EAN guidelines on central neurostimulation therapy in chronic pain conditions

Is transcranial magnetic stimulation as treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury efficient? A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neuropathic pain is a clinically relevant complication in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Pharmacological pain treatment is often insufficient and leads to undesirable side effects. Thus, alternative therapeutic approaches such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are of critical importance. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of rTMS in neuropathic pain secondary to SCI.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (via OVID) database up April 2021. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Results regarding the pain intensity scores were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 203 potential articles. Of these, eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria for qualitative synthesis providing the total data of 141 patients. All studies applied high-frequency rTMS. In seven studies, rTMS was applied over the motor cortex, and in one study over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Five studies reported a significant improvement in baseline pain scores after treatment, and three studies found a significant difference between sham vs. non-sham stimulation at any time. Six RCTs were included in the quantitative synthesis and showed a significant overall reduction of pain intensity in the rTMS groups compared with the sham groups (mean difference - 0.81, 95%CI - 1.45 to - 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that high-frequency rTMS of the primary motor cortex and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex might be promising stimulation targets for neuropathic pain in SCI.

Effectiveness of a group intervention using pain neuroscience education and exercise in women with fibromyalgia: a pragmatic controlled study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Very positive effects have been described in the application of pain neuroscience education (PNE) to chronic pain and migraine. However, there are few data on the applicability of this therapeutic approach in actual clinical practice in a primary care (PC) setting. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy in fibromyalgia (FM) of an intervention based on PNE and exercise compared to treatment as usual (TAU).

METHODS

Pragmatic nonrandomised controlled trial set in 5 healthcare centres and one physiotherapy centre in PC. Fifty-three women with FM (2010 American College of Rheumatology Diagnostic Criteria for Fibromyalgia) were studied, 35 in the intervention group (IG) and 18 in the control group (CG). The women in the IG were interviewed individually and then received 6 weekly sessions plus one review session (1 month later): those in the CG received their TAU. The subject assignation to the CG or the IG was determined according to their availability to attend the sessions. They all filled in several questionnaires (prior to and 1 year after the intervention) to evaluate the impact of FM in their daily lives, catastrophism, anxiety and depression, severity and impact of pain in daily personal performance and functional capacity.

RESULTS

The reductions (improvements) in the scores of all tests (baseline-final) were greater in the IG (p < 0.05) when adjusted for age and baseline values, with moderate or high effect size. After 1 year, 20% (CI - 1 to 42%) more women in the IG, compared to the CG, had a FIQ score < 39 (mild functional impairment). 17/38 (49%) women in the IG no longer met FM criteria at the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention based on PNE and exercise in patients with FM is feasible and seems effective in PC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Trial Registration NCT04539171 ), on 04/09/2020.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

Epidural stimulation of the motor cortex (eMCS) was devised in the 1990's, and has now largely supplanted thalamic stimulation for neuropathic pain relief. Its mechanisms of action involve activation of multiple cortico-subcortical areas initiated in the thalamus, with involvement of endogenous opioids and descending inhibition toward the spinal cord. Evidence for clinical efficacy is now supported by at least seven RCTs; benefits may persist up to 10 years, and can be reasonably predicted by preoperative use of non-invasive repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS). rTMS first developed as a means of predicting the efficacy of epidural procedures, then as an analgesic method on its own right. Reasonable evidence from at least six well-conducted RCTs favors a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex in neuropathic pain (NP), and less consistently in widespread/fibromyalgic pain. Stimulation of the dorsolateral frontal cortex (DLPFC) has not proven efficacious for pain, so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is a new and attractive target but evidence remains inconsistent. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is applied upon similar targets as rTMS and eMCS; it does not elicit action potentials but modulates the neuronal resting membrane state. tDCS presents practical advantages including low cost, few safety issues, and possibility of home-based protocols; however, the limited quality of most published reports entails a low level of evidence. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS, and in both cases repeated sessions over a long time may be required to achieve clinically significant relief. Both invasive and non-invasive procedures exert their effects through multiple distributed brain networks influencing the sensory, affective and cognitive aspects of chronic pain. Their effects are mainly exerted upon abnormally sensitized pathways, rather than on acute physiological pain. Extending the duration of long-term benefits remains a challenge, for which different strategies are discussed in this review.

Advances in targeting central sensitization and brain plasticity in chronic pain

Maladaptation in sensory neural plasticity of nociceptive pathways is associated with various types of chronic pain through central sensitization and remodeling of brain connectivity. Within this context, extensive research has been conducted to evaluate the mechanisms and efficacy of certain non-pharmacological pain treatment modalities. These include neurostimulation, virtual reality, cognitive therapy and rehabilitation. Here, we summarize the involved mechanisms and review novel findings in relation to nociceptive desensitization and modulation of plasticity for the management of intractable chronic pain and prevention of acute-to-chronic pain transition.

Efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain of two consecutive treatment periods of rTMS applied over the facial motor cortex, using protocols differing in stimulation frequency, duration, and train pattern

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an open-label cross-over study assessing the global effect of two high-frequency protocols of electric-field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted to functional facial motor cortex and comparing their efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain. Outcome predictors were also assessed.

METHODS

We randomized twenty consecutive patients with chronic facial pain (post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain, n=14; persistent idiopathic facial pain, n=4; secondary trigeminal neuralgia, n=2) to receive two distinct 5-day rTMS interventions (10Hz, 2400 pulses and 20Hz, 3600 pulses) separated by six weeks. The target area was assessed by mapping of lower face representation. The primary endpoint was the change in weekly mean of pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS) between the baseline and therapy week (1^st week), and follow-up weeks (2^nd and 3^rd weeks) for each rTMS intervention. Response was defined using a combination scale including the patient's global impression of change and continuance with maintenance treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, pain intensity NRS decreased from 7.4 at baseline to 5.9 ten weeks later, after the second rTMS intervention (p=0.009). The repetition of the treatment had a significant effect (F=4.983, p=0.043) indicating that the NRS scores are lower during the second four weeks period. Eight (40%) patients were responders, 4 (20%) exhibited a modest effect, 4 (20%) displayed no effect, and 4 (20%) experienced worsening of pain. High disability and high pain intensity (>7) predicted a better outcome (p=0.043 and p=0.045). Female gender, shorter duration of pain and low Beck Anxiety Inventory scores showed a trend towards a better outcome (p=0.052, 0.060 and 0.055, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS targeted to face M1 alleviates treatment resistant chronic facial pain. Repeated treatment improves the analgesic effect. A protocol with higher frequency (above 10Hz), longer session duration (more than 20 minutes) and higher number of pulses (above 2400 pulses/session) did not improve the outcome. The results support early consideration of rTMS.

