Not an Aspirin: No Evidence for Acute Anti-Nociception to Laser-Evoked Pain After Motor Cortex rTMS in Healthy Humans

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.

Distinct reserve capacity impacts on default-mode network in response to left angular gyrus-navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the prodromal Alzheimer disease

Default-mode network (DMN) may be the earliest affected network and is associated with cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may help to modulate DMN plasticity. Still, stimulation effects substantially vary across studies and individuals. Global left frontal cortex (gLFC) connectivity, a substitute for reserve capacity, may contribute to the heterogeneous physiological effects of neuro-navigated rTMS. This study investigated the effects of left angular gyrus-navigated rTMS on DMN connectivity in different reserve capacity participants. gLFC connectivity, was computed through resting-state fMRI correlations. Thirty-one prodromal AD patients were divided into low connection group (LCG) and high connection group (HCG) by the median of gLFC connectivity. Distinct reserve capacity impacts on DMN in response to rTMS were identified in these two groups. Then, brain-behavior relationships were examined. gLFC connectivity within a certain range is directly proportional to cognitive reserve ability (i.e., LCG), and the effectiveness of functional connectivity beyond this range decreases (i.e, HCG). Moreover, LCG exhibited increased DMN connectivity and significantly positive memory improvements, while HCG showed a contrary connectivity decline and maintained or slightly improved their cognitive function after neuro-navigated rTMS treatment. The prodromal AD patients with the distinct reserve capacity may benefit differently from left angular gyrus-navigated rTMS, which may lead to increasing attention in defining personalized medicine approach of AD.

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

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

Single Session Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Different Cortical Areas

Abstract. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies in healthy volunteers have shown conflicting results in terms of modulation in pain thresholds. The aim of this study was to investigate how single session anodal tDCS and modulated tDCS (mtDCS) of distinct cortical areas affected pain and perception thresholds in healthy participants. Five different stimulation conditions were applied at different cortical sites to 20 healthy volunteers to investigate the effects of tDCS and mtDCS (20 Hz) on pain and perception thresholds. TDCS over the motor cortex (M1), mtDCS over the motor cortex, tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), mtDCS of the DLPFC, and mtDCS over the occipital cortex were the stimulation conditions. All of the stimulations were anodal. The stimulations were given in a randomized order at 20-minute intervals. For comparison, electrical pain and perception thresholds were obtained from the right middle finger before and during the tDCS. After each measurement, participants were asked to give a score to their pain. In repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) test, the Condition × Time interaction showed no significant influence on changes in pain, perception thresholds, and pain scores ( p = .48, p = .89, and p = .50, respectively). However, regardless of the condition types, there was a significant difference in pain and perceptual thresholds during tDCS ( p = .01, p = .025, respectively). Our findings did not support difference in pain and perception modulation by a single session anodal tDCS over M1 and DLPFC compared to the occipital cortex in healthy volunteers. The increase in all thresholds during tDCS, irrespective of conditions, and peripheral sensations, including an active control group, taken together, suggest a placebo effect of active tDCS. Future studies about pain and perception in healthy subjects should consider the level of experimental pain and a strong placebo effect.

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.

Exposure to an Immersive Virtual Reality Environment can Modulate Perceptual Correlates of Endogenous Analgesia and Central Sensitization in Healthy Volunteers

Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to produce analgesic effects during different experimental and clinical pain states. Despite this, the top-down mechanisms are still poorly understood. In this study, we examined the influence of both a real and sham (ie, the same images in 2D) immersive arctic VR environment on conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and in a human surrogate model of central sensitization in 38 healthy volunteers. CPM and acute heat pain thresholds were assessed before and during VR/sham exposure in the absence of any sensitization. In a follow-on study, we used the cutaneous high frequency stimulation model of central sensitization and measured changes in mechanical pain sensitivity in an area of heterotopic sensitization before and during VR/sham exposure. There was an increase in CPM efficiency during the VR condition compared to baseline (P < .01). In the sham condition, there was a decrease in CPM efficiency compared to baseline (P < .01) and the real VR condition (P < .001). Neither real nor sham VR had any effect on pain ratings reported during the conditioning period or on heat pain threshold. There was also an attenuation of mechanical pain sensitivity during the VR condition indicating a lower sensitivity compared to sham (P < .05). We conclude that exposure to an immersive VR environment has no effect over acute pain thresholds but can modulate dynamic CPM responses and mechanical hypersensitivity in healthy volunteers. PERSPECTIVE: This study has demonstrated that exposure to an immersive virtual reality environment can modulate perceptual correlates of endogenous pain modulation and secondary hyperalgesia in a human surrogate pain model. These results suggest that virtual reality could provide a novel mechanism-driven analgesic strategy in patients with altered central pain processing.

Human surrogate models of central sensitization: A critical review and practical guide

Background

As in other fields of medicine, development of new medications for management of neuropathic pain has been difficult since preclinical rodent models do not necessarily translate to the clinics. Aside from ongoing pain with burning or shock‐like qualities, neuropathic pain is often characterized by pain hypersensitivity (hyperalgesia and allodynia), most often towards mechanical stimuli, reflecting sensitization of neural transmission.

Data treatment

We therefore performed a systematic literature review (PubMed‐Medline, Cochrane, WoS, ClinicalTrials) and semi‐quantitative meta‐analysis of human pain models that aim to induce central sensitization, and generate hyperalgesia surrounding a real or simulated injury.

Results

From an initial set of 1569 reports, we identified and analysed 269 studies using more than a dozen human models of sensitization. Five of these models (intradermal or topical capsaicin, low‐ or high‐frequency electrical stimulation, thermode‐induced heat‐injury) were found to reliably induce secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and have been implemented in multiple laboratories. The ability of these models to induce dynamic mechanical allodynia was however substantially lower. The proportion of subjects who developed hypersensitivity was rarely provided, giving rise to significant reporting bias. In four of these models pharmacological profiles allowed to verify similarity to some clinical conditions, and therefore may inform basic research for new drug development.

Conclusions

While there is no single “optimal” model of central sensitization, the range of validated and easy‐to‐use procedures in humans should be able to inform preclinical researchers on helpful potential biomarkers, thereby narrowing the translation gap between basic and clinical data.

Significance

Being able to mimic aspects of pathological pain directly in humans has a huge potential to understand pathophysiology and provide animal research with translatable biomarkers for drug development. One group of human surrogate models has proven to have excellent predictive validity: they respond to clinically active medications and do not respond to clinically inactive medications, including some that worked in animals but failed in the clinics. They should therefore inform basic research for new drug development.

Cortical modulation of nociception by galvanic vestibular stimulation: A potential clinical tool?

OBJECTIVE

Vestibular afferents converge with nociceptive ones within the posterior insula, and can therefore modulate nociception. Consistent with this hypothesis, caloric vestibular stimulation (CVS) has been shown to reduce experimental and clinical pain. Since CVS can induce undesirable effects in a proportion of patients, here we explored an alternative means to activate non-invasively the vestibular pathways using innocuous bi-mastoid galvanic stimulation (GVS), and assessed its effects on experimental pain.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy volunteers participated in this study. Experimental pain was induced by noxious laser-heat stimuli to the left hand while recording pain ratings and related brain potentials (LEPs). We evaluated changes of these indices during left- or right-anodal GVS (cathode on contralateral mastoid), and contrasted them with those during sham GVS, optokinetic vestibular stimulation (OKS) using virtual reality, and attentional distraction to ascertain the vestibular-specific analgesic effects of GVS.

RESULTS

GVS elicited brief sensations of head/trunk deviation, inoffensive to all participants. Both active GVS conditions showed analgesic effects, greater for the right anodal stimulation. OKS was helpful to attain significant LEP reductions during the left-anodal stimulation. Neither sham-GVS nor the distraction task were able to modulate significantly pain ratings or LEPs.

CONCLUSIONS

GVS appeared as a well-tolerated and powerful procedure for the relief of experimental pain, probably through physiological interaction within insular nociceptive networks. Either isolated or in combination with other types of vestibular activation (e.g., optokinetic stimuli), GVS deserves being tested in clinical settings.

Effects of continuous theta-burst stimulation of the primary motor and secondary somatosensory areas on the central processing and the perception of trigeminal nociceptive input in healthy volunteers

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Inactivating paired continuous theta-burst stimulation of the primary motor cortex but not on the secondary somatosensory area flattened the relationship between brain activation and stimulus strength while not impacting on the subjective perceptions.

Noninvasive modulation of the activity of pain-related brain regions by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation promises an innovative approach at analgesic treatments. However, heterogeneous successes in pain modulation by setting reversible “virtual lesions” at different brain areas point at unresolved problems including the optimum stimulation site. The secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) has been previously identified to be involved in the perception of pain-intensity differences. Therefore, impeding its activity should impede the coding of the sensory component of pain intensity, resulting in a flattening of the relationship between pain intensity and physical stimulus strength. This was assessed using inactivating spaced continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) in 18 healthy volunteers. In addition, cTBS was applied on the primary motor cortex (M1) shown previously to yield moderate and variable analgesic effects, whereas sham stimulation at both sites served as placebo condition. Continuous theta-burst stimulation flattened the relationship between brain activation and stimulus strength, mainly at S2, the insular cortex, and the postcentral gyrus (16 subjects analyzed). However, these effects were observed after inactivation of M1 while this effect was not observed after inactivation of S2. Nevertheless, both the M1 and the S2-spaced cTBS treatment were not reflected in the ratings of the nociceptive stimuli of different strengths (17 subjects analyzed), contrasting with the clear coding of stimulus strength by these data. Hence, while modulating the central processing of nociceptive input, cTBS failed to produce subjectively relevant changes in pain perception, indicating that the method in the present implementation is still unsuitable for clinical application.

Clinical neurophysiology of pain

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

Low-Frequency rTMS of the Primary Motor Area Does Not Modify the Response of the Cerebral Cortex to Phasic Nociceptive Stimuli

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive technique of cortical stimulation. Although the exact mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it has been postulated that rTMS action on pain depends most on stimulation sites and stimulation parameters. Most studies concern high-frequency rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1). High-frequency rTMS over motor cortex seems to induce an analgesic effect while contrasting results were reported after low-frequency rTMS. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effects of 1 Hz rTMS stimulation over the left primary motor cortex on subjective laser pain rating and laser evoked potential (LEP) amplitudes in healthy subjects. Subjects underwent two different sessions (real and sham rTMS) according to a cross-sectional design. In each session, LEPs and laser-pain rating to stimulation of both right and left hand dorsum were collected before 1 Hz rTMS over the left M1 area (baseline), which lasted 20 min. Then, LEPs and laser-pain rating were measured immediately after rTMS (T0), after 20 min from T0 (T0+20), and after 40 min from T0 (T0+40). We could not find any modification of both laser-pain rating and LEP parameters (latencies and amplitudes) following 1 Hz rTMS. Therefore, our results show that the low-frequency rTMS of the M1 area does not change the response of the cerebral cortex to pain.

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.

Can a single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to the motor cortex interrupt pain processing?

The modulatory role of the primary motor cortex (M1), reflected by an inhibitory effect of M1-stimulation on clinical pain, motivated us to deepen our understanding of M1’s role in pain modulation. We used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)-induced virtual lesion (VL) to interrupt with M1 activity during noxious heat pain. We hypothesized that TMS-VL will effect experimental pain ratings. Three VL protocols were applied consisting of single-pulse TMS to transiently interfere with right M1 activity: (1) VL_M1- TMS applied to 11 subjects, 20 msec before the individual’s first pain-related M1 peak activation, as determined by source analysis (sLORETA), (2) VL_-50 (N = 16; TMS applied 50 ms prior to noxious stimulus onset), and (3) VL₊₁₅₀ (N = 16; TMS applied 150 ms after noxious stimulus onset). Each protocol included 3 conditions ('pain-alone', ' TMS-VL', and ‘SHAM-VL’), each consisted of 30 noxious heat stimuli. Pain ratings were compared, in each protocol, for TMS-VL vs. SHAM-VL and vs. pain-alone conditions. Repeated measures analysis of variance, corrected for multiple comparisons revealed no significant differences in the pain ratings between the different conditions within each protocol. Therefore, our results from this exploratory study suggest that a single pulse TMS-induced VL that is targeted to M1 failed to interrupt experimental pain processing in the specific three stimulation timing examined here.

Evidence-based source modeling of nociceptive cortical responses: A direct comparison of scalp and intracranial activity in humans

BACKGROUND

Source modeling of EEG traditionally relies on interplay between physiological hypotheses and mathematical estimates. We propose to optimize the process by using evidence gathered from brain imaging and intracortical recordings.

METHODS

We recorded laser-evoked potentials in 18 healthy participants, using high-density EEG. Brain sources were modeled during the first second poststimulus, constraining their initial position to regions where nociceptive-related activity has been ascertained by intracranial EEG. These comprised the two posterior operculo-insular regions, primary sensorimotor, posterior parietal, anterior cingulate/supplementary motor (ACC/SMA), bilateral frontal/anterior insular, and posterior cingulate (PCC) cortices.

RESULTS

The model yielded an average goodness of fit of 91% for individual and 95.8% for grand-average data. When compared with intracranial recordings from 27 human subjects, no significant difference in peak latencies was observed between modeled and intracranial data for 5 of the 6 assessable regions. Morphological match was excellent for operculo-insular, frontal, ACC/SMA and PCC regions (cross-correlation > 0.7) and fair for sensori-motor and posterior parietal cortex (c-c ∼ 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple overlapping activities evoked by nociceptive input can be disentangled from high-density scalp EEG guided by intracranial data. Modeled sources accurately described the timing and morphology of most activities recorded with intracranial electrodes, including those coinciding with the emergence of stimulus awareness. Hum Brain Mapp 38:6083-6095, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No evidence of potentiation of buprenorphine by milnacipran in healthy subjects using a nociceptive test battery

BACKGROUND

Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors inhibit the reuptake of serotonin and noradrenalin and are used in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Animal studies suggest that milnacipran co-administered with opioids may potentiate the analgesic effect of μ-opioid receptor agonists. This study hypothesized that co-administration of milnacipran and buprenorphine would have a synergistic effect in evoked pain models in healthy subjects.

METHODS

This was a randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled, four-way cross-over, multiple dose clinical trial to investigate the analgesic effects of buprenorphine (placebo, 0.5, 1 and 3 μg/kg) in combination with milnacipran (placebo, 25 and 50 mg) in healthy subjects.

RESULTS

11 healthy men were enrolled in the study. Buprenorphine alone showed a dose-response relationship indicative of anti-nociception in the pain tests. Following milnacipran administration, no changes were seen in the pharmacodynamic measurements for pain, psychomotor function, body stability or eye movements. For the electrical tests, cold pressor test and pressure pain test, buprenorphine alone was superior when compared with buprenorphine plus milnacipran. No differences in pharmacodynamic variables, besides an increase in pupil/iris ratio, were observed after repeated administration of milnacipran 50 mg. Single and multiple doses of 25 or 50 mg milnacipran did not further potentiate the anti-nociceptive effects of buprenorphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine showed dose-dependent effects consistent with its pharmacological profile. Milnacipran alone did not affect any of the pain variables. The combination of both buprenorphine and milnacipran did not potentiate or show a synergistic effect on the pain models used in this study.

SIGNIFICANCE

Buprenorphine is known to be a potent opioid agonist. Animal studies suggest that milnacipran co-administered with opioids may potentiate the analgesic effect of μ-opioid receptor agonists. Here, we found that buprenorphine showed a dose-dependent analgesic effect, but that no potentiation or synergy on a battery of evoked pain tasks could be observed after co-administration of both milnacipran and buprenorphine.