Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation beneficial for treating pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Chronic pain is often accompanied by emotional dysfunction. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used for reducing pain, depressive and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients, but its therapeutic effect remains unknown.

Objectives

To ascertain the treatment effect of tDCS on pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms of patients suffering from chronic pain, and potential factors that modulate the effectiveness of tDCS.

Methods

Literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the effects of tDCS on pain and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain were included.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included in this review. Overall pooled results indicated that the use of tDCS can effectively alleviate short-term pain intensity [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.75 to -0.12, P = 0.007] and depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.31, 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.14, P < 0.001), middle-term depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.11, P = 0.004), long-term depressive symptoms (ES: -0.38, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.13, P = 0.003) and anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.02, P = 0.03) compared with the control group.

Conclusion

tDCS may be an effective short-term treatment for the improvement of pain intensity and concomitant depression and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients. Stimulation site, stimulation frequency, and type of chronic pain were significant influence factors for the therapeutic effect of tDCS.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=297693, identifier: CRD42022297693.

Can Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Facilitate Post-stroke Cognitive Rehabilitation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Non-invasive brain stimulation methods have been widely utilized in research settings to manipulate and understand the functioning of the human brain. In the last two decades, transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) has opened new doors for treating impairments caused by various neurological disorders. However, tES studies have shown inconsistent results in post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation, and there is no consensus on the effectiveness of tES devices in improving cognitive skills after the onset of stroke.

Objectives

We aim to systematically investigate the efficacy of tES in improving post-stroke global cognition, attention, working memory, executive functions, visual neglect, and verbal fluency. Furthermore, we aim to provide a pathway to an effective use of stimulation paradigms in future studies.

Methods

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched in four different databases, including Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and PsychInfo. Studies utilizing any tES methods published in English were considered for inclusion. Standardized mean difference (SMD) for each cognitive domain was used as the primary outcome measure.

Results

The meta-analysis includes 19 studies assessing at least one of the six cognitive domains. Five RCTs studying global cognition, three assessing visual neglect, five evaluating working memory, three assessing attention, and nine studies focusing on aphasia were included for meta-analysis. As informed by the quantitative analysis of the included studies, the results favor the efficacy of tES in acute improvement in aphasic deficits (SMD = 0.34, CI = 0.02-0.67, p = 0.04) and attention deficits (SMD = 0.59, CI = -0.05-1.22, p = 0.07), however, no improvement was observed in any other cognitive domains.

Conclusion

The results favor the efficacy of tES in an improvement in aphasia and attentive deficits in stroke patients in acute, subacute, and chronic stages. However, the outcome of tES cannot be generalized across cognitive domains. The difference in the stimulation montages and parameters, diverse cognitive batteries, and variable number of training sessions may have contributed to the inconsistency in the outcome. We suggest that in future studies, experimental designs should be further refined, and standardized stimulation protocols should be utilized to better understand the therapeutic effect of stimulation.

[The effect of non-invasive brain stimulation on neuroplasticity in the early recovery period after ischemic stroke]

The post-stroke cognitive impairment syndrome (PSCI) develops in 10-80% cases of ischemic stroke and leads to a significant patients' quality of life impairment. The standard program of cognitive rehabilitation includes nootropic agents therapy and neuro-cognitive training. The additional various methods of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) application can improve the results of PSCI rehabilitation.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Studying the different variants of NIBS influence on synaptic neuroplasticity in the early recovery period after ischemic stroke.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The rehabilitation of 62 patients with PSCI syndrome after ischemic stroke outcomes were studied. The patients were assigned to 5 groups. Patients from the control group underwent standardized nootropic therapy and course sessions with a neuropsychologist. The rest of the patients were divided into 4 groups, in which, in addition to the basic program of cognitive rehabilitation, different options for the course use of NIBS were used: photochromotherapy (PCT) with narrow-band optical radiation (NOR) with a wavelength of 530 nm (green light); rhythmic transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with a low-intensity high-frequency running pulsed magnetic field; infrared radiation with a wavelength of 1-56 microns, modulated by terahertz frequencies (IRMT); bioacoustic correction (BAC). We analyzed the dynamics of changes in scores of MMSE scales, FAB, Roshchina. In order to assess the effect of NIBS on neuroplasticity, the concentrations of BDNF and antibodies to the NR2 fragment of the NMDA receptor were evaluated before and after the completion of the rehabilitation course.

RESULTS

Concentration values of antibodies to the NR2 subunit of the NMDA receptor in all groups remained consistently above the norm (more than 2 ng/ml) throughout the entire course of rehabilitation. Differences between groups in the dynamics of BDNF concentration in the peripheral blood were revealed. There was a significant (p<0.05) decrease in its concentration by almost 2 times by the end of rehabilitation course in control group. In the rTMS and IRMT groups, a decrease in the BDNF concentration was also recorded in dynamics, which, however, did not reach a significant level. There was no decrease in BDNF levels in the BAC group. There was an increase of this level in the PCT group.

CONCLUSION

The use of different types of NIBS in the program of cognitive rehabilitation of patients with PSCI syndrome contributes to an increase in the rehabilitation potential due to the activation of neurotrophin-mediated synaptic neuroplasticity. Green light PCT and BAC have the greatest effect on increasing neuroplasticity after ischemic stroke.

Consensus Paper: Novel Directions and Next Steps of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation of the Cerebellum in Health and Disease

The cerebellum is involved in multiple closed-loops circuitry which connect the cerebellar modules with the motor cortex, prefrontal, temporal, and parietal cortical areas, and contribute to motor control, cognitive processes, emotional processing, and behavior. Among them, the cerebello-thalamo-cortical pathway represents the anatomical substratum of cerebellum-motor cortex inhibition (CBI). However, the cerebellum is also connected with basal ganglia by disynaptic pathways, and cerebellar involvement in disorders commonly associated with basal ganglia dysfunction (e.g., Parkinson's disease and dystonia) has been suggested. Lately, cerebellar activity has been targeted by non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to indirectly affect and tune dysfunctional circuitry in the brain. Although the results are promising, several questions remain still unsolved. Here, a panel of experts from different specialties (neurophysiology, neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychology) reviews the current results on cerebellar NIBS with the aim to derive the future steps and directions needed. We discuss the effects of TMS in the field of cerebellar neurophysiology, the potentials of cerebellar tDCS, the role of animal models in cerebellar NIBS applications, and the possible application of cerebellar NIBS in motor learning, stroke recovery, speech and language functions, neuropsychiatric and movement disorders.

