How does anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the pain neuromatrix affect brain excitability and pain perception? A randomised, double-blind, sham-control study

Polarity-specific modulation of pain processing by transcranial direct current stimulation - a blinded longitudinal fMRI study

Background

To enrich the hitherto insufficient understanding regarding the mechanisms of action of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in pain disorders, we investigated its modulating effects on cerebral pain processing using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Methods

Thirteen right-handed healthy participants received 20 min of 1.5 mA tDCS applied over the primary motor cortex thrice and under three different stimulation pattern (1.anodal-tDCS, 2.cathodal-tDCS, and 3.sham-tDCS) in a blinded cross-over design. After tDCS neural response to electric trigeminal-nociceptive stimulation was investigated using a block designed fMRI.

Results

Pain stimulation showed a distinct activation pattern within well-established brain regions associated with pain processing. Following anodal tDCS increased activation was detected in the thalamus, basal ganglia, amygdala, cingulate, precentral, postcentral, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while cathodal t-DCS showed decreased response in these areas (p_FWE < 0.05). Interestingly the observed effect was reversed in both control conditions (visual- and motor-stimulation). Behavioral data remained unchanged irrespective of the tDCS stimulation mode.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates polarity-specific modulation of cerebral pain processing, in reconfirmation of previous electrophysiological data. Anodal tDCS leads to an activation of the central pain-network while cathodal tDCS does not. Results contribute to a network-based understanding of tDCS’s impact on cerebral pain-processing.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool for Chronic Pain

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates spontaneous neuronal activity that can generate long-term neuroplastic changes. It has been used in numerous therapeutic trials showing significant clinical effects especially when combined with other behavioral therapies. One area of intensive tDCS research is chronic pain. Since the initial tDCS trials for chronic pain treatment using current parameters of stimulation, more than 60 clinical trials have been published testing its effects in different pain syndromes. However, as the field moves in the direction of clinical application, several aspects need to be taken into consideration regarding tDCS effectiveness and parameters of stimulation. In this article, we reviewed the evidence of tDCS effects for the treatment of chronic pain and critically analyzed the literature pertaining its safety and efficacy, and how to optimize tDCS clinical effects in a therapeutic setting. We discuss optimization of tDCS effects in 3 different domains: (i) parameters of stimulation, (ii) combination therapies, and (iii) subject selection. This article aims to provide insights for the development of future tDCS clinical trials.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Block Remifentanil-Induced Hyperalgesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Background: Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia (r-IH) involves an imbalance in the inhibitory and excitatory systems. As the transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) modulates the thalamocortical synapses in a top-down manner, we hypothesized that the active (a)-t-DCS would be more effective than sham(s)-tDCS to prevent r-IH. We used an experimental paradigm to induce temporal summation of pain utilizing a repetitive cold test (rCOLDT) assessed by the Numerical Pain Score (NPS 0-10) and we evaluated the function of the descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) by the change on the NPS (0–10) during the conditioned pain modulation (CPM)-task (primary outcomes). We tested whether a-tDCS would be more effective than s-tDCS to improve pain perception assessed by the heat pain threshold (HPT) and the reaction time during the ice-water pain test (IPT) (secondary outcomes).

Methods: This double-blinded, factorial randomized trial included 48 healthy males, ages ranging 19–40 years. They were randomized into four equal groups: a-tDCS/saline, s-tDCS/saline, a-tDCS/remifentanil and s-tDCS/remifentanil. tDCS was applied over the primary motor cortex, during 20 min at 2 mA, which was introduced 10 min after starting remifentanil infusion at 0.06 μg⋅kg^-1⋅min^-1 or saline.

