Effects of multifocal transcranial direct current stimulation targeting the motor network during prolonged experimental pain

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques are being increasingly used to alleviate pain and enhance quality of life. Non-invasive cortical stimulation was originally intended to predict the efficacy of invasive (neurosurgical) techniques, but has now gained a place as an analgesic procedure in its own right.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): Evidence from 14 randomised, placebo-controlled trials (~750 patients) supports a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency motor cortex rTMS in neuropathic pain. Dorsolateral frontal stimulation has not proven efficacious so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is an attractive target but evidence remains insufficient. Short-term efficacy can be achieved with NNT (numbers needed to treat) ~2-3, but long-lasting efficacy remains a challenge.Like rTMS, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) induces activity changes in distributed brain networks and can influence various aspects of pain. Lower cost relative to rTMS, few safety issues and availability of home-based protocols are practical advantages. The limited quality of many published reports lowers the level of evidence, which will remain uncertain until more prospective controlled studies are available.

SUMMARY

Both rTMS and tDCS act preferentially upon abnormal hyperexcitable states of pain, rather than acute or experimental pain. For both techniques, M1 appears to be the best target for chronic pain relief, and repeated sessions over relatively long periods of time may be required to obtain clinically significant benefits. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS.

Multifocal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Primary Progressive Aphasia Does Not Provide a Clinical Benefit Over Speech Therapy

BACKGROUND

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a group of neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia characterized by language deterioration. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive intervention for brain dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of tDCS combined with speech therapy in the three variants of PPA. We evaluate changes in fMRI activity in a subset of patients.

METHODS

Double-blinded, randomized, cross-over, and sham-controlled tDCS study. 15 patients with PPA were included. Each patient underwent two interventions: a) speech therapy + active tDCS and b) speech therapy + sham tDCS stimulation. A multifocal strategy with anodes placed in the left frontal and parietal regions was used to stimulate the entire language network. Efficacy was evaluated by comparing the results of two independent sets of neuropsychological assessments administered at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at 1 month and 3 months after the intervention. In a subsample, fMRI scanning was performed before and after each intervention.

RESULTS

The interventions were well tolerated. Participants in both arms showed clinical improvement, but no differences were found between active and sham tDCS interventions in any of the evaluations. There were trends toward better outcomes in the active tDCS group for semantic association and reading skills. fMRI identified an activity increase in the right frontal medial cortex and the bilateral paracingulate gyrus after the active tDCS intervention.

CONCLUSION

We did not find differences between active and sham tDCS stimulation in clinical scores of language function in PPA patients.

Long-term effects of repeated multitarget high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation combined with cognitive training on response inhibition gains

Background

Few studies have investigated the effects of repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with concurrent cognitive training on improving response inhibition, and the findings have been heterogeneous in the limited research. This study investigated the long-lasting and transfer effects of 10 consecutive sessions of multitarget anodal HD-tDCS combined with concurrent cognitive training on improving response inhibition compared with multitarget stimulation or training alone.

Methods

Ninety-four healthy university students aged 18–25 were randomly assigned to undergo different interventions, including real stimulation combined with stop-signal task (SST) training, real stimulation, sham stimulation combined with SST training, and sham stimulation. Each intervention lasted 20 min daily for 10 consecutive days, and the stimulation protocol targeted right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) and pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) simultaneously with a total current intensity of 2.5 mA. Performance on SST and possible transfer effects to Stroop task, attention network test, and N-back task were measured before and 1 day and 1 month after completing the intervention course.

Results

The main findings showed that the combined protocol and the stimulation alone significantly reduced stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) in the post-intervention and follow-up tests compared to the pre-intervention test. However, training alone only decreased SSRT in the post-test. The sham control exhibited no changes. Subgroup analysis revealed that the combined protocol and the stimulation alone induced a decrease in the SSRT of the low-performance subgroup at the post-test and follow-up test compared with the pre-test. However, only the combined protocol, but not the stimulation alone, improved the SSRT of the high-performance subgroup. The transfer effects were absent.

Conclusion

This study provides supportive evidence for the synergistic effect of the combined protocol, indicating its superiority over the single intervention method. In addition, the long-term after-effects can persist for up to at least 1 month. Our findings also provide insights into the clinical application and strategy for treating response inhibition deficits.