Comparing the Impact of Multi-Session Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal and Primary Motor Cortex Neuronavigated Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (nrTMS) on Chronic Pain Patients

Repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to produce an analgesic effect and therefore has a potential for treating chronic refractory pain. However, previous studies used various stimulation parameters (including cortical targets), and the best stimulation protocol is not yet identified. The present study investigated the effects of multi-session 20 Hz (2000 pulses) and 5 Hz (1800 pulses) rTMS stimulation of left motor cortex (M1-group) and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC-group), respectively. The M1-group (n = 9) and DLPFC-group (n = 7) completed 13 sessions of neuronavigated stimulation, while a Sham-group (n = 8) completed seven sessions of placebo stimulation. The outcome was measured using the German Pain Questionnaire (GPQ), Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS), and SF-12 questionnaire. Pain perception significantly decreased in the DLPFC-group (38.17%) compared to the M1-group (56.11%) (p ≤ 0.001) on the later sessions. Health-related quality of life also improved in the DLPFC-group (40.47) compared to the Sham-group (35.06) (p = 0.016), and mental composite summary (p = 0.001) in the DLPFC-group (49.12) compared to M1-group (39.46). Stimulation of the left DLPFC resulted in pain relief, while M1 stimulation was not effective. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to identify optimal cortical target sites and stimulation parameters.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation restores altered functional connectivity of central poststroke pain model monkeys

Central poststroke pain (CPSP) develops after a stroke around the somatosensory pathway. CPSP is hypothesized to be caused by maladaptive reorganization between various brain regions. The treatment for CPSP has not been established; however, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the primary motor cortex has a clinical effect. To verify the functional reorganization hypothesis for CPSP development and rTMS therapeutic mechanism, we longitudinally pursued the structural and functional changes of the brain by using two male CPSP model monkeys (Macaca fuscata) developed by unilateral hemorrhage in the ventral posterolateral nucleus of the thalamus. Application of rTMS to the ipsilesional primary motor cortex relieved the induced pain of the model monkeys. A tractography analysis revealed a decrease in the structural connectivity in the ipsilesional thalamocortical tract, and rTMS had no effect on the structural connectivity. A region of interest analysis using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed inappropriately strengthened functional connectivity between the ipsilesional mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus and the amygdala, which are regions associated with emotion and memory, suggesting that this may be the cause of CPSP development. Moreover, rTMS normalizes this strengthened connectivity, which may be a possible therapeutic mechanism of rTMS for CPSP.

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.

Longitudinal effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on knee osteoarthritis patients measured by functional infrared spectroscopy: a pilot study

Significance: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common joint disease causing chronic pain and functional alterations (stiffness and swelling) in the elderly population. OA is currently treated pharmacologically with analgesics, although neuromodulation via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has recently generated a growing interest as a safe side-effect free treatment alternative or a complement to medications for chronic pain conditions. Although a number of studies have shown that tDCS has a beneficial effect on behavioral measures of pain, the mechanistic action of neuromodulation on pain sensitivity and coping at the central nervous system is not well understood. Aim: We aimed at observing longitudinal changes of cortical hemodynamics in older adults with knee OA associated with a two-week-long tDCS self-treatment protocol. Approach: Hemodynamics was measured bilaterally in the motor and somatosensory cortices with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in response to thermal pain induced ipsilaterally to the knee primarily affected by OA. Results: We found that both oxyhemoglobin- and deoxyhemoglobin-related functional activations significantly increased during the course of the tDCS treatment, supporting the notion that tDCS yields an increased cortical excitability. Concurrently, clinical measures of pain decreased with tDCS treatment, hinting at a potential spatial dissociation between cortically mediated pain perception and suppression and the prevalence of neuromodulatory effects over cortical pain processing. Conclusions: fNIRS is a valid method for objectively tracking pain in an ambulatory setting and it could potentially be used to inform strategies for optimized tDCS treatment and to develop innovative tDCS protocols.

Mutual interaction between motor cortex activation and pain in fibromyalgia: EEG-fNIRS study

BACKGROUND

Experimental and clinical studies suggested an analgesic effect on chronic pain by motor cortex activation. The present study explored the complex mechanisms of interaction between motor and pain during performing the slow and fast finger tapping task alone and in concomitant with nociceptive laser stimulation.

METHOD

The participants were 38 patients with fibromyalgia (FM) and 21 healthy subjects. We used a simultaneous multimodal method of laser-evoked potentials and functional near-infrared spectroscopy to investigate metabolic and electrical changes during the finger tapping task and concomitant noxious laser stimulation. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy is a portable and optical method to detect cortical metabolic changes. Laser-evoked potentials are a suitable tool to study the nociceptive pathways function.

RESULTS

We found a reduced tone of cortical motor areas in patients with FM compared to controls, especially during the fast finger tapping task. FM patients presented a slow motor performance in all the experimental conditions, requesting rapid movements. The amplitude of laser evoked potentials was different between patients and controls, in each experimental condition, as patients showed smaller evoked responses compared to controls. Concurrent phasic pain stimulation had a low effect on motor cortex metabolism in both groups nor motor activity changed laser evoked responses in a relevant way. There were no correlations between Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (FNIRS) and clinical features in FM patients.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated that a low tone of motor cortex activation could be an intrinsic feature in FM and generate a scarce modulation on pain condition. A simple and repetitive movement such as that of the finger tapping task seems inefficacious in modulating cortical responses to pain both in patients and controls. The complex mechanisms of interaction between networks involved in pain control and motor function require further studies for the important role they play in structuring rehabilitation strategies.

Randomized Controlled Study Evaluating Efficiency of Low Intensity Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Dyspnea Relief in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients in ICU: The tDCS-DYSP-COVID Protocol

The severe respiratory distress syndrome linked to the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) includes unbearable dyspneic suffering which contributes to the deterioration of the prognosis of patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Patients are put on mechanical ventilation to reduce respiratory suffering and preserve life. Despite this mechanical ventilation, most patients continue to suffer from dyspnea. Dyspnea is a major source of suffering in intensive care and one of the main factors that affect the prognosis of patients. The development of innovative methods for its management, especially non-drug management is more than necessary. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could modulate the perception of acute or chronic pain. In the other hand, it has been shown that the brain zones activated during pain and dyspnea are close and/or superimposed, suggesting that brain structures involved in the integration of aversive emotional component are shared by these two complex sensory experiences. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that stimulation by tDCS with regard to the areas which, in the case of pain have activated one or more of these brain structures, may also have an effect on dyspnea. In addition, our team recently demonstrated that the application of tDCS on the primary cortical motor area can modulate the excitability of the respiratory neurological pathways. Indeed, tDCS in anodal or cathodal modality reduced the excitability of the diaphragmatic cortico-spinal pathways in healthy subjects. We therefore hypothesized that tDCS could relieve dyspnea in COVID-19 patients under mechanical ventilation in ICU. This study was designed to evaluate effects of two modalities of tDCS (anodal and cathodal) vs. placebo, on the relief of dyspnea in COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation in ICU. Trial Registration: This protocol is derived from the tDCS-DYSP-REA project registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03640455. It will however be registered under its own NCT number.

