Predictive value of rTMS in the identification of responders to epidural motor cortex stimulation therapy for pain

The effect of the EXOPULSE Mollii Suit on pain and fibromyalgia-related symptoms-A randomized sham-controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia pain and related symptoms are poorly managed by approved pharmacological and alternative interventions. This trial aimed to evaluate the effects of the EXOPULSE Mollii Suit-a multisite transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device-on fibromyalgia pain, fatigue, affective symptoms, disease impact, and quality of life.

METHODS

Adult patients with fibromyalgia were enrolled. Phase 1 implied a randomized, sham-controlled, cross-over, double-blind trial, applying daily 1 h sessions of active or sham intervention, over 2 weeks (2-week washout). In the open-label phase 2, all patients received daily active intervention for 4 weeks. Comparisons on pain, fatigue, disease impact, affective symptoms, quality of life, clinical impression, and comfort ratings were performed using Friedman, Wilcoxon signed rank, and Chi2 tests.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients completed the study (93.9% female, mean age: 51.3 years). Pain (primary endpoint assessed via a visual analog scale) was significantly reduced after the active (pre-active: 6.9 ± 1.4, post-active: 5.9 ± 1.8, pre-sham: 6.8 ± 1.4, post-sham: 6.6 ± 1.5) versus the sham intervention (X2 = 10.60, p = 0.014). This was also the case of other secondary endpoints (i.e., fatigue, anxiety, and disease impact), except depression and quality of life. The Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) was significantly different between the active and sham intervention periods (X2 p = 0.035), and the different proportions of categories were as follows: 'worsening' (sham: 18.2% vs. active: 0.0%), 'improvement' (sham: 48.5% vs. active 63.6%) or 'no change (sham: 33.3% vs. active 36.4%) respectively. After phase 2, significant positive effects were observed for most of the outcomes, and 78.8% of patients reported improvement according to CGI-C.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests the clinical benefits of the EXOPULSE Mollii Suit in alleviating pain and fibromyalgia-related fatigue, emotional symptoms, and disease impact. It is worth noting that the study has several limitations related to the low number of participants, the short-term analysis of effects in the first blinded and controlled phase, and the open-label nature of phase 2. Future studies with a larger cohort and longer protocol treatment are needed, to further confirm the current results, and evaluate the long-term effects of this technique.

SIGNIFICANCE

Patients with fibromyalgia suffer from pain as well as fatigue, sleep impairment, emotional disturbances, and altered quality of life. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation might help manage those symptoms, but the available systems are limited by the fact that they could be applied at best over two sites. This randomized controlled study is the first to apply a multi-site transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device, the EXOPULSE Mollii Suit, with significant effects on fibromyalgia pain and related symptoms.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Treat Neuropathic Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system and is one of the most incapacitating pain types, representing a significant non-met medical need. Due to the increase in research in the field and since innovative therapeutic strategies are required, namely in intractable neuropathic pain, neurostimulation has been used. Within this approach, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) that uses a transient magnetic field to produce electrical currents over the cortex emerges as a popular method in the literature. Since this is an area in expansion and due to the putative role of TMS, we performed a bibliometric analysis in Scopus with the primary objective of identifying the scientific production related to the use of TMS to manage neuropathic pain. The research had no restrictions, and the analysis focused on the characteristics of the literature retrieved, scientific collaboration and main research topics from inception to 6 July 2023. A total of 474 articles were collected. A biggest co-occurrence between the terms "neuropathic pain" and "transcranial magnetic stimulation" was obtained. The journal "Clinical Neurophysiology" leads the Top 5 most productive sources. The United States is the most productive country, with 50% of US documents being "review articles", followed by France, with 56% of French documents being "original articles". Lefaucheur, JP and Saitoh, Y are the two most influential authors. The most frequent type of document was "original article". Most of the studies (34%) that identified the neuropathic pain type focused on traumatic neuropathic pain, although a large proportion (38%) did not report the neuropathic pain type. This study allows us to provide a general overview of the field of TMS application for neuropathic pain and is useful for establishing future directions of research in this field.