Results: An ANCOVA mixed model revealed that during the rCOLDT, there was a significant main effect on the NPS scores (F = 3.81; P = 0.01). The s-tDCS/remifentanil group presented larger pain scores during rCOLDT, [mean (SD) 5.49 (1.04)] and a-tDCS/remifentanil group had relative lower pain scores [4.15 (1.62)]; showing its blocking effect on r-IH. a-tDCS/saline and s-tDCS/saline groups showed lowest pain scores during rCOLDT, [3.11 (1.2)] and [3.15 (1.62)], respectively. The effect of sedation induced by remifentanil during the rCOLDT was not significant (F = 0.76; P = 0.38). Remifentanil groups showed positive scores in the NPS (0–10) during the CPM-task, that is, it produced a disengagement of the DPMS. Also, s-tDCS/Remifentanil compared to a-tDCS showed lower HPT and larger reaction-time during the IPT.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that effects of a-tDCS prevent the summation response induced by r-IH during rCOLDT and the a-tDCS blocked the disengagement of DPMS. Thereby, tDCS could be considered as a new approach to contra-regulate paradoxical mechanisms involved in the r-IH. Clinical trials identification: NCT02432677. URL:https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Additive effect of tDCS combined with Peripheral Electrical Stimulation to an exercise program in pain control in knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been linked to maladaptive plasticity in the brain, which may contribute to chronic pain. Neuromodulatory approaches, such as Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Peripheral Electrical Stimulation (PES), have been used therapeutically to counteract brain maladaptive plasticity. However, it is currently unclear whether these neuromodulatory techniques enhance the benefits of exercise when administered together. Therefore, this protocol aims to investigate whether the addition of tDCS combined or not with PES enhances the effects of a land-based strengthening exercise program in patients with knee OA.

METHODS

Patients with knee OA (n = 80) will undertake a structured exercise program for five consecutive days. In addition, they will be randomized into four subgroups receiving either active anodal tDCS and sham PES (group 1; n = 20), sham tDCS and active PES (group 2, n = 20), sham tDCS and PES (group 3, n = 20), or active tDCS and PES (group 4, n = 20) for 20 min/day for five consecutive days just prior to commencement of the exercise program. The primary outcomes will be subjective pain intensity (VAS) and related function (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes will include quality of life (SF-36), anxiety and depression symptoms (HAD), self-perception of improvement, pressure pain thresholds over the knee, quadriceps strength, and quadriceps electromyographic activity during maximum knee extension voluntary contraction. We will also investigate cortical excitability using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 1 month after, before any intervention, after 5 days of intervention, and at 1 month post exercise intervention.

DISCUSSION

The motor cortex becomes less responsive in knee OA because of poorly adapted plastic changes, which can impede exercise therapy benefits. Adding tDCS and/or PES may help to counteract those maladaptive plastic changes and improve the benefits of exercises, and the combination of both neuromodulatory techniques must have a higher magnitude of effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Registry on Clinical Trials (ReBEC) - Effects of electrical stimulation over the skull and tight together with exercises for knee OA; protocol number RBR-9D7C7B.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID: RBR-9D7C7B . Registered on 29 February 2016.

Enhancement of Motor Recovery through Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Stimulation after Acute Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND

Two previous studies, which investigated transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use in motor recovery after acute ischemic stroke, did not show tDCS to be effective in this regard. We speculated that additional left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) stimulation may enhance poststroke motor recovery.

METHODS

In the present randomized clinical trial, 20 acute ischemic stroke patients were recruited. Patients received real motor cortex (M1) stimulation in both arms of the trial. The 2 arms differed in terms of real versus sham stimulation over the left DLPFC. The motor component of the Fugl-Meyer upper extremity assessment (FM) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores were used to assess primary outcomes, and nonlinear mixed effects models were used for data analyses.

RESULTS

Primary outcome measures improved more and faster among the real stimulation group. During the first days of stimulations, the sham group's FM scores increased by 1.2 per day, while the real group's scores increased by 1.7 per day (P = .003). In the following days, FM improvement decelerated in both groups. Based on the derived models, a stroke patient with a baseline FM score of 15 improves to 32 in the sham stimulation group and to 41 in the real stimulation group within the first month after stroke. Models with ARAT scores yielded nearly similar results. No significant adverse effect was reported.

