Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is efficacious as an add-on to pharmacological therapy in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I

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).

One session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces mild and transient analgesic effects among female individuals with painful temporomandibular disorders

OBJECTIVE

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are characterised by chronic pain and dysfunction in the jaw joint and masticatory muscles. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as a potential non-invasive treatment for chronic pain; however, its effectiveness in individuals with TMD has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the immediate and sustained (over seven consecutive days) effects of a single session of active rTMS compared to sham stimulation on pain intensity and pain unpleasantness in individuals with TMD.

METHODS

A randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial enrolled 41 female participants with chronic TMD. Pain intensity and pain unpleasantness were assessed immediately pre- and post-intervention, as well as twice daily for 21 days using electronic diaries. Secondary outcomes included pain interference, sleep quality, positive and negative affect and pain catastrophizing. Adverse effects were monitored. Repeated measures ANOVA and multilevel modelling regression analyses were employed for data analysis.

RESULT

Active rTMS demonstrated a significant immediate mild reduction in pain intensity and pain unpleasantness compared to sham stimulation. However, these effects were not sustained over the 7-day post-intervention period. No significant differences were observed between interventions for pain interference, sleep quality and negative affect. A minority of participants reported minor and transient side effects, including headaches and fatigue.

CONCLUSION

A single session of active rTMS was safe and led to immediate mild analgesic effects in individuals with TMD compared to sham stimulation. However, no significant differences were observed between interventions over the 7-day post-intervention period. Based on this study, rTMS stimulation appears to be a promising safe approach to be tested in TMD patients with longer stimulation protocols.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation with Sensorimotor Training for the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 2 of the Upper Limb Case Report

This case report describes the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with sensorimotor training (SMT) to treat an individual with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type 2 with allodynia of the right hand/wrist. After the 9-week intervention, there was a clinically meaningful reduction in pain intensity which continued to 3 months after intervention. Further, clinically meaningful improvements in wrist and hand function and allodynia were observed. Although the use of rTMS for CRPS has been reported, this unique report provides valuable insight into the clinical utility of rTMS plus SMT for the treatment of CRPS and related symptoms.

High frequency neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in post-stroke shoulder pain: A double-blinded, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effect of 5Hz neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the affected primary motor cortex (M1) on pain, the effect of pain on activities of daily living, disability, mood, neurophysiological parameters and passive shoulder joint range of motion in patients with post-stroke shoulder pain.

DESIGN

Twenty two patients were randomized into an experimental group (rTMS, n=7) who received daily rTMS 5Hz 1000 pulses, five times/week for three weeks (15 sessions) to the affected M1 and a control group (n=11) who received sham stimulation. Outcome measures were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (Quick DASH), Hospital Depression Anxiety Scale (HADS), joint range of motion (ROM) measurements, neurophysiological parameters. Selected outcome measures were performed before treatment (T0), after the 5th session (T1) of rTMS treatment, after the 10th session (T2), after the 15th session (T3), and four weeks after the end of the treatment (T4). In the analysis of the outcomes, within-group comparisons were performed by using the Wilcoxon or Friedman test and between-group comparisons were performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between and within groups in terms of change- and followup scores in the NRS measurements (p>0.05). BPI scale was found to be lower in rTMS group at T0 and T3 (p= 0.010). Quick-DASH scores at T4 were found to be significantly lower in rTMS group (p= 0.032). However, no difference was found within each group over time (p>0.05) and there was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of change scores (T3-T0 and T4-T0) (p>0.05) for BPI and Quick-DASH. In rTMS group, there was a statistically significant difference in shoulder external rotation at T3 compared to the baseline (T0) (p=0.039). However, the magnitude of external rotation change (T3-T0) with the treatment was comparable in the groups. No statistically significant change occurred in both treatment groups in other range of motion measurements.

CONCLUSION

High frequency neuronavigated rTMS to the affected M1 did not show any significant beneficial effect on pain, activities of daily living, disability, anxiety and depression, neurophysiological measurements and passive ROM over sham stimulation.

Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have demonstrated their potential for chronic pain management, yet their efficacy exhibits variability across studies. Refining stimulation targets and exploring additional targets offer a possible solution to this challenge. This study aimed to identify potential brain surface targets for NIBS in treating chronic pain disorders by integrating literature review, neuroimaging meta-analysis, and functional connectivity analysis on 90 chronic low back pain patients. Our results showed that the primary motor cortex (M1) (C3/C4, 10-20 EEG system) and prefrontal cortex (F3/F4/Fz) were the most used brain stimulation targets for chronic pain treatment according to the literature review. The bilateral precentral gyrus (M1), supplementary motor area, Rolandic operculum, and temporoparietal junction, were all identified as common potential NIBS targets through both a meta-analysis sourced from Neurosynth and functional connectivity analysis. This study presents a comprehensive summary of the current literature and refines the existing NIBS targets through a combination of imaging meta-analysis and functional connectivity analysis for chronic pain conditions. The derived coordinates (with integration of the international electroencephalography (EEG) 10/20 electrode placement system) within the above brain regions may further facilitate the localization of these targets for NIBS application. Our findings may have the potential to expand NIBS target selection beyond current clinical trials and improve chronic pain treatment.

rTMS targeted to the secondary somatosensory cortex influences sleep in CRPS patients, as measured with the OURA ring

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain associates with various sleep problems. Patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) often report impaired sleep, but objective measurements of sleep in CRPS patients are scarce. Neuromodulation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can alleviate pain and improve sleep. Secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) is a possible rTMS target for the treatment of chronic pain, but the effect of S2-targeted rTMS on sleep is unknown.

METHODS

This randomized, sham-controlled trial assessed the effect of S2-targeted rTMS on sleep in patients with CRPS. Patients (n = 31) received either S2-targeted rTMS (10 Hz) or sham stimulation for 3 weeks. The effect of treatment on sleep was assessed with validated questionnaires, with a sleep and pain diary, and with a consumer-grade sleep tracker, the Oura ring. In addition to an ordinary univariate analysis of the results, we conducted multivariate testing of the Oura data using linear discriminant analysis (LDA).