Noninvasive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in Chronic Refractory Pain: A Systematic Review

Efficacy and tolerance of pharmacological medications in chronic pain are limited. Therefore, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is regarded as a secure therapeutic option for pain relief, and it was proven to produce an analgesic effect. A wide variety of stimulation parameters can influence its long-lasting antalgic effect. Defining the best stimulation protocol can afford greater uniformity and consistency for considering rTMS as a promising effective tool. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate the current literature on transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients suffering from chronic pain, assess its efficacy, and estimate the best stimulation protocol. The Screened and tested electronic databases comprised PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane database library, and Google scholar from the year 2000 till 2018. The keywords utilizing search terms "Transcranial magnetic stimulation", "chronic pain", "neuropathic pain" were used to study all possible randomized clinical trials about the impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation on long-lasting pain. All articles were judged for the possibility of prejudice using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for data extraction. Search engines produced seventy applicable results. Twelve randomized controlled clinical trials were included involving 350 patients with focal and generalized chronic pain. An existing proof showed a null response of low-frequency rTMS stimulation, rTMS delivered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in chronic pain patients. However, a witnessed pain-killing response was documented when applying active high- frequency TMS on the motor cortex M1 area compared to sham. Pain relief was detected for a short time following the application of active high-frequency motor cortex stimulation in nine clinical trials, and the long-lasting analgesic effect was proved. No side effects were mentioned for the technique. Repetitive TMS can produce clinically meaningful relief from chronic pain, despite positive results, heterogeneity among all studies preclude firm conclusions regarding the optimal target stimulation site and parameters. Further studies are required to minimize bias, enhance performance, and define the best brain stimulation conditions and qualifications to maximize its potency.

The efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic orofacial pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) have been described as promising alternatives to treat different pain syndromes. This study evaluated the effects of TMS and tDCS in the treatment of chronic orofacial pain, through a systematic review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in major databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, BBO, Open Gray and CINAHL. The eligibility criteria comprised randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that applied TMS or tDCS to treat chronic orofacial pain. The variables analyzed were pain, functional limitation, quality of life, tolerance to treatment, somatosensory changes, and adverse effects. The risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through GRADE. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018090774).

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 636 studies. Thereafter, the eligibility criteria were applied and the duplicates removed, resulting in eight RCTs (four TMS and four tDCS). The findings of these studies suggest that rTMS applied to the Motor cortex (M1), the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) provide adequate orofacial pain relief. Two studies reported significant pain improvement with tDCS applied over M1 while the other two failed to demonstrate significant effects compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS, applied to M1, DLPFC or S2, is a promising approach for the treatment of chronic orofacial pain. Moreover, tDCS targeting M1 seems to be also effective in chronic orofacial pain treatment. The included studies used a wide variety of therapeutic protocols. In addition, most of them used small sample sizes, with a high risk of biases in their methodologies, thus producing a low quality of evidence. The results indicate that further research should be carried out with caution and with better-standardized therapeutic protocols.

Functional Spectroscopy Mapping of Pain Processing Cortical Areas During Non-painful Peripheral Electrical Stimulation of the Accessory Spinal Nerve

Peripheral electrical stimulation (PES), which encompasses several techniques with heterogeneous physiological responses, has shown in some cases remarkable outcomes for pain treatment and clinical rehabilitation. However, results are still mixed, mainly because there is a lack of understanding regarding its neural mechanisms of action. In this study, we aimed to assess its effects by measuring cortical activation as indexed by functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). fNIRS is a functional optical imaging method to evaluate hemodynamic changes in oxygenated (HbO) and de-oxygenated (HbR) blood hemoglobin concentrations in cortical capillary networks that can be related to cortical activity. We hypothesized that non-painful PES of accessory spinal nerve (ASN) can promote cortical activation of sensorimotor cortex (SMC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) pain processing cortical areas. Fifteen healthy volunteers received both active and sham ASN electrical stimulation in a crossover study. The hemodynamic cortical response to unilateral right ASN burst electrical stimulation with 10 Hz was measured by a 40-channel fNIRS system. The effect of ASN electrical stimulation over HbO concentration in cortical areas of interest (CAI) was observed through the activation of right-DLPFC (p = 0.025) and left-SMC (p = 0.042) in the active group but not in sham group. Regarding left-DLPFC (p = 0.610) and right-SMC (p = 0.174) there was no statistical difference between groups. As in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) top-down modulation, bottom-up electrical stimulation to the ASN seems to activate the same critical cortical areas on pain pathways related to sensory-discriminative and affective-motivational pain dimensions. These results provide additional mechanistic evidence to develop and optimize the use of peripheral nerve electrical stimulation as a neuromodulatory tool (NCT 03295370— www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Pediatric Migraine: A Perspective From Evidence in Adult Migraine

Pediatric migraine remains still a challenge for the headache specialists as concerns both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. The less ability of children to describe the exact features of their migraines and the lack of reliable biomarker for migraine contribute to complicate the diagnostic process. Therefore, there's need for new effective tools for supporting diagnostic and therapeutic approach in children with migraine. Recently, promising results have been obtained in adult headache by means of application of neurostimulation techniques both for investigating pathophysiological mechanisms and also for therapeutical applications. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) indeed proved to be generally safe and showing also some evidence of efficacy particularly for the symptomatic treatment. On such basis, in the last years increasing interest is rising in scientific pediatric community to evaluate the potential of such approaches for treatment pediatric headaches, particularly in migraine, even if the evidence provided is still very poor. Here we present a perspective for application of TMS and tDCS technique in children migraine principally based on evidence coming by studies in adults.

