Long-term prophylactic efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic migraine. A randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation for chronic headaches, a randomized, controlled trial

Background and objectives

Chronic headaches are a frequent cause of pain and disability. The purpose of this randomized trial was to examine whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the primary motor cortex, reduces pain and increases daily function in individuals suffering from primary chronic headache.

Materials and methods

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial, where participants and assessors were blinded, investigated the effect of active tDCS vs. sham tDCS in chronic headache sufferers. Forty subjects between 18 and 70 years of age, with a diagnosis of primary chronic headache were randomized to either active tDCS or sham tDCS treatment groups. All patients received eight treatments over four consecutive weeks. Anodal stimulation (2 mA) directed at the primary motor cortex (M1), was applied for 30 min in the active tDCS group. Participants in the sham tDCS group received 30 s of M1 stimulation at the start and end of the 30-minute procedure; for the remaining 29 min, they did not receive any stimulation. Outcome measures based on data collected at baseline, after eight treatments and three months later included changes in daily function, pain levels, and medication.

Results

Significant improvements in both daily function and pain levels were observed in participants treated with active tDCS, compared to sham tDCS. Effects lasted up to 12 weeks post-treatment. Medication use remained unchanged in both groups throughout the trial with no serious adverse effects reported.

Conclusion

These results suggest that tDCS has the potential to improve daily function and reduce pain in patients suffering from chronic headaches. Larger randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

The study was approved by the local ethics committee (2018/2514) and by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (54483).

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.

Non-Pharmacological Treatment for Chronic Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic migraine (CM) affects a large proportion of the population and is a significant source of disability and lost productivity. Numerous non-pharmacological approaches have been attempted during the past decades. This review discusses the most recent and evidence-based advances in acute and preventive non-pharmacological therapeutic approaches for CM, offering alternatives to drug treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

A growing number of non-pharmacological treatment options, including non-invasive or invasive neuromodulation, acupuncture, psychotherapy, and physiotherapy, have shown promising efficacy in CM. There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of non-invasive neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in CM, but less evidence for approaches such as invasive neuromodulation, physical therapy, or dietary approaches. Acupuncture for migraine remains controversial, with the main point of contention still being the placebo effect. Non-pharmacological approaches can be offered as a reliable alternative for patients with CM, and more research is being done to evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive neuromodulation with different parameters and the combination of different treatments in CM.

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

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

Primary headache disorders: From pathophysiology to neurostimulation therapies

Primary headache disorders including migraine, cluster headache, and tension-type headache are among the most common disabling diseases worldwide. The unclear pathogenesis of primary headache disorders has led to high rates of misdiagnosis and limited available treatment options. In this review, we have summarized the pathophysiological factors for a better understanding of primary headache disorders. Advances in functional neuroimaging, genetics, neurophysiology have indicated that cortical hyperexcitability, regional brain dysfunction, central sensitization and neuroplasticity changes play vital roles in the development of primary headache disorders. Moreover, we have also discussed a series of neurostimulation approaches with their stimulation mechanism, safety and efficacy for prevention and treatment of primary headache disorders. Noninvasive or implantable neurostimulation techniques show great promise for treating refractory primary headache disorders.

Efficacy of tDCS in chronic migraine: A multiprotocol randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Given the prevalence and complicated pathophysiology of migraine, unknown or varied mechanisms of action of available monotherapies or add-on therapies, and their broad range of adverse effects, it is imperative to manage migraine symptoms using a non-invasive, multifunctional, and alternate monotherapy with no negative impacts.

METHODS

We used a single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled design with baseline, post-test, and 24-weeks follow-up measurements to assess the efficacy of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in chronic migraine. A total of 150 participants were randomly assigned to the five groups (i.e., allocation ratio of 1:1:1:1:1). Each group received tDCS-intervention for 11 consecutive-weeks (25 sessions; each session = two consecutive montages; each montage = a 20 min duration, 2000 μA intensity).

RESULTS

The multivariate analysis of variance showed significant (p <.05) reductions in chronic migraine symptoms in the four intervention groups. Compared with the sham (η² < 0.18) and other protocols (two = η² > 0.42; three = η² > 0.40; four = η² > 0.51), protocol one [l. anode at the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortices, cathode at the left dorsomedial and superior frontal gyrus-first montage; anode at the right primary motor area, cathode at the medial crosstalk of hemispheres-second montage] showed a larger effect size (η² > 0.59) in the present trial.

CONCLUSIONS

With the applied protocols of the present trial, tDCS can be used as an effective intervention for the prophylactic and therapeutic treatment of chronic migraine. However, while the second protocol was the least effective, the first was the most effective at reducing migraine symptoms.

SIGNIFICANCE

To our knowledge, the present trial is the first study to cover the gaps of the earlier ones, including the parameters like the site of stimulation, electrode range distribution and field intensity, number of sessions, session design, and sample size.

Better Fields or Currents? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Transcranial Magnetic (rTMS) Versus Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Neuropathic Pain

While high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) is now included in the armamentarium to treat chronic neuropathic pain (NP), direct-current anodal stimulation (a-tDCS) to the same cortical targets may represent a valuable alternative in terms of feasibility and cost. Here we performed a head-to-head, randomized, single-blinded, cross-over comparison of HF-rTMS versus a-tDCS over the motor cortex in 56 patients with drug-resistant NP, who received 5 daily sessions of each procedure, with a washout of at least 4 weeks. Daily scores of pain, sleep, and fatigue were obtained during 5 consecutive weeks, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to a motor task was performed in a subgroup of 31 patients. The percentage of responders, defined by a reduction in pain scores of > 2 SDs from pre-stimulus levels, was similar to both techniques (42.0% vs. 42.3%), while the magnitude of "best pain relief" was significantly skewed towards rTMS. Mean pain ratings in responders decreased by 32.6% (rTMS) and 29.6% (tDCS), with half of them being sensitive to only one technique. Movement-related fMRI showed significant activations in motor and premotor areas, which did not change after 5 days of stimulation, and did not discriminate responders from non-responders. Both HF-rTMS and a-tDCS showed efficacy at 1 month in drug-resistant NP, with magnitude of relief slightly favoring rTMS. Since a significant proportion of patients responded to one procedure only, both modalities should be tested before declaring a patient as unresponsive.

Recent advancements in noninvasive brain modulation for individuals with autism spectrum disorder

Autism spectrum disorder is classified as a spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders with an unknown definitive etiology. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder show deficits in a variety of areas including cognition, memory, attention, emotion recognition, and social skills. With no definitive treatment or cure, the main interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder are based on behavioral modulations. Recently, noninvasive brain modulation techniques including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, intermittent theta burst stimulation, continuous theta burst stimulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation have been studied for their therapeutic properties of modifying neuroplasticity, particularly in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Preliminary evidence from small cohort studies, pilot studies, and clinical trials suggests that the various noninvasive brain stimulation techniques have therapeutic benefits for treating both behavioral and cognitive manifestations of autism spectrum disorder. However, little data is available for quantifying the clinical significance of these findings as well as the long-term outcomes of individuals with autism spectrum disorder who underwent transcranial stimulation. The objective of this review is to highlight the most recent advancements in the application of noninvasive brain modulation technology in individuals with autism spectrum disorder.

Association of Long-Term Speech Therapy and Neuromodulation in Primary Progressive Aphasia: Lessons from a Case Report

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative disorder with a progressive loss of language. Long-term support requires speech therapy but also individually set training programs. Here we propose an 8-month individualized speech-training program which alternates 3-week periods of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) treatment with intensive daily language exercises and a 3-week period without tDCS treatment and a less intensive language exercise from home in a patient with non-fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA). The endpoints were the following: adherence to this program, language data after 8 months, questionnaires related to emotional valence, and brain volume changes. The results showed a persistent adherence after 8 months and a positive compliance reported by both the patient and the partner. The language evaluation showed a clinical stabilization. Moreover, a significant and positive influence of tDCS on mood was observed. This is, to our knowledge, the first ever published report of a combined neuromodulation and language training during the course of 8 months. Our finding suggests the feasibility of programs integrating hospital speech therapy, home training, and tDCS modulation in PPA. Further studies should be conducted in order to disentangle the contextual influences on language performance from the tDCS intervention effects and to address the observation of an initial improvement and a subsequent stabilization effect of language performances.