RESULTS

S2-targeted rTMS decreased sleep restlessness that significantly differed between the rTMS and sham stimulation patient groups (p = .028). In the multivariate analysis of the Oura data, LDA classification accuracy to separate the rTMS and sham groups exceeded 95% confidence level in four out of the seven tested models. In the subjective evaluation of sleep, the effect of rTMS and sham did not differ.

CONCLUSION

S2-targeted rTMS influenced sleep in patients with CRPS. Improved sleep may enhance CRPS symptom alleviation and be of clinical importance. A univariate analysis could separate the rTMS and sham treatments. The multivariate analysis revealed that including multiple sleep-related parameters can be beneficial when analyzing rTMS effects on sleep. As sleep is related both to pain and quality of life, and sleep rTMS can be directly affected by rTMS, objective monitoring of sleep in various future rTMS trials could be fruitful.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Evidence-Based Advances in Concepts and Treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents the most current information about the epidemiology of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), classification and diagnostic criteria, childhood CRPS, subtypes, pathophysiology, conventional and less conventional treatments, and preventive strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

CRPS is a painful disorder with multifactorial pathophysiology. The data describe sensitization of the central and peripheral nervous systems, inflammation, possible genetic factors, sympatho-afferent coupling, autoimmunity, and mental health factors as contributors to the syndrome. In addition to conventional subtypes (type I and type II), cluster analyses have uncovered other proposed subtypes. Prevalence of CRPS is approximately 1.2%, female gender is consistently associated with a higher risk of development, and substantial physical, emotional, and financial costs can result from the syndrome. Children with CRPS seem to benefit from multifaceted physical therapy leading to a high percentage of symptom-free patients. The best available evidence along with standard clinical practice supports pharmacological agents, physical and occupational therapy, sympathetic blocks for engaging physical restoration, steroids for acute CRPS, neuromodulation, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen as therapeutic approaches. There are many emerging treatments that can be considered as a part of individualized, patient-centered care. Vitamin C may be preventive. CRPS can lead to progressively painful sensory and vascular changes, edema, limb weakness, and trophic disturbances, all of which substantially erode healthy living. Despite some progress in research, more comprehensive basic science investigation is needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms of the disease so that targeted treatments can be developed for better outcomes. Incorporating a variety of standard therapies with different modes of action may offer the most effective analgesia. Introducing less conventional approaches may also be helpful when traditional treatments fail to provide sufficient improvement.

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.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

A Review of Chronic Pain and Device Interventions: Benefits and Future Directions

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition with a growing prevalence both in the USA and globally. The complex nature of this condition necessitates a multimodal approach to pain management that extends beyond the established pharmaceutical interventions currently employed. A variety of devices comprising both invasive and noninvasive approaches are available to patients, serving as adjuvants to existing regimens. The benefits of these interventions are notable for their lack of addiction potential, potential for patient autonomy regarding self-administration, minimal to no drug interaction, and overall relative safety. However, there remains a need for further research and more robust clinical trials to assess the true efficacy of these interventions and elucidate if there is an underlying physiological mechanism to their benefit in treating chronic pain or if their effect is predominantly placebo in nature. Regardless, the field of device-based intervention and treatment remains an evolving field with much promise for the future chronic pain management.

Modern Principles of Diagnosis and Treatment in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a relatively common complication, occurring in 5% of cases after injury or surgery, particularly in the limbs. The incidence of CPRS is around 5-26/100 000. The latest revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) now categorizes CRPS as a primary pain condition of multifactorial origin, rather than a disease of the skeletal system or the autonomic nervous system.

METHODS

Method: Based on a selective search of the literature, we summarize current principles for the diagnosis and treatment of CRPS.

RESULTS

Results: Regional findings in CRPS are accompanied by systemic symptoms, especially by neurocognitive disorders of body perception and of symptom processing. The therapeutic focus is shifting from predominantly passive peripheral measures to early active treatments acting both centrally and peripherally. The treatment is centered on physiotherapy and occupational therapy to improve sensory perception, strength, (fine) motor skills, and sensorimotor integration/ body perception. This is supported by stepped psychological interventions to reduce anxiety and avoidance behavior, medication to decrease inflammation and pain, passive physical measures for reduction of edema and of pain, and medical aids to improve functioning in daily life. Interventional procedures should be limited to exceptional cases and only be performed in specialized centers. Spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion stimulation, respectively, are the interventions with the best evidence.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion: The modern principles for the diagnosis and treatment of CRPS consider both, physiological and psychological mechanisms, with the primary goal of restoring function and participation. More research is needed to strengthen the evidence base in this field.

Effectiveness of High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in migraine measured by decrease in pain severity or attack frequency.

METHODS

A search at the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus. The risk of systematic bias was rated by using the Cochrane domain-based quality assessment tool. A random-effects model was used.

RESULTS

Of 434 identified records, 8 randomized control studies were included in the meta-synthesis. All have used a high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The risk of systematic bias was low. The difference between repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and control groups in frequency of migraine days per month was 8.1 (95% confidence interval = 4.8 - 11.4) days in favor of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Respectively, for intensity of migraine pain (scaled from 0 to 100), this difference was 13.6 (95% confidence interval = 5.3 - 21.8) points in favor of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. The heterogeneity was substantial with I2 = 86%.

CONCLUSIONS

In chronic migraine, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation seems to have positive effects on both migraine pain severity and attack frequency compared with sham stimulation. Although the effect on pain intensity was probably clinically insignificant, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reduced pain frequency by 8 days per month on average.

