42 we evaluated whether SIA effects on temporal summation were moderated by these factors. A multilevel modelling approach was used to permit quantitative evaluation of SIA effects on temporal summation itself (slope of pain ratings across temporal summation stimuli) vs on initial pain ratings in the temporal summation series (intercept).

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

This was a secondary analysis from a larger study focusing on opioid regulation of the stress response. Results from this project regarding opioid-mediated SIA effects on static measures of cold-pressor pain responsiveness have previously been reported.2 Potential participants (n = 88) were recruited from the community through print and online advertisements using procedures described previously.5 Participants meeting the following criteria were invited for on-site screening: weight within ±30% of ideal body weight; regular sleep cycle; and consuming ≤2 drinks/day of alcohol. Participants were excluded based on chronic medical conditions (eg, cardiac disease or hypertension), major psychiatric disorders (eg, psychotic, bipolar, depression, anxiety, or substance use), opiate dependence, or pregnancy. The final sample analyzed consisted of 72 participants because of missing or insufficient temporal summation data (ie, <2 ratings) for one or more experimental conditions in 16 participants. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board, and all participants provided written informed consent.

2.2. Procedures

2.2.1. Stressor condition

We used a stress protocol previously used effectively to induce significant physiological, biological, and psychological changes indicative of a stress response.1 The stressors included public speaking and mental arithmetic challenges. The public speaking challenge involved preparing (4 minutes) and delivering a 4-minute speech while being videotaped as described in previous studies.3,4,50 The scenarios differed in the 2 sessions but with similar demands. The mental arithmetic challenge also lasted for 8 minutes and required participants to add the digits of a 3-digit number then add the sum to the original number continuously. If a response was incorrect, the participant was interrupted and instructed to return to the last correct response (ie, a mild form of harassment). Order of stress condition vs the comparison rest condition (seated rest while watching nature films for 16 minutes) was randomly determined, but fixed for each participant across drug conditions.

2.2.2. Drug condition

Naltrexone (50 mg oral) or placebo was consumed by participants after a baseline rest period. Drug condition was double-blinded and counterbalanced, and drug order was randomly determined. Drug administration was followed by a 60-minute absorption period to allow for peak absorption of naltrexone.

2.3. Measures

Demographic information (ie, age, gender, body mass index, race/ethnicity, education, and marital status) was collected via self-report during on-site screening.

2.3.1. Temporal summation of pain

A standardized oscillating heat pain stimulation protocol (Medoc TSA 2001, Minneapolis, MN) was used to determine temporal summation, similar to our previous work.40,43 A sequence of 10 heat pulses, 0.5 seconds in duration, with a 35°C base temperature, an intertrial interval of 2.5 seconds, and 50°C target stimulus intensity was applied to the left volar forearm. Participants were asked to provide verbal numeric pain ratings (0 = “no pain” to 100 = “most pain possible”) immediately after the peak of each pulse. Participants completed the temporal summation protocol 4 times across 2 separate laboratory sessions (placebo, naltrexone): placebo/rest; placebo/stress; naltrexone/rest; naltrexone/stress. Drug sessions were conducted on separate days with a minimum of 72 hours between sessions. Experimenters terminated the temporal summation protocol immediately after any pain ratings of 100/100. Early termination occurred for: n = 18 placebo/rest, n = 15 placebo/stress, n = 16 naltrexone/rest, and n = 14 naltrexone/stress.

2.3.2. Distress

Subjective distress (ie, anxiety, irritability, impatience, restlessness) was assessed through a modified version of the Subjective States Questionnaire.28 Items ranged from 0 (“not at all”) to 8 (“very strong”), with the overall distress score (also on a 0–8 scale) reflecting the item mean. Stress reactivity was operationalized as change in distress ratings from baseline to the end of the stress (or rest) period in each condition.

2.4. Data analytic plan

Temporal summation outcomes were examined as a continuous measure with multilevel models specified using hierarchical linear models (HLM v.8).39 Missing temporal summation data were handled using maximum-likelihood estimation. Analyses consisted of a within-person (level 1) submodel describing how pain ratings changed across the temporal summation protocol by stressor and drug condition and a between-person (level 2) submodel describing how these changes varied across participants.44 To evaluate whether SIA altered temporal summation, a multilevel model tested the influence of stress condition on temporal summation slopes in the placebo condition. Next, age and gender were tested as moderators of SIA effects on temporal summation responses in this model. To evaluate whether any SIA effects on temporal summation were EO-mediated, a multilevel model was then used to examine the main and interactive effects of stressor and drug conditions on initial pain ratings in the temporal summation protocol (intercept) and temporal summation slopes. Age and gender were next tested as moderators of SIA and drug effects on temporal summation responses. Finally, we evaluated whether stress reactivity (ie, change in distress ratings from baseline to the stressors) moderated SIA and drug effects on initial pain ratings (intercept) and temporal summation slopes (ie, a dose response for stress). As an example, we specified the model below:

  • Level 1 model:

Painti = π0 + π1 Session Orderti + π2 Pulseti + π3 Stressti + π4 Stress × Pulseti + π5 Drugti + π6 Drug × Pulseti + e

  • Level 2 model:

π0 = β00 + β01Distress + r0

π1 = β10 + β11Distress

π2 = β20

π3 = β30 + β31Distress

π4 = β40 + β41Distress

π5 = β50 + β51Distress

π6 = β60 + β61Distress

In this equation, Painti indicates the numerical pain rating (0–100) at pulse t for person i, Session Order denotes the effects of repetitive application of the stimuli across stress conditions and drug sessions (sessions 1–4), Pulse denotes the temporal summation task pulse number (1–10), Stress denotes the main effect of stressor condition (0 = rest; 1 = stress task), and the Stress × Pulse interaction captures potential stressor effects on temporal summation slopes. Drug denotes the main effect of drug condition (0 = placebo; 1 = drug), the Drug × Pulse interaction captures potential drug effects on temporal summation slopes, and Distress denotes stress reactivity (positive values reflect increases in distress from baseline to stress task). Of primary interest for stress reactivity analyses were the interactions of distress with stressor condition (β31) and drug (β51) condition, which focused on initial pain ratings in the temporal summation protocol (intercepts), and the distress × stress × pulse (β41) and distress × drug × pulse (β61) interactions, which focused on temporal summation slopes (index of central sensitization). The possibility that assigned rest/stress condition order or drug condition order might have confounded primary results was considered; preliminary analyses indicated that neither of these order variables significantly influenced temporal summation outcomes (Ps > 0.30).

To account for multiple testing (ie, stress condition, drug condition, and stress reactivity each examined as moderators of initial pain ratings and temporal summation slopes), we used the Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate correction to control for the rate of type I errors by adjusting the P-value based on the number of significant results in a family of tests.11 Significant interactions were probed, simple slopes were calculated using the online calculator of Preacher et al.,37 and interaction patterns are presented graphically for higher (ie, +1 SD) and lower (−1 SD) values of continuous moderators.

3. Results

3.1. Sample characteristics and manipulation checks

Sample characteristics are described in Table 1. Participants were predominantly young and male, Anglo-American, and had a healthy body weight. As a manipulation check, the stressors were associated with significant increases in self-reported distress (on a 0–8 scale) in both the placebo (mean change = 1.8, SD = 3.7; t[71] = 4.10, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 0.48) and the naltrexone (mean change = 2.2, SD = 4.6; t[70] = 4.11, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 0.49) conditions. Significant mean changes from initial to maximal pain ratings during the temporal summation protocol, consistent with temporal summation of pain,8 were observed for the placebo/rest (mean change = 16.8, SD = 14.1, t[71] = 10.15, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 1.20), placebo/stress (mean change = 16.8, SD = 14.9, t[71] = 9.59, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 1.13), naltrexone/rest (mean change = 17.1, SD = 14.1, t[71] = 10.29, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 1.21), and naltrexone/stress (mean change = 19.1, SD = 14.9, t[71] = 10.91, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 1.29) conditions. Together, these manipulation checks confirm that the stressors elicited increased self-reported distress as expected and the quantitative sensory testing protocol elicited increased pain ratings across stimuli consistent with temporal summation of pain.

Table 1 - Descriptive characteristics.
Mean (SD) or n (%)
 Age (y) 20.8 (2.7)
  Female 25 (35%)
  Male 47 (65%)
  White 61 (85%)
  African American 3 (4%)
  Asian 5 (7%)
  Hispanic 1 (1%)
  Other 2 (3%)
 Marital status
  Single 66 (92%)
  Married 1 (1%)
  Missing 5 (7%)
 Education (y) 14.4 (2.4)
 Body mass index (kg/m2) 24.6 (3.9)
Stress reactivity
 Distress at rest (placebo) 4.1 (3.4)
 Distress during stress (placebo) 5.9 (4.2)
 Distress at rest (naltrexone) 4.1 (3.2)
 Distress during stress (naltrexone) 6.4 (5.2)
Temporal summation
 Placebo, rest condition
  Initial pain rating 64.6 (19.0)
  Maximal pain minus first pain rating 16.8 (14.1)
 Placebo, stress condition
  Initial pain rating 62.1 (19.6)
  Maximal pain minus first pain rating 16.8 (14.9)
 Naltrexone, rest condition
  Initial pain rating 63.5 (17.7)
  Maximal pain minus first pain rating 17.1 (14.1)
 Naltrexone, stress condition
  Initial pain rating 59.2 (18.9)
  Maximal pain minus first pain rating 19.1 (14.9)