Case Report: Initial Evidence of Safety and Efficacy of High Definition-Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in a Patient With Neuropathic Pain and Implanted Spinal Cord Stimulator

Neuropathic pain (NP), often treatment-refractory, is one of the most debilitating conditions contributing to suffering and disability worldwide. Recently, non-invasive neuromodulation techniques, particularly repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have emerged as potential therapeutic alternatives due to their ability to alter cortical excitability of neural circuits. However, the magnetic field induced in rTMS may be unsafe for patients with an implanted electrode in the head or neck area while tDCS poses no theoretical risk of injury to these patients. High definition (HD)-tDCS is a novel, more focal technique of tDCS and may be safer to the patient compared to the more diffuse stimulation of conventional tDCS. To our knowledge, no study has ever demonstrated the safety and/or feasibility of HD-tDCS in patients with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices using computational modeling of induced electrical fields. Furthermore, this study highlights the potential use of (HD-)tDCS as predictive tool for a positive response in chronic epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS), especially in patients with an implanted device not suitable for rTMS. In a 54-year-old woman with an implanted spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system for another pain syndrome, HD-tDCS was initiated for refractory post-surgical inferior alveolar nerve neuropathy. She was submitted to 7 days of anodal HD-tDCS over the left motor cortex at 1.5 mA for 30 min. A notable decrease in pain perception was observed, lasting for approximately 5-6 h (Numeric Rating Score decreased from 8 to 4.34). No adverse events were reported. The stimulation parameters and clinical efficacy of the SCS system remained unchanged. Additionally, computational analysis indicated no meaningful alteration of current flow when considering a model with a SCS implant with respect to a model without implant. Regarding the positive therapeutic effect of HD-tDCS, the patient was selected for an epidural MCS trial and subsequent implantation, which showed short-term pain relief of 50-75%. Although one case does not demonstrate efficacy, tolerability, or safety to the novel intervention, it paves the way for better diagnosis and treatment for patients who are otherwise excluded from other non-invasive neuromodulation techniques, such as rTMS. A positive tDCS effect could be a potential biomarker for positive epidural MCS response in patients with an implanted stimulation device non-compatible with rTMS.

When Two Is Better Than One: A Pilot Study on Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Plus Muscle Vibration in Treating Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women

Chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) affects about 4–16% of adult women, and about one-third of them require medical assistance due to severe symptoms. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the supplementary motor area (SMA) has been shown to manage pain in refractory CPPS. Focal muscle vibration (FMV) has also been reported to relieve pelvic pain. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and effect of rTMS coupled with FMV to reduce pain in seven adult women with refractory CPPS. This pilot, open-labeled, prospective trial examined treatment by 5 Hz rTMS over SMA and 150 Hz FMV over the perineum, suprapubic, and sacrococcygeal areas, with one daily session for five consecutive days for three weeks. We assessed tolerance and subjective pain changes (as per visual analog scale, VAS) until one month post-treatment, with a primary endpoint at day 7. No patients experienced serious adverse effects or a significant increase in pain. Six out of seven patients experienced a VAS improvement of at least 10% at T7; three of these individuals experienced a VAS improvement of more than 30%. Overall, we found a significant VAS reduction of 15 points (95% CI 8.4–21.6) at T7 (t = 6.3, p = 0.001; ES = 2.3 (1.1–3.9)). Three of the women who demonstrated a significant VAS reduction at T7 retained such VAS improvement at T30. VAS decreased by six points (95% CI 1.3–10.7) at T30 (t = 3.1, p = 0.02; ES = 1.5 (0.2–2.6)). This coupled approach seems promising for pain management in adult women with refractory CPPS and paves the way for future randomized controlled trials.

Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is vast published literature proposing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology on the motor cortex (M1) for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Systematic reviews (SRs) focus on a specific problem and do not provide a comprehensive overview of a research area. This study aimed to summarize and analyze the evidence of rTMS on the M1 for NP treatment through a new synthesis method called evidence mapping.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library to identify the studies that summarized the effectiveness of rTMS for NP. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, was included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted following a defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions [frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)] and compared. The evidence map was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 38 SRs met the eligibility criteria. After duplicate primary studies were removed, these reviews included 70 primary studies that met the scope of evidence mapping. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the quality of the included SRs was critically low. Of these studies, 34 SRs scored "critically low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SR scored "low," 1 SR scored "moderate," and 1 SR scored "high."

CONCLUSION

Evidence mapping is a useful methodology to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of studies on rTMS for NP. Evidence mapping also shows that further investigations are necessary to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols and standardize all parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Given that the methodological quality of most included SRs was "critically low," further investigations are advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

Effects of rTMS and tDCS on neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study

Neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury (NPBPI) is a highly disabling clinical condition and is increasingly prevalent due to increased motorcycle accidents. Currently, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in patients suffering from NPBPI. In this study, we directly compare the efficacy of 10-Hz rTMS and anodal 2 mA tDCS techniques applied over the motor cortex (5 daily consecutive sessions) in 20 patients with NPBPI, allocated into 2 parallel groups (active or sham). The order of the sessions was randomised for each of these treatment groups according to a crossover design and separated by a 30-day interval. Scores for "continuous" and "paroxysmal" pain (primary outcome) were tabulated after the last stimulation day and 30 days after. Secondary outcomes included the improvement in multidimensional aspects of pain, anxiety state and quality of life from a qualitative and quantitative approach. Active rTMS and tDCS were both superior to sham in reducing continuous (p < 0.001) and paroxysmal (p = 0.002; p = 0.02) pain as well as in multidimensional aspects of pain (p = 0.001; p = 0.002) and anxiety state (p =  < 0.001; p = 0.005). Our results suggest rTMS and tDCS are able to treat NPBPI with little distinction in pain and anxiety state, which may promote the use of tDCS in brachial plexus injury pain management, as it constitutes an easier and more available technique.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/, RBR-5xnjbc - Sep 3, 2018.

Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Managing Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

In fibromyalgia, central sensitization is a key mechanism, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been reported to potentially manage symptoms of fibromyalgia. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the therapeutic effect of rTMS in patients with fibromyalgia according to stimulation locations and follow-up time points.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science databases for articles published from January 1, 1990 to August 26, 2021, including randomized controlled studies investigating the effectiveness of rTMS on managing fibromyalgia.