Research Hotspots and Effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, as a relatively new type of treatment, is a safe and non-invasive method for pain therapy. Here, we used CiteSpace software to visually analyze 440 studies concerning transcranial magnetic stimulation in pain research from 2010 to 2021, indexed by Web of Science, to clarify the research hotspots in different periods and characterize the process of discovery in this field. The United States ranked first in this field. Lefaucheur JP, Fregni F, and Andrade ACD made great contributions to this field of study. The most prolific institution was University of São Paulo. The four main hot keywords were neuropathic pain, motor cortex, connectivity, and non-invasive brain stimulation. There were three main points that were generally accepted: (1) definite analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of M1 contralateral to pain side in neuropathic pain; (2) there are inconclusive recommendations regarding rTMS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain; (3) there is low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have short-term effects on chronic pain. This bibliometric analysis indicated that prospective, multi-center, large-sample, randomized controlled trials are still needed to further verify the effectiveness of various transcranial magnetic stimulation parameters in pain research.

Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is vast published literature proposing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology on the motor cortex (M1) for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Systematic reviews (SRs) focus on a specific problem and do not provide a comprehensive overview of a research area. This study aimed to summarize and analyze the evidence of rTMS on the M1 for NP treatment through a new synthesis method called evidence mapping.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library to identify the studies that summarized the effectiveness of rTMS for NP. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, was included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted following a defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions [frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)] and compared. The evidence map was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 38 SRs met the eligibility criteria. After duplicate primary studies were removed, these reviews included 70 primary studies that met the scope of evidence mapping. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the quality of the included SRs was critically low. Of these studies, 34 SRs scored "critically low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SR scored "low," 1 SR scored "moderate," and 1 SR scored "high."

CONCLUSION

Evidence mapping is a useful methodology to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of studies on rTMS for NP. Evidence mapping also shows that further investigations are necessary to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols and standardize all parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Given that the methodological quality of most included SRs was "critically low," further investigations are advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

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.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. A Comprehensive Review on Neuroplastic Changes Supporting the Use of Non-invasive Neurostimulation in Clinical Settings

Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a rare debilitating disorder characterized by severe pain affecting one or more limbs. CRPS presents a complex multifactorial physiopathology. The peripheral and sensorimotor abnormalities reflect maladaptive changes of the central nervous system. These changes of volume, connectivity, activation, metabolism, etc., could be the keys to understand chronicization, refractoriness to conventional treatment, and developing more efficient treatments. Objective: This review discusses the use of non-pharmacological, non-invasive neurostimulation techniques in CRPS, with regard to the CRPS physiopathology, brain changes underlying chronicization, conventional approaches to treat CRPS, current evidence, and mechanisms of action of peripheral and brain stimulation. Conclusion: Future work is warranted to foster the evidence of the efficacy of non-invasive neurostimulation in CRPS. It seems that the approach has to be individualized owing to the integrity of the brain and corticospinal function. Non-invasive neurostimulation of the brain or of nerve/muscles/spinal roots, alone or in combination with conventional therapy, represents a fertile ground to develop more efficient approaches for pain management in CRPS.

Posterior-superior insular deep transcranial magnetic stimulation alleviates peripheral neuropathic pain - A pilot double-blind, randomized cross-over study

OBJECTIVES

Peripheral neuropathic pain (pNeP) is prevalent, and current treatments, including drugs and motor cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) leave a substantial proportion of patients with suboptimal pain relief.

METHODS

We explored the intensity and short-term duration of the analgesic effects produced in pNeP patients by 5 days of neuronavigated deep rTMS targeting the posterior superior insula (PSI) with a double-cone coil in a sham-controlled randomized cross-over trial.

RESULTS

Thirty-one pNeP patients received induction series of five active or sham consecutive sessions of daily deep-rTMS to the PSI in a randomized sequence, with a washout period of at least 21 days between series. The primary outcome [number of responders (>50% pain intensity reduction from baseline in a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10)] was significantly higher after real (58.1%) compared to sham (19.4%) stimulation (p = 0.002). The number needed to treat was 2.6, and the effect size was 0.97 [95% CI (0.6; 1.3)]. One week after the 5th stimulation day, pain scores were no longer different between groups, and no difference in neuropathic pain characteristics and interference with daily living were present. No major side effects occurred, and milder adverse events (i.e., short-lived headaches after stimulation) were reported in both groups. Blinding was effective, and analgesic effects were not affected by sequence of the stimulation series (active-first or sham-first), age, sex or pain duration of participants.

DISCUSSION

PSI deep-rTMS was safe in refractory pNeP and was able to provide significant pain intensity reduction after a five-day induction series of treatments. Post-hoc assessment of neuronavigation targeting confirmed deep-rTMS was delivered within the boundaries of the PSI in all participants.

CONCLUSION

PSI deep-rTMS provided significant pain relief during 5-day induction sessions compared to sham stimulation.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation alone and in combination with motor control exercise for the treatment of individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (ExTraStim trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

While multiple pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions treating chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) are available, they have been shown to produce at best modest effects. Interventions such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, have exhibited promising results to alleviate chronic pain. However, evidence on the effectiveness of rTMS for CLBP is scarce due to limited rigorous clinical trials. Combining rTMS with motor control exercises (MCE) may help to address both central and nociceptive factors contributing to the persistence of LBP. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of a combination of rTMS and MCE to repeated rTMS sessions alone, sham rTMS and a combination of sham rTMS and MCE on pain intensity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

One hundred and forty participants (35/group) with CLBP will be randomised into four groups (active rTMS+MCE, sham rTMS+MCE, active rTMS and sham rTMS) to receive 10 sessions of their allocated intervention. The primary outcome will be the pain intensity, assessed at baseline, 4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include disability, fear of movement, quality of life and patient global rating of change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Comité d'éthique de la recherche sectoriel en réadaptation et intégration sociale, CIUSS de la Capitale Nationale in June 2019 (#2020-1844 - CER CIUSSS-CN). The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04555278.

Analgesic Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

Introduction

The objective of this review is to systematically summarize the consensus on best practices for different NP conditions of the two most commonly utilized noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technologies, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Methods

PubMed was searched according to the predetermined keywords and criteria. Only English language studies and studies published up to January 31, 2020 were taken into consideration. Meta-analyses, reviews, and systematic reviews were excluded first, and those related to animal studies or involving healthy volunteers were also excluded. Finally, 29 studies covering 826 NP patients were reviewed.