3.2. Stressor condition effects on temporal summation of pain

Pain ratings across the temporal summation protocol for rest and stress conditions during the placebo session are presented in Figure 1. Analyses revealed that under placebo, the stress manipulation was associated with significant changes in intercepts among participants (b = −3.43, SE = 0.89, t[1,230] = 3.86, P < 0.001), such that initial pain ratings in the temporal summation stimulus series were lower in the stress than rest condition. This is consistent with an SIA effect. Stressor condition was not, however, associated with temporal summation slopes (b = 0.12, SE = 0.17, P = 0.50), a measure indexing central sensitization.

Figure 1.:
Mean pain ratings (±SEM) throughout the temporal summation of pain (TSP) task in the rest and stress conditions for the placebo session.

Neither gender nor age moderated stressor effects on intercepts or temporal summation slopes among participants in the placebo condition (Ps > 0.08). However, the age × pulse interaction (b = −0.19, SE = 0.05, t[1,227] = 3.90, P < 0.001) revealed increased temporal summation slopes (ie, greater central sensitization) in relatively younger as compared with relatively older participants.

Stress reactivity (ie, changes in distress from baseline to the end of the stressors) moderated associations between stress condition and initial pain ratings (b = −2.52, SE = 0.88, t[1,227] = 2.86, P = 0.004). Simple slope analysis revealed significantly lower initial pain ratings in the stress than the rest condition among participants with higher stress reactivity (b = −5.92, SE = 1.24, t[1,227] = 4.78, P < 0.001); in contrast, initial pain ratings did not differ between stress and rest conditions for participants with lower stress reactivity (b = −0.89, SE = 1.25, t[1,227] = 0.71, P = 0.48) (Fig. 2). Stress reactivity did not moderate associations between stress condition and temporal summation slopes (b = 0.11, SE = 0.17, t[1,227] = 0.63, P = 0.53).

Figure 2.:
Multilevel model of the interaction between stressor condition (stress vs rest) and stress reactivity (changes in distress ratings from baseline to stress) predicting temporal summation of pain (TSP) for the placebo session.

3.3. Main and interactive effects of drug and stressor condition on temporal summation of pain

Naltrexone administration was associated with changes in initial pain ratings (intercept) during the temporal summation protocol (b = −1.37, SE = 0.70, t[2,533] = 1.97, P < 0.05), such that initial pain ratings were lower under opioid blockade than placebo. Drug condition was not, however, associated with temporal summation slopes (b = 0.13, SE = 0.14, t[2,533] = 0.94, P = 0.35). The main effect of stressor on initial pain ratings described above remained significant in this drug effect model (b = −3.35, SE = 0.70, t[2,533] = 4.81, P < 0.001), indicating an SIA effect on initial pain ratings independent of opioid blockade status. In addition, a significant main effect of session order (b = 0.36, SE = 0.18, t[2,533] = 2.04, P = 0.04) revealed increasing initial pain ratings in the temporal summation protocol with each successive exposure to the protocol (2 trials per session across 2 lab sessions [placebo/naltrexone]). Stressor and drug condition did not interact to predict initial pain ratings (b = 0.06, SE = 1.39, t[2,531] = 0.04, P = 0.97) or temporal summation slopes (b = 0.01, SE = 0.27, t[2,531] = 0.05, P = 0.96). Hence, subsequent moderator analyses excluded this 3-way interaction and focused on the drug × pulse and stress × pulse interactions.

There was a significant gender × drug × pulse interaction on temporal summation slopes (b = −0.65, SE = 0.28, t[2,526] = 2.30, P = 0.02). Simple slope analysis revealed increased temporal summation slopes for women in the naltrexone (b = 2.04, SE = 0.20, t[2,528] = 10.36, P < 0.001) compared with placebo condition (b = 1.49, SE = 0.20, t[2,528] = 7.45, P < 0.001), indicating EO inhibition of temporal summation in women, independent of stress effects. In contrast, minimal difference in slopes was observed for men in the naltrexone (b = 0.97, SE = 0.14, t[2,528] = 6.79, P < 0.001) compared with placebo conditions (b = 1.07, SE = 0.14, t[2,528] = 7.53, P < 0.001) (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.:
Multilevel model of the interaction between drug condition (naltrexone vs placebo) and gender predicting temporal summation of pain (TSP).