RESULTS

In total, 10 papers and 299 participants were included. The high-frequency rTMS on the left primary motor cortex (Lt. M1) had a significant effect on pain reduction immediately and 1-4 weeks after the end of the session but had no significant effect after 5-12 weeks. Additionally, after high-frequency rTMS sessions on the Lt. M1, the effect on patients' quality of life (QoL) appeared late at 5-12 weeks of follow-up. In contrast, high-frequency rTMS on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Lt. DLPFC) did not reduce pain from fibromyalgia. The effect on controlling the affective problem was not observed after rTMS treatment on both the Lt. M1 and Lt. DLPFC.

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS had a positive pain-reducing effect immediately and at 1-4 weeks after completing the rTMS sessions, and the patients' QoL improved after 5-12 weeks. However, Lt. DLPFC stimulation was not effective in controlling fibromyalgia symptoms.

Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported  device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.

Difference in Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation According to the Site of Pain

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex for neuropathic pain has been shown to be effective, according to systematic reviews and therapeutic guidelines. However, our large, rigorous, investigator-initiated, registration-directed clinical trial failed to show a positive primary outcome, and its subgroup analysis suggested that the analgesic effect varied according to the site of pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in analgesic effects of rTMS for neuropathic pain between different pain sites by reviewing our previous clinical trials. We included three clinical trials in this mini meta-analysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial at seven hospitals (N = 64), an investigator-initiated registration-directed clinical trial at three hospitals (N = 142), and an exploratory clinical trial examining different stimulation parameters (N = 22). The primary efficacy endpoint (change in pain scale) was extracted for each patient group with pain in the face, upper limb, or lower limb, and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of active rTMS against sham stimulation was performed. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for pain change using a random-effects model. The analgesic effect of rTMS for upper limb pain was favorable (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.13). In contrast, rTMS did not produce significant pain relief on lower limb pain (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.41) or face (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -1.59 to 1.12). In conclusion, these findings suggest that rTMS provides analgesic effects in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb, but not in the lower limb or face, under the conditions of previous clinical trials. Owing to the main limitation of small number of studies included, many aspects should be clarified by further research and high-quality studies in these patients.

Spinal Cord Stimulation and Treatment of Peripheral or Central Neuropathic Pain: Mechanisms and Clinical Application

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as an evidence-based interventional treatment has been used and approved for clinical use in a variety of pathological states including peripheral neuropathic pain; however, until now, it has not been used for the treatment of spinal cord injury- (SCI-) induced central neuropathic pain. This paper reviews the underlying mechanisms of SCS-induced analgesia and its clinical application in the management of peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Evidence from recent research publications indicates that nociceptive processing at peripheral and central sensory systems is thought to be modulated by SCS through (i) inhibition of the ascending nociceptive transmission by the release of analgesic neurotransmitters such as GABA and endocannabinoids at the spinal dorsal horn; (ii) facilitation of the descending inhibition by release of noradrenalin, dopamine, and serotonin acting on their receptors in the spinal cord; and (iii) activation of a variety of supraspinal brain areas related to pain perception and emotion. These insights into the mechanisms have resulted in the clinically approved use of SCS in peripheral neuropathic pain states like Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS). However, the mechanisms underlying SCS-induced pain relief in central neuropathic pain are only partly understood, and more research is needed before this therapy can be implemented in SCI patients with central neuropathic pain.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Fibromyalgia. Part 1: Diagnosis and treatment

OBJECTIVE

To prevent the impairment of fibromyalgia patients due to harmful actions in daily clinical practice that are potentially avoidable.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team identified the main areas of interest and carried out an analysis of scientific evidence and established recommendations based on the evidence and "formal evaluation" or "reasoned judgment" qualitative analysis techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 39 recommendations address diagnosis, unsafe or ineffective treatment interventions and patient and healthcare workers' education. This part I shows the first 27 recommendations on the first 2 areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing a diagnosis improves the patient's coping with the disease and reduces healthcare costs. NSAIDs, strong opioids and benzodiazepines should be avoided due to side effects. There is no good evidence to justify the association of several drugs. There is also no good evidence to recommend any complementary medicine. Surgeries show a greater number of complications and a lower degree of patient satisfaction and therefore should be avoided if the surgical indication is not clearly established.

Does TENS Reduce the Intensity of Acute and Chronic Pain? A Comprehensive Appraisal of the Characteristics and Outcomes of 169 Reviews and 49 Meta-Analyses

Background and Objectives: Uncertainty about the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) to alleviate pain spans half a century. There has been no attempt to synthesise the entire body of systematic review evidence. The aim of this comprehensive review was to critically appraise the characteristics and outcomes of systematic reviews evaluating the clinical efficacy of TENS for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases for full reports of systematic reviews of studies, overviews of systematic reviews, and hybrid reviews that evaluated the efficacy of TENS for any type of clinical pain in adults. We screened reports against eligibility criteria and extracted data related to the characteristics and outcomes of the review, including effect size estimates. We conducted a descriptive analysis of extracted data. Results: We included 169 reviews consisting of eight overviews, seven hybrid reviews and 154 systematic reviews with 49 meta-analyses. A tally of authors' conclusions found a tendency toward benefits from TENS in 69/169 reviews, no benefits in 13/169 reviews, and inconclusive evidence in 87/169 reviews. Only three meta-analyses pooled sufficient data to have confidence in the effect size estimate (i.e., pooled analysis of >500 events). Lower pain intensity was found during TENS compared with control for chronic musculoskeletal pain and labour pain, and lower analgesic consumption was found post-surgery during TENS. The appraisal revealed repeated shortcomings in RCTs that have hindered confident judgements about efficacy, resulting in stagnation of evidence. Conclusions: Our appraisal reveals examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating benefit. There were no examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating no benefit. Therefore, we recommend that TENS should be considered as a treatment option. The considerable quantity of reviews with 'insufficient data' and meaningless findings have clouded the issue of efficacy. We offer solutions to these issues going forward.

High-frequency 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: Cost-consequence and Cost-effectiveness Analyses

OBJECTIVES

There is good evidence that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for reducing chronic back and leg pain (CBLP). SENZA randomized controlled trial showed high-frequency (10 kHz) stimulation (10 kHz-SCS) is clinically superior to traditional low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS).Undertake cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness analysis of 10 kHz-SCS compared with LF-SCS.

METHODS

A probabilistic decision tree and Markov decision analytic model was used to synthesize data on CBLP outcomes and costs over a 15-year time horizon from a UK National Health Service perspective using data from the SENZA randomized controlled trial and other publications. Results are expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in 2016 Pounds Sterling.