Multifocal tDCS Targeting the Motor Network Modulates Event-Related Cortical Responses During Prolonged Pain

Multifocal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting several brain regions is promising for inducing cortical plasticity. It remains unknown whether multifocal tDCS aimed at the resting-state motor network (network-tDCS) can revert N2-P2 cortical responses otherwise attenuated during prolonged experimental pain. Thirty-eight healthy subjects participated in 2 sessions separated by 24 hours (Day1, Day2) of active (n = 19) or sham (n = 19) network-tDCS. Experimental pain induced by topical capsaicin was maintained for 24 hours and assessed using a numerical rating scale. Electrical detection and pain thresholds, and N2-P2 evoked potentials (electroencephalography) to noxious electrical stimulation were recorded before capsaicin-induced pain (Day1-baseline), after capsaicin application (Day1-post-cap), and after 2 sessions of network-tDCS (Day2). Capsaicin induced moderate pain at Day1-post-cap, which further increased at Day2 in both groups (P = .01). Electrical detection/pain thresholds did not change over time. N2-P2 responses were reduced on Day1-post-cap compared to Day1-baseline (P = .019). At Day2 compared with Day1-post-cap, N2-P2 responses were significantly higher in the Active network-tDCS group (P<.05), while the sham group remained inhibited. These results suggest that tDCS targeting regions associated with the motor network may modulate the late evoked brain responses to noxious peripheral stimulation otherwise initially inhibited by capsaicin-induced pain. PERSPECTIVE: This study extends the evidence of N2-P2 reduction due to capsaicin-induced pain from 30 minutes to 24 hrs. Moreover, 2 sessions of tDCS targeting the motor network in the early stage of nociceptive pain may revert the inhibition of N2-P2 associated with capsaicin-induced pain.

Modulation of central pain mechanisms using high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation: A double-blind, sham-controlled study

BACKGROUND

The use of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) has shown analgesic effects in some chronic pain patients, but limited anti-nociceptive effects in healthy asymptomatic subjects.

METHODS

This double-blinded sham-controlled study assessed the effects of HD-tDCS applied on three consecutive days on central pain mechanisms in healthy participants with (N = 40) and without (N = 40) prolonged experimental pain induced by intramuscular injection of nerve growth factor into the right hand on Day 1. Participants were randomly assigned to Sham-tDCS (N = 20 with pain, N = 20 without) or Active-tDCS (N = 20 with pain, N = 20 without) targeting simultaneously the primary motor cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for 20 min with 2 mA stimulation intensity. Central pain mechanisms were assessed by cuff algometry on the legs measuring pressure pain sensitivity, temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM), at baseline and after HD-tDCS on Day 2 and Day 3. Based on subject's assessment of received HD-tDCS (sham or active), they were effectively blinded.

RESULTS

Compared with Sham-tDCS, Active-tDCS did not significantly reduce the average NGF-induced pain intensity. Tonic pain-induced temporal summation at Day 2 and Day 3 was significantly lower in the NGF-pain group under Active-tDCS compared to the pain group with Sham-tDCS (p ≤ 0.05). No significant differences were found in the cuff pressure pain detection/tolerance thresholds or CPM effect across the 3 days of HD-tDCS in any of the four groups.

CONCLUSION

HD-tDCS reduced the facilitation of TSP caused by tonic pain suggesting that efficacy of HD-tDCS might depend on the presence of sensitized central pain mechanisms.

Supplementing transcranial direct current stimulation to local infiltration series for refractory neuropathic craniocephalic pain: A randomized controlled pilot trial

Background

Some patients with neuralgia of cranial nerves with otherwise therapy-refractory pain respond to invasive therapy with local anesthetics. Unfortunately, pain regularly relapses despite multimodal pain management. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may prolong pain response due to neuro-modulatory effects.

Methods

This controlled clinical pilot trial randomized patients to receive anodal, cathodal or sham-tDCS stimulation prior to local anesthetic infiltration. Pain attenuation, quality-of-life and side effects were assessed and compared with historic controls to estimate effects of tDCS stimulation setting.