CONCLUSION

The current study results showed that left DLPFC stimulation in conjunction with M1 stimulation resulted in better motor recovery than M1 stimulation alone.

Transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor vs prefrontal cortex in refractory chronic migraine: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) represents a therapeutic option for the prophylaxis of chronic migraine, the target area for application of the electrical current to the cortex has not yet been well established. Here we sought to determine whether a treatment protocol involving 12 sessions of 2mA, 20min anodal stimulation of the left primary motor (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) could offer clinical benefits in the management of pain from migraine. Thirteen participants were assessed before and after treatment, using the Headache Impact Test-6, Visual Analogue Scale and Medical Outcomes Study 36 - Item Short - Form Health Survey. After treatment, group DLPFC exhibited a better performance compared with groups M1 and sham. On intragroup comparison, groups DLPFC and M1 exhibited a greater reduction in headache impact and pain intensity and a higher quality of life after treatment. No significant change was found in group sham. The participants in group M1 exhibited more adverse effects, especially headache, heartburn, and sleepiness, than did those in the other two groups. Transcranial direct current stimulation is a safe and efficacious technique for treating chronic migraine. However, it should be kept in mind that the site of cortical stimulation might modulate the patient's response to treatment.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting Primary Motor Versus Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortices: Proof-of-Concept Study Investigating Functional Connectivity of Thalamocortical Networks Specific to Sensory-Affective Information Processing

The pain matrix is comprised of an extensive network of brain structures involved in sensory and/or affective information processing. The thalamus is a key structure constituting the pain matrix. The thalamus serves as a relay center receiving information from multiple ascending pathways and relating information to and from multiple cortical areas. However, it is unknown how thalamocortical networks specific to sensory-affective information processing are functionally integrated. Here, in a proof-of-concept study in healthy humans, we aimed to understand this connectivity using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting primary motor (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC). We compared changes in functional connectivity (FC) with DLPFC tDCS to changes in FC with M1 tDCS. FC changes were also compared to further investigate its relation with individual's baseline experience of pain. We hypothesized that resting-state FC would change based on tDCS location and would represent known thalamocortical networks. Ten right-handed individuals received a single application of anodal tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) to right M1 and DLPFC in a single-blind, sham-controlled crossover study. FC changes were studied between ventroposterolateral (VPL), the sensory nucleus of thalamus, and cortical areas involved in sensory information processing and between medial dorsal (MD), the affective nucleus, and cortical areas involved in affective information processing. Individual's perception of pain at baseline was assessed using cutaneous heat pain stimuli. We found that anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between VPL and sensorimotor cortices, although FC effects were greater with M1 tDCS. Similarly, anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between MD and motor cortices, but only DLPFC tDCS modulated FC between MD and affective cortices, like DLPFC. Our findings suggest that M1 stimulation primarily modulates FC of sensory networks, whereas DLPFC stimulation modulates FC of both sensory and affective networks. Our findings when replicated in a larger group of individuals could provide useful evidence that may inform future studies on pain to differentiate between effects of M1 and DLPFC stimulation. Notably, our finding that individuals with high baseline pain thresholds experience greater FC changes with DLPFC tDCS implies the role of DLPFC in pain modulation, particularly pain tolerance.

Single-Session Anodal tDCS with Small-Size Stimulating Electrodes Over Frontoparietal Superficial Sites Does Not Affect Motor Sequence Learning