Long-Term Results of Cortical Motor Stimulation for Neuropathic Peripheral and Central Pain: Real-World Evidence From Two Independent Centers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cortical motor stimulation (CMS) is used to modulate neuropathic pain. The literature supports its use; however, short follow-up studies might overestimate its real effect. This study brings real-world evidence from two independent centers about CMS methodology and its long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with chronic refractory neuropathic pain were implanted with CMS. The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd Edition was used to classify craniofacial pain and the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions Scale score to explore its neuropathic nature. Demographics and clinical and surgical data were collected. Pain intensity at 6, 12, and 24 months and last follow-up was registered. Numeric rating scale reduction of ≥50% was considered a good response. The Clinical Global Impression of Change scale was used to report patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twelve males (38.7%) and 19 females (61.3%) with a mean age of 55.8 years (±11.9) were analyzed. Nineteen (61.5%) were diagnosed from painful trigeminal neuropathy (PTN), and seven (22.5%) from central poststroke pain. The mean follow-up was 51 months (±23). At 6 months, 42% (13/31) of the patients were responders, all of them being PTN (13/19; 68.4%). At last follow-up, only 35% (11/31) remained responders (11/19 PTN; 58%). At last follow-up, the global Numeric rating scale reduction was 34% ( P = .0001). The Clinical Global Impression of Change scale punctuated 2.39 (±0.94) after 3 months from the surgery and 2.95 (±1.32) at last follow-up ( P = .0079). Signs of suspicious placebo effect were appreciated in around 40% of the nonresponders.

CONCLUSION

CMS might show long-term efficacy for neuropathic pain syndromes, with the effect on PTN being more robust in the long term. Multicentric clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of this therapy for this and other conditions.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SIGNIFICANCE

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

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques are being increasingly used to alleviate pain and enhance quality of life. Non-invasive cortical stimulation was originally intended to predict the efficacy of invasive (neurosurgical) techniques, but has now gained a place as an analgesic procedure in its own right.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): Evidence from 14 randomised, placebo-controlled trials (~750 patients) supports a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency motor cortex rTMS in neuropathic pain. Dorsolateral frontal stimulation has not proven efficacious so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is an attractive target but evidence remains insufficient. Short-term efficacy can be achieved with NNT (numbers needed to treat) ~2-3, but long-lasting efficacy remains a challenge.Like rTMS, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) induces activity changes in distributed brain networks and can influence various aspects of pain. Lower cost relative to rTMS, few safety issues and availability of home-based protocols are practical advantages. The limited quality of many published reports lowers the level of evidence, which will remain uncertain until more prospective controlled studies are available.

SUMMARY

Both rTMS and tDCS act preferentially upon abnormal hyperexcitable states of pain, rather than acute or experimental pain. For both techniques, M1 appears to be the best target for chronic pain relief, and repeated sessions over relatively long periods of time may be required to obtain clinically significant benefits. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS.

Clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurological disorders. Updated report of an IFCN committee

The review provides a comprehensive update (previous report: Chen R, Cros D, Curra A, Di Lazzaro V, Lefaucheur JP, Magistris MR, et al. The clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol 2008;119(3):504-32) on clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in neurological diseases. Most TMS measures rely on stimulation of motor cortex and recording of motor evoked potentials. Paired-pulse TMS techniques, incorporating conventional amplitude-based and threshold tracking, have established clinical utility in neurodegenerative, movement, episodic (epilepsy, migraines), chronic pain and functional diseases. Cortical hyperexcitability has emerged as a diagnostic aid in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Single-pulse TMS measures are of utility in stroke, and myelopathy even in the absence of radiological changes. Short-latency afferent inhibition, related to central cholinergic transmission, is reduced in Alzheimer's disease. The triple stimulation technique (TST) may enhance diagnostic utility of conventional TMS measures to detect upper motor neuron involvement. The recording of motor evoked potentials can be used to perform functional mapping of the motor cortex or in preoperative assessment of eloquent brain regions before surgical resection of brain tumors. TMS exhibits utility in assessing lumbosacral/cervical nerve root function, especially in demyelinating neuropathies, and may be of utility in localizing the site of facial nerve palsies. TMS measures also have high sensitivity in detecting subclinical corticospinal lesions in multiple sclerosis. Abnormalities in central motor conduction time or TST correlate with motor impairment and disability in MS. Cerebellar stimulation may detect lesions in the cerebellum or cerebello-dentato-thalamo-motor cortical pathways. Combining TMS with electroencephalography, provides a novel method to measure parameters altered in neurological disorders, including cortical excitability, effective connectivity, and response complexity.

Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation for the Prevention of Dry Eye Disease after Photorefractive Keratectomy: Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for the prevention of dry eye after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

Design

Prospective, single-center, single-blinded, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Participants

Between February 2020 and October 2020, patients at the Samsung Medical Center scheduled to undergo PRK to correct myopia were screened and enrolled.

Methods

The participants in the TES group were instructed to use the electrical stimulation device (Nu Eyne 01, Nu Eyne Co) at the periocular region after the operation, whereas those in the control group were to use the sham device. Dry eye symptoms were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at weeks 1, 4, and 12 using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, the 5-Item Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ-5), and the Standard Patient Evaluation for Eye Dryness II (SPEED II) questionnaire. Dry eye signs were assessed using tear break-up time (TBUT), total corneal fluorescein staining (tCFS), and total conjunctival staining score according to the National Eye Institute/Industry scale. The pain intensity was evaluated using a visual analog scale.