RESULTS

10 kHz-SCS is cost-saving and cost-effective compared with LF-SCS, with mean cost-savings of £7170 (95% confidence interval: £6767-£7573) and £3552 (95% confidence interval: £3313-£3792) per patient compared with nonrechargeable and rechargeable LF-SCS devices, respectively. 10 kHz-SCS has a 95% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Our findings were robust across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong economic case for choosing 10 kHz-SCS over LF-SCS for CBLP. Furthermore, 10 kHz-SCS has clinical advantages not captured in our analysis, including shorter, and more predictable procedure times.

French guidelines for neuropathic pain: An update and commentary

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet need. French recommendations were updated in 2020. The goal of this minireview is to provide an update on these published guidelines. Despite newer relevant studies, our proposed algorithm remains relevant. First-line treatments include serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants, topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation being specifically proposed for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Second-line treatments include pregabalin (such position being confirmed by newer studies), tramadol, combinations and psychotherapy as add on, high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A being proposed specifically for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Third-line treatments include high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation and strong opioids (in the lack of alternative). Disseminating these recommendations and ensuring that they are well accepted by French practitioners will be necessary to optimize neuropathic pain management in real life.

Spinal Cord Stimulation: Viable Therapeutic Option for Postlaminectomy Syndrome in Elderly Patients

We present a 76-year-old man with chronic back pain refractory to treatment secondary to spinal trauma from a motor vehicle accident 34 years ago. After trauma, multiple interventions were performed due to spinal instability. The patient was diagnosed with the postlaminectomy syndrome. Multimodal analgesia management failed to control our patient’s pain, severely affecting our patient and his family’s quality of life. For these reasons, a spinal cord stimulator was implanted despite our patient age. After four months, our patient presented with significant improvement in his life quality.

Beta-Endorphin as a Biomarker in the Treatment of Chronic Pain with Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: A Systematic Scoping Review

A scoping review to synthesize evidence and assess articles describing the use of beta-endorphins as a pain biomarker in chronic pain patients treated with non-invasive brain stimulation techniques was systematically performed with respect to the study quality, the technique employed and the results. Independent reviewers determined if the article met the study criteria at each stage for it to be included. Content analysis was applied and summarized. The results are described in a narrative form grouped by pain condition, type of intervention, stimulation protocol, outcome measures and main results. A total of 67 of 73 references were excluded, and 6 identified studies met the inclusion criteria. The study design, sample size, stimulation type, session protocol and the main findings of each study were extracted. The studies in this scoping review ranged from unsatisfactory to good based on the adopted criteria, with no study achieving an excellent rating. There is limited evidence on the dosage of beta-endorphin in chronic pain conditions during treatment with NIBS. Based on this literature, evidence suggests that BE may not only be useful for acute and persistent pain, but also for a variety of chronic pain states in which opioids are not effective.

High-frequency rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on chronic and provoked pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-frequency rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has demonstrated mixed effects on chronic and provoked pain.

OBJECTIVES/METHODS

In this study, a meta-analysis was conducted to characterise the potential analgesic effects of high-frequency rTMS over the DLPFC on both chronic and provoked pain.

RESULTS

A total of 626 studies were identified in a systematic search. Twenty-six eligible studies were included for the quantitative review, among which 17 modulated chronic pain and the remaining investigated the influence on provoked pain. The left side DLPFC was uniformly targeted in the chronic pain studies. While our data identified no overall effect of TMS across chronic pain conditions, there was a significant short-term analgesia in neuropathic pain conditions only (SMD = -0.87). In terms of long-lasting analgesia, there was an overall pain reduction in the midterm (SMD = -0.53, 24.6 days average) and long term (SMD = -0.63, 3 months average) post DLPFC stimulation, although these effects were not observed within specific chronic pain conditions. Surprisingly, the number of sessions was demonstrated to have no impact on rTMS analgesia. In the analysis of provoked pain, our data also indicated a significant analgesic effect following HF-rTMS over the DLPFC (SMD = -0.73). Importantly, we identified a publication bias in the studies of provoked pain but not for chronic pain conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our findings support that HF-DLPFC stimulation is able to induce an analgesic effect in chronic pain and in response to provoked pain. These results highlight the potential of DLPFC-rTMS in the management of certain chronic pain conditions and future directions are discussed to enhance the potential long-term analgesic effects.

Focused Ultrasound (FUS) for Chronic Pain Management: Approved and Potential Applications

Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and disease burden worldwide, accounting for a prevalence between 6.9% and 10% in the general population. Pharmacotherapy alone results ineffective in about 70-60% of patients in terms of a satisfactory degree of pain relief. Focused ultrasound is a promising tool for chronic pain management, being approved for thalamotomy in chronic neuropathic pain and for bone metastases-related pain treatment. FUS is a noninvasive technique for neuromodulation and for tissue ablation that can be applied to several tissues. Transcranial FUS (tFUS) can lead to opposite biological effects, depending on stimulation parameters: from reversible neural activity facilitation or suppression (low-intensity, low-frequency ultrasound, LILFUS) to irreversible tissue ablation (high-intensity focused ultrasounds, HIFU). HIFU is approved for thalamotomy in neuropathic pain at the central nervous system level and for the treatment of facet joint osteoarthritis at the peripheral level. Potential applications include HIFU at the spinal cord level for selected cases of refractory chronic neuropathic pain, knee osteoarthritis, sacroiliac joint disease, intervertebral disc nucleolysis, phantom limb, and ablation of peripheral nerves. FUS at nonablative dosage, LILFUS, has potential reversible and tissue-selective effects. FUS applications at nonablative doses currently are at a research stage. The main potential applications include targeted drug and gene delivery through the Blood-Brain Barrier, assessment of pain thresholds and study of pain, and reversible peripheral nerve conduction block. The aim of the present review is to describe the approved and potential applications of the focused ultrasound technology in the field of chronic pain management.