Results

Altogether, 17 patients were randomized into three groups with different stimulation protocols. Relative reduction of pain intensity in per protocol treated patients were median 73%, 50% and 69% in anodal, cathodal and sham group, respectively (p = 0.726). Compared with a historic control group, a lower rate of responders with 50% reduction of pain intensity indicates probable placebo effects (OR 3.41 stimulation vs. non-stimulation setting, NNT 3.63). 76.9% (n = 10) of tDCS patients reported mild side-effects. Of all initially included 17 patients, 23.5% (n = 4) withdrew their study participation with highest proportion in the cathodal group (n = 3). A sample size calculation for a confirmatory trial revealed 120 patients using conservative estimations.

Discussion

This pilot trial does not support series of anodal tDCS as neuro-modulatory treatment to enhance pain alleviation of local anesthetic infiltration series. Notably, results may indicate placebo effects of tDCS settings. Feasibility of studies in this population was limited due to relevant drop-out rates. Anodal tDCS warrants further confirmation as neuro-modulatory pain treatment option.

Multitarget high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation improves response inhibition more than single-target high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation in healthy participants

Prior studies have focused on single-target anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) or pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) to improve response inhibition in healthy individuals. However, the results are contradictory and the effect of multitarget anodal stimulation over both brain regions has never been investigated. The present study aimed to investigate the behavioral and neurophysiological effects of different forms of anodal high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) on improving response inhibition, including HD-tDCS over the rIFG or pre-SMA and multitarget HD-tDCS over both areas. Ninety-two healthy participants were randomly assigned to receive single-session (20 min) anodal HD-tDCS over rIFG + pre-SMA, rIFG, pre-SMA, or sham stimulation. Before and immediately after tDCS intervention, participants completed a stop-signal task (SST) and a go/nogo task (GNG). Their cortical activity was recorded using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during the go/nogo task. The results showed multitarget stimulation produced a significant reduction in stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) relative to baseline. The pre-to-post SSRT change was not significant for rIFG, pre-SMA, or sham stimulation. Further analyses revealed multitarget HD-tDCS significantly decreased SSRT in both the high-performance and low-performance subgroups compared with the rIFG condition which decreased SSRT only in the low-performance subgroup. Only the multitarget condition significantly improved neural efficiency as indexed by lower △oxy-Hb after stimulation. In conclusion, the present study provides important preliminary evidence that multitarget HD-tDCS is a promising avenue to improve stimulation efficacy, establishing a more effective montage to enhance response inhibition relative to the commonly used single-target stimulation.

Modulation Of Experimental Prolonged Pain and Sensitization Using High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Study

High definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) targeting brain areas involved in pain processing has shown analgesic effects in some chronic pain conditions, but less modulatory effect on mechanical and thermal pain thresholds in asymptomatic subjects. This double-blinded study assessed the HD-tDCS effects on experimental pain and hyperalgesia maintained for several days in healthy participants. Hyperalgesia and pain were assessed during three consecutive days following provocation of experimental pain (nerve growth factor injected into the right-hand muscle) and daily HD-tDCS sessions (20-minutes). Forty subjects were randomly assigned to Active-tDCS targeting primary motor cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex simultaneously or Sham-tDCS. Tactile and pressure pain sensitivity were assessed before and after each HD-tDCS session, as well as the experimentally-induced pain intensity scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS). Subjects were effectively blinded to the type of HD-tDCS protocol. The Active-tDCS did not significantly reduce the NGF-induced NRS pain score (3.5±2.4) compared to Sham-tDCS (3.9±2.0, P > .05) on day 3 and both groups showed similarly NGF-decreased pressure pain threshold in the right hand (P < .001). Comparing Active-tDCS with Sham-tDCS, the manifestation of pressure hyperalgesia was delayed on day 1, and an immediate (pre-HD-tDCS to post-HD-tDCS) reduction in pressure hyperalgesia was found across all days (P < .05). PERSPECTIVE: The non-significant differences between Active-tDCS and Sham-tDCS on experimental prolonged pain and hyperalgesia suggest that HD-tDCS has no effect on moderate persistent experimental pain. The intervention may still have a positive effect in more severe pain conditions, with increased intensity, more widespread distribution, or increased duration and/or involving stronger affective components.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

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

The Concept, Development, and Application of a Home-Based High-Definition tDCS for Bilateral Motor Cortex Modulation in Migraine and Pain

Whereas, many debilitating chronic pain disorders are dominantly bilateral (e.g., fibromyalgia, chronic migraine), non-invasive and invasive cortical neuromodulation therapies predominantly apply unilateral stimulation. The development of excitatory stimulation targeting bilateral primary motor (M1) cortices could potentially expand its therapeutic effect to more global pain relief. However, this is hampered by increased procedural and technical complexity. For example, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and 4 × 1/2 × 2 high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (4 × 1/2 × 2 HD-tDCS) are largely center-based, with unilateral-target focus—bilateral excitation would require two rTMS/4 × 1 HD-tDCS systems. We developed a system that allows for focal, non-invasive, self-applied, and simultaneous bilateral excitatory M1 stimulation, supporting long-term home-based treatment with a well-tolerated wearable battery-powered device. Here, we overviewed the most employed M1 neuromodulation methods, from invasive techniques to non-invasive TMS and tDCS. The evaluation extended from non-invasive diffuse asymmetric bilateral (M1-supraorbital [SO] tDCS), non-invasive and invasive unilateral focal (4 × 1/2 × 2 HD-tDCS, rTMS, MCS), to non-invasive and invasive bilateral bipolar (M1-M1 tDCS, MCS), before outlining our proposal for a neuromodulatory system with unique features. Computational models were applied to compare brain current flow for current laboratory-based unilateral M1¹ and bilateral M1² HD-tDCS models with a functional home-based M1¹⁻² HD-tDCS prototype. We concluded the study by discussing the promising concept of bilateral excitatory M1 stimulation for more global pain relief, which is also non-invasive, focal, and home-based.

During capsaicin-induced central sensitization, brush allodynia is associated with baseline warmth sensitivity, whereas mechanical hyperalgesia is associated with painful mechanical sensibility, anxiety and somatization

BACKGROUND

Mechanical hyperalgesia and allodynia incidence varies considerably amongst neuropathic pain patients. This study explored whether sensory or psychological factors associate with mechanical hyperalgesia and brush allodynia in a human experimental model.

METHODS

Sixty-six healthy volunteers (29 male) completed psychological questionnaires and participated in two quantitative sensory testing (QST) sessions. Warmth detection threshold (WDT), heat pain threshold (HPT) and suprathreshold mechanical pain (STMP) ratings were measured before exposure to a capsaicin-heat pain model (C-HP). After C-HP exposure, brush allodynia and STMP were measured in one session, whilst mechanical hyperalgesia was measured in another session.

RESULTS

WDT and HPT measured in sessions separated by 1 month demonstrated significant but moderate levels of reliability (WDT: ICC = 0.5, 95%CI [0.28, 0.77]; HPT: ICC = 0.62, 95%CI [0.40, 0.77]). Brush allodynia associated with lower WDT (z = -3.06, p = 0.002; ϕ = 0.27). Those with allodynia showed greater hyperalgesia intensity (F = 7.044, p = 0.010, η_p ²  = 0.107) and area (F = 9.319, p = 0.004, η_p ²  = 0.163) than those without allodynia. No psychological self-report measures were significantly different between allodynic and nonallodynic groups. Intensity of hyperalgesia in response to lighter mechanical stimuli was associated with lower HPT, higher STMP ratings and higher Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire scores at baseline. Hyperalgesia to heavier probe stimuli associated with state anxiety and to a lesser extent somatic awareness. Hyperalgesic area associated with lower baseline HPT and higher STMP ratings. Hyperalgesic area was not correlated with allodynic area across individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support research in neuropathic pain patients and human experimental models that peripheral sensory input and individual sensibility are related to development of mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia during central sensitization, whilst psychological factors play a lesser role.

SIGNIFICANCE

We evaluated differential relationships of psychological and perceptual sensitivity to the development of capsaicin-induced mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia. Fifty percent of healthy volunteers failed to develop mechanical allodynia. Baseline pain sensitivity was greater in those developing allodynia and was related to the magnitude and area of hyperalgesia. State psychological factors, whilst unrelated to allodynia, were related to mechanical hyperalgesia. This supports that the intensity of peripheral sensory input and individual sensibility are related to development of mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia during central sensitization, whilst psychological factors play a lesser role.