High-rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

Effect of different non-pharmacologic placebo treatments on migraine prevention: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Placebo control plays an important role in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Specifying differential effects of various placebo controls on migraine prevention would be essential in the explanation of preventive treatment for migraine and the indirect comparison between different prophylactic therapeutics.

OBJECTIVES

To access the impact of different non-pharmacologic placebo types on different outcomes in migraine patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and Web of Science databases from the date of creation to June 19, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of migraine that included sham intervention of acupuncture or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (nVNS) or repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) were conducted. The primary outcome was the migraine days, and the secondary outcomes were the number of migraine attacks, headache days, headache frequency, and responder's rate. Placebo effects were assessed using five individual placebos for network meta-analysis, using mean differences to measure the relative effect of pair-wise comparisons between interventions.

RESULT

A total of 50 trials with 4880 subjects were included. Twenty-seven trials were evaluated for low risk of bias. The results of indirect comparisons show that sham rTMS and sham tDCS had optimal and similar effects in reducing migraine days; sham acupuncture has the greatest effect on reducing the number of migraine attacks and relieving headache frequency; sham rTMS had a highly significant advantage in reducing headache days compared with the other placebo controls.

CONCLUSION

Based on the network meta-analysis results, we found that sham acupuncture had the greatest effect on migraine prophylaxis. The strong placebo effect of sham acupuncture should be considered when assessing the therapeutic effect.

Efficacy and safety of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the prevention or treatment of migraine by conducting a pooled analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, OVID, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high-frequency rTMS and sham stimulation for the prevention or treatment of migraine. A meta-analysis of relevant outcome measures was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with a total of 384 patients were included. A total of 23 patients dropped out, and thus, 361 patients were ultimately included for analysis. The high-frequency rTMS group had a lower frequency of attacks than the sham group (MD = - 5.10; 95% CI: - 8.10, - 2.09; P = 0.0009). The rTMS group has less intense headaches than the sham group (SMD = - 0.74; 95% CI - 1.04, - 0.44; P < 0.00001). High-frequency rTMS improved patient disability (SMD = - 0.45; 95% CI - 0.75, - 0.16; P = 0.003). High-frequency rTMS led to no advantage in reducing the number of abortive medications (MD = - 1.10; 95% CI - 3.28, 1.08; P = 0.32), but it increased the occurrence of adverse events (RR = 1.69; 95% CI 1.09, 2.64; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS reduces the frequency of attacks and headache intensity in migraine patients and improves the patient's disability, but it also increases adverse events.

Utility of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Daily Headache Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of chronic daily headaches (CDH) remains challenging due to the limited efficacy of standard prophylactic pharmacological measures. Several studies have reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can effectively treat chronic headaches. The objective was to determine the utility of rTMS for immediate post-treatment and sustained CDH prophylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

All procedures were conducted per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched for controlled clinical trials that have tested the efficacy of rTMS on populations with CDH. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the 'meta' package in R to examine the post- vs. pre-rTMS changes in standardized headache intensity and frequency compared to sham-control conditions. Thirteen trials were included with a combined study population of N = 538 patients with CDH (rTMS, N = 284; Sham, N = 254). Patients exposed to rTMS had significantly reduced standardized CDH intensity and frequency in the immediate post-treatment period (Hedges' g = -1.16 [-1.89, -0.43], p = 0.002 and Δ = -5.07 [-10.05, -0.11], p = 0.045 respectively). However, these effects were sustained marginally in the follow-up period (Hedges' g = -0.43 [-0.76, -0.09], p = 0.012 and Δ = -3.33 [-5.52, -1.14], p = 0.003). Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed, at least partially driven by variations in rTMS protocols. Despite the observed clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits in the immediate post-treatment period, the prophylactic effects of rTMS on CDH do not seem to sustain with discontinuation. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the routine use of rTMS for CDH prophylaxis remains questionable.

REGISTRATION

Protocol preregistered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021250100).

The Efficacy of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) versus Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Migraine Headaches: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Non-pharmacologic prophylactic methods for chronic migraine have been developed, including the promising non-invasive techniques of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS). This study aimed to compare the efficacy of rTMS and tDCS on pain intensity, the impact of headaches on daily life, anxiety, and depression in migraine headaches patients.

Materials and Methods

This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 72 patients with migraine headaches, randomly allocated to the rTMS and tDCS groups. Participants received 3 and 12 sessions of stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively. Follow-up measurements, including pain intensity, anxiety, depression, and impact on daily life, were performed one month after the last sessions. Analyses were done by IBM SPSS statistics version 26 software.

Results

Of 72 patients enrolled in the study, 19 were male (8 in the rTMS group and 11 in the tDCS group). There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between groups. During the follow-up visit, both groups showed a decrease in anxiety levels (P values = 0.005 and 0.015), while only the rTMS group displayed a significant improvement in depression (P value = 0.01). However, no statistically significant difference was found among the groups regarding changes in pain intensity, anxiety, and the impact of headaches on daily life (P values >0.05).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that both rTMS and tDCS may be effective in reducing pain intensity and improving the impact of headaches on daily life and anxiety in patients with chronic migraine. However, significant improvement in depression was only observed in the rTMS group patients.

Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Quadripulse rTMS over the Visual Cortex: A Proof-of-Concept Study in Healthy Volunteers and Chronic Migraine Patients with Medication Overuse Headache

In chronic migraine with medication overuse (CM-MOH), sensitization of visual cortices is reflected by (i) increased amplitude of stimulus-evoked responses and (ii) habituation deficit during repetitive stimulation. Both abnormalities might be mitigated by inhibitory transcranial neurostimulation. Here, we tested an inhibitory quadripulse repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS-QPI) protocol to decrease durably visual cortex excitability in healthy subjects (HS) and explored its therapeutic potential in CM-MOH patients. Pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials (VEP) were used as biomarkers of effect and recorded before (T1), immediately after (T2), and 3 h after stimulation (T3). In HS, rTMS-QPI durably decreased the VEP 1st block amplitude (p < 0.05) and its habituation (p < 0.05). These changes were more pronounced for the P1N2 component that was modified already at T2 up to T3, while for N1P1 they were significant only at T3. An excitatory stimulation protocol (rTMS-QPE) tended to have an opposite effect, restricted to P1N2. In 12 CM-MOH patients, during a four-week treatment (2 sessions/week), rTMS-QPI significantly reduced monthly headache days (p < 0.01). In patients reversing from CM-MOH to episodic migraine (n = 6), VEP habituation significantly improved after treatment (p = 0.005). rTMS-QPI durably decreases visual cortex responsivity in healthy subjects. In a proof-of-concept study of CM-MOH patients, rTMS-QPI also has beneficial clinical and electrophysiological effects, but sham-controlled trials are needed.

Non-invasive brain stimulation treatments for migraine prophylaxis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Migraine is a major public health problem owing to its long disease duration and disease relapse. Non-invasive brain stimulation treatments were reported effective for the management of migraine, but the comparative effectiveness of three main NIBSs, rTMS, nVNS, and tDCS, has not been studied. We aimed to explore the relative efficacy of rTMS, tDCS, and nVNS in migraine prophylaxis by using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Web of Science from inception to 1 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the efficacy of rTMS, tDCS or nVNS in the prophylactic treatment of migraine were included. The primary outcome was monthly migraine frequency, and secondary outcomes were headache intensity and the impact of headaches on daily life. The relative effects of the treatments in contrast to the others were measured by using standard mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

We included 31 trials with 1659 participants. Fourteen trials were rated as low risk of bias. The results showed that tDCS (SMD - 1.58; 95%CI, - 2.38 to  - 0.79; P-score = 0.92) had the largest effect on migraine frequency when compared with sham interventions in reducing monthly migraine frequency, and tDCS had a larger effect than rTMS (SMD - 0.62; 95%CI, - 1.81 to 0.57) and nVNS (SMD - 1.39; 95%CI, - 3.27 to 0.49). tDCS had also the largest effect in reducing pain intensity when compared with sham intervention (SMD - 1.49; 95%CI, - 2.46 to  - 0.52) and rTMS (SMD - 0.48; 95%CI, - 2.06 to 1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

For the prophylactic treatment of migraine, tDCS was relatively more effective than rTMS and nVNS. Head-to-head comparison trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evidence from Indian studies on safety and efficacy of therapeutic transcranial magnetic stimulation across neuropsychiatric disorders- A systematic review and meta-analysis

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is potentially effective as an augmentation strategy in the treatment of many neuropsychiatric conditions. Several Indian studies have been conducted in this regard. We aimed to quantitatively synthesize evidence from Indian studies assessing efficacy and safety of rTMS across broad range of neuropsychiatric conditions. Fifty two studies- both randomized controlled and non-controlled studies were included for a series of random-effects meta-analyses. Pre-post intervention effects of rTMS efficacy were estimated in "active only" rTMS treatment arms/groups and "active vs sham" (sham-controlled) studies using pooled Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs). The outcomes were 'any depression', depression in unipolar/bipolar depressive disorder, depression in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), depression in schizophrenia, schizophrenia symptoms (positive, negative, total psychopathology, auditory hallucinations and cognitive deficits), obsessive compulsive symptoms of OCD, mania, craving/compulsion in substance use disorders (SUDs) and migraine (headache severity and frequency). Frequencies and odds ratios (OR) for adverse events were calculated. Methodological quality of included studies, publication bias and sensitivity assessment for each meta-analyses was conducted. Meta-analyses of "active only" studies suggested a significant effect of rTMS for all outcomes, with moderate to large effect sizes, at both end of treatment as well as at follow-up. However, except for migraine (headache severity and frequency) with large effect sizes at end of treatment only and craving in alcohol dependence where moderate effect size at follow-up only, rTMS was not found to be effective for any outcome in the series of "active vs sham" meta-analyses. Significant heterogeneity was seen. Serious adverse events were rare. Publication bias was common and the sham controlled positive results lost significance in sensitivity analysis. We conclude that rTMS is safe and shows positive results in 'only active' treatment groups for all the studied neuropsychiatric conditions. However, the sham-controlled evidence for efficacy is negative from India.

Conclusion

rTMS is safe and shows positive results in "only active" treatment groups for all the studied neuropsychiatric conditions. However, the sham-controlled evidence for efficacy is negative from India.

Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on chronic migraine: A meta-analysis

Introduction

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder that affects the quality of life of more than 1 billion people worldwide. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a neuromodulation tool that uses pulsed magnetic fields to modulate the cerebral cortex. This meta-analysis ascertained the therapeutic or preventive effect of rTMS on chronic migraine.

Methods

We performed a database search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 2004 to December 2021. Eligible studies included randomized controlled studies of the analgesic effects of rTMS in patients with chronic migraine.

Results

Eight studies were included. Random effects analysis showed an effect size of -1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.69 to -0.58] on the frequency of migraine attacks, indicating that rTMS was more effective for decreasing migraine attacks than the sham rTMS.

Conclusions

The meta-analysis revealed that rTMS is an effective approach for reducing migraine attack when the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was stimulated. However, rTMS may not be suggested as a method to reduce the pain level.

Systematic review registration

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021228344.

Effects on neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises on migraine and tension-type headache outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are common diseases that cause a social burden. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of various non-pharmacological treatments to address or prevent acute headaches, including neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises in patients with episodic migraine and tension-type headache (TTH).

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG MEDICINE ONLINE, and Chinese Medical Journal database using Stata/SE 14.0 to obtain weighted mean differences (WMDs). The outcomes included monthly headache days, headache intensity, headache duration, days per month of acute medication use, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

RESULTS

Of 872 identified articles, 27 were included in the meta-analysis. Neuromodulation was associated with reduced headache days (WMD: -1.274, 95% CI [-1.914, -0.634], P < .001), duration (WMD: -2.2, 95% CI [-3.32, -0.107], P < .001) and medication consumption (WMD: -1.808, 95% CI [-2.546, -1.071], P < .001) in cases of migraine. Acupuncture was associated with the alleviation of headache days (WMD: -0.677, 95% CI [-0.932, -0.422], P < .001) and intensity (WMD: -0.893, 95% CI [-1.573, -0.212], P = .01) in cases of migraine and acute medication use (WMD: -3.29, 95% CI [-4.86, -1.72], P < .001) in cases of TTH. Aerobic exercise was associated with reduced headache duration (WMD: -5.1, 95% CI [-8.97, -1.22], P = .01) in cases of TTH. The risk of bias for included articles was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low- and moderate-quality evidence that neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises are associated with attenuated headache symptoms in patients with episodic migraine or TTH. However, high-quality studies are needed to draw more detailed conclusions.

Effectiveness of High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in migraine measured by decrease in pain severity or attack frequency.

METHODS

A search at the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus. The risk of systematic bias was rated by using the Cochrane domain-based quality assessment tool. A random-effects model was used.

RESULTS

Of 434 identified records, 8 randomized control studies were included in the meta-synthesis. All have used a high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The risk of systematic bias was low. The difference between repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and control groups in frequency of migraine days per month was 8.1 (95% confidence interval = 4.8 - 11.4) days in favor of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Respectively, for intensity of migraine pain (scaled from 0 to 100), this difference was 13.6 (95% confidence interval = 5.3 - 21.8) points in favor of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. The heterogeneity was substantial with I2 = 86%.

CONCLUSIONS

In chronic migraine, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation seems to have positive effects on both migraine pain severity and attack frequency compared with sham stimulation. Although the effect on pain intensity was probably clinically insignificant, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reduced pain frequency by 8 days per month on average.

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for migraine prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as a migraine prevention by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as preventive migraine treatment remains debatable.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and BioMed Central databases were searched from their inception until December 2020. Randomised trials comparing high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with sham for migraine prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. Headache days, pain intensity, acute medication intake, and disability were extracted as study outcomes and the mean difference with a random-effects model was used to determine the effect size.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis revealed that high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex significantly reduced acute medication intake (Mean Difference = 9.78, p = 0.02, 95%CI: 1.60, 17.96, p = 0.02) and functional disability (Mean Difference = 8.00, p < 0.05, 95%CI: 4.21, 11.79). However, no differences were found in headache days and pain intensity reduction, although there was a slight trend favouring high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

CONCLUSION

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be effective in reducing acute medication intake and disability. However, more studies are needed to strengthen this preliminary evidence.

Effectiveness and acceptability of noninvasive brain and nerve stimulation techniques for migraine prophylaxis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have exhibited limited efficacy, with response rates as low as 40%-50%. In addition to the limited efficacy, the acceptability of those pharmacologic prophylactic strategies were unacceptable. Although noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation strategies may be effective, the evidence has been inconsistent. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare strategies of noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation for migraine prophylaxis with respect to their effectiveness and acceptability.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov , ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched to date of June 4th, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Patients with diagnosis of migraine, either episodic migraine or chronic migraine, were included. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were included (N = 1493; mean age = 38.2 years; 82.0% women). We determined that the high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over C3 yielded the most decreased monthly migraine days among all the interventions [mean difference = - 8.70 days, 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs): - 14.45 to - 2.95 compared to sham/control groups]. Only alternating frequency (2/100 Hz) transcutaneous occipital nerve stimulation (tONS) over the Oz (RR = 0.36, 95%CIs: 0.16 to 0.82) yielded a significantly lower drop-out rate than the sham/control groups did.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provided a new direction for the design of more methodologically robust and larger RCTs based on the findings of the potentially beneficial effect on migraine prophylaxis in participants with migraine by different noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation, especially the application of rTMS and tONS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42021252638. The current study had been approval by the Institutional Review Board of the Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center (TSGHIRB No. B-109-29).

Neuromodulation for Chronic Daily Headache

Purpose of Review

We reviewed the literature that explored the use of central and peripheral neuromodulation techniques for chronic daily headache (CDH) treatment.

Recent Findings

Although the more invasive deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective in chronic cluster headache (CCH), it should be reserved for extremely difficult-to-treat patients. Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation has shown similar efficacy to DBS and is less risky in both CCH and chronic migraine (CM). Non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation is a promising add-on treatment for CCH but not for CM. Transcutaneous external trigeminal nerve stimulation may be effective in treating CM; however, it has not yet been tested for cluster headache. Transcranial magnetic and electric stimulations have promising preventive effects against CM and CCH.

Summary

Although the precise mode of action of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques remains largely unknown and there is a paucity of controlled trials, they should be preferred to more invasive techniques for treating CDH.

Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation vs. High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Methamphetamine Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In this brief report, we compare the effectiveness and safety of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and conventional 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with methamphetamine use disorder (MAUD). Our study suggests that iTBS would also reduce drug craving in patients with MAUD just as the 10 Hz; thus, there may be no difference in treatment effects between these two methods.

METHODS

In total twenty male methamphetamine (MA) addicts were randomly assigned to iTBS (n = 10) or 10 Hz (n = 10) groups for 12 treatments. Cue-evoked cravings, anxiety, depression, and withdrawal symptoms were measured at baseline before the first treatment, and post-tests after days 10, 15, and 20.

RESULTS

The results showed that iTBS and 10 Hz treatment had similar effectiveness in reducing cue-induced craving in male addicts for MA. Both 10 Hz and iTBS improved withdrawal symptoms of patients with MAUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent theta burst stimulation may be similar in effectiveness as 10 Hz in treating patients with MAUD. The clinical usefulness of rTMS could be improved substantially because of the increase in its capacity, cost, and accessibility. Importantly, the effectiveness of rTMS in the treatment of patients with MAUD is not yet proven, and should be tested in the large double-blind sham-controlled studies.

Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a prophylactic treatment in migraine

Background

Clinical applications of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have shown promising results in the treatment of headache disorders, with migraine being one of the most encountered.

Objective

To assess the role of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a preventive treatment of migraine (with and without aura) and correlate the results with the serum level of the inflammatory biomarker (neurokinin A).

Methods

Forty patients, with age ranging from 15 to 55 years, diagnosed with migraine (30 migraine without aura and 10 with aura) and 20 apparently healthy individuals, who were age and sex matched with the patient group, were included in this study.

A low-frequency (1 Hz) rTMS protocol was applied for all patients for five consecutive days interictally. Assessment of pain intensity using visual analogue scale and frequency and duration of attacks as well as number of pills taken by patients as an abortive treatment according to the Basic Diagnostic Headache Diary for 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after TMS sessions was done. In addition, the Migraine Disability Assessment scale (MIDAS) was applied to assess the severity and degree of disability caused by migraine.

Measurement of neurokinin A serum level was done by using ELISA for all patients before and after TMS and for control group once.