Results

The results from the 24 enrolled studies and 736 NP patients indicate that rTMS successfully relieved the pain symptoms of 715 (97.1%) NP patients. Also, five studies involving 95 NP patients (81.4%) also showed that tDCS successfully relieved NP. In the included studied, the M1 region plays a key role in the analgesic treatment of NIBS. The motor evoked potentials (MEPs), the 10–20 electroencephalography system (EEG 10/20 system), and neuro-navigation methods are used in clinical practice to locate therapeutic targets. Based on the results of the review, the stimulation parameters of rTMS that best induce an analgesic effect are a stimulation frequency of 10–20 Hz, a stimulation intensity of 80–120% of RMT, 1000–2000 pulses, and 5–10 sessions, and the most effective parameters of tDCS are a current intensity of 2 mA, a session duration of 20–30 min, and 5–10 sessions.

Conclusions

Our systematically reviewed the evidence for positive and negative responses to rTMS and tDCS for NP patient care and underscores the analgesic efficacy of NIBS in patients with NP. The treatment of NP should allow the design of optimal treatments for individual patients.

Neuromodulation for Pain Management in the Inpatient Setting: A Narrative Review

Pain is highly prevalent and pharmacological therapy is not always efficacious. There are a few pathophysiological reasons to believe that neuromodulation would increase the rate of success of pain management. This review article is focused on that aspect, discussing non-invasive or minimally invasive neuromodulation techniques in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. This article provides an in-depth discussion of the multiple neuromodulation techniques available over time to be suitable and effective when used as analgesic therapies for chronic pain. We reviewed the literature and discussed all available neuromodulation options that were tested in the inpatient and outpatient setting. Neuromodulation plays a very important role in treating chronic pain in both inpatient and outpatient setting.

rTMS induces analgesia and modulates neuroinflammation and neuroplasticity in neuropathic pain model rats

Neuropathic pain (NP) is related to the presence of hyperalgesia, allodynia, and spontaneous pain, affecting 7%-10% of the general population. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is applied for NP relief, especially in patients with refractory pain. As NP response to existing treatments is often insufficient, we aimed to evaluate rTMS treatment on the nociceptive response of rats submitted to an NP model and its effect on pro-and anti-neuroinflammatory cytokine and neurotrophin levels. A total of 106 adult male Wistar rats (60 days old) were divided into nine experimental groups: control, control + sham rTMS, control + rTMS, sham NP, sham neuropathic pain + sham rTMS, sham neuropathic pain + rTMS, NP, neuropathic pain + sham rTMS, and neuropathic pain + rTMS. NP establishment was achieved 14 days after the surgery to establish chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the sciatic nerve. Rats were treated with 5 min daily sessions of rTMS for eight consecutive days. Nociceptive behavior was assessed using von Frey and hot plate tests at baseline, after NP establishment, and post-treatment. Biochemical assays to assess the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and interleukin (IL)-10, were performed in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and spinal cord tissue homogenates. rTMS treatment promoted a partial reversal of mechanical allodynia and total reversal of thermal hyperalgesia induced by CCI. Moreover, rTMS increased the levels of BDNF, TNF-α, and IL-10 in the PFC. rTMS may be a promising tool for the treatment of NP. The alterations induced by rTMS on neurochemical parameters may have contributed to the analgesic effect presented.

Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines

This article is based on a consensus conference, promoted and supported by the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN), which took place in Siena (Italy) in October 2018. The meeting intended to update the ten-year-old safety guidelines for the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in research and clinical settings (Rossi et al., 2009). Therefore, only emerging and new issues are covered in detail, leaving still valid the 2009 recommendations regarding the description of conventional or patterned TMS protocols, the screening of subjects/patients, the need of neurophysiological monitoring for new protocols, the utilization of reference thresholds of stimulation, the managing of seizures and the list of minor side effects. New issues discussed in detail from the meeting up to April 2020 are safety issues of recently developed stimulation devices and pulse configurations; duties and responsibility of device makers; novel scenarios of TMS applications such as in the neuroimaging context or imaging-guided and robot-guided TMS; TMS interleaved with transcranial electrical stimulation; safety during paired associative stimulation interventions; and risks of using TMS to induce therapeutic seizures (magnetic seizure therapy). An update on the possible induction of seizures, theoretically the most serious risk of TMS, is provided. It has become apparent that such a risk is low, even in patients taking drugs acting on the central nervous system, at least with the use of traditional stimulation parameters and focal coils for which large data sets are available. Finally, new operational guidelines are provided for safety in planning future trials based on traditional and patterned TMS protocols, as well as a summary of the minimal training requirements for operators, and a note on ethics of neuroenhancement.

The effect of rTMS in the management of pain associated with CRPS

Background

Therapeutic management of pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is challenging. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has analgesic effects on several types of pain. However, its effect on CRPS has not been elucidated clearly. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of the available clinical studies on rTMS treatment in patients with CRPS.

Materials and methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS databases. We included studies published up to February 09, 2020, that fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data regarding measurement of pain using the visual analog scale before and after rTMS treatment were collected to perform the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2.