Age did not significantly moderate stressor or drug condition effects on temporal summation slopes (Ps > 0.83). However, the age × drug interaction was significant for initial pain ratings (b = −0.59, SE = 0.27, t[2,528] = 2.20, P = 0.028). Simple slope analysis revealed more significant naltrexone-related decreases in initial pain ratings for relatively older (b = −12.65, SE = 6.17, t[2,528] = 2.05, P = 0.04) than relatively younger participants (b = −9.48, SE = 4.74, t[2,528] = 2.00, P < 0.05). In addition, the age × pulse interaction was significant (b = −0.10, SE = 0.05, t[2,528] = 2.28, P = 0.023); as for the placebo condition, increased temporal summation slopes were noted in relatively younger participants.

Stress reactivity moderated associations between drug condition and initial pain ratings (b = −2.84, SE = 0.79, t[2,528] = 3.62, P < 0.001), with significantly lower initial pain ratings in the naltrexone than the placebo condition among participants with higher stress reactivity (b = −4.40, SE = 1.08, t[2,528] = 4.07, P < 0.001). In contrast, initial pain ratings did not differ significantly between drug conditions for participants with lower stress reactivity (b = 1.28, SE = 1.01, t[2,528] = 1.27, P = 0.20) (Fig. 4). Stress reactivity did not moderate the association between drug condition and temporal summation slopes (b = 0.03, SE = 0.15, t[2,528] = 0.19, P = 0.85).

Figure 4.:
Multilevel model of the interaction between drug condition (naltrexone vs placebo) and stress reactivity (changes in distress ratings from baseline to stress) predicting temporal summation of pain (TSP).

4. Discussion

A small number of studies have explored whether analgesia associated with exposure to acute stress (SIA) inhibits temporal summation, a marker reflecting central sensitization.15 Findings to date are mixed.14,19,32 Prior studies have not distinguished between SIA effects on initial pain ratings in the temporal summation protocol (intercept) and the temporal summation slope that is the marker for central sensitization. In the current study, a significant SIA effect was observed when EO systems were intact (placebo condition), although this effect was noted only for initial pain ratings in the temporal summation series. Findings that a greater “stress dose” was associated with greater SIA on this measure supports the stress-specific effects of this finding. Stress-induced analgesia effects on initial pain ratings in the temporal summation protocol are consistent with prior work indicating SIA effects on static evoked pain stimuli.2,9,16,24,25,36,51–53 In contrast, there was no SIA effect on temporal summation slope under placebo in the current work, arguing against the hypothesis that SIA specifically inhibits expression of central sensitization.

The current findings have methodological implications for studies using temporal summation protocols. There are several alternative methods for quantifying temporal summation, with one being the slope of the pain ratings across temporal summation trials and another being simple difference scores (eg, pain ratings for the maximal minus the first temporal summation trial). Although our primary temporal summation analyses adopted the slope method, we also reported values obtained with the latter method to facilitate comparison across studies. Mean changes from initial to maximal pain ratings in the present study (≥16 point pain increase across conditions) were greater than those reported in other studies of healthy adults (eg, 10 point pain increase).8 Temporal summation results using various methods available are generally highly intercorrelated.26 The current findings indicate that elevated stress can significantly reduce the first rating in a temporal summation series, an effect potentially exaggerating the apparent magnitude of temporal summation if based on simple difference scores. Thus, temporal summation values based on difference scores may be more susceptible to confounding by recent stress exposure than slope-based temporal summation measures, which the current work indicates are not significantly influenced by stress effects.