Results

There was a significant reduction in pain intensity, frequency and duration of migraine attacks, migraine disability scores, and number of pills taken as abortive treatment for attacks after rTMS (P < 0.001). Also, serum level of neurokinin A in the patients was significantly reduced after rTMS (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Low-frequency rTMS is an effective prophylactic treatment for migraine with and without aura.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain on the Non-Motor Cortex: An Evidence Mapping of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed to summarize and analyze the quality of the available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the non-motor cortex (non-M1) for neuropathic pain (NP) through an evidence mapping approach.

METHODS

We follow the Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) methodology. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, were included. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted according to a defined population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions (stimulation target, frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)) and comparison (sham rTMS or other targets). The evidence mapping was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 23 SRs were included. According to the AMSTAR-2, 20 SRs scored "very low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SRs scored "low," and 1 SR scored "high." A total of 17 PICOs were extracted. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is the most studied of the non-motor cortex targets. PICOs of DLPFC, premotor cortex (PMC), frontal cortex, and secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) were mainly categorized with a "potentially better" conclusion. High-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS of non-M1 usually lead to "potentially better" conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

DLPFC, PMC, frontal cortex, and S2 seem to be promising new targets for rTMS treatment of certain NP. Evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence gap that more research efforts are necessary in order to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols for non-M1 targets and standardize parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Further investigation is advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

A Study Protocol for an Open-Label Feasibility Treatment Trial of Visual Snow Syndrome With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Background: Visual Snow (VS) syndrome is believed to be due to aberrant central visual processing. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) brain imaging and visual evoked potential studies provide evidence for excessive neuronal activity in the medial temporal lobe, specifically the lingual gyrus, and suggest the VS syndrome is a hyperexcitability syndrome. These data provide the basis for consideration of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a potential treatment for the VS syndrome.

Objective: To publish the study protocol for a pilot study underway at the University of Colorado School of Medicine to investigate the use of rTMS intervention to improve symptoms and visual dysfunction associated with VS. The study aims to determine the adverse events and drop-out rate, evaluate performance of outcome measures, including a novel VS symptom scale, and describe changes in outcomes associated with treatment.

Methods and Design: Up to 10 participants meeting criteria for VS syndrome, age 19–65 years, will undergo an open-label intervention consisting of 10 rTMS sessions, occurring 5 days a week over a 2-week period. Participants will complete pre-treatment and post-treatment assessments that include: the Colorado Visual Snow Scale (CVSS), the National Eye Institute Visual Functional Questionnaire—25 (VFQ-25), the General Anxiety Disorder—7 scale (GAD-7), and three psychophysical visual processing tasks.

Discussion: Knowledge gained from this pilot study will inform future study planning and provide valuable lessons for future investigation of rTMS for the VS syndrome. An overview of study proceedings thus far demonstrates recruitment challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and additional challenges that are unique to the VS syndrome and to treatment schedules associated with TMS.

Registration: This study has been approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04925232.

Revised guidelines of the French headache society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 3: Non-pharmacological treatment

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. This article presents the third part of the guidelines, which is focused on the non-pharmacological treatment of migraine, including physical exercise, dietary supplements and plants, diets, neuromodulation therapies, acupuncture, behavioral interventions and mindfulness therapy, patent foramen ovale closure and surgical nerve decompression.

Treatment of Persistent Post-Concussion Syndrome with Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy as a Biomarker of Response: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial Protocol (Preprint)

Background

Approximately one-third of all concussions lead to persistent postconcussion syndrome (PPCS). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a form of noninvasive brain stimulation that has been extensively used to treat refractory major depressive disorder and has a strong potential to be used as a treatment for patients with PPCS. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) has already been used as a tool to assess patients with PPCS and may provide insight into the pathophysiology of rTMS treatment in patients with PPCS.

Objective

The primary objective of this research is to determine whether rTMS treatment improves symptom burden in patients with PPCS compared to sham treatment using the Rivermead postconcussion symptom questionnaire. The secondary objective is to explore the neuropathophysiological changes that occur following rTMS in participants with PPCS using fNIRS. Exploratory objectives include determining whether rTMS treatment in participants with PPCS will also improve quality of life, anxiety, depressive symptoms, cognition, posttraumatic stress, and function secondary to headaches.

Methods

A total of 44 adults (18-65 years old) with PPCS (>3 months to 5 years) will participate in a double-blind, sham-controlled, concealed allocation, randomized clinical trial. The participants will engage in either a 4-week rTMS treatment protocol or sham rTMS protocol (20 treatments). The left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex will be located through Montreal Neurologic Institute coordinates. The intensity of the rTMS treatment over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex will be 120% of resting motor threshold, with a frequency of 10 Hz, 10 trains of 60 pulses per train (total of 600 pulses), and intertrain interval of 45 seconds. Prior to starting the rTMS treatment, participant and injury characteristics, questionnaires (symptom burden, quality of life, depression, anxiety, cognition, and headache), and fNIRS assessment will be collected. Repeat questionnaires and fNIRS will occur immediately after rTMS treatment and at 1 month and 3 months post rTMS. Outcome parameters will be analyzed by a 2-way (treatment × time) mixed analysis of variance.

Results

As of May 6, 2021, 5 participants have been recruited for the study, and 3 have completed the rTMS protocol. The estimated completion date of the trial is May 2022.

Conclusions

This trial will expand our knowledge of how rTMS can be used as a treatment option of PPCS and will explore the neuropathophysiological response of rTMS through fNIRS analysis.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04568369; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04568369

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/31308

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.

Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Headaches: Non-Invasive Neuromodulation, Nutraceuticals, and Behavioral Approaches

Significant side effects or drug interactions can make pharmacological management of headache disorders very difficult. Non-conventional and non-pharmacological treatments are becoming increasingly used to overcome these issues. In particular, non-invasive neuromodulation, nutraceuticals, and behavioral approaches are well tolerated and indicated for specific patient categories such as adolescents and pregnant women. This paper aims to present the main approaches reported in the literature in the management of headache disorders. We therefore reviewed the available literature published between 2010 and 2020 and performed a narrative presentation for each of the three categories (non-invasive neuromodulation, nutraceuticals, and behavioral therapies). Regarding non-invasive neuromodulation, we selected transcranial magnetic stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation, and caloric vestibular stimulation. For nutraceuticals, we selected Feverfew, Butterbur, Riboflavin, Magnesium, and Coenzyme Q10. Finally, for behavioral approaches, we selected biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation techniques, mindfulness-based therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy. These approaches are increasingly seen as a valid treatment option in headache management, especially for patients with medication overuse or contraindications to drug treatment. However, further investigations are needed to consider the effectiveness of these approaches also with respect to the long-term effects.

Neuromodulation for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

Background: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) results from an external force to the head or body causing neurophysiological changes within the brain. The number and severity of symptoms can vary, with some individuals experiencing rapid recovery, and others having persistent symptoms for months to years, impacting their quality of life. Current rehabilitation is limited in its ability to treat persistent symptoms and novel approaches are being sought to improve outcomes following mTBI. Neuromodulation is one technique used to encourage adaptive neuroplasticity within the brain. Objective: To systematically review the literature on the efficacy of neuromodulation in the mTBI population. Method: A systematic review was conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and EBM Review. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guidelines were used and a narrative review of the selected studies was completed. Fourteen articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria which were published in English, investigating an adult sample and using a pre- and post-intervention design. Studies were excluded if they included non-mild TBI severities, pediatric or older adult populations. Results: Thirteen of fourteen studies reported positive reductions in mTBI symptomatology following neuromodulation. Specifically, improvements were reported in post-concussion symptom ratings, headaches, dizziness, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, general disability, cognition, return to work and quality of life. Normalization of working memory activation patterns, vestibular field potentials, hemodynamics of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and excessive delta wave activity were also seen. The studies reviewed had several methodological limitations including small, heterogenous samples and varied intervention protocols, limiting generalisability. Further research is required to understand the context in which neuromodulation may be beneficial. Conclusions: While these positive effects are observed, limitations included unequal representation of neuromodulation modalities in the literature, and lack of literature describing the efficacy of neuromodulation on the development or duration of persistent mTBI symptoms. Better clarity regarding neuromodulation efficacy could have a significant impact on mTBI patients, researchers, clinicians, and policy makers, facilitating a more productive post-mTBI population. Despite the limitations, the literature indicates that neuromodulation warrants further investigation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020161279.

Neuromodulation techniques for acute and preventive migraine treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Several neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods.

METHODS

We searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSION

Several neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.

The role of left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation in episodic migraine prophylaxis

Objective

The aim of the study was to examine the prophylactic role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the frequency, and severity of migraine attacks in episodic migraineurs who failed medical treatment.

Methods

A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled study was designed to assess the effect of 5 Hz rTMS applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC ) in 33 migraineurs. Patients were followed up for 1 month before receiving rTMS, and for another month after the sessions by a headache diary. The primary outcome measure was the achievement of 50% reduction in the number of migraine attacks. Secondary outcome measures included migraine days, assessment of migraine attack severity, disability by HIT-6, and side-effects to the procedure.

Results

The study revealed that 69.2% of the active treatment group achieved 50% or more reduction in the number of migraine attacks versus 25% of cases in the control group (p = 0.02). The absolute number of migraine attacks was reduced by 3.1 vs 1.5 in the active and control group, respectively. The number of cases with severe HIT-6 scores was reduced by 46.2% in active treatment group versus a 7.1% reduction in the control group (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

High-frequency rTMS applied to LDLPFC can reduce the number of migraine attacks by 50% or more in almost 70% of a sample of episodic migraineurs with a concomitant decrease in functional disability.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04031781. Registered 23 July 2019—retrospectively registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04031781?term=Migraine+Prophylaxis&recrs=ce&type=Intr&cond=Migraine&rank=9

Effectiveness and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for preventive treatment of episodic migraine: a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled phase 2 trial (Magnet-EM)

Background

This is a phase II randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for preventive treatment of episodic migraine amongst migraine subjects.

Methods

Subjects age 18 to 60 years will undergo a baseline evaluation to establish the diagnosis of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorder 3rd Edition (ICHD-3). Those who fulfil the ICHD-3 criteria for episodic migraine and compliant to the headache diary during a month run-in period will be enrolled. A total of 76 subjects will be randomised to receive either transcranial magnetic stimulation or sham stimulation for 5 sessions within 2 weeks duration. Follow-up sessions will be conducted monthly for three consecutive months. Prior to treatment, subjects will be required to fill up questionnaires and undergo few procedures such as electroencephalography, transcranial Doppler ultrasound and biochemical analysis for serum serotonin, serum calcitonin gene-related peptide and serum beta-endorphin. These procedures will be repeated at month 3 after receiving the last treatment. The primary outcome measure of this study is the difference in mean monthly migraine days at baseline and at months 1, 2 and 3 after treatment sessions.

Discussion

Following evidence from previous studies showing restoration of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) activation to almost normal level, the rTMS intervention will target left DLPFC in this study. An intermediate duration of treatment sessions is selected for this study. It is set to five treatment sessions given within 2 weeks duration.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03556722. Registered on 14 June 2018

Diagnosis and treatment of migraine: Russian experts' recommendations

Migraine is one of the most common types of headache, which can lead to a significant decrease in quality of life. Researchers identify migraine with aura, migraine without aura, and chronic migraine that substantially reduces the ability of patients to work and is frequently concurrent with mental disorders and drug-induced headache. The complications of migraine include status migrainosus, persistent aura without infarction, migrainous infarction (stroke), and a migraine aura-induced seizure. The diagnosis of migraine is based on complaints, past medical history, objective examination data, and the diagnostic criteria as laid down in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 rd edition. Add-on trials are recommended only in the presence of red flags, such as the symptoms warning about the secondary nature of headache. Migraine treatment is aimed at reducing the frequency and intensity of attacks and the amount of analgesics taken. It includes three main approaches: behavioral therapy, seizure relief therapy, and preventive therapy. Behavioral therapy focuses on lifestyle modification. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, simple and combined analgesics, triptans, and antiemetic drugs for severe nausea or vomiting are recommended for seizure relief. Preventive therapy which includes antidepressants, anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, botulinum toxin type A-hemagglutinin complex and monoclonal antibodies to calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptors, is indicated for frequent or severe migraine attacks and for chronic migraine. Pharmacotherapy is recommended to be combined with non-drug methods that involves cognitive behavioral therapy; progressive muscle relaxation; mindfulness; biofeedback; post-isometric relaxation; acupuncture; therapeutic exercises; greater occipital nerve block; non-invasive high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; external stimulation of first trigeminal branch; and electrical stimulation of the occipital nerves (neurostimulation).

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for primary headache: A clinical update

Background

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is a proven treatment for cluster headache and migraine. Several possible mechanisms of action by which nVNS mitigates headache have been identified.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of recent scientific and clinical research into nVNS for headache, including findings from mechanistic studies and their possible relationships to the clinical effects of nVNS.

Results

Findings from animal and human studies have provided possible mechanistic explanations for nVNS efficacy in headache involving four core areas: Autonomic nervous system functions; cortical spreading depression inhibition; neurotransmitter regulation; and nociceptive modulation. We discuss how overlap and interplay among these areas may underlie the utility of nVNS in the context of clinical evidence supporting its safety and efficacy as acute and preventive therapy for both cluster headache and migraine. Possible future nVNS applications are also discussed.

Conclusion

Significant progress over the past several years has yielded valuable mechanistic and clinical evidence that, combined with the excellent safety and tolerability profile of nVNS, suggests that it should be considered a first-line treatment for both acute and preventive treatment of cluster headache, an effective option for acute treatment of migraine, and a highly relevant, practical option for migraine prevention.

Neuronavigation based 10 sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy in chronic migraine: an exploratory study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic migraine is a disease of altered cortical excitability. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation provides a novel non-invasive method to target the nociceptive circuits in the cortex. Motor cortex is one such potential target. In this study, we targeted the left motor cortex using fMRI-guided neuronavigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty right-handed patients were randomized into real and sham rTMS group. Baseline subjective pain assessments were done using visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Becks Depression Inventory, and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Objectively, pain was assessed by means of thermal pain thresholds using quantitative sensory testing. For corticomotor excitability parameters, resting motor thresholds and motor-evoked potentials were mapped. For rTMS total, 600 pulses in 10 trains at 10 Hz with an intertrain interval of 60 s were delivered in each session. Ten such sessions were given 5 days per week over 2 consecutive weeks. The duration of each session was 10 min. Real rTMS was administered at 70% of Resting MT. All the tests were repeated post-intervention and after 1 month of follow-up. There are no studies reporting the use of fMRI-based TMS for targeting the motor cortex in CM patients.

RESULTS

We observed a significant reduction in the mean VAS rating, headache frequency, and MIDAS questionnaire in real rTMS group which was maintained after 1 month of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Ten sessions of fMRI-based rTMS over the left motor cortex may provide long-term pain relief in CM, but further studies are warranted to confirm our preliminary findings.

The visual system as target of non-invasive brain stimulation for migraine treatment: Current insights and future challenges

The visual network is crucially implicated in the pathophysiology of migraine. Several lines of evidence indicate that migraine is characterized by an altered visual cortex excitability both during and between attacks. Visual symptoms, the most common clinical manifestation of migraine aura, are likely the result of cortical spreading depression originating from the extrastriate area V3A. Photophobia, a clinical hallmark of migraine, is linked to an abnormal sensory processing of the thalamus which is converged with the non-image forming visual pathway. Finally, visual snow is an increasingly recognized persistent visual phenomenon in migraine, possibly caused by increased perception of subthreshold visual stimuli. Emerging research in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has vastly developed into a diversity of areas with promising potential. One of its clinical applications is the single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) applied over the occipital cortex which has been approved for treating migraine with aura, albeit limited evidence. Studies have also investigated other NIBS techniques, such as repetitive TMS (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), for migraine prophylaxis but with conflicting results. As a dynamic brain disorder with widespread pathophysiology, targeting migraine with NIBS is challenging. Furthermore, unlike the motor cortex, evidence suggests that the visual cortex may be less plastic. Controversy exists as to whether the same fundamental principles of NIBS, based mainly on findings in the motor cortex, can be applied to the visual cortex. This review aims to explore existing literature surrounding NIBS studies on the visual system of migraine. We will first provide an overview highlighting the direct implication of the visual network in migraine. Next, we will focus on the rationale behind using NIBS for migraine treatment, including its effects on the visual cortex, and the shortcomings of currently available evidence. Finally, we propose a broader perspective of how novel approaches, the concept of brain networks and the integration of multimodal imaging with computational modeling, can help refine current NIBS methods, with the ultimate goal of optimizing a more individualized treatment for migraine.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in chronic tension-type headache: A pilot study

Background & objectives:

Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common type of primary headache disorder. Its chronic form is often the most ignored and challenging to treat. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a novel technique in the treatment of chronic pain. The aim of this pilot study was to explore the effect of low-frequency repetitive TMS (rTMS) on pain status in chronic TTH (CTTH) by subjective and objective pain assessment.

Methods:

Patients (n=30) diagnosed with CTTH were randomized into rTMS (n=15) and placebo (n=15) groups in this study. Pre-intervention detailed history of patients was taken. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain and questionnaires [Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), McGill Pain Questionnaire, Pain Beliefs Questionnaire, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Test, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and WHO-Quality of Life Questionnaire-Brief version] were filled, and objective assessments such as nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) and conditioned pain modulation were done. The tests were repeated after 20 sessions (5 days/week). In the rTMS group, 1200 pulses in eight trains of 150 pulses each were given at 1Hz over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (RDLPFC). In the placebo group, the rTMS coil was placed such that magnetic stimulation did not reach the cortex.

Results:

The NRS score decreased significantly (P<0.001) and NFR thresholds increased significantly (P=0.011) in the rTMS group when compared to placebo group.

Interpretation & conclusions:

Subjective improvements in the NRS, HIT-6, McGill Present Pain Intensity, trait of anxiety and psychological pain beliefs were observed. The increase in the thresholds of NFR served as an objective marker for improvement in pain status. Further studies need to be done to confirm our preliminary findings.

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.

A systematic review of high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor cortex areas as a migraine preventive treatment

Background:

The results of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for migraine have been inconsistent. However, high-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex is a treatment that may be effective in relieving symptoms of migraine with a low risk of side effects.

Methods:

A systematic review of high-frequency rTMS over the brain motor cortex areas in human participants was conducted to assess efficacy in treating migraine. Articles that were not looking at migraine patients, stimulation over the left motor cortex, or were not in English were excluded. Nine articles representing eight experiments using high-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas for migraine in human participants were extracted from the databases of PubMed, PsycINFO, MedLine, CINAHL, and BioMed Central.

Results:

Two-hundred and seven of 213 patients completed treatment throughout all the studies examined. High-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas for migraine improved migraine frequency in seven of eight studies. Two of the eight studies were randomized controlled trials at low risk for biases and found high-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas effective in improving migraine frequency and severity. Other details of treatment prescription and symptoms were also examined.

Conclusion:

High-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas for migraine demonstrated efficacy as a migraine treatment, had minimal side effects, and should be further investigated.

Treatment of Persistent Post-Traumatic Headache and Post-Concussion Symptoms Using Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Pilot, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Persistent post-traumatic headache (PTH) after mild traumatic brain injury is one of the most prominent and highly reported persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). Non-pharmacological treatments, including non-invasive neurostimulation technologies, have been proposed for use. Our objective was to evaluate headache characteristics at 1 month after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment in participants with PTH and PPCS. A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, pilot clinical trial was performed on 20 participants (18-65 years) with persistent PTH (International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition) and PPCS (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision). Ten sessions of rTMS therapy (10 Hz, 600 pulses, 70% resting motor threshold amplitude) were delivered to the left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex. The primary outcome was a change in headache frequency or severity at 1 month post-rTMS. Two-week-long daily headache diaries and clinical questionnaires assessing function, PPCS, cognition, quality of life, and mood were completed at baseline, post-treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-rTMS. A two-way (treatment × time) mixed analyisis of variance indicated a significant overall time effect for average headache severity (F_(3,54) = 3.214; p = 0.03) and a reduction in headache frequency at 1 month post-treatment (#/2 weeks, REAL -5.2 [standard deviation {SD} = 5.8]; SHAM, -3.3 [SD = 7.7]). Secondary outcomes revealed an overall time interaction for headache impact, depression, post-concussion symptoms, and quality of life. There was a significant reduction in depression rating in the REAL group between baseline and 1 month post-treatment, with no change in the SHAM group (Personal Health Questionnaire-9; REAL, -4.3 [SD = 3.7[ p = 0.020]; SHAM, -0.7 [SD = 4.7; p = 1.0]; Bonferroni corrected). In the REAL group, 60% returned to work whereas only 10% returned in the SHAM group (p = 0.027). This pilot study demonstrates an overall time effect on headache severity, functional impact, depression, PPCS, and quality of life after rTMS treatment in participants with persistent PTH; however, findings were below clinical significance thresholds. There was a 100% response rate, no dropouts, and minimal adverse effects, warranting a larger phase II study. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03691272.

Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Headache Intensity and Frequency of Headache Attacks in Patients With Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) electrically stimulate the brain and modify brain activity to suppress pain. This method is emerging as a potential clinical intervention against migraine.

OBJECTIVE

To quantitatively review the efficacy of rTMS and tDCS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in modifying headache intensity and frequency of headache attacks in patients suffering from migraine.

METHODS

We searched 5 databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for articles from January 2000 to September 2018. Any RCT regarding the efficacy on rTMS and tDCS on patients with migraine, was considered to be included. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool effect sizes of outcomes related to headache intensity or frequency of headache attacks. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with 276 participants in total (experimental group [EG] = 149; control group [CG] = 127) were included in this review. Five included articles used rTMS (EG = 81; CG = 80), and 4 used tDCS (EG = 68; CG = 47). Meta-analysis of excitatory primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation showed significant effects on reducing headache intensity in patients with migraine (Hedges' g = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.59; P < .001, I²  = 18.39%) with a large effect size. Meta-analysis of excitatory M1 stimulation showed significant effects on reducing frequency of headache attacks in patients with migraine, with a large effect size (Hedges' g = -0.88; 95% CI, -1.38 to -0.38; P = .001, I²  = 57.15%). Excitatory dorsolateral prefrontal cortex stimulation showed a significant effect on the headache intensity in patients with migraine (Hedges' g = -1.14; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.07; P = .04, I²  = 61.86%) with a large effect size. However, reductions of frequency of headache attacks was not significant.

LIMITATIONS

Potential differential effects of rTMS and tDCS, various sham methods, and potential overlapping headache disorders among included subjects may affect the estimation of effect sizes.

CONCLUSION

Excitatory NIBS of the M1 is likely to reduce headache intensity and the frequency of headache attacks in patients with migraine.

[Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the diagnostic and treatment of pain syndromes in children and adults]

The authors review the literature and own data concerning therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in children and adult patients with pain syndromes of different origins. TMS may act as a tool to excite or inhibit neuroplasticity in the central nervous system, which depends of the therapeutic regime used. TMS induces neurogenesis and synaptogenesis, rhythmic TMS may cause long-lasting after-effects, including pain inhibitory effect. A decrease in the threshold and an increase in the amplitude of motor evoked potentials in TMS are the most frequent changes in pain syndromes in the diagnostic modality. The efficacy of different regimes in the treatment of pain syndromes remains understudied. Despite vast knowledge on clinical use of TMS in pain syndromes in adults, in pediatrics its use is limited to migraine treatment. TMS is a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool that should be more often implemented in neurorehabilitation and treatment of neurological diseases in adults and children with pain syndromes.

Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to Study the Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Concussion: A Two-Patient Case Study

Background: Approximately 25% of concussion patients experience persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been explored as a treatment, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) may be a cost-effective method for assessing response. Objectives: Evaluate rTMS for the treatment of PPCS and introduce fNIRS as a method of assessing treatment response. Methods: Design: Two-patient case study. Setting: Calgary Brain Injury Program. Participants: 47 and 49 years. male, with PPCS for 1-2 years (headache, cognitive difficulties, nausea, visual difficulties, irritability, anxiety, poor mood, sleep, and fatigue). Intervention: 10 sessions of rTMS therapy to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), at 10 Hz (600 pulses) and 70% of resting motor threshold amplitude. Participants completed an 8-week headache diary and a battery of clinical questionnaires prior to each fNIRS session. fNIRS: Hemodynamic changes were recorded over the frontoparietal cortex during rest, finger tapping, and a graded working memory test. fNIRS was completed pre-rTMS, following rTMS (day 14), and at 1-month post-rTMS (day 45). For comparison, two healthy, sex-matched controls were scanned with fNIRS once daily for five consecutive days. Results: Clinical scores improved (headache severity, MoCA, HIT-6, PHQ-9, GAD-7, QOLIBRI, RPSQ, BCPSI) or remained stable (PCL-5, headache frequency) post-rTMS, for both participants. Participant 1 reported moderate symptom burden, and a fNIRS task-evoked hemodynamic response showing increased oxyhemoglobin was observed following a working memory task, as expected. Participant 2 exhibited a high symptom burden pre-treatment, with abnormal fNIRS hemodynamic response where oxyhemoglobin declined, in response to task. One month following rTMS treatment, participant 2 had a normal fNIRS hemodynamic response to task, corresponding to significant improvements in clinical outcomes. Conclusion: This case study suggests fNIRS may be sensitive to physiological changes that accompany rTMS treatment. Further studies exploring fNIRS as a cost-effective technology for monitoring rTMS response in patients with PPCS are suggested.

Noninvasive neuromodulation in migraine and cluster headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the currently available noninvasive neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine and cluster headache.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last decade, several noninvasive devices have undergone development and clinical trials to evaluate efficacy and safety. Based on this body of work, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcutaneous supraorbital neurostimulation, and noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation devices have been cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration and are available for clinical use for the treatment of primary headache disorders.

SUMMARY

Overall, these novel noninvasive devices appear to be safe, well tolerated, and have demonstrated promising results in clinical trials in both migraine and cluster headache. This narrative review will provide a summary and update of the proposed mechanisms of action, evidence, safety, and future directions of various currently available modalities of noninvasive neuromodulation for the treatment of migraine and cluster headache.

Treating Chronic Migraine With Neuromodulation: The Role of Neurophysiological Abnormalities and Maladaptive Plasticity

Chronic migraine (CM) is the most disabling form of migraine, because pharmacological treatments have low efficacy and cumbersome side effects. New evidence has shown that migraine is primarily a disorder of brain plasticity and migraine chronification depends on a maladaptive process favoring the development of a brain state of hyperexcitability. Due to the ability to induce plastic changes in the brain, researchers started to look at Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) as a possible therapeutic option in migraine field. On one side, NIBS techniques induce changes of neural plasticity that outlast the period of the stimulation (a fundamental prerequisite of a prophylactic migraine treatment, concurrently they allow targeting neurophysiological abnormalities that contribute to the transition from episodic to CM. The action may thus influence not only the cortex but also brainstem and diencephalic structures. Plus, NIBS is not burdened by serious medication side effects and drug–drug interactions. Although the majority of the studies reported somewhat beneficial effects in migraine patients, no standard intervention has been defined. This may be due to methodological differences regarding the used techniques (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation), the brain regions chosen as targets, and the stimulation types (e.g., the use of inhibitory and excitatory stimulations on the basis of opposite rationales), and an intrinsic variability of stimulation effect. Hence, it is difficult to draw a conclusion on the real effect of neuromodulation in migraine. In this article, we first will review the definition and mechanisms of brain plasticity, some neurophysiological hallmarks of migraine, and migraine chronification-related (dys)plasticity. Secondly, we will review available results from therapeutic and physiological studies using neuromodulation in CM. Lastly we will discuss the results obtained in these preventive trials in the light of a possible effect on brain plasticity.

Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC2-NIN-CP)

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Chronic pain (CP) is highly prevalent and generally undertreated health condition. Noninvasive brain stimulation may contribute to decrease pain intensity and influence other aspects related to CP.

Objective:

To provide consensus-based recommendations for the use of noninvasive brain stimulation in clinical practice.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature searching for randomized clinical trials followed by consensus panel. Recommendations also involved a cost-estimation study.

Results:

The systematic review wielded 24 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and 22 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. The following recommendations were provided: (1) Level A for anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in fibromyalgia, and level B for peripheral neuropathic pain, abdominal pain, and migraine; bifrontal (F3/F4) tDCS and M1 high-definition (HD)-tDCS for fibromyalgia; Oz/Cz tDCS for migraine and for secondary benefits such as improvement in quality of life, decrease in anxiety, and increase in pressure pain threshold; (2) level A recommendation for high-frequency (HF) rTMS over M1 for fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, and level B for myofascial or musculoskeletal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and migraine; (3) level A recommendation against the use of anodal M1 tDCS for low back pain; and (4) level B recommendation against the use of HF rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the control of pain.

Conclusion:

Transcranial DCS and rTMS are recommended techniques to be used in the control of CP conditions, with low to moderate analgesic effects, and no severe adverse events. These recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus made by experts in the field. Readers should use it as part of the resources available to decision-making.

Neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic migraine and cluster headache

Small subsets of patients who fail to respond to pharmacological treatment may benefit from alternative treatment methods. In the last decade, neurostimulation is being explored as a potential treatment option for the patients with chronic, severely disabling refractory primary headaches. To alleviate pain, specific nerves and brain areas have been stimulated, and various methods have been explored: deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, and sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation are among the more invasive ones, whereas transcranial magnetic stimulation and supraorbital nerve stimulation are noninvasive. Vagal nerve stimulation can be invasive or noninvasive, though this review included only data for noninvasive VNS. Most of these methods have been tested in small open-label patient series; recently, more data from randomized, controlled, and blinded studies are available. Although neurostimulation treatments have demonstrated good efficacy in many studies, it still has not been established as a standard treatment in refractory patients. This review analyzes the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of different neurostimulation modalities for the treatment of chronic migraine and cluster headache.

Non-pharmacological Approaches for Headaches in Young Age: An Updated Review

Headache disorders are common in children and adolescents. Most of the studies on non-pharmacological treatments have however been carried out on adults. In this review we provide information on recent studies examining non-pharmacological approaches for managing headache in children and adolescents. Our search of SCOPUS for primary studies conducted between January 2010 and July 2018 uncovered 11 controlled studies, mostly addressing behavioral approaches, in which a total of 613 patients with a diagnosis of primary headache, and average age 10.2–15.7 years (30–89% females) were recruited. Non-pharmacological treatments were shown to produce sizeable effects on the classical primary endpoint, i.e., headache frequency, with reductions from baseline ranging between 34 and 78%. Among commonly reported secondary endpoints, particularly disability, quality of life, depression and anxiety, marked improvements were noted as well. Taken as a whole, our findings suggest that non-pharmacological treatments constitute a valid option for the prevention of primary headaches in young age. Future research with higher-quality studies is needed. Particular attention needs to be given to studies that randomize patients to condition, blind researchers in charge of evaluating treatment outcomes, routinely include headache frequency as the primary endpoint, include adequate-length follow-up, address changes in biomarkers of disease and other possible mediators of outcome, and that employ predictive models to enhance the level of evidence for these approaches.