Main Outcome Measures

Primary outcomes were OSDI and TBUT.

Results

Twenty-four patients were enrolled and completed follow-up until the end of the study (12 patients in the TES group, 12 patients in the control group). Refractive outcomes and visual acuity were not different between the groups. No serious adverse event was reported with regard to device use. No significant difference in OSDI and SPEED II questionnaires and the DEQ-5 was observed between the groups in the 12th week after surgery. The TBUT scores 12 weeks after the surgery were 9.28 ± 6.90 seconds in the TES group and 5.98 ± 2.55 seconds in the control group with significant difference (P = 0.042). The tCFS and total conjunctival staining score were significantly lower in the TES group than in the control group at postoperative 4 weeks. Pain intensity at the first week was significantly lower in the TES group than in the control group by 65% (P = 0.011).

Conclusion

The application of TES is safe and effective in improving dry eye disease after PRK.

Financial Disclosures

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

[Experience of using rhythmic transcranial magnetic stimulation, extracorporeal shock wave therapy and botulinotherapy in individual motor recovery programs in patients with spastic paresis of the lower limb]

Walking disorder is one of the most frequent consequences of stroke and traumatic brain injury, occurring in 80% of cases. Spastic paresis of the muscles of the lower extremity is the cause formed in 20-40% of patients within a few weeks after brain damage. In this case, a complex of symptoms occurs: motor deficiency (muscle paresis), increased muscle tone (spasticity), biomechanical changes in muscles, joints and surrounding tissues, contractures. Recovery of walking is a difficult task due to the peculiarities of its organization in the norm. At the same time, changes occurring in the muscles of the lower limb after a stroke, their modular reorganization, the formation of various pathological patterns, violation of the regulation of movements by the central nervous system, rapidly occurring changes in muscles, ligaments, complicate this process. Improving walking is one of the most important priorities of rehabilitation. Already at the second (stationary) stage of rehabilitation, patients have a lack of proper support on the lower limb, which inevitably leads to excessive load on the second limb, a change in the body scheme, incorrect foot placement, violation of the mechanics of walking (moving from heel to toe) due to plantar flexion / turn of the foot, etc. All this makes patients dependent on outside help, and walking unsafe, increases the risk of falls and complications (arthropathy, contracture, etc.). In this regard, it is important to timely diagnose the totality of changes in the lower limb and create optimal comprehensive rehabilitation programs using highly effective treatment methods aimed at reducing the severity of the motor defect, reducing spasticity and preventing complications. The article discusses the place of rhythmic transcranial magnetic stimulation, extracorporeal shock wave therapy and botulinum therapy during rehabilitation in patients with spastic paresis of the lower limb after a stroke. The results of the protocol of clinical approbation «Complex rehabilitation of patients with lower limb spasticity after focal brain damage at the second stage of medical rehabilitation» are presented.

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.

The Management of Poststroke Thalamic Pain: Update in Clinical Practice

Poststroke thalamic pain (PS-TP), a type of central poststroke pain, has been challenged to improve the rehabilitation outcomes and quality of life after a stroke. It has been shown in 2.7-25% of stroke survivors; however, the treatment of PS-TP remains difficult, and in majority of them it often failed to manage the pain and hypersensitivity effectively, despite the different pharmacotherapies as well as invasive interventions. Central imbalance, central disinhibition, central sensitization, other thalamic adaptative changes, and local inflammatory responses have been considered as its possible pathogenesis. Allodynia and hyperalgesia, as well as the chronic sensitization of pain, are mainly targeted in the management of PS-TP. Commonly recommended first- and second-lines of pharmacological therapies, including traditional medications, e.g., antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioid analgesics, and lamotrigine, were more effective than others. Nonpharmacological interventions, such as transcranial magnetic or direct current brain stimulations, vestibular caloric stimulation, epidural motor cortex stimulation, and deep brain stimulation, were effective in some cases/small-sized studies and can be recommended in the management of therapy-resistant PS-TP. Interestingly, the stimulation to other areas, e.g., the motor cortex, periventricular/periaqueductal gray matter, and thalamus/internal capsule, showed more effect than the stimulation to the thalamus alone. Further studies on brain or spinal stimulation are required for evidence.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