Whether EO mechanisms contribute to SIA effects on temporal summation has not previously been explored. In the overall sample, naltrexone vs placebo condition did not alter SIA effects on initial pain ratings or slope in the temporal summation protocol. To the extent that initial pain ratings in the temporal summation protocol might be considered a static evoked pain measure, absence of opioid blockade effects on these initial ratings in the current work stand in contrast to significant opioid blockade effects (ie, endogenous opioid-mediated inhibition) on static evoked pain responses to a cold-pressor pain stimulus reported previously in the current sample.2 It is possible that the relatively extended nature of the cold-pressor stimulus relative to the brief thermal stimuli in the current protocol could have affected on these differing patterns of findings regarding opioid inhibition. Overall, in the current study, there was no evidence of EO mechanisms contributing to the effects of acute stress on temporal summation outcomes. However, irrespective of stress effects, other findings supported possible EO inhibition of temporal summation slope (ie, central sensitization), at least in females. Specifically, in females but not males, opioid blockade with naltrexone significantly increased temporal summation slope across stimuli relative to the placebo condition (ie, disinhibition of central sensitization), a finding independent of any stress effects. This effect could simply represent regression to the mean over temporal summation trials in females when administered naltrexone, although the within-subject nature of the comparisons might argue against this. Nonetheless, this finding suggestive of EO inhibition of temporal summation stands in contrast to negative results of the 2 previous opioid blockade studies evaluating this issue.21,38 Differences between the current findings and these latter 2 studies may be because of the fact that both prior studies were conducted in small samples consisting largely of individuals with diverse chronic pain conditions rather than healthy individuals as in the current work.

Sex-specific opioidergic inhibition of temporal summation might be expected, given previous work suggesting sex differences in EO systems.18,45,46,56 The current results build on a previous study using positron emission tomography imaging in healthy individuals, which reported that greater temporal summation was associated with lower basal opioid receptor density (presumably reflecting less EO inhibition) in pain-relevant motor areas of the brain.34 In contrast to the current work, these latter findings were observed in an all-male sample. Although sex-specificity of the current findings requires replication because of the modest sample size of female participants, further investigation seems warranted regarding possible EO inhibition of central sensitization. If confirmed, these results raise the possibility that interventions for chronic pain that can enhance EO tone (eg, aerobic exercise training12) could potentially have beneficial effects on central sensitization in women.

Examination of opioid blockade effects also revealed an intriguing finding of potential mechanistic relevance to SIA. In individuals responding to the acute stressors with a greater stress response, a notable paradoxical analgesia was observed on initial temporal summation ratings when EOs were blocked by naltrexone. Although the source of this effect cannot be directly tested in the current work, we speculate that it may reflect activation of nonopioid SIA mechanisms. Endogenous opioids serve to inhibit physiological stress responses.30,31 In the present study, opioid blockade with naltrexone may have exaggerated participants' stress responses during the acute stressor, thereby triggering more prominent SIA that was nonopioid in origin,27 that is, observable despite opioid blockade. Examples of possible nonopioid mechanisms include endocannabinoid,13,22 serotonergic,55 and hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenocortical mechanisms,7 all of which have been shown to contribute to SIA. Both human and animal studies indicate that whether SIA is opioid or nonopioid in character is related to both stressor controllability and duration, with uncontrollable and more prolonged stressors more likely to elicit opioid SIA.23,29 It is possible that the acute laboratory stressors in the current work may have been too brief and controllable to elicit activation of opioid-mediated SIA.

This study had several potential limitations. Given the characteristics of our sample, our findings do not necessarily generalize to individuals with chronic pain or those who are older or non–Anglo-American. Race differences may be important, as one prior study found that SIA effects on temporal summation (calculated as the difference in pain ratings between the 1st and 10th temporal summation trial) were evident in Anglo-American, but not African-American, participants.19 The fact that 65% of the sample was male may also have limited ability to interpret findings specific to the female subsample. We further note that naltrexone and placebo sessions were conducted a minimum of only 72 hours apart. Whereas oral naltrexone itself has a half-life of 4 to 9 hours,33,49 its active metabolite beta-naltrexol has a longer half-life of 12 hours.33 Although prior work indicates that functional opioid blockade effects of oral naltrexone largely remit by 72 hours (based on objective responses to heroin administration),48 it is nonetheless possible that for participants receiving naltrexone in the first session, they may have been experiencing some limited degree of remaining opioid blockade during the placebo session. Although this is a potential confound to study interpretation, no significant effects of drug administration order on outcomes were observed. Moreover, carryover effects would not explain the paradoxical analgesia noted with naltrexone, which reflected lower pain responsiveness when opioid receptors were fully blocked than when opioid receptors were minimally blocked or fully functional. Finally, the current study only evaluated temporal summation in response to heat pain stimuli at a relatively high temperature. The evoked pain modality used could be a relevant methodological difference, as one of the only prior studies showing SIA effects on temporal summation used an evoked pressure pain temporal summation protocol.14 The high stimulus temperature used in the current work likely contributed to the number of participants reaching the maximum pain intensity in the temporal summation protocol and could have affected the overall results, including findings regarding apparent sex differences in opioidergic inhibition of temporal summation. Although the intense nature of the stimuli should have maximized the ability to demonstrate SIA effects (greater room for pain intensity to move downward with stress exposure), it could also have impeded evaluation of opioid mechanisms of this SIA by limiting the ability of opioid blockade to further increase temporal summation ratings. The extent to which this may have influenced our findings is unknown, but we note that the significant paradoxical naltrexone analgesia that was observed argues against ceiling effects substantially confounding our results. Findings of significant naltrexone-induced increases in temporal summation slope in females (independent of stress effects) are also inconsistent with ceiling effects being a significant confound.