Due to the potential of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) for enhancement of fine sequenced movements and increasing interest in achieving high level of fine movements in the trained and untrained hands especially at initial stage of learning, we designed this study to investigate whether the application of single-session a-tDCS with small-size stimulating electrodes over FPN sites, such as dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), primary motor cortex (M1) or posterior parietal cortex (PPC) could enhance sequence learning with the trained hand and these effects are transferred into the untrained hand or not. A total of 51 right-handed healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of the four stimulation groups: a-tDCS of left M1, DLPFC, PPC, or sham. Stimulation was applied for 20 min during a sequential visual isometric pinch task (SVIPT). Eight blocks of training using SVIPT were completed with the right hand during stimulation. Two blocks of sequence training with each hand were performed by participants as assessment blocks at three time points: baseline, 15 min and one day following the intervention. Behavioral outcomes including movement time, error rate and skill were assessed in all assessment blocks across three time points. We also measured corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition, and intracortical facilitation using single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. The results indicated that the behavioral outcomes were significantly improved with the right trained hand, but this learning effect was not modulated by a-tDCS with small-size stimulating electrodes over the FPN. Transfer of learning into the untrained hand was observed in all four groups for movement time but not for the error rate or skill. Our results suggest that sequential learning in SVIPT and its transfer into the untrained hand were not sensitive to a single-session a-tDCS with small-size stimulating electrodes over left M1, DLPFC or PPC in young healthy participants.

A study protocol for a single-blind, randomized controlled trial of adjunctive transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for chronic pain among patients receiving specialized, inpatient multimodal pain management

BACKGROUND

Available treatments for chronic pain (CP) are modestly effective or associated with iatrogenic harm. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that may be an effective, adjunctive treatment to non-opioid therapies. In this randomized control trial (RCT), we compare adjunctive active versus sham tDCS among patients in a multimodal inpatient pain management program. The primary objectives of the RCT are to improve pain tolerance and subjective pain experience.

METHODS AND DESIGN

Patients admitted to the Pain Management Program at The Menninger Clinic in Houston, Texas are eligible for this trial. Eighty-four participants will be randomized (1:1) into a single-blind, 2×12 (group×time) controlled trial. A battery-powered direct and constant current stimulator (Soterix Medical Inc. 2014) delivers anodal stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and cathodal stimulation over the right DLPFC. Active tDCS is applied by supplying a 2mA current for 20min/session over 10 sessions. Participants complete self-report and performance-based assessments on a weekly basis just prior to brain stimulation. Self-report assessments are collected via Chronic Pain Tracker version 3.6, an iPad interfaced application. The performance-based pain tolerance task is completed through the cold presser task.

DISCUSSION

Interventions with cross-symptomatic therapeutic potential are absolutely essential in the context of CP, in which psychiatric comorbidity is the norm. Modalities that can be used in tandem with evidence-based, non-opioid therapies have the potential to have a synergistic effect, resulting in increased effectiveness of what have been modestly effective treatments to date.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reverts behavioral alterations and brainstem BDNF level increase induced by neuropathic pain model: Long-lasting effect

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a chronic pain modality that usually results of damage in the somatosensory system. NP often shows insufficient response to classic analgesics and remains a challenge to medical treatment. The transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive technique, which induces neuroplastic changes in central nervous system of animals and humans. The brain derived neurotrophic factor plays an important role in synaptic plasticity process. Behavior changes such as decreased locomotor and exploratory activities and anxiety disorders are common comorbidities associated with NP.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the effect of tDCS treatment on locomotor and exploratory activities, and anxiety-like behavior, and peripheral and central BDNF levels in rats submitted to neuropathic pain model.

METHODS

Rats were randomly divided: Ss, SsS, SsT, NP, NpS, and NpT. The neuropathic pain model was induced by partial sciatic nerve compression at 14 days after surgery; the tDCS treatment was initiated. The animals of treated groups were subjected to a 20 minute session of tDCS, for eight days. The Open Field and Elevated Pluz Maze tests were applied 24 h (phase I) and 7 days (phase II) after the end of tDCS treatment. The serum, spinal cord, brainstem and cerebral cortex BDNF levels were determined 48 h (phase I) and 8 days (phase II) after tDCS treatment by ELISA.

