Feasibility and efficacy of remotely supervised cranial electrical stimulation for pain in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled pilot study

Balancing Act: Acute and Contextual Vestibular Sensations of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation Using Survey and Sensor Outcomes in a Non-Clinical Sample

Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) delivers low-intensity electrical currents to the brain to treat anxiety, depression, and pain. Though CES is considered safe and cost-effective, little is known about side effects emerging across different contexts. Our objective was to investigate how varying physical and cognitive demands impact the frequency and intensity of CES vestibular sensations in a sample of healthy young adults. We used a 2 (stimulation: sham, active) × 2 (physical demand: static sway, dynamic sit-to-stand) × 2 (cognitive demand: single-task remain silent, dual-task count backward) repeated measures design. Vestibular sensations were measured with surveys and wearable sensors capturing balance changes. Active stimulation did not influence reported vestibular sensations. Instead, high physical demand predicted more sensation reports. High cognitive demand, but not active stimulation, predicted postural sway unsteadiness. Significant effects of active stimulation on balance were observed only during the dynamic sit-to-stand transitions. In summary, CES induces vestibular sensations only for a specific outcome under certain circumstances. Our findings imply that consumers can safely maximize the benefits of CES while ensuring they are taking steps to minimize any potential side effects by considering their context and circumstances.

Listening to Remotely Monitored Home-based Preferred Music for Pain in Older Black Adults with Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study of Feasibility and Acceptability

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a complex condition that is widespread among older Black adults. Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended as first-line therapy, but their use in practice is limited, possibly due to misunderstanding of their analgesic characteristics.

AIM

To determine the feasibility and acceptability of listening to preferred music at home to relieve pain in older Black adults aged 65 years or older with LBP.

METHOD

We recruited 20 community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years) with LBP to use noise-isolating headphones to listen to their preferred music for 20 minutes twice daily for four days via the MUSIC CARE® app. Feasibility was determined using enrollment, adherence, and attrition rates, and acceptability was determined using the Treatment Acceptance and Preference (TAP) scale. Average pain scores were self-reported using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) after the second intervention of the day. Pain scores were evaluated using paired sample t test and repeated-measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Enrollment, adherence, and attrition rates were 95.25%, 100.00%, and 0.00%, respectively. Most participants rated the TAP scale at ≥3, indicating acceptance. Pain scores decreased significantly from baseline (M = 46.90, SD = 21.47) to post-intervention (M = 35.70, SD = 16.57), t (19) = 2.29, p = .03. Repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant decrease in mean pain scores over time [F (2.36, 44.88) = 5.61, p = .004, η2 = .23].

CONCLUSIONS

Listening to preferred music for 20 minutes twice a day is a feasible and acceptable intervention that can considerably reduce pain in older Black adults with LBP.

Brain stimulation for chronic pain management: a narrative review of analgesic mechanisms and clinical evidence

Chronic pain constitutes one of the most common chronic complaints that people experience. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs longer than 3 months. Chronic pain has a significant impact on individuals' well-being and psychosocial health and the economy of healthcare systems as well. Despite the availability of numerous therapeutic modalities, treatment of chronic pain can be challenging. Only about 30% of individuals with non-cancer chronic pain achieve improvement from standard pharmacological treatment. Therefore, numerous therapeutic approaches were proposed as a potential treatment for chronic pain including non-opioid pharmacological agents, nerve blocks, acupuncture, cannabidiol, stem cells, exosomes, and neurostimulation techniques. Although some neurostimulation methods such as spinal cord stimulation were successfully introduced into clinical practice as a therapy for chronic pain, the current evidence for brain stimulation efficacy in the treatment of chronic pain remains unclear. Hence, this narrative literature review aimed to give an up-to-date overview of brain stimulation methods, including deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation as a potential treatment for chronic pain.

Self-administered transcranial direct current stimulation treatment of knee osteoarthritis alters pain-related fNIRS connectivity networks

Significance

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease that causes chronic pain in the elderly population. Currently, OA is mainly treated pharmacologically with analgesics, although research has shown that neuromodulation via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be beneficial in reducing pain in clinical settings. However, no studies have reported the effects of home-based self-administered tDCS on functional brain networks in older adults with knee OA.

Aim

We used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to investigate the functional connectivity effects of tDCS on underlying pain processing mechanisms at the central nervous level in older adults with knee OA.

Approach

Pain-related brain connectivity networks were extracted using fNIRS at baseline and for three consecutive weeks of treatment from 120 subjects randomly assigned to two groups undergoing active tDCS and sham tDCS.

Results

Our results showed that the tDCS intervention significantly modulated pain-related connectivity correlation only in the group receiving active treatment. We also found that only the active treatment group showed a significantly reduced number and strength of functional connections evoked during nociception in the prefrontal cortex, primary motor (M1), and primary somatosensory (S1) cortices. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the effect of tDCS on pain-related connectivity networks is investigated using fNIRS.

Conclusions

fNIRS-based functional connectivity can be effectively used to investigate neural circuits of pain at the cortical level in association with nonpharmacological, self-administered tDCS treatment.

Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

Safety and Feasibility of Tele-Supervised Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a worldwide cause of disability in older age, especially during the covid pandemic. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that has shown encouraging efficacy for treatment of depression. Here, we investigate the feasibility of an innovative protocol where tDCS is administered within the homes of older adults with MDD (patient participants) with the help of a study companion (i.e. caregiver). We further analyze the feasibility of a remotely-hosted training program that provides the knowledge and skills to administer tDCS at home, without requiring them to visit the lab. We also employed a newly developed multi-channel tDCS system with real-time monitoring designed to guarantee the safety and efficacy of home-based tDCS. Patient participants underwent a total of 37 home-based tDCS sessions distributed over 12 weeks. The protocol consisted of three phases each lasting four weeks: an acute phase, containing 28 home-based tDCS sessions, a taper phase containing nine home-based tDCS sessions, and a follow up phase, with no stimulation sessions. We found that the home-based, remotely-supervised, study companion administered, multi-channel tDCS protocol for older adults with MDD was feasible and safe. Further, the study introduces a novel training program for remote instruction of study companions in the administration of tDCS. Future research is required to determine the translatability of these findings to a larger sample.

Clinical Trial Registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04799405?term=NCT04799405&draw=2&rank=1, identifier NCT04799405.