[Motor cortex stimulation in deafferentation facial pain]

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the results of treatment of poorly controlled deafferentation facial pain using motor cortex stimulation and to review the relevant literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 8 patients (3 males and 5 females) with deafferentation facial pain who were implanted with a system of constant motor cortex stimulation at the Illinois University in Chicago in 2004-2016 and Novosibirsk Federal Center of Neurosurgery in 2017. The patients' age ranged from 37 to 81 years (mean age, 57.5 years). Scale-based assessment of the pain severity was performed at admission to hospital, at discharge, and during follow-up. The visual analogue pain scale, Barrow Neurological Institute pain scale (BNIPS), and McLaughlin scale were used.

RESULTS

Immediately after surgery, a significant improvement in the form of pain reduction by 80-100% occurred in 4 patients. The pain intensity at discharge from the hospital decreased by 55%, on average. During the follow-up period, the efficacy of motor cortex stimulation was assessed (McLaughlin scale) as very good by 3 of the 8 patients, as good by 4 patients, and as unsatisfactory by 1 patient.

CONCLUSION

Our findings and recent studies have demonstrated that motor cortex stimulation is one of the treatment options for deafferentation facial pain. Even a slight decrease in the intensity of excruciating and debilitating pain (assessed by patients as a good effect) gives grounds for application of the procedure. Further research is needed to define more precise criteria for selecting patients for this treatment and to increase the efficacy of stimulation.

Is There a Future for Non-invasive Brain Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool?

Several techniques and protocols of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial magnetic and electrical stimuli, have been developed in the past decades. These techniques can induce long lasting changes in cortical excitability by promoting synaptic plasticity and thus may represent a therapeutic option in neuropsychiatric disorders. On the other hand, despite these techniques have become popular, the fragility and variability of the after effects are the major challenges that non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation currentlyfaces. Several factors may account for such a variability such as biological variations, measurement reproducibility, and the neuronal state of the stimulated area. One possible strategy, to reduce this variability is to monitor the neuronal state in real time using EEG and trigger TMS pulses only at pre-defined state. In addition, another strategy under study is to use the spaced application of multiple NIBS protocols within a session to improve the reliability and extend the duration of NIBS effects. Further studies, although time consuming, are required for improving the so far limited effect sizes of NIBS protocols for treatment of neurological or psychiatric disorders.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

The management of fibromyalgia from a psychosomatic perspective: an overview

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a central sensitization syndrome characterized by chronic widespread pain. FM is often comorbid with psychiatric disorders, as well as psychological distress that worsens the quality-of-life of people affected. The aim was to collect current evidence about the management of FM from a psychosomatic perspective. The literature was synthesized and summarized in a narrative format. The literature search was carried out in PubMed; review articles, meta-analysis, overview, and guidelines published in the last 10 years written in English were included. Five main topics (Diagnostic criteria of FM; Pathogenesis of chronic widespread pain in FM; Early stress and trauma as predisposing factors for central sensitization; FM and Psychiatric comorbidity; Implications for treatment) were pointed out and discussed. Much evidence underlies the importance of considering and treating the comorbidity of FM with psychiatric disorders and psychological factors that affect pain management. Validation of FM as a central sensitization syndrome by a clinician facilitates therapeutic strategies that involve patients as active participants in the pain management process, likely leading to improved outcomes.

Prefrontal versus motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effects on post-surgical opioid use

BACKGROUND

Pain is often a complaint that precedes total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however the procedure itself is associated with considerable post-operative pain lasting days to weeks which can predict longer-term surgical outcomes. Previously, we reported significant opioid-sparing effects of motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation from a single-blind trial. In the present study, we used double-blind methodology to compare motor cortex tDCS and prefrontal cortex tDCS to both sham and active-control (active electrodes over non-pain modulating brain areas) tDCS.

METHODS

58 patients undergoing unilateral TKA were randomly assigned to receive 4 20-min sessions (a total of 80 min) of tDCS (2 mA) post-surgery with electrodes placed to create 4 groups: 1) MOTOR (n = 14); anode-motor/cathode-right prefrontal, 2) PREFRONTAL (n = 16); anode-left-prefrontal/cathode-right-sensory, 3) ACTIVE-CONTROL (n = 15); anode-left-temporal-occipital junction/cathode-medial-anterior-premotor-area, and 4) SHAM (n = 13); 0 mA-current stimulation using placements 1 or 2. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA; hydromorphone) use was tracked during the ∼72-h post-surgery.

RESULTS

Patients in the sham group and the active-control group used 15.4 mg (SD = 14.1) and 16.0 mg (SD = 9.7) of PCA hydromorphone respectively. There was no difference between the slopes of the cumulative PCA usage curves between these two groups (p = 0.25; ns). Patients in the prefrontal tDCS group used an average of 11.7 mg (SD = 5.0) of PCA hydromporhone, and the slope of the cumulative PCA usage curve was significantly lower than sham (p < 0.0001). However, patients in the motor tDCS group used an average of 19.6 mg (SD = 11.9) hydromorphone and the slope of the PCA use curve was significantly higher than sham (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this double-blind cortical-target-optimization study suggest that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left prefrontal cortex may be a reasonable approach to reducing post-TKA opioid requirements. Given the unexpected finding that motor cortex failed to produce an opioid sparing effect in this follow-up trial, further research in the area of post-operative cortical stimulation is still needed.

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates attention and pain in fibromyalgia: randomized clinical trial

Cognitive dysfunction in fibromyalgia patients has been reported, especially when increased attentional demands are required. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been effective in modulating attention. We tested the effects of a single session of tDCS coupled with a Go/No-go task in modulating three distinct attentional networks: alertness, orienting and executive control. Secondarily, the effect on pain measures was evaluated. Forty females with fibromyalgia were randomized to receive active or sham tDCS. Anodal stimulation (1 mA, 20 min) was applied over the DLPFC. Attention indices were assessed using the Attention Network Test (ANT). Heat pain threshold (HPTh) and tolerance (HPTo) were measured. Active compared to sham tDCS led to increased performance in the orienting (mean difference [MD] = 14.63) and executive (MD = 21.00) attention networks. There was no effect on alertness. Active tDCS increased HPTh as compared to sham (MD = 1.93) and HPTo (MD = 1.52). Regression analysis showed the effect on executive attention is mostly independent of the effect on pain. DLPFC may be an important target for neurostimulation therapies in addition to the primary motor cortex for patients who do not respond adequately to neurostimulation therapies.

State-of-art neuroanatomical target analysis of high-definition and conventional tDCS montages used for migraine and pain control

Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies promise to modulate cortical regions associated with pain, the electric current produced usually spreads beyond the area of the electrodes' placement. Using a forward-model analysis, this study compared the neuroanatomic location and strength of the predicted electric current peaks, at cortical and subcortical levels, induced by conventional and High-Definition-tDCS (HD-tDCS) montages developed for migraine and other chronic pain disorders. The electrodes were positioned in accordance with the 10-20 or 10-10 electroencephalogram (EEG) landmarks: motor cortex-supraorbital (M1-SO, anode and cathode over C3 and Fp2, respectively), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) bilateral (DLPFC, anode over F3, cathode over F4), vertex-occipital cortex (anode over Cz and cathode over Oz), HD-tDCS 4 × 1 (one anode on C3, and four cathodes over Cz, F3, T7, and P3) and HD-tDCS 2 × 2 (two anodes over C3/C5 and two cathodes over FC3/FC5). M1-SO produced a large current flow in the PFC. Peaks of current flow also occurred in deeper brain structures, such as the cingulate cortex, insula, thalamus and brainstem. The same structures received significant amount of current with Cz-Oz and DLPFC tDCS. However, there were differences in the current flow to outer cortical regions. The visual cortex, cingulate and thalamus received the majority of the current flow with the Cz-Oz, while the anterior parts of the superior and middle frontal gyri displayed an intense amount of current with DLPFC montage. HD-tDCS montages enhanced the focality, producing peaks of current in subcortical areas at negligible levels. This study provides novel information regarding the neuroanatomical distribution and strength of the electric current using several tDCS montages applied for migraine and pain control. Such information may help clinicians and researchers in deciding the most appropriate tDCS montage to treat each pain disorder.

Excitatory and inhibitory brain metabolites as targets of motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation therapy and predictors of its efficacy in fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to improve pain symptoms in fibromyalgia (FM), a central pain syndrome whose underlying mechanisms are not well understood. This study was undertaken to explore the neurochemical action of tDCS in the brain of patients with FM, using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS).

METHODS

Twelve patients with FM underwent sham tDCS over the left motor cortex (anode placement) and contralateral supraorbital cortex (cathode placement) for 5 consecutive days, followed by a 7-day washout period and then active tDCS for 5 consecutive days. Clinical pain assessment and 1H-MRS testing were performed at baseline, the week following the sham tDCS trial, and the week following the active tDCS trial.

RESULTS

Clinical pain scores decreased significantly between the baseline and active tDCS time points (P = 0.04). Levels of glutamate + glutamine (Glx) in the anterior cingulate were significantly lower at the post–active tDCS assessment compared with the post–sham tDCS assessment (P = 0.013), and the decrease in Glx levels in the thalami between these time points approached significance (P = 0.056). From baseline to the post–sham tDCS assessment, levels of N-acetylaspartate (NAA) in the posterior insula increased significantly (P = 0.015). There was a trend toward increased levels of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the anterior insula after active tDCS, compared with baseline (P = 0.064). Baseline anterior cingulate Glx levels correlated significantly with changes in pain score, both for the time period from baseline to sham tDCS (β1 = 1.31, P < 0.001) and for the time period from baseline to active tDCS (β1= 1.87, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present findings suggest that GABA, Glx, and NAA play an important role in the pathophysiology of FM and its modulation by tDCS.

Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is frequent in persons living with spinal cord injury (SCI). Conventionally, the pain is treated pharmacologically, yet long-term pain medication is often refractory and associated with side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions are frequently advocated, although the benefit and harm profiles of these treatments are not well established, in part because of methodological weaknesses of available studies.

OBJECTIVES

To critically appraise and synthesise available research evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain in people living with SCI.

SEARCH METHODS

The search was run on the 1st March 2011. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), four other databases and clinical trials registers. In addition, we manually searched the proceedings of three major scientific conferences on SCI. We updated this search in November 2014 but these results have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any intervention not involving intake of medication or other active substances to treat chronic pain in people with SCI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. The primary outcome was any measure of pain intensity or pain relief. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, anxiety, depression and quality of life. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to calculate standardised mean differences for each type of intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 trials involving a total of 616 participants. Eight different types of interventions were studied. Eight trials investigated the effects of electrical brain stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES); five trials) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS; three trials). Interventions in the remaining studies included exercise programmes (three trials); acupuncture (two trials); self-hypnosis (one trial); transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (one trial); and a cognitive behavioural programme (one trial). None of the included trials were considered to have low overall risk of bias. Twelve studies had high overall risk of bias, and in four studies risk of bias was unclear. The overall quality of the included studies was weak. Their validity was impaired by methodological weaknesses such as inappropriate choice of control groups. An additional search in November 2014 identified more recent studies that will be included in an update of this review.For tDCS the pooled mean difference between intervention and control groups in pain scores on an 11-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10) was a reduction of -1.90 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.48 to -0.33; P value 0.02) in the short term and of -1.87 (95% CI -3.30 to -0.45; P value 0.01) in the mid term. Exercise programmes led to mean reductions in chronic shoulder pain of -1.9 score points for the Short Form (SF)-36 item for pain experience (95% CI -3.4 to -0.4; P value 0.01) and -2.8 pain VAS units (95% CI -3.77 to -1.83; P value < 0.00001); this represented the largest observed treatment effects in the included studies. Trials using rTMS, CES, acupuncture, self-hypnosis, TENS or a cognitive behavioural programme provided no evidence that these interventions reduce chronic pain. Ten trials examined study endpoints other than pain, including anxiety, depression and quality of life, but available data were too scarce for firm conclusions to be drawn. In four trials no side effects were reported with study interventions. Five trials reported transient mild side effects. Overall, a paucity of evidence was found on any serious or long-lasting side effects of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to suggest that non-pharmacological treatments are effective in reducing chronic pain in people living with SCI. The benefits and harms of commonly used non-pharmacological pain treatments should be investigated in randomised controlled trials with adequate sample size and study methodology.

Building up analgesia in humans via the endogenous μ-opioid system by combining placebo and active tDCS: a preliminary report

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a method of non-invasive brain stimulation that has been frequently used in experimental and clinical pain studies. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying tDCS-mediated pain control, and most important its placebo component, are not completely established. In this pilot study, we investigated in vivo the involvement of the endogenous μ-opioid system in the global tDCS-analgesia experience. Nine healthy volunteers went through positron emission tomography (PET) scans with [11C]carfentanil, a selective μ-opioid receptor (MOR) radiotracer, to measure the central MOR activity during tDCS in vivo (non-displaceable binding potential, BPND)--one of the main analgesic mechanisms in the brain. Placebo and real anodal primary motor cortex (M1/2mA) tDCS were delivered sequentially for 20 minutes each during the PET scan. The initial placebo tDCS phase induced a decrease in MOR BPND in the periaqueductal gray matter (PAG), precuneus, and thalamus, indicating activation of endogenous μ-opioid neurotransmission, even before the active tDCS. The subsequent real tDCS also induced MOR activation in the PAG and precuneus, which were positively correlated to the changes observed with placebo tDCS. Nonetheless, real tDCS had an additional MOR activation in the left prefrontal cortex. Although significant changes in the MOR BPND occurred with both placebo and real tDCS, significant analgesic effects, measured by improvements in the heat and cold pain thresholds, were only observed after real tDCS, not the placebo tDCS. This study gives preliminary evidence that the analgesic effects reported with M1-tDCS, can be in part related to the recruitment of the same endogenous MOR mechanisms induced by placebo, and that such effects can be purposely optimized by real tDCS.

Neurochemical analysis of primary motor cortex in chronic low back pain

The involvement of the primary motor cortex (M1) in chronic low back pain (LBP) is a relatively new concept. Decreased M1 excitability and an analgesic effect after M1 stimulation have been recently reported. However, the neurochemical changes underlying these functional M1 changes are unknown. The current study investigated whether neurochemicals specific to neurons and glial cells in both right and left M1 are altered. N-Acetylaspartate (NAA) and myo-inositol (mI) were measured with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in 19 subjects with chronic LBP and 14 healthy controls. We also examined correlations among neurochemicals within and between M1 and relationships between neurochemical concentrations and clinical features of pain. Right M1 NAA was lower in subjects with LBP compared to controls (p = 0.008). Left M1 NAA and mI were not significantly different between LBP and control groups. Correlations between neurochemical concentrations across M1s were different between groups (p = 0.008). There were no significant correlations between M1 neurochemicals and pain characteristics. These findings provide preliminary evidence of neuronal depression and altered neuronal-glial interactions across M1 in chronic LBP.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2010, Issue 9. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers. The original search for the review was run in November 2009 and searched all databases from their inception. To identify studies for inclusion in this update we searched from 2009 to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS or RINCE if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 with pain of three months duration or more and measured pain as a primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses. We excluded studies judged as being at high risk of bias from the analysis. We used the GRADE system to summarise the quality of evidence for core comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 23 trials (involving 773 participants randomised) in this update, making a total of 56 trials in the review (involving 1710 participants randomised). This update included a total of 30 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 14 tDCS and one study of RINCE(the original review included 19 rTMS, eight CES and six tDCS studies). We judged only three studies as being at low risk of bias across all criteria.Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS (involving 528 participants) demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggest that low-frequency stimulation is ineffective (low-quality evidence) and that rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is ineffective (very low-quality evidence). We found a short-term effect on pain of active high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies (low-quality evidence, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.51 P < 0.01)). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 8% to 15%) reduction in pain, which does not exceed the pre-established criteria for a minimal clinically important difference (≥ 15%). Evidence for multiple-dose studies was heterogenous but did not demonstrate a significant effect (very low-quality evidence).For CES (six studies, 270 participants) no statistically significant difference was found between active stimulation and sham (low-quality evidence).Analysis of tDCS studies (11 studies, 193 people) demonstrated significant heterogeneity and did not find a significant difference between active and sham stimulation (very low-quality evidence). Pre-specified subgroup analysis of tDCS applied to the motor cortex (n = 183) did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect and this lack of effect was consistent for subgroups of single or multiple-dose studies.One small study (n = 91) at unclear risk of bias suggested a positive effect of RINCE over sham stimulation on pain (very low-quality evidence).Non-invasive brain stimulation appears to be frequently associated with minor and transient side effects, though there were two reported incidences of seizure related to active rTMS in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have small short-term effects on chronic pain. It is likely that multiple sources of bias may exaggerate this observed effect. The effects do not meet the predetermined threshold of minimal clinical significance and multiple-dose studies do not consistently demonstrate effectiveness. The available evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the pre-frontal cortex, CES and tDCS are not effective in the treatment of chronic pain. While the broad conclusions for rTMS and CES have not changed substantially, the addition of this new evidence and the application of the GRADE system has modified some of our interpretation and the conclusion regarding the effectiveness of tDCS has changed. We recommend that previous readers should re-read this update. There is a need for larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. It is likely that future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Pressure pain thresholds increase after preconditioning 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation

BACKGROUND

The primary motor cortex (M1) is an effective target of non-invasive cortical stimulation (NICS) for pain threshold modulation. It has been suggested that the initial level of cortical excitability of M1 plays a key role in the plastic effects of NICS.

OBJECTIVE

Here we investigate whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) primed 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) modulates experimental pressure pain thresholds and if this is related to observed alterations in cortical excitability.

METHOD

15 healthy, male participants received 10 min 1 mA anodal, cathodal and sham tDCS to the left M1 before 15 min 1 Hz rTMS in separate sessions over a period of 3 weeks. Motor cortical excitability was recorded at baseline, post-tDCS priming and post-rTMS through recording motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from right FDI muscle. Pressure pain thresholds were determined by quantitative sensory testing (QST) through a computerized algometer, on the palmar thenar of the right hand pre- and post-stimulation.

RESULTS

Cathodal tDCS-primed 1 Hz-rTMS was found to reverse the expected suppressive effect of 1 Hz rTMS on cortical excitability; leading to an overall increase in activity (p<0.001) with a parallel increase in pressure pain thresholds (p<0.01). In contrast, anodal tDCS-primed 1 Hz-rTMS resulted in a corresponding decrease in cortical excitability (p<0.05), with no significant effect on pressure pain.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that priming the M1 before stimulation of 1 Hz-rTMS modulates experimental pressure pain thresholds in a safe and controlled manner, producing a form of analgesia.

Invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury: a review

CONTEXT

Past evidence has shown that invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation may be effective for relieving central pain.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a topical review of the literature on brain neurostimulation techniques in patients with chronic neuropathic pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and to assess the current evidence for their therapeutic efficacy.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed using following terms: "Spinal cord injury", "Neuropathic pain", "Brain stimulation", "Deep brain stimulation" (DBS), "Motor cortex stimulation" (MCS), "Transcranial magnetic stimulation" (TMS), "Transcranial direct current stimulation" (tDCS), "Cranial electrotherapy stimulation" (CES).

RESULTS

Invasive neurostimulation therapies, in particular DBS and epidural MCS, have shown promise as treatments for neuropathic and phantom limb pain. However, the long-term efficacy of DBS is low, while MCS has a relatively higher potential with lesser complications that DBS. Among the non-invasive techniques, there is accumulating evidence that repetitive TMS can produce analgesic effects in healthy subjects undergoing laboratory-induced pain and in chronic pain conditions of various etiologies, at least partially and transiently. Another very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation - tDCS - applied over the sensory-motor cortex has been reported to decrease pain sensation and increase pain threshold in healthy subjects. CES has also proved to be effective in managing some types of pain, including neuropathic pain in subjects with SCI.

CONCLUSION

A number of studies have begun to use non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques therapeutically to relieve neuropathic pain and phantom phenomena in patients with SCI. However, further studies are warranted to corroborate the early findings and confirm different targets and stimulation paradigms. The utility of these protocols in combination with pharmacological approaches should also be explored.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is currently no strong consensus regarding the optimal management of complex regional pain syndrome although a multitude of interventions have been described and are commonly used.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the effectiveness of any therapeutic intervention used to reduce pain, disability or both in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PEDro. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews where they contained evidence not covered by identified Cochrane reviews. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, emotional well being and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement. Only evidence arising from randomised controlled trials was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six Cochrane reviews and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews demonstrated better methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Trials were typically small and the quality variable.There is moderate quality evidence that intravenous regional blockade with guanethidine is not effective in CRPS and that the procedure appears to be associated with the risk of significant adverse events.There is low quality evidence that bisphosphonates, calcitonin or a daily course of intravenous ketamine may be effective for pain when compared with placebo; graded motor imagery may be effective for pain and function when compared with usual care; and that mirror therapy may be effective for pain in post-stroke CRPS compared with a 'covered mirror' control. This evidence should be interpreted with caution. There is low quality evidence that local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade is not effective. Low quality evidence suggests that physiotherapy or occupational therapy are associated with small positive effects that are unlikely to be clinically important at one year follow up when compared with a social work passive attention control.For a wide range of other interventions, there is either no evidence or very low quality evidence available from which no conclusions should be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high quality evidence for the effectiveness of most therapies for CRPS. Until further larger trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is currently no strong consensus regarding the optimal management of complex regional pain syndrome although a multitude of interventions have been described and are commonly used.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the effectiveness of any therapeutic intervention used to reduce pain, disability or both in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PEDro. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews where they contained evidence not covered by identified Cochrane reviews. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, emotional well being and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement. Only evidence arising from randomised controlled trials was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six Cochrane reviews and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews demonstrated better methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Trials were typically small and the quality variable.There is moderate quality evidence that intravenous regional blockade with guanethidine is not effective in CRPS and that the procedure appears to be associated with the risk of significant adverse events.There is low quality evidence that bisphosphonates, calcitonin or a daily course of intravenous ketamine may be effective for pain when compared with placebo; graded motor imagery may be effective for pain and function when compared with usual care; and that mirror therapy may be effective for pain in post-stroke CRPS compared with a 'covered mirror' control. This evidence should be interpreted with caution. There is low quality evidence that local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade is not effective. Low quality evidence suggests that physiotherapy or occupational therapy are associated with small positive effects that are unlikely to be clinically important at one year follow up when compared with a social work passive attention control.For a wide range of other interventions, there is either no evidence or very low quality evidence available from which no conclusions should be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high quality evidence for the effectiveness of most therapies for CRPS. Until further larger trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult.

Non-invasive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) of the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain-At the Tipping Point?

The term "neuropathic pain" (NP) refers to chronic pain caused by illnesses or injuries that damage peripheral or central pain-sensing neural pathways to cause them to fire inappropriately and signal pain without cause. Neuropathic pain is common, complicating diabetes, shingles, HIV, and cancer. Medications are often ineffective or cause various adverse effects, so better approaches are needed. Half a century ago, electrical stimulation of specific brain regions (neuromodulation) was demonstrated to relieve refractory NP without distant effects, but the need for surgical electrode implantation limited use of deep brain stimulation. Next, electrodes applied to the dura outside the brain's surface to stimulate the motor cortex were shown to relieve NP less invasively. Now, electromagnetic induction permits cortical neurons to be stimulated entirely non-invasively using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Repeated sessions of many TMS pulses (rTMS) can trigger neuronal plasticity to produce long-lasting therapeutic benefit. Repeated TMS already has US and European regulatory approval for treating refractory depression, and multiple small studies report efficacy for neuropathic pain. Recent improvements include "frameless stereotactic" neuronavigation systems, in which patients' head MRIs allow TMS to be applied to precise underlying cortical targets, minimizing variability between sessions and patients, which may enhance efficacy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation appears poised for the larger trials necessary for regulatory approval of a NP indication. Since few clinicians are familiar with TMS, we review its theoretical basis and historical development, summarize the neuropathic pain trial results, and identify issues to resolve before large-scale clinical trials.

No effect of a single session of transcranial direct current stimulation on experimentally induced pain in patients with chronic low back pain--an exploratory study

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to modulate cortical excitability. A small number of studies suggested that tDCS modulates the response to experimental pain paradigms. No trials have been conducted to evaluate the response of patients already suffering from pain, to an additional experimental pain before and after tDCS. The present study investigated the effect of a single session of anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation (15 mins/1 mA) over the primary motor cortex on the perceived intensity of repeated noxious thermal and electrical stimuli and on elements of quantitative sensory testing (thermal pain and perception thresholds) applied to the right hand in 15 patients with chronic low back pain. The study was conducted in a double-blind sham-controlled and cross-over design. No significant alterations of pain ratings were found. Modalities of quantitative sensory testing remained equally unchanged. It is therefore hypothesized that a single 15 mins session of tDCS at 1 mA may not be sufficient to alter the perception of experimental pain and in patients with chronic pain. Further studies applying repetitive tDCS to patients with chronic pain are required to fully answer the question whether experimental pain perception may be influenced by tDCS over the motor cortex.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in tinnitus patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has already been used to manage tinnitus patients, paucity of reports and variations in protocols preclude a comprehensive understanding. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis based on systemic review to assess effectiveness of tDCS in tinnitus management and to compare stimulation parameters. PubMed was searched for tDCS studies in tinnitus. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a meta-analysis was performed. A total of 17 studies were identified and 6 of them were included in the systemic review and 2 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall 39.5% responded to active tDCS with a mean tinnitus intensity reduction of 13.5%. Additionally, left temporal area (LTA) and bifrontal tDCS indicated comparable results. Active tDCS was found to be more effective than sham tDCS for tinnitus intensity reduction (Hedges' g = .77, 95% confidence interval 0.23-1.31). The efficacy of tDCS in tinnitus could not be fully confirmed by the current study because of the limited number of studies, but all studies included in the current systemic review and meta-analysis demonstrated significant tinnitus intensity improvement. Therefore, tDCS may be a promising tool for tinnitus management. Future RCTs in a large series regarding the efficacy as well as the comparison between LTA- and bifrontal tDCS are recommended.