Centromedian-Parafascicular and Somatosensory Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Contemporary Series of 40 Patients

Introduction: The treatment of neuropathic and central pain still remains a major challenge. Thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) involving various target structures is a therapeutic option which has received increased re-interest. Beneficial results have been reported in several more recent smaller studies, however, there is a lack of prospective studies on larger series providing long term outcomes. Methods: Forty patients with refractory neuropathic and central pain syndromes underwent stereotactic bifocal implantation of DBS electrodes in the centromedian-parafascicular (CM-Pf) and the ventroposterolateral (VPL) or ventroposteromedial (VPM) nucleus contralateral to the side of pain. Electrodes were externalized for test stimulation for several days. Outcome was assessed with five specific VAS pain scores (maximum, minimum, average pain, pain at presentation, allodynia). Results: The mean age at surgery was 53.5 years, and the mean duration of pain was 8.2 years. During test stimulation significant reductions of all five pain scores was achieved with either CM-Pf or VPL/VPM stimulation. Pacemakers were implanted in 33/40 patients for chronic stimulation for whom a mean follow-up of 62.8 months (range 3-180 months) was available. Of these, 18 patients had a follow-up beyond four years. Hardware related complications requiring secondary surgeries occurred in 11/33 patients. The VAS maximum pain score was improved by ≥50% in 8/18, and by ≥30% in 11/18 on long term follow-up beyond four years, and the VAS average pain score by ≥50% in 10/18, and by ≥30% in 16/18. On a group level, changes in pain scores remained statistically significant over time, however, there was no difference when comparing the efficacy of CM-Pf versus VPL/VPM stimulation. The best results were achieved in patients with facial pain, poststroke/central pain (except thalamic pain), or brachial plexus injury, while patients with thalamic lesions had the least benefit. Conclusion: Thalamic DBS is a useful treatment option in selected patients with severe and medically refractory pain.

How to Do It: Microsurgical DREZotomy for Pain After Brachial Plexus Injury: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

More than three-quarters of victims of brachial plexus injury suffer from refractory neuropathic pain.1-6 Main putative mechanism is paroxysmal hyperactivity in the dorsal horn neurons at the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) as demonstrated by microelectrode recordings in animal models7 and patients.8 Pain relief can be achieved by lesioning the responsible neurons in the spinal cord segments with avulsed rootlets.9,10  This video illustrates the technique for microsurgical DREZotomy.11,12 A C3-C7 hemilaminectomy is performed to access the C4-Th1 medullary segments. After opening the dura and arachnoid, and freeing the cord from arachnoid adhesions, the dorsolateral sulcus is identified. Identification can be difficult when the spinal cord is distorted and/or has a loss of substance. The dorsolateral sulcus is then opened with a microknife, so that microcoagulations are performed: 4 mm deep, at 35° angle in the axis of the dorsal horn, every millimeter in a dotted fashion along the avulsed segments. Care should be taken not to damage the corticospinal tract, laterally, and the dorsal column, medially.  The patient consents to the procedure. In the presented case, surgery led to complete disappearance of the paroxysmal pain and reduced the background of burning pain to a bearable level without the need of opioid medication. There was no motor deficit or ataxia in the ipsilateral lower limb postoperatively. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis at 10 yr follow-up, in our overall series, microsurgical DREZotomy achieved total pain relief without any medication in 60% of patients, and in 85% without the need for opioids.10,13-15  Microelectrode recording at 1:26 reproduced from Guenot et al7 with permission from JNSPG.

Theta-burst versus 20 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropathic pain: A head-to-head comparison

OBJECTIVE

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to reduce neuropathic pain, but intermittent "theta-burst" stimulation (iTBS) could be a better alternative because of shorter duration and greater ability to induce cortical plasticity. Here we compared head-to-head the pain-relieving efficacy of the two modalities when applied daily for 5 days to patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Forty-six patients received 20 Hz-rTMS and/or iTBS protocols and 39 of them underwent the full two procedures in a random cross-over design. They rated pain intensity, sleep quality, fatigue and general health status daily during 5 consecutive weeks.

RESULTS

Pain relief during the month following stimulation was superior after 20 Hz-rTMS relative to iTBS (F(1,38) = 4.645; p = 0.037). Correlation between respective levels of maximal relief showed a significant deviation toward the 20 Hz-rTMS effect. A greater proportion of individuals responded to 20 Hz-rTMS (52% vs 32%, 95 %CI[0.095-3.27]; p = 0.06), and reports of fatigue significantly improved after 20 Hz-rTMS relative to iTBS (p = 0.01). General health and sleep quality scores did not differentiate both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS appeared superior to iTBS for neuropathic pain relief.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adequate matching between the oscillatory activity of motor cortex and that of rTMS may increase synaptic efficacy, thus enhancing functional connectivity of motor cortex with distant structures involved in pain regulation.

Neuromodulation for chronic pain

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Transcranial direct current electrical stimulation for the treatment of interstitial cystitis: A study protocol

BACKGROUND

Interstitial cystitis or painful bladder syndrome is a chronic disorder that presents an unknown etiology, with no generally accepted treatment. Although there is no gold standard treatment, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown efficacy in several chronic pain syndromes with decrease in pain, and improved functionality and mood. tDCS could be a safe, ease to use, and low-cost complementary intervention for patients with interstitial cystitis.

AIM

This study will investigate the effects of a tDCS protocol on pain, functionality, and mood in patients with interstitial cystitis.

METHODS

A randomized controlled clinical trial with two arms. Women will be randomized into two groups: active or sham. Anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex will be performed for 5 consecutive days with an intensity of 2 mA for 20 min. Participants will be evaluated five times: 1 week before intervention; on the 5^th day of tDCS; and 1, 6, and 12 months after the last day of tDCS. The outcomes will be assessed using the numeric rating scale, McGill pain questionnaire, positive and negative affect scale, international consultation on incontinence questionnaire for female lower urinary tract symptoms, Hamilton anxiety scale, six-minute walk test, patient global impression of change, and voiding diary.

DISCUSSION

Only the active group will be expected to show decreased pain. The results of this trial will be the first step in the use of neuromodulation in interstitial cystitis and will provide additional data to support new studies with tDCS.

Spinal cord stimulator for neuropathic pain in a patient with severe disability due to transverse myelitis

Transverse myelitis is an inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that disrupts nerve signals' conduction. The illness is characterised by weakness in the lower limbs accompanied by paresthesia and urinary and bowel incontinence. The most disabling sequel is the onset of chronic neuropathic pain, which can severely limit the patient's independence and negatively affect her quality of life. We present the case of a patient who received a spinal neurostimulator after a failure of conventional medical treatment. Masking pain through paresthesia, a mechanism provided by the device significantly reduces pain perception. The treatment success in our patient represents an advance in pain therapy.