In summary, the current results indicate that acute psychosocial stress elicited SIA that reduced initial pain ratings in the temporal summation protocol but did not influence the temporal summation slope. This latter finding argues against SIA specifically inhibiting expression of central sensitization. There was no evidence that EO mechanisms contributed to observed SIA effects on initial pain ratings. However, EO function did appear to inhibit central sensitization (temporal summation slopes) independent of stress effects, although only in females.


The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.


This work was supported by grants R01AG048915 (S.B.), R01DA050334 (S.B.), R01DA16351 (M.A.), and R01DA027232 (M.A.) from the National Institutes of Health, and an AHA-Grant-in-Aid (M.A.) from the American Heart Association—Minnesota. The authors would like to express their appreciation to Motohiro Nakajma, Deanna Ellestad, and Angie Harju for their assistance on data collection and management of this study.


[1]. al'Absi M, Bongard S, Buchanan T, Pincomb GA, Licinio J, Lovallo WR. Cardiovascular and neuroendocrine adjustment to public speaking and mental arithmetic stressors. Psychophysiology 1997;34:266–75.
[2]. al'Absi M, Nakajima M, Bruehl S. Stress and pain: modality-specific opioid mediation of stress-induced analgesia. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 2021;128:1397–407.
[3]. al'Absi M, Nakajima M, DeAngelis B, Grant J, King A, Grabowski J, Hatsukami D, Allen S. Blunted opioid regulation of the HPA stress response during nicotine withdrawal: therapeutic implications. Stress 2021;24:529–40.
[4]. al'Absi M, Nakajima M, Grabowski J. Stress response dysregulation and stress-induced analgesia in nicotine dependent men and women. Biolog Psychol 2013;93:1–8.
[5]. al'Absi M, Nakajima M, Lemieux A. Impact of early life adversity on the stress biobehavioral response during nicotine withdrawal. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2018;98:108–18.
[6]. al'Absi M, Petersen KL. Blood pressure but not cortisol mediates stress effects on subsequent pain perception in healthy men and women. PAIN 2003;106:285–95.
[7]. al'Absi M, Wittmers LE, Ellestad D, Nordehn G, Kim SW, Kirschbaum C, Grant JE. Sex differences in pain and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical responses to opioid blockade. Psychosom Med 2004;66:198–206.
[8]. Anderson RJ, Craggs JG, Bialosky JE, Bishop MD, George SZ, Staud R, Robinson ME. Temporal summation of second pain: variability in responses to a fixed protocol. Eur J Pain 2013;17:67–74.
[9]. Bandura A, Cioffi D, Taylor CB, Brouillard ME. Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opioid activation. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988;55:479–88.
[10]. Bartley EJ, King CD, Sibille KT, Cruz-Almeida Y, Riley JL III, Glover TL, Goodin BR, Sotolongo AS, Herbert MS, Bulls HW, Staud R, Fessler BJ, Redden DT, Bradley LA, Fillingim RB. Enhanced pain sensitivity among individuals with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: potential sex differences in central sensitization. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016;68:472–80.
[11]. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Statist Soc B 1995;57:289–300.
[12]. Bruehl S, Burns JW, Koltyn K, Gupta R, Buvanendran A, Edwards D, Chont M, Wu YH, Qu'd D, Stone A. Are endogenous opioid mechanisms involved in the effects of aerobic exercise training on chronic low back pain? A randomized controlled trial. PAIN 2020;161:2887–97.
[13]. Connell K, Bolton N, Olsen D, Piomelli D, Hohmann AG. Role of the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala in endocannabinoid-mediated stress-induced analgesia. Neurosci Lett 2006;397:180–4.
[14]. Coppieters I, Cagnie B, Nijs J, van Oosterwijck J, Danneels L, De Pauw R, Meeus M. Effects of stress and relaxation on central pain modulation in chronic whiplash and fibromyalgia patients compared to healthy controls. Pain Physician 2016;19:119–30.