Results

A total of three studies (one randomized controlled trial and two prospective observational studies) involving 41 patients were included in this meta-analysis. No significant reduction in pain was observed immediately after one rTMS treatment session or immediately after the entire schedule of rTMS treatment sessions (5 or 10 sessions; P > 0.05). However, pain significantly reduced 1 week after the entire schedule of rTMS sessions (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

rTMS appears to have a functional analgesic effect in patients with CRPS.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in management of chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) with frequencies 5-20 Hz is an expanding non-invasive treatment for chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Outcome data, however, show considerable inhomogeneity with concern to the levels of effect due to the great diversity of treated conditions. The aim of this review was to survey the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of M1 rTMS, and the accuracy to predict a positive response to epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) which is supposed to give a more longstanding pain relief.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to June 2019 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We used the PICO Model to define two specific clinical questions: (1) Does rTMS of M1 relieve NP better than sham treatment? (2) Can the response to rTMS be used to predict the effect of epidural MCS? After article selection, data extraction, and study quality assessment, the certainty of evidence of treatment effect was defined using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Data on 5-20 Hz (high-frequency) rTMS vs. sham was extracted from 24 blinded randomised controlled trials which were of varying quality, investigated highly heterogeneous pain conditions, and used excessively variable stimulation parameters. The difference in pain relief between active and sham stimulation was statistically significant in 9 of 11 studies using single-session rTMS, and in 9 of 13 studies using multiple sessions. Baseline data could be extracted from 6 single and 12 multiple session trials with a weighted mean pain reduction induced by active rTMS, compared to baseline, of -19% for single sessions, -32% for multiple sessions with follow-up <30 days, and -24% for multiple sessions with follow-up ≥30 days after the last stimulation session. For single sessions the weighted mean difference in pain reduction between active rTMS and sham was 15 percentage points, for multiple sessions the difference was 22 percentage points for follow-ups <30 days, and 15 percentage points for follow-ups ≥30 days. Four studies reported data that could be used to evaluate the accuracy of rTMS to predict response to MCS, showing a specificity of 60-100%, and a positive predictive value of 75-100%. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS targeting M1 can result in significant reduction of chronic NP which, however, is transient and shows a great heterogeneity between studies; very low certainty of evidence for single sessions and low for multiple sessions. Multiple sessions of rTMS can maintain a more longstanding effect. rTMS seems to be a fairly good predictor of a positive response to epidural MCS and may be used to select patients for implantation of permanent epidural electrodes. More studies are needed to manifest the use of rTMS for this purpose. Pain relief outcomes in a longer perspective, and outcome variables other than pain reduction need to be addressed more consistently in future studies to consolidate the applicability of rTMS in routine clinical practice.

Neuronavigation based 10 sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy in chronic migraine: an exploratory study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic migraine is a disease of altered cortical excitability. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation provides a novel non-invasive method to target the nociceptive circuits in the cortex. Motor cortex is one such potential target. In this study, we targeted the left motor cortex using fMRI-guided neuronavigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty right-handed patients were randomized into real and sham rTMS group. Baseline subjective pain assessments were done using visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Becks Depression Inventory, and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Objectively, pain was assessed by means of thermal pain thresholds using quantitative sensory testing. For corticomotor excitability parameters, resting motor thresholds and motor-evoked potentials were mapped. For rTMS total, 600 pulses in 10 trains at 10 Hz with an intertrain interval of 60 s were delivered in each session. Ten such sessions were given 5 days per week over 2 consecutive weeks. The duration of each session was 10 min. Real rTMS was administered at 70% of Resting MT. All the tests were repeated post-intervention and after 1 month of follow-up. There are no studies reporting the use of fMRI-based TMS for targeting the motor cortex in CM patients.

RESULTS

We observed a significant reduction in the mean VAS rating, headache frequency, and MIDAS questionnaire in real rTMS group which was maintained after 1 month of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Ten sessions of fMRI-based rTMS over the left motor cortex may provide long-term pain relief in CM, but further studies are warranted to confirm our preliminary findings.

Non-pharmaceutical therapy for post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome: Protocol for a systematic and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Shoulder-hand syndrome (SHS) is a common complication in post-stroke patients. SHS has a large impact on patients and their families, communities, healthcare systems and businesses throughout the world. Non-pharmaceutical therapy for post-stroke SHS is the most common treatment in clinical practice, but their effectiveness is still unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the effect and safety of non-pharmaceutical therapeutic strategies for post-stroke SHS.

METHOD

We will search 3 in English and 4 in Chinese languages electronic databases regardless of publication date or language. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of any non-pharmaceutical therapy for post-stroke SHS. Primary outcomes will be any effective instrument for post-stroke SHS. Two authors will independently assess the risk of bias by using Cochrane tool of risk of bias. We will perform network meta-analysis in random effects model to estimate the indirect and mixed effects of different therapeutic strategies by R-3.5.1 software. We will assess the confidence in cumulative evidence by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

This study will be to assess the effect and safety of non-pharmaceutical therapy for post-stroke SHS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will assess the effect of different non-pharmaceutical therapeutic strategies for post-stroke SHS and provide reliable evidence for the choice of treatments.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019139993).

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain, Headache, and Comorbid Depression: INS-NANS Expert Consensus Panel Review and Recommendation

BACKGROUND

While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been studied for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, emerging evidence supports its use for pain and headache by stimulating either motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, its clinical implementation is hindered due to a lack of consensus in the quality of clinical evidence and treatment recommendation/guideline(s). Thus, working collaboratively, this multinational multidisciplinary expert panel aims to: 1) assess and rate the existing outcome evidence of TMS in various pain/headache conditions; 2) provide TMS treatment recommendation/guidelines for the evaluated conditions and comorbid depression; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness and technical issues relevant to the long-term clinical implementation of TMS for pain and headache.

METHODS

Seven task groups were formed under the guidance of a 5-member steering committee with four task groups assessing the utilization of TMS in the treatment of Neuropathic Pain (NP), Acute Pain, Primary Headache Disorders, and Posttraumatic Brain Injury related Headaches (PTBI-HA), and remaining three assessing the treatment for both pain and comorbid depression, and the cost-effectiveness and technological issues relevant to the treatment.

RESULTS

The panel rated the overall level of evidence and recommendability for clinical implementation of TMS as: 1) high and extremely/strongly for both NP and PTBI-HA respectively; 2) moderate for postoperative pain and migraine prevention, and recommendable for migraine prevention. While the use of TMS for treating both pain and depression in one setting is clinically and financially sound, more studies are required to fully assess the long-term benefit of the treatment for the two highly comorbid conditions, especially with neuronavigation.

CONCLUSIONS

After extensive literature review, the panel provided recommendations and treatment guidelines for TMS in managing neuropathic pain and headaches. In addition, the panel also recommended more outcome and cost-effectiveness studies to assess the feasibility of the long-term clinical implementation of the treatment.

