Effects of multiple transcranial magnetic stimulation sessions on pain relief in patients with chronic neuropathic pain: A French cohort study in real-world clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Current clinical trials indicate that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is effective in reducing drug-resistant neuropathic pain (NP). However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the long-term feasibility and clinical efficacy of rTMS in large patient cohorts in real-world conditions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed 12 years of clinical data to assess the long-term analgesic effects of 20 Hz rTMS over the primary motor cortex in patients with NP. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify predictive factors and assess the potential role of epidural motor cortex stimulation (eMCS) as a sustained solution.

RESULTS

In total, 193 patients completed test period of 4 rTMS sessions and 42% of them reported a pain relief (PR) greater than 30%, with concurrent improvement in their most disabling symptom. Iterative rTMS sessions maintained analgesic effects over 10 years in certain patients identified as responders (≥10% PR) without adverse effects. Success probability was higher in patients with central NP compared to peripheral NP (OR = 2.03[1.04;4.00]), and among those with central post-stroke pain, this probability was higher in ischemic versus hemorrhagic strokes (OR = 3.36[1.17;10.05]). PR obtained with iterative rTMS sessions was an excellent predictor of eMCS efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

While rTMS shows promise as a therapeutic option for some patients with drug-resistant NP, it does not benefit all patients. Efficacy varies by NP aetiology, aiding patient selection. For responders, eMCS may offer a permanent solution. These findings support a tailored approach to rTMS in NP management, while recognizing both its potential and limitations across diverse patient profiles.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Multiple rTMS sessions demonstrate long-term efficacy and safety in treating drug-resistant neuropathic pain. Extending session numbers for the test period can enhance responder identification, especially in patients with initial low pain relief. This identification refines patient selection for neurosurgery, reducing non-responders. Central neuropathic pain shows higher success rates than peripheral. For post-stroke central pain, patients with ischemic stroke are more likely to respond than those with hemorrhagic stroke. These results support integrating rTMS into clinical practice for managing neuropathic pain.

Classical, spaced, or accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex for treating neuropathic pain: A 3-arm parallel non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) at high frequency (HF) is an effective treatment of neuropathic pain. The classical HF-rTMS protocol (CHF-rTMS) includes a daily session for one week as an induction phase of treatment followed by more spaced sessions. Another type of protocol without an induction phase and based solely on spaced sessions of HF-rTMS (SHF-rTMS) has also been shown to produce neuropathic pain relief. However, CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS of M1 have never been compared regarding their analgesic potential. Another type of rTMS paradigm, called accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (ACC-iTBS), has recently been proposed for the treatment of depression, the other clinical condition for which HF-rTMS is proposed as an effective therapeutic strategy. ACC-iTBS combines a high number of pulses delivered in short sessions grouped into a few days of stimulation. This type of protocol has never been applied to M1 for the treatment of pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

The objective of this single-centre randomized study is to compare the efficacy of three different rTMS protocols for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS, and ACC-iTBS. The CHF-rTMS will consists of 10 stimulation sessions, including 5 daily sessions of 10Hz-rTMS (3,000 pulses per session) over one week, then one session per week for 5 weeks, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 10 stimulation days. The SHF-rTMS protocol will only include 4 sessions of 20Hz-rTMS (1,600 pulses per session), one every 15 days, for a total of 6,400 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. The ACC-iTBS protocol will comprise 5 sessions of iTBS (600 pulses per session) completed in half a day for 2 consecutive days, repeated 5 weeks later, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. Thus, CHF-rTMS and ACC-iTBS protocols will share a higher total number of TMS pulses (30,000 pulses) compared to SHF-rTMS protocol (6,400 pulses), while CHF-rTMS protocol will include a higher number of stimulation days (10 days) compared to ACC-iTBS and SHF-rTMS protocols (4 days). In all protocols, the M1 target will be defined in the same way and stimulated at the same intensity using a navigated rTMS (nTMS) procedure. The evaluation will be based on clinical outcomes with various scales and questionnaires assessed every week, from two weeks before the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation until 4 weeks after. Additionally, three sets of neurophysiological outcomes (resting-state electroencephalography (EEG), nTMS-EEG recordings, and short intracortical inhibition measurement with threshold tracking method) will be assessed the week before and after the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation.

DISCUSSION

This study will make it possible to compare the analgesic efficacy of the CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS protocols and to appraise that of the ACC-iTBS protocol for the first time. This study will also make it possible to determine the respective influence of the total number of pulses and days of stimulation delivered to M1 on the extent of pain relief. Thus, if their analgesic efficacy is not inferior to that of CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS and especially the new ACC-iTBS protocol could be an optimal compromise of a more easy-to-perform rTMS protocol for the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in the management of pain in oncology patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in pain management in subjects with oncologic process.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Several databases were searched in December 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials that evaluated the application of tDCS on pain in adults with oncologic process were selected. Random-effects meta-analysis with 95%CI were used to quantify the change scores in pain between tDCS and control groups.

RESULTS

Six trials with 482 participants were included. There were significant differences in favor of tDCS in pain intensity in surgical oncology patients compared to sham stimulation (p < 0.001). Non-surgical patients showed no significant effect. Meta-regression analysis in this group of patients showed that the timing of the evaluation moderated the effect of tDCS on pain (p= .042), with longer time after tDCS being associated with greater pain reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a-tDCS for at least 20 min, with a current density higher than 0.057 mA/cm2, applied over M1, left DLPFC, or the insula area, between 2-5 sessions appears to be an effective and safe treatment of pain in surgical oncology patients compared to sham. The tDCS appears to be more effective for high-intensity pain, and in the long term.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation focusing on patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb: a randomized sham-controlled parallel trial

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of navigation-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb. This randomized, blinded, sham-controlled, parallel trial included a rTMS protocol (10-Hz, 2000 pulses/session) consisting of five daily sessions, followed by one session per week for the next seven weeks. Pain intensity, as well as pain-related disability, quality of life, and psychological status, were assessed. For the primary outcome, pain intensity was measured daily using a numerical rating scale as a pain diary. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to the active rTMS or sham-stimulation groups. In the primary outcome, the decrease (least square [LS] mean ± standard error) in the weekly average of a pain diary at week 9 compared to the baseline was 0.84 ± 0.31 in the active rTMS group and 0.58 ± 0.29 in the sham group (LS mean difference, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, - 0.60 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on the interaction between the treatment group and time point. Pain-related disability score improved, but other assessments showed no differences. No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not show significant pain relief; however, active rTMS tended to provide better results than sham. rTMS has the potential to improve pain-related disability in addition to pain relief.Clinical Trial Registration number: jRCTs052190110 (20/02/2020).

Comparison of the analgesic effects of "superficial" and "deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized sham-controlled multicenter international crossover study

ABSTRACT

We directly compared the analgesic effects of "superficial" and 'deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex in patients with central neuropathic pain. Fifty-nine consecutive patients were randomly assigned to active or sham "superficial" (using a figure-of-8 [F8]-coil) or "deep" (using a Hesed [H]-coil) stimulation according to a double-blind crossover design. Each treatment period consisted of 5 daily stimulation sessions and 2 follow-up visits at 1 and 3 weeks after the last stimulation session. The primary outcome was the comparison of the mean change in average pain intensity over the course of the treatment (group × time interaction). Secondary outcomes included neuropathic symptoms (NPSI), pain interference, patient global impression of change (PGIC), anxiety, depression, and catastrophizing. In total, 51 patients participated in at least one session of both treatments. There was a significant interaction between "treatment" and "time" (F = 2.7; P = 0.0024), indicating that both figure-8 (F8-coil) and H-coil active stimulation induced significantly higher analgesic effects than sham stimulation. The analgesic effects of both types of coils had a similar magnitude but were only moderately correlated ( r = 0.39, P = 0.02). The effects of F8-coil stimulation appeared earlier, whereas the effects of H-coil stimulation were delayed, but tended to last longer (up to 3 weeks) as regards to several secondary outcomes (PGIC and total NPSI score). In conclusion, "deep" and "superficial" rTMS induced analgesic effects of similar magnitude in patients with central pain, which may involve different mechanisms of action.

Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation in central post-stroke pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) in the treatment of central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation versus placebo or other usual therapy in patients with CPSP. Articles in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French were included. A bibliographic search was independently conducted on June 1, 2022, by two authors, using the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. The risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 2,674 records were identified after removing duplicates, of which 5 eligible studies were included, involving a total of 119 patients. All five studies evaluated repetitive TMS, four of which stimulated the primary motor cortex (M1) and one stimulated the premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Only the former one reported a significant pain reduction in the short term, while the latter one was interrupted due to a consistent lack of analgesic effect.

CONCLUSION

NBS in the M1 area seems to be effective in reducing short-term pain; however, more high-quality homogeneous studies, with long-term follow-up, are required to determine the efficacy of this treatment in CSPS.

Effect of virtual reality combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on musculoskeletal pain and motor development in children with spastic cerebral palsy: a protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

This trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of virtual reality (VR) combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for improving musculoskeletal pain and motor development in children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy (CP).

METHODS

This study protocol is for a randomized controlled trial consisting of 2 treatment sessions (3 days/week for 4 weeks in each session, with a 1-week interval between sessions). We will recruit children aged 3-10 years with unilateral spastic CP (Gross Motor Function Classification System level I or II). Participants will be randomly divided into 3 groups: the VR + rTMS group (immersive VR intervention, rTMS and routine rehabilitation therapy), rTMS group (rTMS and routine rehabilitation therapy), and control group (sham rTMS and routine rehabilitation therapy). VR therapy will involve a daily 40-minute movement training session in a fully immersive environment. rTMS will be applied at 1 Hz over the primary motor cortex for 20 min on the contralateral side. The stimulation intensity will be set at 90% of the resting motor threshold, with 1200 pulses applied. A daily 60-minute routine rehabilitation therapy session including motor training and training in activities of daily living will be administered to all participants. The primary outcome will be pain intensity, assessed by the Revised Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability Scale (R-FLACC). The secondary outcomes will include motor development, evaluated by the 66-item version of the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66) and Fine Motor Function Measure (FMFM); balance capacity, measured by the interactive balance system; activities of daily living; and quality of life, measured by the Barthel index and the Chinese version of the Cerebral Palsy Quality of Life scale for Children (C-CP QOL-Child). Safety will be monitored, and adverse events will be recorded during and after treatment.

DISCUSSION

Combined application of VR therapy and rTMS may reveal additive effects on pain management and motor development in children with spastic CP, but further high-quality research is needed. The results of this trial may indicate whether VR therapy combined with rTMS achieves a better analgesic effect and improves the motor development of children with spastic CP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number: ChiCTR230069853. Trial registration date: 28 March 2023. Prospectively registered.

Long-term analgesic effect of trans-spinal direct current stimulation compared to non-invasive motor cortex stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome

The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation using high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Thirty-three patients with complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to one of the three treatment groups (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, n = 11; transcranial direct current stimulation, n = 10; transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, n = 12) and received a series of 12 sessions of stimulation for 3 weeks (induction phase) and 11 sessions for 4 months (maintenance therapy). The primary end-point was the mean pain intensity assessed weekly with a visual numerical scale during the month prior to treatment (baseline), the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month after the treatment. The weekly visual numerical scale pain score was significantly reduced at all time points compared to baseline in the transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation group, at the last two time points in the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group (end of the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month later), but at no time point in the transcranial direct current stimulation group. A significant pain relief was observed at the end of induction phase using transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.008) and to transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.003). In this trial, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation was more efficient to relieve pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome compared to motor cortex stimulation techniques (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation). This efficacy was found during the induction phase and was maintained thereafter. This study warrants further investigation to confirm the potentiality of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation as a therapeutic option in complex regional pain syndrome.

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Cancer Pain Management in Nonbrain Malignancy: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been reported to have analgesic effects on fibromyalgia and chronic neuropathic pain; however, its effects on cancer pain have yet to be determined. The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of NIBS on patients with pain secondary to nonbrain malignancy. Methods. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through June 5th, 2022. Parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were included that enrolled adult patients with cancer pain, except for that caused by brain tumors, compared NIBS with placebo stimulation, and reported sufficient data for performing meta-analysis. Results. Four parallel, randomized, sham-controlled studies were included: two of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), one of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and one of cranial electrical stimulation (CES). rTMS significantly improved pain in the subgroup analysis (standardized mean difference (SMD): −1.148, 95% confidence interval (CI): −1.660 to −0.637, ( $p<0.001$ )), while NIBS was not benefited in reducing pain intensity (SMD: −0.632, 95% CI: −1.356 to 0.092, p = 0.087). Also, NIBS significantly improved depressive symptoms (SMD: −0.665, 95% CI: −1.178 to −0.153, p = 0.011), especially in the form of rTMS (SMD: −0.875, 95% CI: −1.356 to −0.395, $p<0.001$ ) and tDCS (SMD: −1.082, 95% CI: −1.746 to −0.418, p = 0.001). Conclusion. rTMS significantly improved pain secondary to nonbrain malignancy apart from other forms of NIBS without major adverse events.

Bicentre, randomized, parallel-arm, sham-controlled trial of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of palliative care patients with refractory cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom in palliative care cancer patients and is often insufficiently relieved. In recent years, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex has been shown to be effective to treat chronic pain, essentially neuropathic pain. We propose to test the efficacy of tDCS in patients experiencing cancer pain in the palliative care setting.

METHOD/DESIGN

This article describes the protocol of a bicentre, randomized, parallel-arm, sham-controlled clinical trial evaluating tDCS in the treatment of palliative care patients with refractory cancer pain. Seventy patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years experiencing refractory pain with a pain score of 4/10 on a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10 will be enrolled in this trial. The main exclusion criteria are patients unable to fill in the various rating scales and life expectancy less than 3 weeks. Treatment consists of 5 consecutive tDCS sessions targeting the motor cortex (one daily session for 5 days) on the contralateral side to the pain. After randomization (1:1 ratio), 35 patients will receive active stimulation and 35 patients will receive sham stimulation. The primary endpoint is the NRS score and the primary objective is a significant improvement of this score between the baseline score recorded between D-3 and D-1 and the score recorded 4 days after stopping treatment (D8). The secondary objectives are to evaluate whether this improvement is maintained 16 days after stopping treatment (D21) and whether the following scores are improved on D14 and D21: Brief Pain Inventory, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Medication Quantification Scale.

DISCUSSION

Positive results of this trial would indicate that tDCS can improve pain and quality of life of cancer patients in the palliative care setting. Reduction of analgesic consumption and improvement of activities of daily living should allow many patients to return home with a decreased workload for caregivers.

Case report: The feasibility of rTMS with intrathecal baclofen pump for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury

The main objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain in an individual with spinal cord injury and an intrathecal baclofen pump. A 62-year-old male presented with drug resistant neuropathic pain as a result of a complete spinal cord lesion at T8 level. Pain was classified into four types: pressure pain in the left foot, burning pain in buttocks, burning pain in sternum, and electrical attacks in the trunk. The treatment period involved 6 weeks of rTMS stimulation performed 5 days per week, a 6-week follow up period with no stimulation, and an 8-week top up session period which began 5-weeks after the end of the follow up period. 2004 pulses were delivered at 10Hz over the right-hand representation of the left primary motor cortex at 80% resting motor threshold during each session. Assessments were based on the numerical rating scale (NRS), neuropathic pain scale (NPS), Hamilton Depression and Anxiety rating scales. Following the treatment period there was a 30, 13, and 29% reduction in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain respectively, as reported by the NRS. During this time, electrical attacks were abolished following the third week of treatment. These changes corresponded to a 38% decrease in NPS scores and a 65 and 25% reduction in anxiety and depressions scores respectively. The changes in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain reported on the NRS persisted for 1 week following treatment. Top up sessions delivered 11 weeks after the end of the treatment period were unsuccessful in reducing pain to the level achieved during the treatment period. A 13% reduction in NPS was seen during these 8-weeks. Anxiety and depression scores decreased 78 and 67% respectively. The frequency of electrical attacks was zero during this time. rTMS stimulation delivered throughout this study did not cause any interference with the functioning of the intrathecal baclofen pump. This case study illustrates that rTMS may be effective at reducing drug resistant neuropathic pain with certain pain types exhibiting greater propensity for change.

Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Different Stimulus Parameters for Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1-rTMS) using different stimulation parameters to explore the optimal stimulus condition for treating neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, blinded, crossover exploratory study. Four single sessions of M1-rTMS at different parameters were administered in random order. The tested stimulation conditions were as follows: 5-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 2000 pulses per session, and sham stimulation. Analgesic effects were assessed by determining the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ2) score immediately before and immediately after intervention.

RESULTS

We enrolled 22 adults (age: 59.8 ± 12.1 years) with intractable neuropathic pain. Linear-effects models showed significant effects of the stimulation condition on changes in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.01). Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that 10-Hz rTMS with 2000 pulses provided better pain relief than sham stimulation, with greater decreases in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that high-dose stimulation (specifically, 10-Hz rTMS at 2000 pulses) is more effective than lower-dose stimulation for treating neuropathic pain.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex versus motor cortex in patients with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain is one of the common complications of spinal cord injuries (SCI), which will slow down the recovery process and result in lower quality of life. Previous studies have shown that repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex (M1) can reduce the average pain and the most severe pain of neuropathic pain after SCI. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) area is a common target of rTMS. Recently, a few studies found that rTMS of DLPFC may relieve the neuropathic pain of SCI. Compared with the M1 area, the efficacy of rTMS treatment in the DLPFC area in improving neuropathic pain and pain-related symptoms in patients with SCI is still unclear. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the non-inferiority of rTMS in the DLPFC vs M1 in patients with neuropathic pain after SCI, in order to provide more options for rTMS in treating neuropathic pain after SCI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will recruit 50 subjects with neuropathic pain after SCI. They will be randomly assigned to the DLPFC- rTMS and M1-rTMS groups and be treated with rTMS for 4 weeks. Except for the different stimulation sites, the rTMS treatment programmes of the two groups are the same: 10 Hz, 1250 pulses, 115% intensity threshold, once a day, five times a week for 4 weeks. VAS, simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire, Spinal Cord Injury Pain Date Set, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Hamilton Anxiety Scale will be evaluated at baseline, second week of treatment, fourth week of treatment and 4 weeks after the end of treatment. And VAS change will be calculated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University has approved this trial, which is numbered KY2020041. Written informed consent will be provided to all participants after verification of the eligibility criteria. The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000032362.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat neuropathic pain but the quality of evidence remains low. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neuronavigated rTMS to the motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in neuropathic pain over 25 weeks. We did a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at four outpatient clinics in France. Patients aged 18-75 years with peripheral neuropathic pain were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to M1 or DLPFC-rTMS and re-randomised in a 2:1 ratio to active or sham rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses/session, 15 sessions over 22 weeks). Patients and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the comparison between active M1-rTMS, active DLPCF-rTMS and sham-rTMS for the change over the course of 25 weeks (group by time interaction) in average pain intensity (from 0 no pain to 10 maximal pain) on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), using a mixed model repeated measures analysis in patients who received at least one rTMS session (modified ITT population). Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain intensity and relief, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, quality of pain, self reported pain intensity and fatigue (patients diary), patient and clinician global impression of change (PGIC, CGIC), quality of life, sleep, mood and catastrophizing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010281. A total of 152 patients were randomised and 149 received treatment (49 for M1; 52 for DLPFC; 48 for sham). M1-rTMS reduced pain intensity versus sham-rTMS (estimate for group x session interaction: -0.048 ± 0.02; 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01; p = 0.01). DLPFC-rTMS was not better than sham (estimate: -0.003 ± 0.01; 95% CI:-0.04 to 0.03, p = 0.9). M1-rRMS, but not DLPFC-rTMS, was also superior to sham-rTMS on pain relief, sensory dimenson of pain, self reported pain intensity and fatigue, PGIC and CGIC. There were no effect on quality of pain, mood, sleep and quality of life as all groups improved similarly over time. Headache was the most common side effect and occurred in 17 (34.7%), 23 (44.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients from M1, DLPFC and sham groups respectively (p = 0.2). Our results support the clinical relevance of M1-rTMS, but not of DLPFC-rTMS, for peripheral neuropathic pain with an excellent safety profile.

Analgesic Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

Introduction

The objective of this review is to systematically summarize the consensus on best practices for different NP conditions of the two most commonly utilized noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technologies, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Methods

PubMed was searched according to the predetermined keywords and criteria. Only English language studies and studies published up to January 31, 2020 were taken into consideration. Meta-analyses, reviews, and systematic reviews were excluded first, and those related to animal studies or involving healthy volunteers were also excluded. Finally, 29 studies covering 826 NP patients were reviewed.

Results

The results from the 24 enrolled studies and 736 NP patients indicate that rTMS successfully relieved the pain symptoms of 715 (97.1%) NP patients. Also, five studies involving 95 NP patients (81.4%) also showed that tDCS successfully relieved NP. In the included studied, the M1 region plays a key role in the analgesic treatment of NIBS. The motor evoked potentials (MEPs), the 10–20 electroencephalography system (EEG 10/20 system), and neuro-navigation methods are used in clinical practice to locate therapeutic targets. Based on the results of the review, the stimulation parameters of rTMS that best induce an analgesic effect are a stimulation frequency of 10–20 Hz, a stimulation intensity of 80–120% of RMT, 1000–2000 pulses, and 5–10 sessions, and the most effective parameters of tDCS are a current intensity of 2 mA, a session duration of 20–30 min, and 5–10 sessions.

Conclusions

Our systematically reviewed the evidence for positive and negative responses to rTMS and tDCS for NP patient care and underscores the analgesic efficacy of NIBS in patients with NP. The treatment of NP should allow the design of optimal treatments for individual patients.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

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

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

Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines

This article is based on a consensus conference, promoted and supported by the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN), which took place in Siena (Italy) in October 2018. The meeting intended to update the ten-year-old safety guidelines for the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in research and clinical settings (Rossi et al., 2009). Therefore, only emerging and new issues are covered in detail, leaving still valid the 2009 recommendations regarding the description of conventional or patterned TMS protocols, the screening of subjects/patients, the need of neurophysiological monitoring for new protocols, the utilization of reference thresholds of stimulation, the managing of seizures and the list of minor side effects. New issues discussed in detail from the meeting up to April 2020 are safety issues of recently developed stimulation devices and pulse configurations; duties and responsibility of device makers; novel scenarios of TMS applications such as in the neuroimaging context or imaging-guided and robot-guided TMS; TMS interleaved with transcranial electrical stimulation; safety during paired associative stimulation interventions; and risks of using TMS to induce therapeutic seizures (magnetic seizure therapy). An update on the possible induction of seizures, theoretically the most serious risk of TMS, is provided. It has become apparent that such a risk is low, even in patients taking drugs acting on the central nervous system, at least with the use of traditional stimulation parameters and focal coils for which large data sets are available. Finally, new operational guidelines are provided for safety in planning future trials based on traditional and patterned TMS protocols, as well as a summary of the minimal training requirements for operators, and a note on ethics of neuroenhancement.

Long-term treatment of chronic orofacial, pudendal, and central neuropathic limb pain with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term analgesic effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex in patients with chronic pain syndrome.

METHODS

The study included 57 patients (orofacial pain, n = 26, pudendal neuralgia, n = 18, and neuropathic limb pain, n = 13) with an "induction phase" of 12 daily rTMS sessions for 3 weeks, followed by a "maintenance phase" of bi-monthly sessions for the next five months.

RESULTS

All pain measures significantly decreased from baseline to the end of the induction phase. Analgesic response, defined as pain intensity decrease ≥ 30% compared to baseline, was observed in 39 patients (68%), who could be differentiated from non-responders from the 7th rTMS session. At the end of the maintenance phase (D180), 27 patients (47%) were still responders. Anxio-depressive symptoms and quality of life also improved. The analgesic response at the end of the induction phase was associated with lower pain score at baseline, and the response at the end of the maintenance phase was associated with lower anxio-depressive score at baseline.

CONCLUSION

The analgesic efficacy of motor cortex rTMS can be maintained in the long term in various chronic pain conditions. Patients with high pain level and severe anxio-depressive symptoms may have a less favorable profile to respond to the procedure.

SIGNIFICANCE

The overall impact of rTMS treatment on daily life requires a multidimensional evaluation that goes beyond the analgesic effect that can be achieved.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain, Headache, and Comorbid Depression: INS-NANS Expert Consensus Panel Review and Recommendation

BACKGROUND

While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been studied for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, emerging evidence supports its use for pain and headache by stimulating either motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, its clinical implementation is hindered due to a lack of consensus in the quality of clinical evidence and treatment recommendation/guideline(s). Thus, working collaboratively, this multinational multidisciplinary expert panel aims to: 1) assess and rate the existing outcome evidence of TMS in various pain/headache conditions; 2) provide TMS treatment recommendation/guidelines for the evaluated conditions and comorbid depression; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness and technical issues relevant to the long-term clinical implementation of TMS for pain and headache.

METHODS

Seven task groups were formed under the guidance of a 5-member steering committee with four task groups assessing the utilization of TMS in the treatment of Neuropathic Pain (NP), Acute Pain, Primary Headache Disorders, and Posttraumatic Brain Injury related Headaches (PTBI-HA), and remaining three assessing the treatment for both pain and comorbid depression, and the cost-effectiveness and technological issues relevant to the treatment.

RESULTS

The panel rated the overall level of evidence and recommendability for clinical implementation of TMS as: 1) high and extremely/strongly for both NP and PTBI-HA respectively; 2) moderate for postoperative pain and migraine prevention, and recommendable for migraine prevention. While the use of TMS for treating both pain and depression in one setting is clinically and financially sound, more studies are required to fully assess the long-term benefit of the treatment for the two highly comorbid conditions, especially with neuronavigation.

CONCLUSIONS

After extensive literature review, the panel provided recommendations and treatment guidelines for TMS in managing neuropathic pain and headaches. In addition, the panel also recommended more outcome and cost-effectiveness studies to assess the feasibility of the long-term clinical implementation of the treatment.

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018)

A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

Neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic pain

The goal of this narrative review was to give an up-to-date overview of the peripheral and central neurostimulation methods that can be used to treat chronic pain. Special focus has been given to three pain conditions: neuropathic pain, nociplastic pain and primary headaches. Both non-invasive and invasive techniques are briefly presented together with their pain relief potentials. For non-invasive stimulation techniques, data concerning transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) are provided. Concerning invasive stimulation techniques, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are presented. The action mode of all these techniques is only partly understood but can be very different from one technique to the other. Patients' selection is still a challenge. Recent consensus-based guidelines for clinical practice are presented when available. The development of closed-loop devices could be of interest in the future, although the clinical benefit over open loop is not proven yet.

At-Home Cortical Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: a Feasibility Study with Initial Clinical Results

The clinical use of noninvasive cortical stimulation procedures is hampered by the limited duration of the analgesic effects and the need to perform stimulation in hospital settings. Here, we tested the feasibility and pilot efficacy of an internet-based system for at-home, long-duration, medically controlled transcranial motor cortex stimulation (H-tDCS), via a double-blinded, sham-controlled trial in patients with neuropathic pain refractory to standard-of-care drug therapy. Each patient was first trained at hospital, received a stimulation kit, allotted a password-protected Web space, and completed daily tDCS sessions during 5 weeks, via a Bluetooth connection between stimulator and a minilaptop. Each session was validated and internet-controlled by hospital personnel. Daily pain ratings were obtained during 11 consecutive weeks, and afterwards via iterative visits/phone contacts. Twenty full procedures were completed in 12 consecutive patients (500 daily tDCS sessions, including 20% sham). No serious adverse effects were recorded. Superficial burning at electrode position occurred in 2 patients, and nausea/headache in two others, all of whom wished to pursue stimulation. Six out of the 12 patients achieved satisfactory relief on a scale combining pain scores, drug intake, and quality of life. Daily pain reports correlated with such combined assessment, and differentiated responders from nonresponders without overlap. Clinical improvement in responders could last up to 6 months. Five patients asked to repeat the whole procedure when pain resumed again, with comparable results. At-home, long-duration tDCS proved safe and technically feasible, and provided long-lasting relief in 50% of a small sample of patients with drug-resistant neuropathic pain.

Added value of multiple versus single sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in predicting motor cortex stimulation efficacy for refractory neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

Selection criteria for offering patients motor cortex stimulation (MCS) for refractory neuropathic pain are a critical topic of research. A single session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been advocated for selecting MCS candidates, but it has a low negative predictive value. Here the authors investigated whether multiple rTMS sessions would more accurately predict MCS efficacy.

METHODS

Patients included in this longitudinal study could access MCS after at least four rTMS sessions performed 3-4 weeks apart. The positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of the four rTMS sessions and the correlation between the analgesic effects of the two treatments were assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve MCS patients underwent an average of 15.9 rTMS sessions prior to surgery; nine of the patients were rTMS responders. Postoperative follow-up was 57.8 ± 15.6 months (mean ± standard deviation). Mean percentage of pain relief (%R) was 21% and 40% after the first and fourth rTMS sessions, respectively. The corresponding mean durations of pain relief were respectively 2.4 and 12.9 days. A cumulative effect of the rTMS sessions was observed on both %R and duration of pain relief (p < 0.01). The %R value obtained with MCS was 35% after 6 months and 43% at the last follow-up. Both the PPV and NPV of rTMS were 100% after the fourth rTMS session (p = 0.0045). A significant correlation was found between %R or duration of pain relief after the fourth rTMS session and %R at the last MCS follow-up (R2 = 0.83, p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Four rTMS sessions predicted MCS efficacy better than a single session in neuropathic pain patients. Taking into account the cumulative effects of rTMS, the authors found a high-level correlation between the analgesic effects of rTMS and MCS.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Therapy (rTMS) for Endometriosis Patients with Refractory Pelvic Chronic Pain: A Pilot Study

Endometriosis concerns more than 10% of women of reproductive age, frequently leading to chronic pelvic pain. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) induces an analgesic effect. This effect on chronic pelvic pain is yet to be evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and effect of rTMS to reduce pain and improve quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic pelvic pain due to endometriosis. This pilot, open-labelled prospective trial examined treatment by neuronavigated rTMS over M1, one session per day for 5 consecutive days. Each session consisted of 1.500 pulses at 10 Hz. We assessed tolerance, pain change and QoL until 4 weeks post treatment with a primary endpoint at day 8. Twelve women were included. No patients experienced serious adverse effects or a significant increase in pain. Nine women reported improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change with a reduction in both pain intensity and pain interference (5.1 ± 1.4 vs. 4.1 ± 1.6, p = 0.01 and 6.2 ± 2.1 vs. 4.2 ± 1.5, p = 0.004, respectively). rTMS appears well tolerated and might be of interest for patients suffering from chronic pelvic pain for whom other treatments have failed. A randomized controlled trial is mandatory before proposing such treatment.

Clinical neurophysiology of pain

Clinical neurophysiologic investigation of pain pathways in humans is based on specific techniques and approaches, since conventional methods of nerve conduction studies and somatosensory evoked potentials do not explore these pathways. The proposed techniques use various types of painful stimuli (thermal, laser, mechanical, or electrical) and various types of assessments (measurement of sensory thresholds, study of nerve fiber excitability, or recording of electromyographic reflexes or cortical potentials). The two main tests used in clinical practice are quantitative sensory testing and pain-related evoked potentials (PREPs). In particular, PREPs offer the possibility of an objective assessment of nociceptive pathways. Three types of PREPs can be distinguished depending on the type of stimulation used to evoke pain: laser-evoked potentials, contact heat evoked potentials, and intraepidermal electrical stimulation evoked potentials (IEEPs). These three techniques investigate both small-diameter peripheral nociceptive afferents (mainly Aδ nerve fibers) and spinothalamic tracts without theoretically being able to differentiate the level of lesion in the case of abnormal results. In routine clinical practice, PREP recording is a reliable method of investigation for objectifying the existence of a peripheral or central lesion or loss of function concerning the nociceptive pathways, but not the existence of pain. Other methods, such as nerve fiber excitability studies using microneurography, more directly reflect the activities of nociceptive axons in response to provoked pain, but without detecting or quantifying the presence of spontaneous pain. These methods are more often used in research or experimental study design. Thus, it should be kept in mind that most of the results of neurophysiologic investigation performed in clinical practice assess small fiber or spinothalamic tract lesions rather than the neuronal mechanisms directly at the origin of pain and they do not provide objective quantification of pain.

Patient-delivered tDCS on chronic neuropathic pain in prior responders to TMS (a randomized controlled pilot study)

Background

Successful response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex requires continued maintenance treatments. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) may provide a more convenient alternative.

Methods

This pilot study aimed to examine the feasibility of a randomized, double-blind, double-crossover pilot study for patients to self-administer tDCS motor cortex stimulation for 20 minutes/day over five consecutive days. Primary outcomes were as follows: usability of patient-administered tDCS, compliance with device, recruitment, and retention rates. Secondary outcomes were as follows: effect on overall pain levels and quality of life via Short Form-36 anxiety and depression via Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Mini-Mental State scores.

Results

A total of 24 subjects with neuropathic pain, who had previously experienced rTMS motor cortex stimulation (13 with reduction in pain scores, 11 nonresponders) were recruited at the Pain Research Institute, Fazakerley, UK. A total of 21 subjects completed the study. Recruitment rate was 100% but retention rate was only 87.5%. All patients reported satisfactory usability of the tDCS device. No significant difference was shown between Sham vs Anodal (−0.16, 95% CI: −0.43 to 0.11) P=0.43, Sham vs Cathodal (0.11, 95% CI: −0.16 to 0.37) P=0.94, or Cathodal vs Anodal (−0.27, 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.00) P=0.053 treatments. Furthermore, no significant changes were demonstrated in anxiety, depression, or quality of life measurements. The data collected to estimate sample size for a definitive study suggested that the study’s sample size was already large enough to detect a change of 15% in pain levels at 90% power for the overall group of 21 patients.

Conclusion

This study did not show a beneficial effect of tDCS in this group of patients and does not support the need for a larger definitive study using the same experimental paradigm.

Trial registration

ISRCTN56839387

Non pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain: Invasive and non-invasive cortical stimulation

The use of medications in chronic neuropathic pain may be limited with regard to efficacy and tolerance. Therefore, non-pharmacological approaches, using electrical stimulation of the cortex has been proposed as an alternative. First, in the early nineties, surgically-implanted epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) was proven to be effective to relieve refractory neuropathic pain. Later, non-invasive stimulation techniques were found to produce similar analgesic effects, at least by means of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the primary motor cortex (M1). Following "high-frequency" rTMS (e.g., stimulation frequency ranging from 5 to 20Hz) delivered to the precentral gyrus (e.g., M1 region), it is possible to obtain an analgesic effect via the modulation of several remote brain regions involved in nociceptive information processing or control. This pain reduction can last for weeks beyond the time of the stimulation, especially if repeated sessions are performed, probably related to processes of long-term synaptic plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), another form of transcranial stimulation, using low-intensity electrical currents, generally delivered by a pair of large electrodes, has also shown some efficacy to improve patients with chronic pain syndromes. The mechanism of action of tDCS differs from that of EMCS and rTMS, but the cortical target is the same, which is M1. Although the level of evidence of therapeutic efficacy in the context of neuropathic pain is lower for tDCS than for rTMS, interesting perspectives are opened by using at-home tDCS protocols for long-term management. Now, there is a scientific basis for recommending both EMCS and rTMS of M1 to treat refractory chronic neuropathic pain, but their application in clinical practice remains limited due to practical and regulatory issues.

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Deafferentation Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since the early 1990s, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been a unique treatment modality for patients with drug-resistant deafferentation pain. While underpowered studies and case reports have limited definitive, data-driven analysis of MCS in the past, recent research has brought new clarity to the MCS literature and has helped identify appropriate indications for MCS and its long-term efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, new research in MCS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are analyzed and compared with historical landmark papers. Currently, MCS is effective in providing relief to 40-64% of patients, with decreasing analgesic effect over time addressed by altering stimulation settings. rTMS and tDCS, two historic, non-invasive stimulation techniques, are providing new alternatives for the treatment of deafferentation pain, with rTMS finding utility in identifying MCS responders. Future advances in electrode arrays, neuro-navigation, and high-definition tDCS hold promise in providing pain relief to growing numbers of patients. Deafferentation pain is severe, disabling, and remains a challenge for patients and providers alike. Over the last several years, the MCS literature has been revitalized with studies and meta-analyses demonstrating MCS effectiveness and providing guidance in identifying responders. At the same time, rTMS and tDCS, two time-honored non-invasive stimulation techniques, are finding new utility in managing deafferentation pain and identifying good MCS candidates. As the number of potential therapies grow, the clinician's role is shifting to personalizing treatment to the unique pain of each patient. With new treatment modalities, this form of personalized medicine is more possible than ever before.