[15]. Eide PK. Wind-up and the NMDA receptor complex from a clinical perspective. Eur J Pain 2000;4:5–15.
[16]. Fechir M, Breimhorst M, Kritzmann S, Geber C, Schlereth T, Baier B, Birklein F. Naloxone inhibits not only stress-induced analgesia but also sympathetic activation and baroreceptor-reflex sensitivity. Eur J Pain 2012;16:82–92.
[17]. Ferdousi M, Finn DP. Stress-induced modulation of pain: role of the endogenous opioid system. Prog Brain Res 2018;239:121–77.
[18]. Frew AK, Drummond PD. Negative affect, pain and sex: the role of endogenous opioids. PAIN 2007;132(suppl 1):S77–85.
[19]. Gordon JL, Johnson J, Nau S, Mechlin B, Girdler SS. The role of chronic psychosocial stress in explaining racial differences in stress reactivity and pain sensitivity. Psychosom Med 2017;79:201–12.
[20]. Guan Y, Borzan J, Meyer RA, Raja SN. Windup in dorsal horn neurons is modulated by endogenous spinal mu-opioid mechanisms. J Neurosci 2006;26:4298–307.
[21]. Hermans L, Nijs J, Calders P, De Clerck L, Moorkens G, Hans G, Grosemans S, Roman De Mettelinge T, Tuynman J, Meeus M. Influence of morphine and naloxone on pain modulation in rheumatoid arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome/fibromyalgia, and controls: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Pain Pract 2018;18:418–30.
[22]. Hohmann AG, Suplita RL, Bolton NM, Neely MH, Fegley D, Mangieri R, Krey JF, Walker JM, Holmes PV, Crystal JD, Duranti A, Tontini A, Mor M, Tarzia G, Piomelli D. An endocannabinoid mechanism for stress-induced analgesia. Nature 2005;435:1108–12.
[23]. Hyson RL, Ashcraft LJ, Drugan RC, Grau JW, Maier SF. Extent and control of shock affects naltrexone sensitivity of stress-induced analgesia and reactivity to morphine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1982;17:1019–25.
[24]. Janssen SA, Arntz A. Real-life stress and opioid-mediated analgesia in novice parachute jumpers. J Psychophysiol 2001;15:106–13.
[25]. Jungkunz G, Engel RR, King UG, Kuss HJ. Endogenous opiates increase pain tolerance after stress in humans. Psychiatry Res 1983;8:13–8.
[26]. Kong JT, Johnson KA, Balise RR, Mackey S. Test-retest reliability of thermal temporal summation using an individualized protocol. J Pain 2013;14:79–88.
[27]. Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. J Pain 2009;10:895–926.
[28]. Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M. Pituitary-adrenal and sympathetic-adrenal correlates of distress and effort. J Psychosom Res 1980;24:125–30.
[29]. Maier SF. Stressor controllability and stress-induced analgesia. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1986;467:55–72.
[30]. McCubbin JA, Bruehl S, Wilson JF, Sherman JJ, Norton JA, Colclough G. Endogenous opioids inhibit ambulatory blood pressure during naturally occurring stress. Psychosom Med 1998;60:227–31.
[31]. McCubbin JA, Cheung R, Montgomery TB, Bulbulian R, Wilson JF. Aerobic fitness and opioidergic inhibition of cardiovascular stress reactivity. Psychophysiology 1992;29:687–97.
[32]. Mertens M, Hermans L, Van Oosterwijck J, Meert L, Crombez G, Struyf F, Meeus M. The result of acute induced psychosocial stress on pain sensitivity and modulation in healthy people. Pain Physician 2020;23:E703–12.
[33]. Meyer MC, Straughn AB, Lo MW, Schary WL, Whitney CC. Bioequivalence, dose-proportionality, and pharmacokinetics of naltrexone after oral administration. J Clin Psychiatry 1984;45:15–9.
[34]. Mueller C, Klega A, Buchholz HG, Rolke R, Magerl W, Schirrmacher R, Schirrmacher E, Birklein F, Treede RD, Schreckenberger M. Basal opioid receptor binding is associated with differences in sensory perception in healthy human subjects: a [18F]diprenorphine PET study. Neuroimage 2010;49:731–7.
[35]. Parikh D, Hamid A, Friedman TC, Nguyen K, Tseng A, Marquez P, Lutfy K. Stress-induced analgesia and endogenous opioid peptides: the importance of stress duration. Eur J Pharmacol 2011;650:563–7.
