Effect of transspinal direct current stimulation on afferent pain signalling in humans

A Narrative Review of the Dorsal Root Ganglia and Spinal Cord Mechanisms of Action of Neuromodulation Therapies in Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain arises from injuries to the nervous system in diseases such as diabetes, infections, toxicity, and traumas. The underlying mechanism of neuropathic pain involves peripheral and central pathological modifications. Peripheral mechanisms entail nerve damage, leading to neuronal hypersensitivity and ectopic action potentials. Central sensitization involves a neuropathological process with increased responsiveness of the nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system (CNS) to their normal or subthreshold input due to persistent stimuli, leading to sustained electrical discharge, synaptic plasticity, and aberrant processing in the CNS. Current treatments, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, aim to alleviate symptoms but often face challenges due to the complexity of neuropathic pain. Neuromodulation is emerging as an important therapeutic approach for the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients unresponsive to common therapies, by promoting the normalization of neuronal and/or glial activity and by targeting cerebral cortical regions, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia, and nerve endings. Having a better understanding of the efficacy, adverse events and applicability of neuromodulation through pre-clinical studies is of great importance. Unveiling the mechanisms and characteristics of neuromodulation to manage neuropathic pain is essential to understand how to use it. In the present article, we review the current understanding supporting dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord neuromodulation as a therapeutic approach for neuropathic pain.

Trans-Spinal Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological Disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Trans-spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is a noninvasive stimulation technique that applies direct current stimulation over spinal levels. However, the effectiveness and feasibility of this stimulation are still unclear. This systematic review summarizes the effectiveness of tsDCS in clinical and neurophysiological outcomes in neurological patients, as well as its feasibility and safety.

METHODS

The search was conducted using the following databases: PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. The inclusion criteria were: Participants : people with central nervous system diseases; Interventions : tsDCS alone or in combination with locomotion training; Comparators : sham tsDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation, or locomotion training; Outcomes : clinical and neurophysiological measures; and Studies : randomized clinical trials.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 143 subjects were included. Anodal tsDCS led to a reduction in hypertonia, neuropathic pain intensity, and balance deficits in people with hereditary spastic paraplegia, multiple sclerosis, and primary orthostatic tremor, respectively. In contrast, cathodal tsDCS only had positive effects on balance and tremor in people with primary orthostatic tremor. No severe adverse effects were reported during and after anodal or cathodal tsDCS.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Although certain studies have found an effect of anodal tsDCS on specific clinical outcomes in people with central nervous system diseases, its effectiveness cannot be established since these findings have not been replicated and the results were heterogeneous. This stimulation was feasible and safe to apply. Further studies are needed to replicate the obtained results of tsDCS when applied in populations with neurological diseases.

Effect of non-invasive spinal cord stimulation in unmedicated adults with major depressive disorder: a pilot randomized controlled trial and induced current flow pattern

Converging theoretical frameworks suggest a role and a therapeutic potential for spinal interoceptive pathways in major depressive disorder (MDD). Here, we aimed to evaluate the antidepressant effects and tolerability of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) in MDD. This was a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, parallel group, pilot clinical trial in unmedicated adults with moderate MDD. Twenty participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive "active" 2.5 mA or "sham" anodal tsDCS sessions with a thoracic (anode; T10)/right shoulder (cathode) electrode montage 3 times/week for 8 weeks. Change in depression severity (MADRS) scores (prespecified primary outcome) and secondary clinical outcomes were analyzed with ANOVA models. An E-Field model was generated using the active tsDCS parameters. Compared to sham (n = 9), the active tsDCS group (n = 10) showed a greater baseline to endpoint decrease in MADRS score with a large effect size (-14.6 ± 2.5 vs. -21.7 ± 2.3, p = 0.040, d = 0.86). Additionally, compared to sham, active tsDCS induced a greater decrease in MADRS "reported sadness" item (-1.8 ± 0.4 vs. -3.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.012), and a greater cumulative decrease in pre/post tsDCS session diastolic blood pressure change from baseline to endpoint (group difference: 7.9 ± 3.7 mmHg, p = 0.039). Statistical trends in the same direction were observed for MADRS "pessimistic thoughts" item and week-8 CGI-I scores. No group differences were observed in adverse events (AEs) and no serious AEs occurred. The current flow simulation showed electric field at strength within the neuromodulation range (max. ~0.45 V/m) reaching the thoracic spinal gray matter. The results from this pilot study suggest that tsDCS is feasible, well-tolerated, and shows therapeutic potential in MDD. This work also provides the initial framework for the cautious exploration of non-invasive spinal cord neuromodulation in the context of mental health research and therapeutics. The underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03433339 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03433339 .

Anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation influences the amplitude of pain-related evoked potentials in healthy subjects

It has already been described that transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can selectively influence nociceptive evoked potentials. This study is the first aiming to prove an influence of tsDCS on pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) using concentric surface electrodes (CE), whose nociceptive specificity is still under discussion. 28 healthy subjects participated in this sham-controlled, double-blind cross-over study. All subjects underwent one session of anodal and one session of sham low-thoracic tsDCS. Before and after the intervention, PREP using CE, PREP-induced pain perception and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) were assessed on the right upper and lower limb. We found a decrease in PREP amplitude at the lower limb after sham stimulation, but not after anodal tsDCS, while SEP remained unchanged under all studied conditions. There was no difference between the effects of anodal tsDCS and sham stimulation on the studied parameters assessed at the upper limb. PREP-induced pain of the upper and lower limb increased after anodal tsDCS. The ability of influencing PREP using a CE at the spinal level in contrast to SEP suggests that PREP using CE follows the spinothalamic pathway and supports the assumption that it is specifically nociceptive. However, while mainly inhibitory effects on nociceptive stimuli have already been described, our results rather suggest that anodal tsDCS has a sensitizing effect. This may indicate that the mechanisms underlying the elicitation of PREP with CE are not the same as for the other nociceptive evoked potentials. The effects on the processing of different types of painful stimuli should be directly compared in future studies.

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.

Effect of Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation in Patients with Painful Polyneuropathy and Influence of Possible Predictors of Efficacy including BDNF Polymorphism: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Crossover Study

Introduction: The neuromodulating effects of transcutaneous-spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) have been reported to block pain signaling. For patients with chronic pain, tsDCS could be a potential treatment option. To approach this, we studied the effect of anodal tsDCS on patients with neuropathic pain approaching an optimal paradigm including the investigation of different outcome predictors. Methods: In this randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled crossover study we recruited twenty patients with neurophysiologically evaluated neuropathic pain due to polyneuropathy (PNP). Variables (VAS; pain and sleep quality) were reported daily, one week prior to, and one week after the stimulation/sham period. Anodal tsDCS (2.5 mA, 20 min) was given once daily for three days during one week. BDNF-polymorphism, pharmacological treatment, and body mass index (BMI) of all the patients were investigated. Results: Comparing the effects of sham and real stimulation at the group level, there was a tendency towards reduced pain, but no significant effects were found. However, for sleep quality a significant improvement was seen. At the individual level, 30 and 35% of the subjects had a clinically significant improvement of pain level and sleep quality, respectively, the first day after the stimulation. Both effects were reduced over the coming week and these changes were negatively correlated. The BDNF polymorphism Val66Met was carried by 35% of the patients and this group was found to have a lower general level of pain but there was no significant difference in the tsDCS response effect. Neither pharmacologic treatment or BMI influenced the treatment effect. Conclusions: Short-term and sparse anodal thoracic tsDCS reduces pain and improves sleep with large inter-individual differences. Roughly 30% will benefit in a clinically meaningful way. The BDNF genotype seems to influence the level of pain that PNP produces. Individualized and intensified tsDCS may be a treatment option for neuropathic pain due to PNP.

Just Breathe: Improving LEP Outcomes through Long Interval Breathing

Background: Laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) constitute an objective clinical diagnostic method used to investigate the functioning of the nociceptor system, including signaling in thin peripheral nerve fibers: Aδ and C fibers. There is preliminary evidence that phase locking LEPs with the breathing cycle can improve the parameters used to evaluate LEPs. Methods: We tested a simple breathing protocol as a low-cost improvement to LEP testing of the hands. Twenty healthy participants all underwent three variants of LEP protocols: following a video-guided twelve-second breathing instruction, watching a nature video, or using the classic LEP method of focusing on the hand being stimulated. Results: The breath protocol produced significantly shorter latencies as compared with the nature or classic protocol. It was also the least prone to artifacts and was deemed most acceptable by the subjects. There was no difference between the protocols regarding LEP amplitudes. Conclusions: Using a breathing video can be a simple, low-cost improvement for LEP testing in research and clinical diagnostics.