Suppression of neuropathic pain and comorbidities by recurrent cycles of repetitive transcranial direct current motor cortex stimulation in mice

Transcranial, minimally-invasive stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) has recently emerged to show promise in treating clinically refractory neuropathic pain. However, there is a major need for improving efficacy, reducing variability and understanding mechanisms. Rodent models hold promise in helping to overcome these obstacles. However, there still remains a major divide between clinical and preclinical studies with respect to stimulation programs, analysis of pain as a multidimensional sensory-affective-motivational state and lack of focus on chronic phases of established pain. Here, we employed direct transcranial M1 stimulation (M1 tDCS) either as a single 5-day block or recurring blocks of repetitive stimulation over early or chronic phases of peripherally-induced neuropathic pain in mice. We report that repeated blocks of stimulation reverse established neuropathic mechanical allodynia more strongly than a single 5-day regime and also suppress cold allodynia, aversive behavior and anxiety without adversely affecting motor function over a long period. Activity mapping revealed highly selective alterations in the posterior insula, periaqueductal gray subdivisions and superficial spinal laminae in reversal of mechanical allodynia. Our preclinical data reveal multimodal analgesia and improvement in quality of life by multiple blocks of M1 tDCS and uncover underlying brain networks, thus helping promote clinical translation.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Fibromyalgia. Part 1: Diagnosis and Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To prevent the impairment of fibromyalgia patients due to harmful actions in daily clinical practice that are potentially avoidable.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team identified the main areas of interest and carried out an analysis of scientific evidence and established recommendations based on the evidence and "formal evaluation" or "reasoned judgment" qualitative analysis techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 39 recommendations address diagnosis, unsafe or ineffective treatment interventions and patient and healthcare workers' education. This part I shows the first 27 recommendations on the first 2 areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing a diagnosis improves the patient's coping with the disease and reduces healthcare costs. NSAIDs, strong opioids and benzodiazepines should be avoided due to side effects. There is no good evidence to justify the association of several drugs. There is also no good evidence to recommend any complementary medicine. Surgeries show a greater number of complications and a lower degree of patient satisfaction and therefore should be avoided if the surgical indication is not clearly established.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation alone and in combination with motor control exercise for the treatment of individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (ExTraStim trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

While multiple pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions treating chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) are available, they have been shown to produce at best modest effects. Interventions such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, have exhibited promising results to alleviate chronic pain. However, evidence on the effectiveness of rTMS for CLBP is scarce due to limited rigorous clinical trials. Combining rTMS with motor control exercises (MCE) may help to address both central and nociceptive factors contributing to the persistence of LBP. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of a combination of rTMS and MCE to repeated rTMS sessions alone, sham rTMS and a combination of sham rTMS and MCE on pain intensity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

One hundred and forty participants (35/group) with CLBP will be randomised into four groups (active rTMS+MCE, sham rTMS+MCE, active rTMS and sham rTMS) to receive 10 sessions of their allocated intervention. The primary outcome will be the pain intensity, assessed at baseline, 4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include disability, fear of movement, quality of life and patient global rating of change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Comité d'éthique de la recherche sectoriel en réadaptation et intégration sociale, CIUSS de la Capitale Nationale in June 2019 (#2020-1844 - CER CIUSSS-CN). The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04555278.

Motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation effects on knee osteoarthritis pain in elderly subjects with dysfunctional descending pain inhibitory system: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although evidence has indicated a positive effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on reducing pain, few studies have focused on the elderly population with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether tDCS reduces KOA pain in elderly individuals with a dysfunctional descending pain inhibitory system (DPIS).

METHODS

In a double-blind trial, individuals ≥ 60 years with KOA pain and a dysfunctional DPIS, we randomly assigned patients to receive 15 daily sessions of 2 mA tDCS over the primary motor cortex (anode) and contralateral supraorbital area (cathode) (M1-SO) for 20 min or sham tDCS. Change in pain perception indexed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at the end of intervention was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included: disability, quantitative sensory testing, pain pressure threshold and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Subjects were followed-up for 2 months.

RESULTS

Of the 104 enrolled subjects, with mean (SD) age of 73.9 (8.01) years and 88 (84.6%) female, 102 finished the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the active tDCS group had a significantly greater reduction in BPI compared to the sham group (difference, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.23; P < 0.001; Cohen's d, 0.58); and, also a significantly greater improvement in CPM-pressure in the knee (P = 0.01) and CPM-pain in the hand (P = 0.01). These effects were not sustained at follow-up. The intervention was well tolerated, with no severe adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

M1-SO tDCS is associated with a moderate effect size in reducing pain in elderly patients with KOA after 15 daily sessions of stimulation. This intervention has also shown to modulate the DPIS.

Repetitive non-invasive prefrontal stimulation reverses neuropathic pain via neural remodelling in mice

Chronic neuropathic pain presents a major challenge to pharmacological therapy and neurostimulation-based alternatives are gaining interest. Although invasive and non-invasive motor cortex stimulation has been the focus of several studies, very little is known about the potential of targeting the prefrontal cortex. This study was designed to elucidate the analgesic potential of prefrontal stimulation in a translational context and to uncover the neural underpinnings thereof. Here, we report that non-invasive, repetitive direct anodal current transcranial stimulation (tDCS) of the prefrontal cortex exerted analgesia in mice with neuropathic pain for longer than a week. When applied at chronic stages of neuropathic pain, prefrontal tDCS reversed established allodynia and suppressed aversion and anxiety-related behaviours. Activity mapping as well as in vivo electrophysiological analyses revealed that although the cortex responds to acute tDCS with major excitation, repetitive prefrontal tDCS brings about large-scale silencing of cortical activity. Different classes of different classes of GABAergic interneurons and classes of excitatory neurons differs dramatically between single, acute vs and repetitive tDCS. Repetitive prefrontal tDCS alters basal activity as well as responsivity of a discrete set of distant cortical and sub-cortical areas to tactile stimuli, namely the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, the insular cortex, the ventrolateral periaqueductal grey and the spinal dorsal horn. This study thus makes a strong case for harnessing prefrontal cortical modulation for non-invasive transcranial stimulation paradigms to achieve long-lasting pain relief in established neuropathic pain states and provides valuable insights gained on neural mechanistic underpinnings of prefrontal tDCS in neuropathic pain.

The cellular mechanism by which the rostral ventromedial medulla acts on the spinal cord during chronic pain

Clinical therapies for chronic pain are limited. While targeted drugs are promising therapies for chronic pain, they exhibit insufficient efficacy and poor targeting. The occurrence of chronic pain partly results from central changes caused by alterations in neurons in the rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) in the brainstem regulatory pathway. The RVM, which plays a key role in the descending pain control pathway, greatly contributes to the development and maintenance of pain. However, the exact roles of the RVM in chronic pain remain unclear, making it difficult to develop new drugs targeting the RVM and related pathways. Here, we first discuss the roles of the RVM and related circuits in chronic pain. Then, we analyze synaptic transmission between RVM neurons and spinal cord neurons, specifically focusing on the release of neurotransmitters, to explore the cellular mechanisms by which the RVM regulates chronic pain. Finally, we propose some ideas for the development of drugs targeting the RVM.