[36]. Pitman RK, van der Kolk BA, Orr SP, Greenberg MS. Naloxone-reversible analgesic response to combat-related stimuli in posttraumatic stress disorder. A pilot study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990;47:541–4.
[37]. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. J Educ Behav Stat 2006;31:437–48.
[38]. Price DD, Staud R, Robinson ME, Mauderli AP, Cannon R, Vierck CJ. Enhanced temporal summation of second pain and its central modulation in fibromyalgia patients. PAIN 2002;99:49–59.
[39]. Raudenbush S, Bryk A, Cheong Y, Congdon R, du Toit M. HLM 8: hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, 2019.
[40]. Reynolds WS, Kowalik C, Cohn J, Kaufman M, Wein A, Dmochowski R, Bruehl S. Women undergoing third line overactive bladder treatment demonstrate elevated thermal temporal summation. J Urol 2018;200:856–61.
[41]. Riley JL III, Cruz-Almeida Y, Glover TL, King CD, Goodin BR, Sibille KT, Bartley EJ, Herbert MS, Sotolongo A, Fessler BJ, Redden DT, Staud R, Bradley LA, Fillingim RB. Age and race effects on pain sensitivity and modulation among middle-aged and older adults. J Pain 2014;15:272–82.
[42]. Riley JL III, Cruz-Almeida Y, Staud R, Fillingim RB. Effects of manipulating the interstimulus interval on heat-evoked temporal summation of second pain across the age span. PAIN 2019;160:95–101.
[43]. Sherman AL, Morris MC, Bruehl S, Westbrook TD, Walker LS. Heightened temporal summation of pain in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders and history of trauma. Ann Behav Med 2015;49:785–92.
[44]. Singer JD, Willett JB. Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003.
[45]. Smith MT Jr, Remeniuk B, Finan PH, Speed TJ, Tompkins DA, Robinson M, Gonzalez K, Bjurstrom MF, Irwin MR. Sex differences in measures of central sensitization and pain sensitivity to experimental sleep disruption: implications for sex differences in chronic pain. Sleep 2019;42:zsy209.
[46]. Smith YR, Stohler CS, Nichols TE, Bueller JA, Koeppe RA, Zubieta JK. Pronociceptive and antinociceptive effects of estradiol through endogenous opioid neurotransmission in women. J Neurosci 2006;26:5777–85.
[47]. Terman GW, Shavit Y, Lewis JW, Cannon JT, Liebeskind JC. Intrinsic mechanisms of pain inhibition: activation by stress. Science 1984;226:1270–7.
[48]. Verebey K, Volavka J, Mulé SJ, Resnick RB. Naltrexone: disposition, metabolism, and effects after acute and chronic dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1976;20:315–28.
[49]. Wall ME, Brine DR, Perez-Reyes M. Metabolism and disposition of naltrexone in man after oral and intravenous administration. Drug Metab Dispos 1981;9:369–75.
[50]. Wiggert N, Wilhelm FH, Nakajima M, al'Absi M. Chronic smoking, trait anxiety, and the physiological response to stress. Subst Use Misuse 2016;51:1619–28.
[51]. Willer JC, Albe-Fessard D. Electrophysiological evidence for a release of endogenous opiates in stress-induced'analgesia' in man. Brain Res 1980;198:419–26.
[52]. Willer JC, Dehen H, Cambier J. Stress-induced analgesia in humans: endogenous opioids and naloxone-reversible depression of pain reflexes. Science 1981;212:689–91.
[53]. Willer JC, Ernst M. Somatovegetative changes in stress-induced analgesia in man: an electrophysiological and pharmacological study. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1986;467:256–72.
[54]. Xu Q, Li WY, Guan Y. Mu-opioidergic modulation differs in deep and superficial wide-dynamic range dorsal horn neurons in mice. Neurosci Lett 2013;549:157–62.
[55]. Yesilyurt O, Seyrek M, Tasdemir S, Kahraman S, Deveci MS, Karakus E, Halici Z, Dogrul A. The critical role of spinal 5-HT7 receptors in opioid and non-opioid type stress-induced analgesia. Eur J Pharmacol 2015;762:402–10.
[56]. Zubieta JK, Smith YR, Bueller JA, Xu Y, Kilbourn MR, Jewett DM, Meyer CR, Koeppe RA, Stohler CS. mu-opioid receptor-mediated antinociceptive responses differ in men and women. J Neurosci 2002;22:5100–7.

Stress; Stress-induced analgesia; Endogenous opioid; Naltrexone; Temporal summation; Central sensitization

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain.