Transcranial direct current stimulation does neither modulate results of a quantitative sensory testing protocol nor ratings of suprathreshold heat stimuli in healthy volunteers

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Reduces Pressure Pain Sensitivity in Patients With Noncancer Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Noncancer chronic pain is a clinical challenge because pharmacological treatment often fails to relieve pain. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a treatment that could have the potential for pain relief and improvement in quality of life. However, there is a lack of clinical trials evaluating the effects of tDCS on the pain system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of 5 days of anodal tDCS treatment on the pain system in patients with chronic noncancer pain using quantitative sensory testing and quality of life questionnaires: (1) Brief Pain Inventory-short form, (2) European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30, and (3) Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale.

METHODS

Eleven patients with noncancer chronic pain (51 ± 13.6 y old, 5M) participated in the study. Anodal tDCS was applied for 5 consecutive days, followed by sham stimulation after a washout period of at least 2 weeks. Pressure pain thresholds and pain tolerance thresholds (PTT) were assessed in different body regions on days 1 and 5.

RESULTS

Anodal tDCS appeared to maintain PTT at C5 (clavicle) on day 5, but sham stimulation decreased PTT ( P = 0.007). In addition, anodal tDCS increased PTT compared with sham at day 5 at Th10 ventral dermatomes ( P = 0.014). Both anodal and sham tDCS decreased the Brief Pain Inventory-short form total and interference scores, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30 fatigue score, but no interaction effect was observed.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the evidence in the literature that tDCS may be a potential therapeutic tool for the management of noncancer chronic pain.

Independent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation and social influence on pain

ABSTRACT

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulatory technique with the potential to provide pain relief. However, tDCS effects on pain are variable across existing studies, possibly related to differences in stimulation protocols and expectancy effects. We investigated the independent and joint effects of contralateral motor cortex tDCS (anodal vs cathodal) and socially induced expectations (analgesia vs hyperalgesia) about tDCS on thermal pain. We employed a double-blind, randomized 2 × 2 factorial cross-over design, with 5 sessions per participant on separate days. After calibration in Session 1, Sessions 2 to 5 crossed anodal or cathodal tDCS (20 minutes 2 mA) with socially induced analgesic or hyperalgesic expectations, with 6 to 7 days between the sessions. The social manipulation involved videos of previous "participants" (confederates) describing tDCS as inducing a low-pain state ("analgesic expectancy") or hypersensitivity to sensation ("hyperalgesic expectancy"). Anodal tDCS reduced pain compared with cathodal stimulation (F(1,19.9) = 19.53, P < 0.001, Cohen d = 0.86) and analgesic expectancy reduced pain compared with hyperalgesic expectancy (F(1,19.8) = 5.62, P = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.56). There was no significant interaction between tDCS and social expectations. Effects of social suggestions were related to expectations, whereas tDCS effects were unrelated to expectancies. The observed additive effects provide novel evidence that tDCS and socially induced expectations operate through independent processes. They extend clinical tDCS studies by showing tDCS effects on controlled nociceptive pain independent of expectancy effects. In addition, they show that social suggestions about neurostimulation effects can elicit potent placebo effects.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Effects on Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and Nociceptive Processing in Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to determine the effect that different tDCS protocols have on pain processing in healthy people, assessed using quantitative sensory tests (QST) and evoked pain intensity.

METHODS

We systematically searched in EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles on tDCS on a healthy population and regarding QST, such as pressure pain thresholds (PPT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), or evoked pain intensity were selected. Quality was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and PEDro scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and sixteen in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in PPTs between tDCS and sham, but differences were observed when applying tDCS over S1 in PPTs compared to sham. Significant differences in CPTs were observed between tDCS and sham over DLPFC and differences in pain intensity were observed between tDCS and sham over M1. Non-significant effects were found for the effects of tDCS on HPTs.

CONCLUSION

tDCS anodic over S1 stimulation increases PPTs, while a-tDCS over DLPFC affects CPTs. The HPTs with tDCS are worse. Finally, M1 a-tDCS seems to reduce evoked pain intensity in healthy subjects.

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.

Neuromodulation of somatosensory pain thresholds of the neck musculature using a novel transcranial direct current stimulation montage: a randomized double-blind, sham controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of primary motor cortex (M1) and cathodal of the primary sensory cortex (S1) have previously shown to modulate the sensory thresholds when administered with the reference electrode located over the contralateral supraorbital area (SO). Combining the two stimulation paradigms into one with simultaneous stimulation of the two brain areas (M1 + S1 - tDCS) may result in a synergistic effect inducing a prominent neuromodulation, noticeable in the pain thresholds. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of the novel M1 + S1 - tDCS montage compared to sham-stimulation in modulating the pain thresholds in healthy adults.

METHODS

Thirty-nine (20 males) subjects were randomly assigned to either receiving 20 min. active M1 + S1 - tDCS or sham tDCS in a double-blinded single session study. Thermal and mechanical pain thresholds were assessed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the pain thresholds within either group, or between the M1 + S1 - tDCS group and the Sham-tDCS group (p>0.05), indicating that the intervention was ineffective in inducing a neuromodulation of the somatosensory system.

CONCLUSIONS

Experimental investigations of novel tDCS electrode montages, that are scientifically based on existing studies or computational modelling, are essential to establish better tDCS protocols. Here simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex and primary sensory cortex showed no effect on the pain thresholds of the neck musculature in healthy subjects. This tDCS montage may have been ineffective due to how the electrical field reaches the targeted neurons, or may have been limited by the design of a single tDCS administration. The study adds to the existing literature of the studies investigating effects of new tDCS montages with the aim of establishing novel non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for chronic neck pain rehabilitation. North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics (VN-20180085) ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04658485).

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.

Effects of High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over the Primary Motor Cortex on Cold Pain Sensitivity Among Healthy Adults

Some clinical studies have shown promising effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) on pain relief. Nevertheless, a few studies reported no significant analgesic effects of tDCS, likely due to the complexity of clinical pain conditions. Human experimental pain models that utilize indices of pain in response to well-controlled noxious stimuli can avoid many confounds that are present in the clinical data. This study aimed to investigate the effects of high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) stimulation over M1 on sensitivity to experimental pain and assess whether these effects could be influenced by the pain-related cognitions and emotions. A randomized, double-blinded, crossover, and sham-controlled design was adopted. A total of 28 healthy participants received anodal, cathodal, or sham HD-tDCS over M1 (1 mA for 20 min) in different sessions, in which montage has the advantage of producing more focal stimulation. Using a cold pressor test, several indices reflecting the sensitivity to cold pain were measured immediately after HD-tDCS stimulation, such as cold pain threshold and tolerance and cold pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings. Results showed that only anodal HD-tDCS significantly increased cold pain threshold when compared with sham stimulation. Neither anodal nor cathodal HD-tDCS showed significant analgesic effects on cold pain tolerance, pain intensity, and unpleasantness ratings. Correlation analysis revealed that individuals that a had lower level of attentional bias to negative information benefited more from attenuating pain intensity rating induced by anodal HD-tDCS. Therefore, single-session anodal HD-tDCS modulates the sensory-discriminative aspect of pain perception as indexed by the increased pain threshold. In addition, the modulating effects of HD-tDCS on attenuating pain intensity to suprathreshold pain could be influenced by the participant’s negative attentional bias, which deserves to be taken into consideration in the clinical applications.

Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Reduces Secondary Hyperalgesia Induced by low Frequency Electrical Stimulation in Healthy Volunteers

The aim of the study was to determine whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reduced pain and signs of central sensitization induced by low frequency electrical stimulation in healthy volunteers. Thirty-nine participants received tDCS stimulation under 4 different conditions: anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex (M1), anodal tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anodal tDCS over M1 and DLPFC concurrently, and sham tDCS. Participants were blind to the tDCS condition. The order of the conditions was randomized among participants. Pain ratings to pinpricks, the current level that evoked moderate pain, and pain induced by low frequency electrical stimulation were assessed in the forearm by an experimenter who was blind to the tDCS conditions. Anodal tDCS at M1 increased the current level that evoked moderate pain compared to sham and other conditions. Anodal tDCS of DLPFC completely abolished secondary hyperalgesia. Unexpectedly, however, concurrent anodal tDCS over M1 and DLPFC did not reduce pain or hyperalgesia more than M1 alone or DLPFC alone. Overall, these findings suggest that anodal tDCS over M1 suppresses pain, and that anodal tDCS over DLPFC modulates secondary hyperalgesia (a sign of central sensitization) in healthy participants. PERSPECTIVE: Anodal transcranial current stimulation (atDCS) at the left motor cortex and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex increased the electrically-evoked pain threshold and reduced secondary hyperalgesia in healthy participants. Replication of this study in chronic pain populations may open more avenues for chronic pain treatment.

Analgesia induced by anodal tDCS and high-frequency tRNS over the motor cortex: Immediate and sustained effects on pain perception

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) and high-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) on elevating cortical excitability. Moreover, tRNS with a direct current (DC)-offset is more likely to lead to increases in cortical excitability than solely tRNS. While a-tDCS over primary motor cortex (M1) has been shown to attenuate pain perception, tRNS + DC-offset may prove as an effective means for pain relief.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine effects of a-tDCS and high-frequency tRNS + DC-offset over M1 on pain expectation and perception, and assess whether these effects could be influenced by the certainty of pain expectation.

METHODS

Using a double-blinded and sham-controlled design, 150 healthy participants were recruited to receive a single-session a-tDCS, high-frequency tRNS + DC-offset, or sham stimulation over M1. The expectation and perception of electrical stimulation in certain and uncertain contexts were assessed at baseline, immediately after, and 30 min after stimulation.

RESULTS

Compared with sham stimulation, a-tDCS induced immediate analgesic effects that were greater when the stimulation outcome was expected with uncertainty; tRNS induced immediate and sustained analgesic effects that were mediated by decreasing pain expectation. Nevertheless, we found no strong evidence for tRNS being more effective for attenuating pain than a-tDCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic effects of a-tDCS and tRNS showed different temporal courses, which could be related to the more sustained effectiveness of high-frequency tRNS + DC-offset in elevating cortical excitability. Moreover, expectations of pain intensity should be taken into consideration to maximize the benefits of neuromodulation.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on experimental pain perception: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Many studies have examined the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on human pain perception in both healthy populations and pain patients. Nevertheless, studies have yielded conflicting results, likely due to differences in stimulation parameters, experimental paradigms, and outcome measures. Human experimental pain models that utilize indices of pain in response to well-controlled noxious stimuli can avoid many confounds present in clinical data. This study aimed to assess the robustness of tDCS effects on experimental pain perception among healthy populations.

METHODS

We conducted three meta-analyses that analyzed tDCS effects on ratings of perceived pain intensity to suprathreshold noxious stimuli, pain threshold and tolerance.

RESULTS

The meta-analyses showed a statically significant tDCS effect on attenuating pain-intensity ratings to suprathreshold noxious stimuli. In contrast, tDCS effects on pain threshold and pain tolerance were statistically non-significant. Moderator analysis further suggested that stimulation parameters (active electrode size and current density) and experimental pain modality moderated the effectiveness of tDCS in attenuating pain-intensity ratings.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of tDCS on attenuating experimental pain perception depends on both stimulation parameters of tDCS and the modality of experimental pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides some theoretical basis for the application of tDCS in pain management.

Effect of anodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on the pain sensitivity in a healthy population: a double-blind, sham-controlled study

ABSTRACT

High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of brain areas related to pain processing may provide analgesic effects evident in the sensory detection and pain thresholds. The somatosensory sensitivity was assessed after HD-tDCS targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) and/or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Eighty-one (40 females) subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 anodal HD-tDCS protocols (20 minutes) applied on 3 consecutive days: Sham-tDCS, DLPFC-tDCS, M1-tDCS, and DLPFC&M1-tDCS (simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS] of DLPFC and M1). Subjects and experimenter were blinded to the tDCS protocols. The somatosensory sensitivity were assessed each day, before and after each tDCS by detection and pain thresholds to thermal and mechanical skin stimulation, vibration detection thresholds, and pressure pain thresholds. Subjects were effectively blinded to the protocol, with no significant difference in rates of whether they received real or placebo tDCS between the 4 groups. Compared with the Sham-tDCS, none of the active HD-tDCS protocols caused significant changes in detection or pain thresholds. Independent of tDCS protocols, pain and detection thresholds except vibration detection were increased immediately after the first tDCS protocol compared with baseline (P < 0.05). Overall, the active stimulation protocols were not able to induce significant modulation of the somatosensory thresholds in this healthy population compared with sham-tDCS. Unrelated to the HD-tDCS protocol, a decreased sensitivity was found after the first intervention, indicating a placebo effect or possible habituation to the quantitative sensory testing assessments. These findings add to the increasing literature of null findings in the modulatory effects of HD-tDCS on the healthy somatosensory system.

Noninvasive motor cortex stimulation effects on quantitative sensory testing in healthy and chronic pain subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

One of the potential mechanisms of motor cortex stimulation by noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) effects on pain is through the restoration of the defective endogenous inhibitory pain pathways. However, there are still limited data on quantitative sensory testing (QST), including conditioned pain modulation (CPM), supporting this mechanism. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of noninvasive motor cortex stimulation on pain perception as indexed by changes in QST outcomes. Database searches were conducted until July 2019 to include randomized controlled trials that performed sham-controlled NIBS on the motor cortex in either the healthy and/or pain population and assessed the QST and CPM. Quality of studies was assessed through the Cochrane tool. We calculated the Hedge's effect sizes of QST and CPM outcomes and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and performed random-effects meta-analyses. Thirty-eight studies were included (1178 participants). We found significant increases of pain threshold in healthy subjects (ES = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.02-0.31, I2 = 22.2%) and pain populations (ES = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.15-0.80, I2 = 68.8%), and homogeneous higher CPM effect (pain ratings reduction) in healthy subjects (ES = -0.39, 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.14, I2 = 17%) and pain populations (ES = -0.35, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.11, I2 = 0%) in the active NIBS group compared with sham. These results support the idea of top-down modulation of endogenous pain pathways by motor cortex stimulation as one of the main mechanisms of pain reduction assessed by QST, which could be a useful predictive and prognostic biomarker for chronic pain personalized treatment with NIBS.

Efficacy of anodal suboccipital direct current stimulation for endogenous pain modulation and tonic thermal pain control in healthy participants: a randomised controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether anodal DCS applied to the suboccipital (SO) target area could potentiate antinociception assessed primarily with conditioned pain modulation of tonic thermal test stimuli.

DESIGN

Randomised double-blinded control trial.

SETTING

Rehabilitation hospital.

SUBJECTS

Healthy participants.

METHODS

Forty healthy participants were randomized to receive either SO-DCS or M1-DCS. The 20-minute 1.5mA anodal or sham DCS intervention were applied to each participant in randomised order during two test sessions. The primary outcome measure included heterotopic cold-pressor conditioned pain modulation (CPM) of tonic heat pain. Secondary measures included pressure pain threshold and tonic thermal pain intensity.

RESULTS

Heterotopic CPM of tonic heat pain intensity was unaffected by either SO-DCS or active M1, including the secondary measures of pressure pain threshold and tonic thermal pain intensity. Although low-power non-significant interactions were identified for DCS intervention (active versus sham) and time (before and after), a significant within-group inhibition of tonic cold pain was identified following SO-DCS (p = 0.011, mean [SD]: -0.76±0.88 points) and M1-DCS (p < 0.002: -0.84±0.82 points), without a significant change following sham DCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although heterotopic CPM was not facilitated with either SO-DCS or M1-DCS, a general significant inhibition of tonic cold pain intensity was demonstrated following both interventions. The general effects of active DCS compared to sham on tonic cold pain-irrespective of the M1 or SO target-need to be confirmed using standard quantitative sensory testing.

Acute offline transcranial direct current stimulation does not change pain or anxiety produced by the cold pressor test

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) has an antalgic effect on acute experimental pain in healthy volunteers. Many published studies have used online stimulation (i.e., tDCS performed during painful stimulation). On the other hand, daily tDCS sessions have been proposed as a therapy for chronic pain (offline tDCS). In such cases, the therapeutic potential depends on the possible aftereffects of each tDCS session. We set out to investigate whether a single tDCS session before application of a classical experimental pain paradigm (the Cold Pressor Test, CPT) would be capable of modulating physiological measures of anxiety as well as pain perception. tDCS was applied to 30 healthy volunteers, 18-28 years old (mean 18.5), with the anode positioned over either the left M1 or the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (l-DLPFC), which has been linked to the affective aspects of experienced pain, including anxiety. All volunteers underwent the CPT procedure before and after a tDCS session. Real 2 mA tDCS sessions for 20 min were compared to sham stimulations. No significant difference was found for any variable after real tDCS sessions when compared to the sham stimulations. This result suggests that effective offline tDCS for chronic pain might have different mechanisms of action. Cumulative effects, functional targeting and the unintended simultaneous stimulation of both M1 and the l-DLPFC are likely responsible for the therapeutic effects of tDCS sessions in the clinical setting.

Non-invasive Motor Cortex Neuromodulation Reduces Secondary Hyperalgesia and Enhances Activation of the Descending Pain Modulatory Network

Central sensitization is a driving mechanism in many chronic pain patients, and manifests as hyperalgesia and allodynia beyond any apparent injury. Recent studies have demonstrated analgesic effects of motor cortex (M1) stimulation in several chronic pain disorders, yet its neural mechanisms remain uncertain. We evaluated whether anodal M1 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would mitigate central sensitization as measured by indices of secondary hyperalgesia. We used a capsaicin-heat pain model to elicit secondary mechanical hyperalgesia in 27 healthy subjects. In an assessor and subject-blind randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial, anodal M1 tDCS decreased the intensity of pinprick hyperalgesia more than cathodal or sham tDCS. To elucidate the mechanism driving analgesia, subjects underwent fMRI of painful mechanical stimuli prior to and following induction of the pain model, after receiving M1 tDCS. We hypothesized that anodal M1 tDCS would enhance engagement of a descending pain modulatory (DPM) network in response to mechanical stimuli. Anodal tDCS normalized the effects of central sensitization on neurophysiological responses to mechanical pain in the medial prefrontal cortex, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, and periaqueductal gray, important regions in the DPM network. Taken together, these results provide support for the hypothesis that anodal M1-tDCS reduces central sensitization-induced hyperalgesia through the DPM network in humans.

Frequency-dependent top-down modulation of temporal summation by anodal transcranial direct-current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) applied over the primary motor cortex has been shown to be effective in the treatment of a number of chronic pain conditions. However, there is a lack of understanding of the top-down analgesic mechanisms involved.

METHOD

In this study, we investigated the effects of tDCS on the facilitation of subjective sensory and pain scores using a transcutaneous electrically evoked measure of temporal summation. In this randomized, blinded, cross-over study healthy subjects received a single stimulus given at 0.9× pain threshold (pTh) over the L5 dermatome on the lateral aspect of the right leg, followed by a train of 5 stimuli given at 0.5, 1, 5 and 20 Hz before and after 20 min of sham or anodal tDCS (2 mA) applied over the primary motor cortex. Ratings of sensation and pain intensity were scored on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Temporal summation leading to pain only occurred at higher frequencies (5 and 20 Hz). Sham or real tDCS had no effect over temporal summation evoked at 5 Hz; however, there was a significant analgesic effect at 20 Hz. Sham or real tDCS had no effect over acute, single stimuli-evoked responses.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that anodal tDCS applied to the primary motor cortex preferentially modulates temporal summation induced by high-frequency electrical stimulation-induced pain. The inhibitory effects of tDCS appear to be dynamic and dependent on the degree of spinal cord excitability and may explain the higher analgesic efficacy in patients with moderate to severe chronic pain symptoms.

SIGNIFICANCE

The analgesic effects of tDCS are dependent on spinal cord excitability. This work provides insight into top-down modulation during acute pain and temporal summation. This knowledge may explain why tDCS has a higher analgesic efficacy in chronic pain patients.

Transcranial direct current stimulation over the opercular somatosensory region does not influence experimentally induced pain: a triple blind, sham-controlled study

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the opercular somatosensory region (OP), which includes the secondary somatosensory cortex and the insular cortex, suppresses pain sensation. However, whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the OP has a similar effect on pain sensation remains unknown. We examined whether pain sensation would be suppressed by tDCS over the OP. Our experiment with a triple-blind, sham-controlled, crossover design involved 12 healthy participants. Participants were asked to rate their subjective pain intensity during and after three types of bihemispheric tDCS: right anodal/left cathodal OP tDCS, left anodal/right cathodal OP tDCS (2 mA, 12 min), and sham tDCS (15 s). Pain stimuli were alternately applied to the dorsum of each index finger using intraepidermal electrical stimulation. We observed no significant effect of tDCS over the OP on the perception of experimentally induced pain. Subjective pain intensity did not differ significantly between the three tDCS conditions. The present null results have crucial implications for the selection of optimal stimulation regions and parameters for clinical pain treatment.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on temperature and pain perception

Transcranial direct current stimulation modifies cortical excitability and in consequence some cerebral functions. In the present study we aimed to elucidate whether tDCS could affect temperature and pain perceptions in healthy subjects testing different stimulation parameters. A total of 20 healthy subjects were studied by means of quantitative sensory testing. Two different experiments were performed. First, we studied the effects of 15 minutes 2 mA anodal transcranial direct current stimulation applied over left M1 and parietal cortex in two separated sessions. Then, we tested the effects of 5 minutes tDCS over M1 by means of a sham controlled design to optimize the possibility to study minimal effects of tDCS using different polarities (cathodal and anodal) and intensities (1 and 2 mA). 2 mA anodal tDCS, when applied for both 15 and 5 minutes over the motor cortex, increased cold perception threshold. Conversely, motor cortex cathodal tDCS modulated cold perception threshold only when 1 mA intensity was used. M1-tDCS can modify the temperature perception; these effects are polarity and intensity dependent. As stimulation intensity seems critical to determine the effects, we suggest that for clinical application strong anodal tDCS (>1 mA) or weak cathodal tDCS (<2 mA) should be used for pain control.

Cortical neurostimulation for neuropathic pain: state of the art and perspectives

The treatment of neuropathic pain by neuromodulation is an objective for more than 40 years in modern clinical practice. With respect to spinal cord and deep brain structures, the cerebral cortex is the most recently evaluated target of invasive neuromodulation therapy for pain. In the early 90s, the first successes of invasive epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) were published. A few years later was developed repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive stimulation technique. Then, electrical transcranial stimulation returned valid and is currently in full development, with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Regarding transcranial approaches, the main studied and validated target was still the motor cortex, but other cortical targets are under investigation. The mechanisms of action of these techniques share similarities, especially between EMCS and rTMS, but they also have differences that could justify specific indications and applications. It is therefore important to know the principles and to assess the merit of these techniques on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the results, to avoid fad. Various types of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes can be significantly relieved by EMCS or repeated daily sessions of high-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS or anodal tDCS over weeks, at least when pain is lateralized and stimulation is applied to the motor cortex contralateral to pain side. However, cortical stimulation therapy remains to be optimized, especially by improving EMCS electrode design, rTMS targeting, or tDCS montage, to reduce the rate of nonresponders, who do not experience clinically relevant effects of these techniques.

Stimulating somatosensory psychophysics: a double-blind, sham-controlled study of the neurobiological mechanisms of tDCS

The neuromodulation technique transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is thought to produce its effects on behavior by altering cortical excitability. Although the mechanisms underlying the observed effects are thought to rely on the balance of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmission, the physiological principles of the technique are not completely understood. In this study, we examine the influence of tDCS on vibrotactile adaptation, using a simple amplitude discrimination paradigm that has been shown to exhibit modifications in performance due to changes in inhibitory neurotransmission. Double-blind tDCS (Anodal/Sham) of 1 mA was delivered for 600 s to electrodes positioned in a somatosensory/contralateral orbit montage. Stimulation was applied as part of a pre/post design, between blocks of the behavioral tasks. In accordance with previous work, results obtained before the application of tDCS indicated that amplitude discrimination thresholds were significantly worsened during adaptation trials, compared to those achieved at baseline. However, tDCS failed to modify amplitude discrimination performance. Using a Bayesian approach, this finding was revealed to constitute substantial evidence for the null hypothesis. The failure of DC stimulation to alter vibrotactile adaptation thresholds is discussed in the context of several factors that may have confounded the induction of changes in cortical plasticity.

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation preceding cognitive behavioural management for chronic low back pain: sham controlled double blinded randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation alone and in combination with cognitive behavioural management in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Double blind parallel group randomised controlled trial with six months' follow-up conducted May 2011-March 2013. Participants, physiotherapists, assessors, and analyses were blinded to group allocation.

SETTING

Interdisciplinary chronic pain centre.

PARTICIPANTS

135 participants with non-specific chronic low back pain >12 weeks were recruited from 225 patients assessed for eligibility.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomised to receive anodal (20 minutes to motor cortex at 2 mA) or sham transcranial direct current stimulation (identical electrode position, stimulator switched off after 30 seconds) for five consecutive days immediately before cognitive behavioural management (four week multidisciplinary programme of 80 hours).

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Two primary outcome measures of pain intensity (0-100 visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry disability index) were evaluated at two primary endpoints after stimulation and after cognitive behavioural management.

RESULTS

Analyses of covariance with baseline values (pain or disability) as covariates showed that transcranial direct current stimulation was ineffective for the reduction of pain (difference between groups on visual analogue scale 1 mm (99% confidence interval -8.69 mm to 6.3 mm; P=0.68)) and disability (difference between groups 1 point (-1.73 to 1.98; P=0.86)) and did not influence the outcome of cognitive behavioural management (difference between group 3 mm (-10.32 mm to 6.73 mm); P=0.58; difference between groups on Oswestry disability index 0 point (-2.45 to 2.62); P=0.92). The stimulation was well tolerated with minimal transitory side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This results of this trial on the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation for the reduction of pain and disability do not support its clinical use for managing non-specific chronic low back pain.Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN89874874.

Combined neuromodulatory interventions in acute experimental pain: assessment of melatonin and non-invasive brain stimulation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and melatonin can effectively treat pain. Given their potentially complementary mechanisms of action, their combination could have a synergistic effect. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that compared to the control condition and melatonin alone, tDCS combined with melatonin would have a greater effect on pain modulatory effect, as assessed by quantitative sensory testing (QST) and by the pain level during the Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM)-task. Furthermore, the combined treatment would have a greater cortical excitability effect as indicated by the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and on the serum BDNF level. Healthy males (n = 20), (aged 18-40 years), in a blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, were randomized into three groups: sublingual melatonin (0.25 mg/kg) + a-tDCS, melatonin (0.25 mg/kg) + sham-(s)-tDCS, or sublingual placebo+sham-(s)-tDCS. Anodal stimulation (2 mA, 20 min) was applied over the primary motor cortex. There was a significant difference in the heat pain threshold (°C) for melatonin+a-tDCS vs. placebo+s-tDCS (mean difference: 4.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9 to 8.63) and melatonin+s-tDCS vs. placebo+s-tDCS (mean: 5.16, 95% CI: 0.84 to 8.36). There was no difference between melatonin+s-tDCS and melatonin+a-tDCS (mean difference: 0.29, 95% CI: -3.72 to 4.23). The mean change from the baseline on amplitude of motor evocate potential (MEP) was significantly higher in the melatonin+a-tDCS (-19.96% ± 5.2) compared with melatonin+s-tDCS group (-1.36% ± 5.35) and with placebo+s-tDCS group (3.61% ± 10.48), respectively (p < 0.05 for both comparisons). While melatonin alone or combined with a-tDCS did not significantly affect CPM task result, and serum BDNF level. The melatonin effectively reduced pain; however, its association with a-tDCS did not present an additional modulatory effect on acute induced pain.

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.

An improved model of heat-induced hyperalgesia--repetitive phasic heat pain causing primary hyperalgesia to heat and secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and light touch

This study tested a modified experimental model of heat-induced hyperalgesia, which improves the efficacy to induce primary and secondary hyperalgesia and the efficacy-to-safety ratio reducing the risk of tissue damage seen in other heat pain models. Quantitative sensory testing was done in eighteen healthy volunteers before and after repetitive heat pain stimuli (60 stimuli of 48°C for 6 s) to assess the impact of repetitive heat on somatosensory function in conditioned skin (primary hyperalgesia area) and in adjacent skin (secondary hyperalgesia area) as compared to an unconditioned mirror image control site. Additionally, areas of flare and secondary hyperalgesia were mapped, and time course of hyperalgesia determined. After repetitive heat pain conditioning we found significant primary hyperalgesia to heat, and primary and secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and to light touch (dynamic mechanical allodynia). Acetaminophen (800 mg) reduced pain to heat or pinpricks only marginally by 11% and 8%, respectively (n.s.), and had no effect on heat hyperalgesia. In contrast, the areas of flare (−31%) and in particular of secondary hyperalgesia (−59%) as well as the magnitude of hyperalgesia (−59%) were significantly reduced (all p<0.001). Thus, repetitive heat pain induces significant peripheral sensitization (primary hyperalgesia to heat) and central sensitization (punctate hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia). These findings are relevant to further studies using this model of experimental heat pain as it combines pronounced peripheral and central sensitization, which makes a convenient model for combined pharmacological testing of analgesia and anti-hyperalgesia mechanisms related to thermal and mechanical input.

[Transcranial direct current stimulation for chronic pain]

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive method for neuromodulation. By changing the neurons' resting membrane potential, the method can alter the activity in areas of the brain. We therefore wished to review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigate the treatment effect of tDCS on chronic pain.

EVIDENCE

We undertook a search in PubMed with the search terms «transcranial direct current stimulation» and «pain», with «randomized controlled trial» as a filter.

RESULTS

Five randomised, controlled trials that used quantitative outcome measures for pain were identified. The studies focused on strongly varying groups of patients suffering from pain. The results from some of the studies showed that stimulation with the aid of tDCS led to a significantly lower level of pain, but seen as a whole, the results were not conclusive.

INTERPRETATION

The method should be further investigated in studies that include clearly defined groups of patients suffering from pain, as well as a larger number of participants, before implementation of the method is considered as a treatment option for chronic pain.

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 ameliorates tactile sensory deficit in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Deficit of tactile sensation in patients with MS is frequent and can be associated with interference with daily life activities. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) showed to increase tactile discrimination in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we investigated whether tDCS may be effective in ameliorating tactile sensory deficit in MS patients.

METHODS

Patients received sham or real anodal tDCS of the somatosensory cortex for 5 consecutive days in a randomized, double blind, sham-controlled study. Discrimination thresholds of spatial tactile sensation were measured using the grating orientation task (GOT). As secondary outcomes we also measured subjective perception of tactile sensory deficit through a visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life and overall disability to evaluate the impact of the treatment on patients daily life. Evaluations were performed at baseline and during a 4-week follow-up period.

RESULTS

Following anodal but not sham tDCS over the somatosensory cortex, there was a significant improvement of discriminatory thresholds at the GOT and increased VAS for sensation scores. Quality of life, and disability changes were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that a five day course of anodal tDCS is able to ameliorate tactile sensory loss with long-lasting beneficial effects and could thus represent a therapeutic tool for the treatment of tactile sensory deficit in MS patients.