Rethinking clinical trials of transcranial direct current stimulation: participant and assessor blinding is inadequate at intensities of 2mA

Background

Many double-blind clinical trials of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use stimulus intensities of 2 mA despite the fact that blinding has not been formally validated under these conditions. The aim of this study was to test the assumption that sham 2 mA tDCS achieves effective blinding.

Methods

A randomised double blind crossover trial. 100 tDCS-naïve healthy volunteers were incorrectly advised that they there were taking part in a trial of tDCS on word memory. Participants attended for two separate sessions. In each session, they completed a word memory task, then received active or sham tDCS (order randomised) at 2 mA stimulation intensity for 20 minutes and then repeated the word memory task. They then judged whether they believed they had received active stimulation and rated their confidence in that judgement. The blinded assessor noted when red marks were observed at the electrode sites post-stimulation.

Results

tDCS at 2 mA was not effectively blinded. That is, participants correctly judged the stimulation condition greater than would be expected to by chance at both the first session (kappa level of agreement (κ) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.47 p = 0.005) and the second session (κ = 0.77, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.90), p = <0.001) indicating inadequate participant blinding. Redness at the reference electrode site was noticeable following active stimulation more than sham stimulation (session one, κ = 0.512, 95%CI 0.363 to 0.66, p<0.001; session two, κ = 0.677, 95%CI 0.534 to 0.82) indicating inadequate assessor blinding.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that blinding in studies using tDCS at intensities of 2 mA is inadequate. Positive results from such studies should be interpreted with caution.

Effects of cranial electrotherapy stimulation on resting state brain activity

Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for insomnia, depression, and anxiety consisting of pulsed, low-intensity current applied to the earlobes or scalp. Despite empirical evidence of clinical efficacy, its mechanism of action is largely unknown. The goal was to characterize the acute effects of CES on resting state brain activity. Our primary hypothesis was that CES would result in deactivation in cortical and subcortical regions. Eleven healthy controls were administered CES applied to the earlobes at subsensory thresholds while being scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging in the resting state. We tested 0.5- and 100-Hz stimulation, using blocks of 22 sec "on" alternating with 22 sec of baseline (device was "off"). The primary outcome measure was differences in blood oxygen level dependent data associated with the device being on versus baseline. The secondary outcome measures were the effects of stimulation on connectivity within the default mode, sensorimotor, and fronto-parietal networks. Both 0.5- and 100-Hz stimulation resulted in significant deactivation in midline frontal and parietal regions. 100-Hz stimulation was associated with both increases and decreases in connectivity within the default mode network (DMN). Results suggest that CES causes cortical brain deactivation, with a similar pattern for high- and low-frequency stimulation, and alters connectivity in the DMN. These effects may result from interference from high- or low-frequency noise. Small perturbations of brain oscillations may therefore have significant effects on normal resting state brain activity. These results provide insight into the mechanism of action of CES, and may assist in the future development of optimal parameters for effective treatment.

Effectiveness of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain: design, method and protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Electrical stimulation of central nervous system areas with surgically implanted stimulators has been shown to result in pain relief. To avoid the risks and side effects of surgery, transcranial direct current stimulation is an option to electrically stimulate the motor cortex through the skull. Previous research has shown that transcranial direct current stimulation relieves pain in patients with fibromyalgia, chronic neuropathic pain and chronic pelvic pain. Evidence indicates that the method is pain free, safe and inexpensive.

Methods/Design

A randomised controlled trial has been designed to evaluate the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor cortex for pain reduction in patients with chronic low back pain. It will also investigate whether transcranial direct current stimulation as a prior treatment enhances the symptom reduction achieved by a cognitive-behavioural group intervention. Participants will be randomised to receive a series of 5 days of transcranial direct current stimulation (2 mA, 20 mins) or 20 mins of sham stimulation; followed by a cognitive-behavioural group programme. The primary outcome parameters will measure pain (Visual Analog Scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcome parameters will include the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, the Funktionsfragebogen Hannover (perceived function), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, bothersomeness and Health Related Quality of Life (SF 36), as well as Patient-Perceived Satisfactory Improvement. Assessments will take place immediately prior to the first application of transcranial direct current stimulation or sham, after 5 consecutive days of stimulation, immediately after the cognitive-behavioural group programme and at 4 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks follow-up.

Discussion

This trial will help to determine, whether transcranial direct current stimulation is an effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain and whether it can further enhance the effects of a cognitive behavioural pain management programme. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89874874.

Modulating cortico-striatal and thalamo-cortical functional connectivity with transcranial direct current stimulation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that has been shown to alter cortical excitability and activity via application of weak direct currents. Beyond intracortical effects, functional imaging as well as behavioral studies are suggesting additional tDCS-driven alterations of subcortical areas, however, direct evidence for such effects is scarce. We aimed to investigate the impact of tDCS on cortico-subcortical functional networks by seed functional connectivity analysis of different striatal and thalamic regions to prove tDCS-induced alterations of the cortico-striato-thalamic circuit. fMRI resting state data sets were acquired immediately before and after 10 min of bipolar tDCS during rest, with the anode/cathode placed over the left primary motor cortex (M1) and the cathode/anode over the contralateral frontopolar cortex. To control for possible placebo effects, an additional sham stimulation session was carried out. Functional coupling between the left thalamus and the ipsilateral primary motor cortex (M1) significantly increased following anodal stimulation over M1. Additionally, functional connectivity between the left caudate nucleus and parietal association cortices was significantly strengthened. In contrast, cathodal tDCS over M1 decreased functional coupling between left M1 and contralateral putamen. In summary, in this study, we show for the first time that tDCS modulates functional connectivity of cortico-striatal and thalamo-cortical circuits. Here we highlight that anodal tDCS over M1 is capable of modulating elements of the cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical functional motor circuit.