A randomized controlled trial of 5 daily sessions and continuous trial of 4 weekly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Five daily sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with stimulus conditions were ineffective in neuropathic pain relief. Long-term administration should be investigated for clinical use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropathic pain.

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, sham-controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) in patients with neuropathic pain (NP). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 5 daily sessions of active or sham rTMS of M1 corresponding to the part of the body experiencing the worst pain (500 pulses per session at 5 Hz). Responders were invited to enroll in an open-label continuous trial involving 4 weekly sessions of active rTMS. The primary outcome was a mean decrease in a visual analogue scale of pain intensity (scaled 0-100 mm) measured daily during the daily sessions in an intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were other pain scores, quality-of-life measures, and depression score. One hundred forty-four patients were assigned to the active or sham stimulation groups. The primary outcome, mean visual analogue scale decreases, was not significantly different (P = 0.58) between the active stimulation group (mean, 8.0) and the sham group (9.2) during the daily sessions. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between 2 groups. The patients enrolled in the continuous weekly rTMS achieved more pain relief in the active stimulation group compared with the sham (P < 0.01). No serious adverse events were observed. Five daily sessions of rTMS with stimulus conditions used in this trial were ineffective in short-term pain relief in the whole study population with various NP. Long-term administration to the responders should be investigated for the clinical use of rTMS on NP in the future trials.

Neuromodulation for Medically Refractory Neuropathic Pain: Spinal Cord Stimulation, Deep Brain Stimulation, Motor Cortex Stimulation, and Posterior Insula Stimulation

BACKGROUND

The treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) continues to be controversial as well as an economic health issue and a challenge to health care. Neurosurgery can offer different methods of neuromodulation that may improve patients' condition, including deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and posterior insula stimulation (PIS). There is no consensus of opinion as to the final effects of these procedures, which stimulation parameters to select, the correct timing, or how to select the patients who will best benefit from these procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence available regarding these 4 procedures and the management of NP.

METHODS

We conducted a PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database search from 1990 to 2020. The strategy of the search concentrated on the following keywords: "neuropathic pain," "chronic pain," "deep brain stimulation," "motor cortex stimulation," "spinal cord stimulation," "insula stimulation," and "neuromodulation." Studies that provided data regarding the immediate and long-term effectiveness of the procedure, anatomic stimulation target, percentage of pain control, and cause of the NP were included.

RESULTS

The most frequent causes of NP were phantom limb pain and central poststroke pain in the MCS group; central poststroke pain, phantom limb pain, and spinal cord injury (SCI) in the DBS group; and complex regional pain syndrome and failed back surgery syndrome in the SCS group. Pain improvement varied between 35% and 80% in the MCS group and 50% and 60% in the DBS group. In the SCS group, successful rates varied between 38% and 89%.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the literature supporting SCS, DBS, MCS, and PIS methods for the treatment of NP. We found consistent evidence supporting MCS, DBS, and SCS as possible treatments for NP; however, we were not able to define which procedure should be indicated for each cause. Furthermore, we did not find enough evidence to justify the routine use of PIS. We conclude that unanswered points need to be discussed in this controversial field and emphasize that new research must be developed to treat patients with NP, to improve their quality of life.

Non-invasive neuromodulation effects on painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN) typically is accompanied by painful symptoms. Several therapeutic agents have been tried for symptomatic relief, but with varying results. The use of non-invasive neuromodulation (NINM) is a potential treatment option for DPN. The objective of our study is to evaluate NINM effects on pain rating and nerve conduction velocity in DPN patients. The search was carried out in seven databases until Aug 30th, 2019. Finally, twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. We found a significant reduction of pain scores by central NINMs (effect size [ES] =  - 0.75, 95% CI =  - 1.35 to - 0.14), but not by the overall peripheral techniques (electrical and electromagnetic) (ES =  - 0.58, 95% CI =  - 1.23 to 0.07). However, the subgroup of peripheral electrical NINMs reported a significant higher effect (ES =  - 0.84, 95% CI =  - 1.57 to - 0.11) compared to electromagnetic techniques (ES = 0.21; 95% CI =  - 1.00 to 1.42, I2 = 95.3%) . Other subgroup analysis results show that NINMs effects are higher with intensive protocols and in populations with resistant symptoms or intolerance to analgesic medications. Besides, NINMs can increase motor nerves velocity (ES = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.47 to 2.17), and there were no effects on sensory nerves velocity (ES = 0.01, 95% CI =  - 0.79 to 0.80). The results suggest that central and peripheral electrical NINMs could reduce neuropathic pain among DPN patients, without reported adverse events. Well-powered studies are needed to confirm that NINM techniques as an alternative effective and safe treatment option.

Comparison of two tDCS protocols on pain and EEG alpha-2 oscillations in women with fibromyalgia

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has been used as an alternative treatment for pain reduction in fibromyalgia. In this study, in addition to behavioral measures, we analyzed oscillations in alpha 2 frequency band in the frontal, occipital, and parietal regions, in response to the application of two neuromodulation protocols in fibromyalgia. The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with 31 women diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The participants were allocated to three groups with the anodic stimulation applied on the left motor cortex: Group 1, for five consecutive days; Group 2, for 10 consecutive days; and Group 3, sham stimulation for five consecutive days. Statistical analysis showed a reduction in pain intensity after treatment for groups in general [F (1.28) = 8.02; p = 0.008; η2 = 0.223], in addition to a reduction in alpha 2 in the frontal (p = 0.039; d = 0.384) and parietal (p = 0.021; d = 0.520) regions after the treatment on five consecutive days. We conclude that neuromodulation protocols produced similar effects on pain reduction, but differed with respect to the changes in the alpha 2 frequency band in the frontal and parietal regions.

Fibromyalgia: Recent Advances in Diagnosis, Classification, Pharmacotherapy and Alternative Remedies

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a syndrome that does not present a well-defined underlying organic disease. FM is a condition which has been associated with diseases such as infections, diabetes, psychiatric or neurological disorders, rheumatic pathologies, and is a disorder that rather than diagnosis of exclusion requires positive diagnosis. A multidimensional approach is required for the management of FM, including pain management, pharmacological therapies, behavioral therapy, patient education, and exercise. The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent advances in classification criteria and diagnostic criteria for FM as well as to explore pharmacotherapy and the use of alternative therapies including the use of plant bioactive molecules.