RESULTS

The chronic constriction injury (CCI) induces decrease in locomotor and exploratory activities, increases in the behavior-like anxiety, and increases in the brainstem BDNF levels, the last, in phase II (one-way ANOVA/SNK, P<0.05 for all). The tDCS treatment already reverted all these effects induced by CCI (one-way ANOVA/SNK, P<0.05 for all). Furthermore, the tDCS treatment decreased serum and cerebral cortex BDNF levels and it increased these levels in the spinal cord in phase II (one-way ANOVA/SNK, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

tDCS reverts behavioral alterations associated to neuropathic pain, indicating possible analgesic and anxiolytic tDCS effects. tDCS treatment induces changes in the BDNF levels in different regions of the central nervous system (CNS), and this effect can be attributed to different cellular signaling activations.

The effects of anodal-tDCS on corticospinal excitability enhancement and its after-effects: conventional vs. unihemispheric concurrent dual-site stimulation

Previous researchers have approved the ability of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) to enhance corticospinal excitability (CSE). The primary aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of concurrent stimulation of M1 and a functionally connected cortical site of M1 on CSE modulation. This new technique is called unihemispheric concurrent dual-site a-tDCS (a-tDCSUHCDS). The secondary aim was to investigate the mechanisms underlying the efficacy of this new approach in healthy individuals. In a randomized crossover study, 12 healthy right-handed volunteers received a-tDCS under five conditions: a-tDCS of M1, a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-primary sensory cortex (S1), a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-primary visual cortex (V1), and sham a-tDCSUHCDS. Peak-to-peak amplitude of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced MEPs, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were assessed before and four times after each condition. A-tDCSUHCDS conditions induced larger MEPs than conventional a-tDCS. The level of M1 CSE was significantly higher following a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC than other a-tDCSUHCDS conditions (p < 0.001), and lasted for over 24 h. The paired-pulse TMS results after a-tDCS of M1-DLPFC showed significant facilitatory increase and inhibitory change. A-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC increases M1 CSE twofold that of conventional a-tDCS. A-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC enhances the activity of glutamergic mechanisms for at least 24 h. Such long-lasting M1 CSE enhancement induced by a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC could be a valuable finding in clinical scenarios such as learning, motor performance, or pain management. The present study has been registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial at http://www.anzctr.org.au/ with registry number of ACTRN12614000817640.

Analgesic effect of cathodal transcranial current stimulation over right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in subjects with muscular temporomandibular disorders: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Temporomandibular disorders are a group of orofacial pain conditions that are commonly identified in the general population. Like many other chronic pain conditions, they can be associated with anxiety/depression, which can be related to changes in the activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Some studies have demonstrated clinical improvement in subjects with chronic pain who are given therapeutic neuromodulation. Transcranial direct current stimulation is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that allows the modulation of neuronal membranes. This therapy can enhance or inhibit action potential generation in cortical neurons. In some instances, medications acting in the central nervous system may be helpful despite their adverse side effects. It is important to determine if cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, an area that modulates emotion and motor cortex excitability, has an analgesic effect on chronic temporomandibular disorders pain.

Method/design

The investigators will run a randomized, controlled crossover double blind study with 15 chronic muscular temporomandibular disorder subjects. Each subject will undergo active (1 mA and 2 mA) and sham transcranial direct current stimulation. Inclusion criteria will be determined by the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders questionnaire, with subjects who have a pain visual analogic scale score of greater than 4/10 and whose pain has been present for the previous 6 months, and with a State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score of more than 42. The influence of transcranial direct current stimulation will be assessed through a visual analogic scale, quantitative sensory testing, quantitative electroencephalogram, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score.

Discussion

Some studies have demonstrated a strong association between anxiety/depression and chronic pain, where one may be the cause of the other. This is especially true in chronic temporomandibular disorders, and breaking this cycle may have an effect over the symptoms and associated dysfunction. We believe that by inhibiting activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex though cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation, there may be a change in both anxiety/depression and pain level. Transcranial direct current stimulation may emerge as a new tool to be considered for managing these patients. We envision that the information obtained from this study will provide a better understanding of the management of chronic temporomandibular disorders.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 24 May 2014 (Identifier: NCT02152267).