Theta-burst versus 20 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropathic pain: A head-to-head comparison

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

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

Assessing the synergistic effectiveness of intermittent theta burst stimulation and the vestibular ocular reflex rehabilitation protocol in the treatment of Mal de Debarquement Syndrome: a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Mal de Debarquement Syndrome (MdDS) is a rare central vestibular disorder characterised by a constant sensation of motion (rocking, swaying, bobbing), which typically arises after motion experiences (e.g. sea, air, and road travel), though can be triggered by non-motion events. The current standard of care is non-specific medications and interventions that only result in mild-to-moderate improvements. The vestibular ocular reflex (VOR) rehabilitation protocol, a specialised form of rehabilitation, has shown promising results in reducing symptoms amongst people with MdDS. Accumulating evidence suggests that it may be possible to augment the effects of VOR rehabilitation via non-invasive brain stimulation protocols, such as theta burst stimulation (TBS).

METHODS

The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of intermittent TBS (iTBS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in enhancing the effectiveness of a subsequently delivered VOR rehabilitation protocol in people with MdDS. Participants were allocated randomly to receive either Sham (n = 10) or Active (n = 10) iTBS, followed by the VOR rehabilitation protocol. Subjective outcome measures (symptom ratings and mental health scores) were collected 1 week pre-treatment and for 16 weeks post-treatment. Posturography (objective outcome) was recorded each day of the treatment week.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in subjective and objective outcomes were reported across both treatment groups over time, but no between-group differences were observed.

DISCUSSION

These findings support the effectiveness of the VOR rehabilitation protocol in reducing MdDS symptoms. Further research into iTBS is required to elucidate whether the treatment has a role in the management of MdDS. TRN: ACTRN12619001519145 (Date registered: 04 November 2019).

Theta-burst stimulation as a therapeutic tool in neurological pathology: a systematic review

TBS (theta-burst stimulation) is a novel therapeutic approach in a wide range of neurological diseases. The present systematic review aims to identify the various protocols used in the last years, to assess study quality and to offer a general overview of the current state of the literature. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We applied the following inclusion criteria: (1) population over 18 years old with diagnosed neurological disorders, (2) patients treated with sessions of theta-burst stimulation, (3) randomized-controlled clinical trials, (4) articles in the English language, and (5) studies that report response and score reduction on a validated scale of the investigated disorder or remission rates. We included in the final analysis 56 randomized controlled trials focusing on different neurological pathologies (stroke, Parkinson`s disease, multiple sclerosis, tinnitus, dystonia, chronic pain, essential tremor and tic disorder), and we extracted data regarding study design, groups and comparators, sample sizes, type of coil, stimulation parameters (frequency, number of pulses, intensity, stimulation site etc.), number of sessions, follow-up, assessment through functional connectivity and neurological scales used. We observed a great interstudy heterogenicity that leads to a difficulty in drawing plain conclusions. TBS protocols have shown promising results in improving various symptoms in patients with neurological disorders, but larger and more coherent studies, using similar stimulation protocols and evaluation scales, are needed to establish guideline recommendations.

Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.

SETTING

Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.

RESULTS

Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.

CONCLUSION

Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).

Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the motor cortex provides supplementary relief for some individuals with chronic pain who are refractory to pharmacological treatment. As rTMS slowly enters treatment guidelines for pain relief, its starts to be confronted with challenges long known to pharmacological approaches: efficacy at the group-level does not grant pain relief for a particular patient. In this review, we present and discuss a series of ongoing attempts to overcome this therapeutic challenge in a personalized medicine framework.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Relevant scientific publications published in main databases such as PubMed and EMBASE from inception until March 2023 were systematically assessed, as well as a wide number of studies dedicated to the exploration of the mechanistic grounds of rTMS analgesic effects in humans, primates and rodents.

RESULTS

The main strategies reported to personalize cortical neuromodulation are: (i) the use of rTMS to predict individual response to implanted motor cortex stimulation; (ii) modifications of motor cortex stimulation patterns; (iii) stimulation of extra-motor targets; (iv) assessment of individual cortical networks and rhythms to personalize treatment; (v) deep sensory phenotyping; (vi) personalization of location, precision and intensity of motor rTMS. All approaches except (i) have so far low or moderate levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current evidence for most strategies under study remains at best moderate, the multiple mechanisms set up by cortical stimulation are an advantage over single-target 'clean' drugs, as they can influence multiple pathophysiologic paths and offer multiple possibilities of individualization.

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-invasive neuromodulation is on the verge of personalised medicine. Strategies ranging from integration of detailed clinical phenotyping into treatment design to advanced patient neurophysiological characterisation are being actively explored and creating a framework for actual individualisation of care.

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.

Analgesic efficacy of theta-burst stimulation for postoperative pain

OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be a relevant method to assist postoperative pain. However, studies to date have only used conventional 10 Hz rTMS and targeted the DLPFC for postoperative pain. A more recent form of rTMS, termed intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation (iTBS), enables to increase cortical excitability in a short period of time. This preliminary double-blind, randomised, sham controlled study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of iTBS in postoperative care across two distinct stimulation targets.

METHODS

A group of 45 patients post laparoscopic surgery were randomised to receive a single session of iTBS over either the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), primary motor cortex (M1), or Sham stimulation (1:1:1 ratio). Outcome measurements were number of pump attempts, total anaesthetic volume used, and self-rated pain experience, assessed at 1 hour, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours post stimulation. All randomised patients were analysed (n = 15 in each group).

RESULTS

Compared to Sham stimulation, DLPFC-iTBS reduced pump attempts at 6 (DLPFC = 0.73 ± 0.88, Sham = 2.36 ± 1.65, P = 0.031), 24 (DLPFC = 1.40 ± 1.24, Sham = 5.03 ± 3.87, P = 0.008), and 48 (DLPFC = 1.47 ± 1.41, Sham = 5.87 ± 4.34, P = 0.014) hours post-surgery, whereby M1 stimulation had no effect. No group effect was observed on total anaesthetics, which was mainly provided through the continuous administration of opioids at a set speed for each group. There was also no group or interaction effect on pain ratings. Pump attempts were positively associated with pain ratings in the DLPFC (r = 0.59, P = 0.02) and M1 (r = 0.56, P = 0.03) stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that iTBS to the DLPFC reduces pump attempts for additional anaesthetics following a laparoscopic surgery. However, reduced pump attempts by DLPFC stimulation did not translate into a significantly smaller volume of total anaesthetic, due to the continuous administration of opioids at a set speed for each group.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings therefore provide preliminary evidence for iTBS targeting the DLPFC to be used to improve postoperative pain management.

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.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Primary Motor Cortex beyond Motor Rehabilitation: A Review of the Current Evidence

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has emerged as a novel technique to stimulate the human brain through the scalp. Over the years, identifying the optimal brain region and stimulation parameters has been a subject of debate in the literature on therapeutic uses of repetitive TMS (rTMS). Nevertheless, the primary motor cortex (M1) has been a conventional target for rTMS to treat motor symptoms, such as hemiplegia and spasticity, as it controls the voluntary movement of the body. However, with an expanding knowledge base of the M1 cortical and subcortical connections, M1-rTMS has shown a therapeutic efficacy that goes beyond the conventional motor rehabilitation to involve pain, headache, fatigue, dysphagia, speech and voice impairments, sleep disorders, cognitive dysfunction, disorders of consciousness, anxiety, depression, and bladder dysfunction. In this review, we summarize the latest evidence on using M1-rTMS to treat non-motor symptoms of diverse etiologies and discuss the potential mechanistic rationale behind the management of each of these symptoms.

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.

Difference in Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation According to the Site of Pain

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex for neuropathic pain has been shown to be effective, according to systematic reviews and therapeutic guidelines. However, our large, rigorous, investigator-initiated, registration-directed clinical trial failed to show a positive primary outcome, and its subgroup analysis suggested that the analgesic effect varied according to the site of pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in analgesic effects of rTMS for neuropathic pain between different pain sites by reviewing our previous clinical trials. We included three clinical trials in this mini meta-analysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial at seven hospitals (N = 64), an investigator-initiated registration-directed clinical trial at three hospitals (N = 142), and an exploratory clinical trial examining different stimulation parameters (N = 22). The primary efficacy endpoint (change in pain scale) was extracted for each patient group with pain in the face, upper limb, or lower limb, and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of active rTMS against sham stimulation was performed. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for pain change using a random-effects model. The analgesic effect of rTMS for upper limb pain was favorable (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.13). In contrast, rTMS did not produce significant pain relief on lower limb pain (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.41) or face (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -1.59 to 1.12). In conclusion, these findings suggest that rTMS provides analgesic effects in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb, but not in the lower limb or face, under the conditions of previous clinical trials. Owing to the main limitation of small number of studies included, many aspects should be clarified by further research and high-quality studies in these patients.