Traitements pharmacologiques et non pharmacologiques de la douleur neuropathique : une synthèse des recommandations françaises

Les douleurs neuropathiques (DN) restent très difficiles à soulager. Plusieurs recommandations ont été proposées au cours de ces dernières années, mais aucune n’a pris en compte à ce jour l’ensemble des approches thérapeutiques disponibles. Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique portant sur toutes les études concernant le traitement des DN périphériques et centrales de l’adulte et de l’enfant, publiées jusqu’en janvier 2018 et avons évalué la qualité des études et le niveau de preuve des traitements au moyen du système GRADE. Les principaux critères d’inclusion étaient l’existence d’une DN chronique (≥ 3 mois), une méthodologie contrôlée et randomisée, un suivi supérieur ou égal à trois semaines, un nombre de patients supérieur ou égal à dix par groupe et une évaluation en double insu pour les traitements pharmacologiques. Sur la base du GRADE, nous recommandons en première intention les antidépresseurs inhibiteurs mixtes de recapture des monoamines (duloxétine et venlafaxine), les antidépresseurs tricycliques, la gabapentine pour toute DN, et les emplâtres de lidocaïne 5 % et la stimulation électrique transcutanée pour les DN périphériques localisées. Nous recommandons en deuxième intention la prégabaline, le tramadol (avec les précautions d’emploi afférentes aux opioïdes) et certaines associations pharmacologiques (antidépresseurs et gabapentine ou prégabaline) pour toute DN, et les patchs de haute concentration de capsaïcine (8 %) et la toxine botulique de type A (en milieu spécialisé) pour les DN périphériques localisées. Nous recommandons en troisième intention la stimulation magnétique transcrânienne répétitive à haute fréquence du cortex moteur (en milieu spécialisé) et les opioïdes forts (en l’absence d’alternative et en respectant les précautions d’emploi afférentes aux opioïdes) pour toute douleur neuropathique, et la stimulation médullaire pour les douleurs radiculaires chroniques postchirurgicales et la polyneuropathie diabétique douloureuse. La psychothérapie (thérapie cognitivocomportementale et thérapie de pleine conscience) peut être recommandée en deuxième intention en association avec les traitements précédents.

Dual-site rTMS is More Effective than Single-site rTMS in Tinnitus Patients: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed as an alternative option for treating tinnitus. rTMS is a noninvasive method in which repetitive magnetic stimulation is applied to the cortex; it is considered a therapeutic strategy that modulates the loudness of tinnitus. In this study, we performed a double-blind randomized clinical trial to compare the outcome of tinnitus treatment among (1) dual-site (auditory + prefrontal) rTMS stimulation, (2) auditory cortex only rTMS stimulation (AC), and (3) sham stimulation. The left primary auditory cortex and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) were targeted independently of handedness or tinnitus laterality. Dual-site and auditory only groups were treated with a total of 12,000 pulses, 2000 pulses over the AC and 1000 pulses over the DLPFC (group 1), 3000 pulses over the AC only (group 2), and daily for 4 consecutive days. Dual-site group exhibited a significantly better ΔTinnitus Handicap Inventory (ΔTHI) score at 4, 8 weeks and 12 weeks after rTMS treatments compared with pre-treatment. However, there was no effect in the auditory only group. Also, there was no effect in sham group when THI scores were compared with that of the pre-treatment. These results are in line with the former studies that reported a better treatment effect by multiple site rTMS.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in management of chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) with frequencies 5-20 Hz is an expanding non-invasive treatment for chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Outcome data, however, show considerable inhomogeneity with concern to the levels of effect due to the great diversity of treated conditions. The aim of this review was to survey the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of M1 rTMS, and the accuracy to predict a positive response to epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) which is supposed to give a more longstanding pain relief.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to June 2019 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We used the PICO Model to define two specific clinical questions: (1) Does rTMS of M1 relieve NP better than sham treatment? (2) Can the response to rTMS be used to predict the effect of epidural MCS? After article selection, data extraction, and study quality assessment, the certainty of evidence of treatment effect was defined using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Data on 5-20 Hz (high-frequency) rTMS vs. sham was extracted from 24 blinded randomised controlled trials which were of varying quality, investigated highly heterogeneous pain conditions, and used excessively variable stimulation parameters. The difference in pain relief between active and sham stimulation was statistically significant in 9 of 11 studies using single-session rTMS, and in 9 of 13 studies using multiple sessions. Baseline data could be extracted from 6 single and 12 multiple session trials with a weighted mean pain reduction induced by active rTMS, compared to baseline, of -19% for single sessions, -32% for multiple sessions with follow-up <30 days, and -24% for multiple sessions with follow-up ≥30 days after the last stimulation session. For single sessions the weighted mean difference in pain reduction between active rTMS and sham was 15 percentage points, for multiple sessions the difference was 22 percentage points for follow-ups <30 days, and 15 percentage points for follow-ups ≥30 days. Four studies reported data that could be used to evaluate the accuracy of rTMS to predict response to MCS, showing a specificity of 60-100%, and a positive predictive value of 75-100%. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS targeting M1 can result in significant reduction of chronic NP which, however, is transient and shows a great heterogeneity between studies; very low certainty of evidence for single sessions and low for multiple sessions. Multiple sessions of rTMS can maintain a more longstanding effect. rTMS seems to be a fairly good predictor of a positive response to epidural MCS and may be used to select patients for implantation of permanent epidural electrodes. More studies are needed to manifest the use of rTMS for this purpose. Pain relief outcomes in a longer perspective, and outcome variables other than pain reduction need to be addressed more consistently in future studies to consolidate the applicability of rTMS in routine clinical practice.

Non-invasive therapeutic brain stimulation for treatment of resistant focal epilepsy in a teenager

•

rTMS and tDCS could be more often used for treatment-resistant focal epilepsy and tinnitus.

•

tDCS can be used as maintenance treatment after initial successful rTMS treatment.

•

rTMS and tDCS are safe in adolescents when current safety instructions are followed.

Aims

A 13-year-old boy with symptomatic focal epilepsy due to a right parietal dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET) presented pre- and post-operatively fluctuating tinnitus and sensory symptoms which became persistent after incomplete tumor resection. He received low-frequency rTMS treatment and cathodal tDCS treatment.

Methods

Case report with clinical details and pictures from rTMS and tDCS stimulation targets.

Results

The patient became symptom free with an initial low-frequency rTMS treatment series targeted to the EEG-verified epileptic zone followed by maintenance therapy at the same region with cathodal tDCS at home.

Conclusions

Both rTMS and tDCS could be more often used in adolescents when drug treatment and surgery do not cease focal epilepsy, here with fluctuating tinnitus.