Epidural stimulation of the motor cortex (eMCS) was devised in the 1990's, and has now largely supplanted thalamic stimulation for neuropathic pain relief. Its mechanisms of action involve activation of multiple cortico-subcortical areas initiated in the thalamus, with involvement of endogenous opioids and descending inhibition toward the spinal cord. Evidence for clinical efficacy is now supported by at least seven RCTs; benefits may persist up to 10 years, and can be reasonably predicted by preoperative use of non-invasive repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS). rTMS first developed as a means of predicting the efficacy of epidural procedures, then as an analgesic method on its own right. Reasonable evidence from at least six well-conducted RCTs favors a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex in neuropathic pain (NP), and less consistently in widespread/fibromyalgic pain. Stimulation of the dorsolateral frontal cortex (DLPFC) has not proven efficacious for pain, so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is a new and attractive target but evidence remains inconsistent. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is applied upon similar targets as rTMS and eMCS; it does not elicit action potentials but modulates the neuronal resting membrane state. tDCS presents practical advantages including low cost, few safety issues, and possibility of home-based protocols; however, the limited quality of most published reports entails a low level of evidence. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS, and in both cases repeated sessions over a long time may be required to achieve clinically significant relief. Both invasive and non-invasive procedures exert their effects through multiple distributed brain networks influencing the sensory, affective and cognitive aspects of chronic pain. Their effects are mainly exerted upon abnormally sensitized pathways, rather than on acute physiological pain. Extending the duration of long-term benefits remains a challenge, for which different strategies are discussed in this review.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to reduce neuropathic pain, but intermittent "theta-burst" stimulation (iTBS) could be a better alternative because of shorter duration and greater ability to induce cortical plasticity. Here we compared head-to-head the pain-relieving efficacy of the two modalities when applied daily for 5 days to patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Forty-six patients received 20 Hz-rTMS and/or iTBS protocols and 39 of them underwent the full two procedures in a random cross-over design. They rated pain intensity, sleep quality, fatigue and general health status daily during 5 consecutive weeks.

RESULTS

Pain relief during the month following stimulation was superior after 20 Hz-rTMS relative to iTBS (F(1,38) = 4.645; p = 0.037). Correlation between respective levels of maximal relief showed a significant deviation toward the 20 Hz-rTMS effect. A greater proportion of individuals responded to 20 Hz-rTMS (52% vs 32%, 95 %CI[0.095-3.27]; p = 0.06), and reports of fatigue significantly improved after 20 Hz-rTMS relative to iTBS (p = 0.01). General health and sleep quality scores did not differentiate both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS appeared superior to iTBS for neuropathic pain relief.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adequate matching between the oscillatory activity of motor cortex and that of rTMS may increase synaptic efficacy, thus enhancing functional connectivity of motor cortex with distant structures involved in pain regulation.

What Are the Results and the Prognostic Factors of Motor Cortex Stimulation in Patients with Facial Pain? A Systematic Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Facial pain (FP) is a type of neuropathic pain which recognizes both central and peripheral causes. It can be difficult to treat because it can often become resistant to pharmacological treatments. Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS) has been used in selected cases, but the correct indications of MCS in FP have not been fully established. Here we systematically reviewed the literature regarding MCS in FP analysing the results of this technique and studying the possible role of different factors in the prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

A literature search was performed through different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) according to PRISMA guidelines using the following terms in any possible combination: "facial pain" or "trigeminal" or "anaesthesia dolorosa" and "motor cortex stimulation."

RESULTS

111 articles were reviewed, and 12 studies were included in the present analysis for a total of 108 patients. Overall, at latest follow-up (FU), 70.83% of patients responded to MCS. The preoperative VAS significantly decreased at the latest FU (8.83 ± 1.17 and 4.31 ± 2.05, respectively; p < 0.0001). Younger age (p = 0.0478) and a peripheral FP syndrome (p = 0.0006) positively affected the definitive implantation rate on univariate analysis. Younger age emerged as a factor strongly associated to a higher probability to go to a definitive MCS implant on multivariate analysis (p = 0.0415).

CONCLUSION

Our results evidenced the effectiveness of MCS in treating FP. Moreover, the younger age emerged as a positive prognostic factor for definitive implantation. Further studies with longer FU are needed to better evaluate the long-term results of MCS.

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.

Direct Impact of Motor Cortical Stimulation on the Blood Oxygen-level Dependent Response in Rats

Purpose:

Neuropathic pain is a complex and distressing chronic illness in modern medicine. Since 1990s, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has emerged as a potential treatment for chronic neuropathic pain; however, the precise mechanisms underlying analgesia induced by MCS are not completely understood. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the blood oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) response in the brain during MCS.

Methods:

We inserted a bipolar tungsten electrode into the primary motor cortex (M1) of adult male Wistar rats. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans were implemented simultaneously with the electrical stimulation of M1 and the BOLD signals taken from the fMRI were used as an index to reflect the response against MCS.

Results:

Our results demonstrated that the bilateral M1, ipsilateral caudate-putamen, and ipsilateral primary somatosensory cortex to the stimulation spot were activated after the onset of MCS. The BOLD signal time courses were analysed in these regions and similar temporal characteristics were found.