Moderate to severe acute pain disturbs motor cortex intracortical inhibition and facilitation in orthopedic trauma patients: A TMS study

OBJECTIVE

Primary motor (M1) cortical excitability alterations are involved in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Less is known about M1-cortical excitability implications in the acute phase of an orthopedic trauma. This study aims to assess acute M1-cortical excitability in patients with an isolated upper limb fracture (IULF) in relation to pain intensity.

METHODS

Eighty-four (56 IULF patients <14 days post-trauma and 28 healthy controls). IULF patients were divided into two subgroups according to pain intensity (mild versus moderate to severe pain). A single transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) session was performed over M1 to compare groups on resting motor threshold (rMT), short-intracortical inhibition (SICI), intracortical facilitation (ICF), and long-interval cortical inhibition (LICI).

RESULTS

Reduced SICI and ICF were found in IULF patients with moderate to severe pain, whereas mild pain was not associated with M1 alterations. Age, sex, and time since the accident had no influence on TMS measures.

DISCUSSION

These findings show altered M1 in the context of acute moderate to severe pain, suggesting early signs of altered GABAergic inhibitory and glutamatergic facilitatory activities.

Noninvasive brain stimulation combined with exercise in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with exercise could produce synergistic effects on chronic pain conditions. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NIBS combined with exercise to treat chronic pain as well as to describe the parameters used to date in this combination.Methods: The search was carried out in Medline, Central, Scopus, Embase, and Pedro until November 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies reporting the use of noninvasive brain stimulation and exercise on patients with chronic pain were selected and revised.Results: The authors included eight studies (RCTs), reporting eight comparisons (219 participants). Authors found a significant and homogeneous pain decrease (ES: -0.62, 95% CI:-0.89 to -0.34; I2 = 0.0%) in favor of the combined intervention compared to sham NIBS + exercise, predominantly by excitatory (anodal tDCS/rTMS) motor cortex stimulation. Regarding NIBS techniques, the pooled effect sizes were significant for both tDCS (ES: -0.59, 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.29, I2 = 0.0%) and rTMS (ES: -0.76, 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.11, I2 = 0.0%).Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests a significant moderate to large effects of the NIBS and exercise combination in chronic pain. The authors discuss the potential theoretical framework for this synergistic effect.

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.

Neuropsychological Changes in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a poorly understood chronic pain condition of multifactorial origin. CRPS involves sensory, motor, and autonomic symptoms primarily affecting one extremity. Patients can also present with neuropsychological changes such as reduced attention to the CRPS-affected extremity, reminiscent of hemispatial neglect, yet in the absence of any brain lesions. However, this "neglect-like" framework is not sufficient to characterise the range of higher cognitive functions that can be altered in CRPS. This comprehensive literature review synthesises evidence of neuropsychological changes in CRPS in the context of potential central mechanisms of the disorder. The affected neuropsychological functions constitute three distinct but not independent groups: distorted body representation, deficits in lateralised spatial cognition, and impairment of non-spatially-lateralised higher cognitive functions. We suggest that many of these symptoms appear to be consistent with a broader disruption to parietal function beyond merely what could be considered "neglect-like." Moreover, the extent of neuropsychological symptoms might be related to the clinical signs of CRPS, and rehabilitation methods that target the neuropsychological changes can improve clinical outcomes in CRPS and other chronic pain conditions. Based on the limitations and gaps in the reviewed literature, we provide several suggestions to improve further research on neuropsychological changes in chronic pain.

Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC2-NIN-CP)

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Chronic pain (CP) is highly prevalent and generally undertreated health condition. Noninvasive brain stimulation may contribute to decrease pain intensity and influence other aspects related to CP.

Objective:

To provide consensus-based recommendations for the use of noninvasive brain stimulation in clinical practice.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature searching for randomized clinical trials followed by consensus panel. Recommendations also involved a cost-estimation study.

Results:

The systematic review wielded 24 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and 22 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. The following recommendations were provided: (1) Level A for anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in fibromyalgia, and level B for peripheral neuropathic pain, abdominal pain, and migraine; bifrontal (F3/F4) tDCS and M1 high-definition (HD)-tDCS for fibromyalgia; Oz/Cz tDCS for migraine and for secondary benefits such as improvement in quality of life, decrease in anxiety, and increase in pressure pain threshold; (2) level A recommendation for high-frequency (HF) rTMS over M1 for fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, and level B for myofascial or musculoskeletal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and migraine; (3) level A recommendation against the use of anodal M1 tDCS for low back pain; and (4) level B recommendation against the use of HF rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the control of pain.

Conclusion:

Transcranial DCS and rTMS are recommended techniques to be used in the control of CP conditions, with low to moderate analgesic effects, and no severe adverse events. These recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus made by experts in the field. Readers should use it as part of the resources available to decision-making.

The clinical utility of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in reducing the risks of transitioning from acute to chronic pain in traumatically injured patients

Pain is a multifaceted condition and a major ongoing challenge for healthcare professionals having to treat patients in whom pain put them at risk of developing other conditions. Significant efforts have been invested in both clinical and research settings in an attempt to demystify the mechanisms at stake and develop optimal treatments as well as to reduce individual and societal costs. It is now universally accepted that neuroinflammation and central sensitization are two key underlying factors causing pain chronification as they result from maladaptive central nervous system plasticity. Recent research has shown that the mechanisms of action of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) make it a particularly promising avenue in treating various pain conditions. This review will first discuss the contribution of neuroinflammation and central sensitization in the transition from acute to chronic pain in traumatically injured patients. A detailed discussion on how rTMS may allow the restoration from maladaptive plasticity in addition to breaking down the chain of events leading to pain chronification will follow. Lastly, this review will provide a theoretical framework of what might constitute optimal rTMS modalities in dealing with pain symptoms in traumatically injured patients based on an integrated perspective of the physiopathological mechanisms underlying pain.

Non-invasive brain stimulation in chronic orofacial pain: a systematic review

Background

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being explored as therapeutic alternatives for the management of various chronic pain conditions.

Objective

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of TMS and tDCS in reducing clinical pain intensity in chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders. The secondary objectives are to describe adverse effects, duration of relief, and TMS/tDCS methodologies used in chronic OFP disorders.

Methods

A search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) population: adults diagnosed with chronic OFP including neuropathic and non-neuropathic disorders; 2) intervention: active TMS or tDCS stimulation regardless of the used protocol; 3) comparison: sham TMS or tDCS stimulation; and 4) outcome: primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were duration of pain relief, adverse effects, and methodological parameters. Risk of bias and quality of study reporting were also assessed.

Results

A total of 556 individual citations were identified by the search strategy, with 14 articles meeting selection criteria (TMS=11; tDCS=3). Data were obtained for a total of 228 patients. Included OFP disorders were trigeminal neuralgia, trigeminal neuropathy, burning mouth syndrome, atypical facial pain, and temporomandibular disorders. Significant pain reductions were obtained in both techniques. More number of sessions yielded to more durable effects. Overall, high risk of bias and poor study quality were found.

Conclusion

TMS and tDCS appear to be safe and promising alternatives to reduce pain intensity in different chronic OFP disorders. Additional research effort is needed to reduce bias, improve quality, and characterize optimal brain stimulation parameters to promote their efficacy.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Advancing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Methods for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: An Open-Label Study of Paired Theta Burst and High-Frequency Stimulation

INTRODUCTION

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), a rare and severe chronic pain condition, often responds poorly to existing treatments. Previous studies demonstrated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) provided short-term pain relief for upper extremity CRPS.

METHODS

Building on previous methodologies, we employed a TMS protocol that may lead to significant pain relief for upper and lower extremity CRPS in a nonrandomized open label pilot trial involving 21 participants. We individualized TMS coil positioning over motor cortex of somatic pain location, and administered intermittent theta-burst stimulation followed by 10 Hz high-frequency stimulation using a deeper targeting coil. We assessed response (≥30% pain reduction) from a single session (n = 5) and five consecutive daily sessions (n = 12) and compared change in pain from baseline, after one treatment and one-week posttreatment between groups using a mixed ANVOA.

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated significant pain reduction after one session and one-week posttreatment; however, no group differences were present. From a single session, 60% of participants responded at Week 1. From five sessions, 58% and 50% of participants responded at Weeks 1 and 2, respectively. Two from each group achieved >50% pain reduction beyond six to eight weeks. No serious adverse events occurred. Though headache and nausea were the most common side-effects, we urge careful monitoring to prevent seizures with this protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

We used a TMS protocol that, for the first time, led to significant pain relief in upper and lower extremity CRPS, and will soon examine our protocol in a larger, controlled trial.

Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: an updated systematic review and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

Although multiple treatments have been advocated for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), the levels of supportive evidence are variable and sometimes limited. The purpose of this updated review is to provide a critical analysis of the evidence pertaining to the treatment of CRPS derived from recent randomized-controlled trials (RCTs).

SOURCE

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify relevant RCTs conducted on human subjects and published in English between 1 May 2009 and 24 August 2017.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The search yielded 35 RCTs of variable quality pertaining to the treatment of CRPS. Published trials continue to support the use of bisphosphonates and short courses of oral steroids in the setting of CRPS. Although emerging evidence suggests a therapeutic role for ketamine, memantine, intravenous immunoglobulin, epidural clonidine, intrathecal clonidine/baclofen/adenosine, aerobic exercise, mirror therapy, virtual body swapping, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation, further confirmatory RCTs are warranted. Similarly, trials also suggest an expanding role for peripheral sympathetic blockade (i.e., lumbar/thoracic sympathetic, stellate ganglion, and brachial plexus blocks).

CONCLUSIONS

Since our prior systematic review article (published in 2010), 35 RCTs related to CRPS have been reported. Nevertheless, the quality of trials remains variable. Therefore, further research is required to continue investigating possible treatments for CRPS.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies in complex regional pain syndrome type I: A review

The sensory and motor cortical representation corresponding to the affected limb is altered in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) represents a useful non-invasive approach for studying cortical physiology. If delivered repetitively, TMS can also modulate cortical excitability and induce long-lasting neuroplastic changes. In this review, we performed a systematic search of all studies using TMS to explore cortical excitability/plasticity and repetitive TMS (rTMS) for the treatment of CRPS. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. We identified 8 articles matching the inclusion criteria. One hundred fourteen patients (76 females and 38 males) were included in these studies. Most of them have applied TMS in order to physiologically characterize CRPS type I. Changes in motor cortex excitability and brain mapping have been reported in CRPS-I patients. Sensory and motor hyperexcitability are in the most studies bilateral and likely involve corresponding regions within the central nervous system rather than the entire hemisphere. Conversely, sensorimotor integration and plasticity were found to be normal in CRPS-I. TMS examinations also revealed that the nature of motor dysfunction in CRPS-I patients differs from that observed in patients with functional movement disorders, limb immobilization, or idiopathic dystonia. TMS studies may thus lead to the implementation of correct rehabilitation strategies in CRPS-I patients. Two studies have begun to therapeutically use rTMS. This non-invasive brain stimulation technique could have therapeutic utility in CRPS, but further well-designed studies are needed to corroborate initial findings.

Strategies for replacing non-invasive brain stimulation sessions: recommendations for designing neurostimulation clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the potential impact of missed visits on the outcomes of neuromodulation treatments, it is not clear how this issue has been addressed in clinical trials. Given this gap in the literature, we reviewed articles on non-invasive brain stimulation in participants with depression or chronic pain, and investigated how missed visits were handled. Areas covered: We performed a search on PUBMED/MEDLINE using the keywords: 'tDCS', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', 'transcranial magnetic stimulation', 'depression', and 'pain'. We included studies with a minimum of five participants who were diagnosed with depression or chronic pain, who underwent a minimum of five tDCS or TMS sessions. A total of 181 studies matched our inclusion criteria, 112 on depression and 69 on chronic pain. Of these, only fifteen (8%) articles reported or had a protocol addressing missed visits. This review demonstrates that, in most of the trials, there is no reported plan to handle missed visits. Expert commentary: Based on our findings and previous studies, we developed suggestions on how to handle missed visits in neuromodulation protocols. A maximum of 20% of missing sessions should be allowed before excluding a patient and these sessions should be replaced at the end of the stimulation period.

Mental Health Comorbidities in Pediatric Chronic Pain: A Narrative Review of Epidemiology, Models, Neurobiological Mechanisms and Treatment

Chronic pain during childhood and adolescence can lead to persistent pain problems and mental health disorders into adulthood. Posttraumatic stress disorders and depressive and anxiety disorders are mental health conditions that co-occur at high rates in both adolescent and adult samples, and are linked to heightened impairment and disability. Comorbid chronic pain and psychopathology has been explained by the presence of shared neurobiology and mutually maintaining cognitive-affective and behavioral factors that lead to the development and/or maintenance of both conditions. Particularly within the pediatric chronic pain population, these factors are embedded within the broader context of the parent-child relationship. In this review, we will explore the epidemiology of, and current working models explaining, these comorbidities. Particular emphasis will be made on shared neurobiological mechanisms, given that the majority of previous research to date has centered on cognitive, affective, and behavioral mechanisms. Parental contributions to co-occurring chronic pain and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence will be discussed. Moreover, we will review current treatment recommendations and future directions for both research and practice. We argue that the integration of biological and behavioral approaches will be critical to sufficiently address why these comorbidities exist and how they can best be targeted in treatment.

Cortical neurostimulation for neuropathic pain: state of the art and perspectives

The treatment of neuropathic pain by neuromodulation is an objective for more than 40 years in modern clinical practice. With respect to spinal cord and deep brain structures, the cerebral cortex is the most recently evaluated target of invasive neuromodulation therapy for pain. In the early 90s, the first successes of invasive epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) were published. A few years later was developed repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive stimulation technique. Then, electrical transcranial stimulation returned valid and is currently in full development, with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Regarding transcranial approaches, the main studied and validated target was still the motor cortex, but other cortical targets are under investigation. The mechanisms of action of these techniques share similarities, especially between EMCS and rTMS, but they also have differences that could justify specific indications and applications. It is therefore important to know the principles and to assess the merit of these techniques on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the results, to avoid fad. Various types of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes can be significantly relieved by EMCS or repeated daily sessions of high-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS or anodal tDCS over weeks, at least when pain is lateralized and stimulation is applied to the motor cortex contralateral to pain side. However, cortical stimulation therapy remains to be optimized, especially by improving EMCS electrode design, rTMS targeting, or tDCS montage, to reduce the rate of nonresponders, who do not experience clinically relevant effects of these techniques.

The clinical relevance of complex regional pain syndrome type I: The Emperor's New Clothes

The management of patients with chronic pain is a nearly daily challenge to rheumatologists, neurologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists and indeed a issue in nearly every clinical practice. Among the myriad of causes of pain are often included a unique syndrome, generally referred to as complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS). Unfortunately CRPS I has become a catch all phase and there are serious questions on whether it exists at all; this has led to an extraordinary number of poorly defined diagnostic criteria. It has also led to an etiologic quagmire that includes features as diverse as autoimmunity to simple trauma. These, in turn, have led to overdiagnosis and often overzealous use of pain medications, including narcotics. In a previous paper, we raised the issue of whether CRPS type I reflected a valid diagnosis. Indeed, the diagnostic criteria for CRPS I, and therefore the diagnosis itself, is unreliable for a number of reasons: 1) the underlying pathophysiology of the signs and symptoms of CPRS I are not biologically plausible; 2) there are no consistent laboratory or imaging testing available; 3) the signs and symptoms fluctuate over time without a medical explanation; 4) the definitions of most studies are derived from statistical analysis with little consideration to required sample size, i.e. power calculations; 5) interobserver reliability in the assessment of the signs and symptoms are often only fair to moderate, and agreement on the diagnosis of "CRPS I" is poor. Even physicians who still believe in the concept of "CRPS I" admit that it is vastly overdiagnosed and has become a diagnosis of last resort, often without a complete differential diagnosis and an alternative explanation. Finally, one of the most convincing arguments that there is no clinical entity as "CRPS I" comes from the enormous heterogeneity in sign and symptom profiles and the heterogeneity of pathophysiological mechanisms postulated. This observation is underscored by the diversity of responses among "CRPS I" patients to essentially all treatment modalities. It has even led to the concept that the signs and symptoms of CRPS can spread throughout the body, as if it is an infectious disease, without any medical plausible explanation. If true progress is to be made in helping patients with pain, it will require entirely new and different concepts and abandoning CRPS I as a legitimate diagnosis.

EAN guidelines on central neurostimulation therapy in chronic pain conditions

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Our aim was to update previous European Federation of Neurological Societies guidelines on neurostimulation for neuropathic pain, expanding the search to new techniques and to chronic pain conditions other than neuropathic pain, and assessing the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials published between 2006 and December 2014 was conducted. Pain conditions included neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I and post-surgical chronic back and leg pain (CBLP). Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct electrical stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) were assessed. The GRADE system was used to assess quality of evidence and propose recommendations.

RESULTS

The following recommendations were reached: 'weak' for SCS added to conventional medical management in diabetic painful neuropathy, CBLP and CRPS, for SCS versus reoperation in CBLP, for MCS in neuropathic pain, for rTMS of M1 in neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia and for tDCS of M1 in neuropathic pain; 'inconclusive' for DBS in neuropathic pain, rTMS and tDCS of the DLPFC, and for motor cortex tDCS in fibromyalgia and spinal cord injury pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the poor to moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale multicentre studies of non-invasive and invasive neurostimulation are encouraged. The collection of higher quality evidence of the predictive factors for the efficacy of these techniques, such as the duration, quality and severity of pain, is also recommended.