Table 1.

Comparison of physiological parameters between QC and SC fibers and their responses to pruritic stimuli (cowhage and histamine)

CMH (n = 43)
QC (n = 22)SC (n = 21)
Conduction velocity0.81 ± 0.040.85 ± 0.02
Mechanical threshold1.5 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.17**
Heat threshold (°C)40.9 ± 0.2545.0 ± 0.28***
Response to 3s, 49°C (APs)26.3 ± 1.622.5 ± 3.3 (n = 16)
Response to cold bar (APs)11.5 ± 1.47.1 ± 2.7
Cowhage
    Total response (APs/ 5 min)97.1 ± 13.7 (n = 19)49.0 ± 8.3** (n = 20)
    Number of bursts9.4 ± 1.8 (n = 19)7.2 ± 1.2 (n = 20)
    Average intraburst frequency (1/t2) (Hz)6.6 ± 2.5 (n = 19)1.3 ± 0.18* (n = 20)
    Average interburst interval (t1) (s)9.3 ± 1.3 (n = 19)15.3 ± 1.8* (n = 20)
Histamine
    Total response (APs/5 min)29.8 ± 3.3 (n = 13)39.3 ± 5.4 (n = 16)
    Number of bursts5.9 ± 1.3 (n = 13)7.8 ± 1.2 (n = 16)
    Average intraburst frequency (1/t2) (Hz)8.5 ± 3.5 (n = 13)1.5 ± 0.37 (n = 16)
    Average interburst interval (t1) (s)15.6 ± 2.2 (n = 13)18.3 ± 2.0 (n = 16)
  • QC fibers had significantly smaller mechanical and heat thresholds, and the responses to cowhage were significantly larger, with a significantly higher intraburst frequency and a significantly smaller interburst interval. Histamine responses did not differ between QC and SC fibers.

  • *p < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U test (QC vs SC); **p < 0.01, unpaired t test (QC vs SC); ***p < 0.001, unpaired t test (QC vs SC).