Conclusion:

By conducting direct cortical stimulation of the rodent brain to investigate its instant effect using fMRI, we identified encephalic regions directly involved in the instant motor cortical stimulation effects in healthy rat models. This result may be essential in establishing a foundation for further research on the underlying neuropathways associated with the MCS effects.

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.

Deep brain stimulation of the posterior limb of the internal capsule in the treatment of central poststroke neuropathic pain of the lower limb: case series with long-term follow-up and literature review

OBJECTIVE

Central poststroke neuropathic pain is a debilitating syndrome that is often resistant to medical therapies. Surgical measures include motor cortex stimulation and deep brain stimulation (DBS), which have been used to relieve pain. The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the safety and long-term efficacy of DBS of the posterior limb of the internal capsule for relieving central poststroke neuropathic pain and associated spasticity affecting the lower limb.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed in all patients who had undergone DBS of the posterior limb of the internal capsule to address central poststroke neuropathic pain refractory to conservative measures. In addition, long-term pain intensity and level of satisfaction gained from stimulation were assessed. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS). Information on gait improvement was obtained from medical records, neurological examination, and interview.

RESULTS

Four patients have undergone the procedure since 2001. No mortality or morbidity related to the surgery was recorded. In three patients, stimulation of the posterior limb of the internal capsule resulted in long-term pain relief; in a fourth patient, the procedure failed to produce any long-lasting positive effect. Two patients obtained a reduction in spasticity and improved motor capability. Before surgery, the mean VAS score was 9 (range 8-10). In the immediate postoperative period and within 1 week after the DBS system had been turned on, the mean VAS score was significantly lower at a mean of 3 (range 0-6). After a mean follow-up of 5.88 years, the mean VAS score was still reduced at 5.5 (range 3-8). The mean percentage of long-term pain reduction was 38.13%.

CONCLUSIONS

This series suggests that stimulation of the posterior limb of the internal capsule is safe and effective in treating patients with chronic neuropathic pain affecting the lower limb. The procedure may be a more targeted treatment method than motor cortex stimulation or other neuromodulation techniques in the subset of patients whose pain and spasticity are referred to the lower limbs.

Effect of non-invasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some studies indicated that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) could relieve neuropathic pain (NP) following a spinal cord injury (SCI), whereas some studies showed no pain relief effect. In addition, some studies showed the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on NP post SCI, whereas other studies showed no effect.

METHODS

We systematically searched on the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, Google Scholar for studies exploring the analgesic effect of rTMS or tDCS on NP post SCI until November 2019. Meta-analysis was conducted to summarize results of these studies.

RESULTS

The present quantitative meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in the effect of treatment on NP following SCI between rTMS and sham rTMS over the motor cortex at about 1 week after the end of the rTMS period (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.27 to 6.04). However, the study indicated that rTMS showed significantly better pain relief of treatment compared with sham rTMS between 2 and 6 weeks after the end of the rTMS period (SMD = 3.81, 95%CI: 0.80-7.52). However, no sufficient evidence could be provided to make a meta-analysis for the analgesic effect of tDCS on NP following SCI over the primary motor area (M1).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggested that rTMS did not show early analgesic effect on NP after SCI, but showed better middle-term analgesic effect, compared with sham rTMS. More large scale, blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were needed to explore the analgesic effect of rTMS and tDCS on NP following SCI.

Motor cortex stimulation in chronic neuropathic orofacial pain syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Invasive motor Cortex Stimulation (iMCS) was introduced in the 1990's for the treatment of chronic neuropathic orofacial pain (CNOP), although its effectiveness remains doubtful. However, CNOP is known to be a heterogeneous group of orofacial pain disorders, which can lead to different responses to iMCS. Therefore, this paper investigated (1) whether the effectiveness of iMCS is significantly different among different CNOP disorders and (2) whether other confounding factors can be impacting iMCS results in CNOP. A systematic review and meta-analysis using a linear mixed-model was performed. Twenty-three papers were included, totaling 140 CNOP patients. Heterogeneity of the studies showed to be 55.8%. A visual analogue scale (VAS) measured median pain relief of 66.5% (ranging from 0-100%) was found. Linear mixed-model analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia responded significantly more favorable to iMCS than patients suffering from dysfunctional pain syndromes (p = 0.030). Also, patients suffering from CNOP caused by (supra)nuclear lesions responded marginally significantly better to iMCS than patients suffering from CNOP due to trigeminal nerve lesions (p = 0.049). No other confounding factors were elucidated. This meta-analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia and patients suffering from (supra)nuclear lesions causing CNOP responded significantly more favorable than others on iMCS. No other confounding factors were found relevant.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain: Systematic review and French recommendations

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques and interventional management, but no comprehensive guideline encompassing all these treatments has yet been issued. We performed a systematic review of pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgery, psychotherapies and other types of therapy for peripheral or central neuropathic pain, based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018. The main inclusion criteria were chronic neuropathic pain for at least three months, a randomized controlled methodology, at least three weeks of follow-up, at least 10 patients per group, and a double-blind design for drug therapy. Based on the GRADE system, we provide weak-to-strong recommendations for use and proposal as a first-line treatment for SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants and, for topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a second-line treatment for pregabalin, tramadol, combination therapy (antidepressant combined with gabapentinoids), and for high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a third-line treatment for high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation (failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic polyneuropathy) and strong opioids (in the absence of an alternative). Psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness) is recommended as a second-line therapy, as an add-on to other therapies. An algorithm encompassing all the recommended treatments is proposed.

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.

Invasive Motor Cortex Stimulation Influences Intracerebral Structures in Patients With Neuropathic Pain: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of Imaging Data

Objective

Invasive motor cortex stimulation (iMCS) has been proposed as a treatment for intractable neuropathic pain syndromes. Although the mechanisms underlying the analgesic effect of iMCS remain largely elusive, several studies found iMCS‐related changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in neuropathic pain patients. The aim of this study was to meta‐analyze the findings of neuroimaging studies on rCBF changes to iMCS.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for retrieval of relevant scientific papers. After initial assessment of relevancy by screening title and abstract by two investigators, independently, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for final inclusion of papers. Descriptive results were statistically assessed, whereas coordinates were pooled and meta‐analyzed in accordance with the activation likelihood estimation (ALE) methodology.

Results

Six studies were included in the systematic narrative analysis, suggesting rCBF increases in the cingulate gyrus, thalamus, insula, and putamen after switching the MCS device “ON” as compared to the “OFF” situation. Decreases in rCBF were found in for example the precentral gyrus and different occipital regions. Two studies did not report stereotactic coordinates and were excluded from further analysis. ALE meta‐analysis showed that, after switching the iMCS electrode “ON,” increased rCBF occurred in the (1) anterior cingulate gyrus; (2) putamen; (3) cerebral peduncle; (4) precentral gyrus; (5) superior frontal gyrus; (6) red nucleus; (7) internal part of the globus pallidus; (8) ventral lateral nucleus of the thalamus; (9) medial frontal gyrus; (10) inferior frontal gyrus; and (11) claustrum, as compared to the “OFF” situation. Reductions in rCBF were found in the posterior cingulate gyrus when the iMCS electrode was turned “OFF.”

Conclusions

These findings suggested that iMCS induces changes in principal components of the default mode‐, the salience‐, and sensorimotor network.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Improve the Dysfunction of Descending Pain Modulatory System Related to Opioids in Chronic Non-cancer Pain: An Integrative Review of Neurobiology and Meta-Analysis

Background: Opioid long-term therapy can produce tolerance, opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH), and it induces dysfunction in pain descending pain inhibitory system (DPIS). Objectives: This integrative review with meta-analysis aimed: (i) To discuss the potential mechanisms involved in analgesic tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). (ii) To examine how the opioid can affect the function of DPIS. (ii) To show evidence about the tDCS as an approach to treat acute and chronic pain. (iii) To discuss the effect of tDCS on DPIS and how it can counter-regulate the OIH. (iv) To draw perspectives for the future about the tDCS effects as an approach to improve the dysfunction in the DPIS in chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: Relevant published randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing active (irrespective of the stimulation protocol) to sham tDCS for treating chronic non-cancer pain were identified, and risk of bias was assessed. We searched trials in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane trials databases. tDCS protocols accepted were application in areas of the primary motor cortex (M1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or occipital area. Results: Fifty-nine studies were fully reviewed, and 24 with moderate to the high-quality methodology were included. tDCS improved chronic pain with a moderate effect size [pooled standardized mean difference; -0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to -0.41]. On average, active protocols led to 27.26% less pain at the end of treatment compared to sham [95% CI; 15.89-32.90%]. Protocol varied in terms of anodal or cathodal stimulation, areas of stimulation (M1 and DLPFC the most common), number of sessions (from 5 to 20) and current intensity (from 1 to 2 mA). The time of application was 20 min in 92% of protocols. Conclusion: In comparison with sham stimulation, tDCS demonstrated a superior effect in reducing chronic pain conditions. They give perspectives that the top-down neuromodulator effects of tDCS are a promising approach to improve management in refractory chronic not-cancer related pain and to enhance dysfunctional neuronal circuitries involved in the DPIS and other pain dimensions and improve pain control with a therapeutic opioid-free. However, further studies are needed to determine individualized protocols according to a biopsychosocial perspective.

Neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic pain

The goal of this narrative review was to give an up-to-date overview of the peripheral and central neurostimulation methods that can be used to treat chronic pain. Special focus has been given to three pain conditions: neuropathic pain, nociplastic pain and primary headaches. Both non-invasive and invasive techniques are briefly presented together with their pain relief potentials. For non-invasive stimulation techniques, data concerning transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) are provided. Concerning invasive stimulation techniques, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are presented. The action mode of all these techniques is only partly understood but can be very different from one technique to the other. Patients' selection is still a challenge. Recent consensus-based guidelines for clinical practice are presented when available. The development of closed-loop devices could be of interest in the future, although the clinical benefit over open loop is not proven yet.

At-Home Cortical Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: a Feasibility Study with Initial Clinical Results

The clinical use of noninvasive cortical stimulation procedures is hampered by the limited duration of the analgesic effects and the need to perform stimulation in hospital settings. Here, we tested the feasibility and pilot efficacy of an internet-based system for at-home, long-duration, medically controlled transcranial motor cortex stimulation (H-tDCS), via a double-blinded, sham-controlled trial in patients with neuropathic pain refractory to standard-of-care drug therapy. Each patient was first trained at hospital, received a stimulation kit, allotted a password-protected Web space, and completed daily tDCS sessions during 5 weeks, via a Bluetooth connection between stimulator and a minilaptop. Each session was validated and internet-controlled by hospital personnel. Daily pain ratings were obtained during 11 consecutive weeks, and afterwards via iterative visits/phone contacts. Twenty full procedures were completed in 12 consecutive patients (500 daily tDCS sessions, including 20% sham). No serious adverse effects were recorded. Superficial burning at electrode position occurred in 2 patients, and nausea/headache in two others, all of whom wished to pursue stimulation. Six out of the 12 patients achieved satisfactory relief on a scale combining pain scores, drug intake, and quality of life. Daily pain reports correlated with such combined assessment, and differentiated responders from nonresponders without overlap. Clinical improvement in responders could last up to 6 months. Five patients asked to repeat the whole procedure when pain resumed again, with comparable results. At-home, long-duration tDCS proved safe and technically feasible, and provided long-lasting relief in 50% of a small sample of patients with drug-resistant neuropathic pain.

Effectiveness of tonic and burst motor cortex stimulation in chronic neuropathic pain

Background: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is an intracranial, invasive method for treatment of chronic pain. Main indications for MCS are central post stroke pain, neuropathic facial pain, phantom limb pain and brachial plexus or spinal cord injury pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with burst waveform has been proved to be more effective than tonic mode in chronic pain. Necessity to replace depleted batteries of motor cortex tonic stimulators gave us an opportunity of applying burst stimulation. The objective of the pilot study was to evaluate the effects of burst stimulation applied on motor cortex in patients with chronic pain syndromes as well as comparison to tonic mode. Materials and methods: We have evaluated 6 patients (females N=3, males N=3) belonging to the group of 14 cases (females N=5, males N=9) who had undergone surgical procedure of MCS in years 2005-2017. Selected for the study were 6 patients with thalamic pain N=3, with facial pain N=3 (anaesthesia dolorosa and neuropathic trigeminal neuralgia). The patients were subjected to both modes of stimulation then they chose which one was better in relieving pain: tonic or burst. Pain intensity was assessed with the visual analogue scale (VAS) before the replacement of implanted pulse generator (IPG) and after the stimulation with tonic and burst modes. Results: In the study, 5 out of 6 patients with MCS found burst mode more effective than tonic mode. Baseline VAS score in patients that had at least 3 months depleted battery of tonic IPG was 95 mm. After implantation of a new IPG mean VAS score on tonic stimulation was 72 mm, on burst 53 mm. Conclusions: The most preferred option of MCS in selected group of patients was burst stimulation. This study has shown, that the burst stimulation of cerebral cortex is a promising modality when tonic stimulation is not sufficient in refractory, neuropathic pain.

Added value of multiple versus single sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in predicting motor cortex stimulation efficacy for refractory neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

Selection criteria for offering patients motor cortex stimulation (MCS) for refractory neuropathic pain are a critical topic of research. A single session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been advocated for selecting MCS candidates, but it has a low negative predictive value. Here the authors investigated whether multiple rTMS sessions would more accurately predict MCS efficacy.

METHODS

Patients included in this longitudinal study could access MCS after at least four rTMS sessions performed 3-4 weeks apart. The positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of the four rTMS sessions and the correlation between the analgesic effects of the two treatments were assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve MCS patients underwent an average of 15.9 rTMS sessions prior to surgery; nine of the patients were rTMS responders. Postoperative follow-up was 57.8 ± 15.6 months (mean ± standard deviation). Mean percentage of pain relief (%R) was 21% and 40% after the first and fourth rTMS sessions, respectively. The corresponding mean durations of pain relief were respectively 2.4 and 12.9 days. A cumulative effect of the rTMS sessions was observed on both %R and duration of pain relief (p < 0.01). The %R value obtained with MCS was 35% after 6 months and 43% at the last follow-up. Both the PPV and NPV of rTMS were 100% after the fourth rTMS session (p = 0.0045). A significant correlation was found between %R or duration of pain relief after the fourth rTMS session and %R at the last MCS follow-up (R2 = 0.83, p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Four rTMS sessions predicted MCS efficacy better than a single session in neuropathic pain patients. Taking into account the cumulative effects of rTMS, the authors found a high-level correlation between the analgesic effects of rTMS and MCS.

Motor cortex stimulation: a systematic literature-based analysis of effectiveness and case series experience

Background

Aim to quantitatively analyze the clinical effectiveness for motor cortex stimulation (MCS) to refractory pain.

Methods

The literatures were systematically searched in database of Cocharane library, Embase and PubMed, using relevant strategies. Data were extracted from eligible articles and pooled as mean with standard deviation (SD). Comparative analysis was measured by non-parametric t test and linear regression model.

Results

The pooled effect estimate from 12 trials (n = 198) elucidated that MCS shown the positive effect on refractory pain, and the total percentage improvement was 35.2% in post-stroke pain and 46.5% in trigeminal neuropathic pain. There is no statistical differences between stroke involved thalamus or non-thalamus. The improvement of plexus avulsion (29.8%) and phantom pain (34.1%) was similar. The highest improvement rate was seen in post-radicular plexopathy (65.1%) and MCS may aggravate the pain induced by spinal cord injury, confirmed by small sample size. Concurrently, Both the duration of disease (r = 0.233, p = 0.019*) and the time of follow-up (r = 0.196, p = 0.016*) had small predicative value, while age (p = 0.125) had no correlation to post-operative pain relief.

Conclusions

MCS is conducive to the patients with refractory pain. The duration of disease and the time of follow-up can be regarded as predictive factor. Meanwhile, further studies are needed to reveal the mechanism of MCS and to reevaluate the cost-benefit aspect with better-designed clinical trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12883-019-1273-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic Review and Neural Network Analysis to Define Predictive Variables in Implantable Motor Cortex Stimulation to Treat Chronic Intractable Pain

Implantable motor cortex stimulation (iMCS) has been performed for >25 years to treat various intractable pain syndromes. Its effectiveness is highly variable and, although various studies revealed predictive variables, none of these were found repeatedly. This study uses neural network analysis (NNA) to identify predictive factors of iMCS treatment for intractable pain. A systematic review provided a database of patient data on an individual level of patients who underwent iMCS to treat refractory pain between 1991 and 2017. Responders were defined as patients with a pain relief of >40% as measured by a numerical rating scale (NRS) score. NNA was carried out to predict the outcome of iMCS and to identify predictive factors that impacted the outcome of iMCS. The outcome prediction value of the NNA was expressed as the mean accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The NNA furthermore provided the mean weight of predictive variables, which shows the impact of the predictive variable on the prediction. The mean weight was converted into the mean relative influence (M), a value that varies between 0 and 100%. A total of 358 patients were included (202 males [56.4%]; mean age, 54.2 ±13.3 years), 201 of whom were responders to iMCS. NNA had a mean accuracy of 66.3% and a sensitivity and specificity of 69.8% and 69.4%, respectively. NNA further identified 6 predictive variables that had a relatively high M: 1) the sex of the patient (M = 19.7%); 2) the origin of the lesion (M = 15.1%); 3) the preoperative numerical rating scale score (M = 9.2%); 4) preoperative use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (M = 7.3%); 5) preoperative intake of opioids (M = 7.1%); and 6) the follow-up period (M = 13.1%). The results from the present study show that these 6 predictive variables influence the outcome of iMCS and that, based on these variables, a fair prediction model can be built to predict outcome after iMCS surgery. PERSPECTIVE: The presented NNA analyzed the functioning of computational models and modeled nonlinear statistical data. Based on this NNA, 6 predictive variables were identified that are suggested to be of importance in the improvement of future iMCS to treat chronic pain.

Is There a Future for Non-invasive Brain Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool?

Several techniques and protocols of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial magnetic and electrical stimuli, have been developed in the past decades. These techniques can induce long lasting changes in cortical excitability by promoting synaptic plasticity and thus may represent a therapeutic option in neuropsychiatric disorders. On the other hand, despite these techniques have become popular, the fragility and variability of the after effects are the major challenges that non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation currentlyfaces. Several factors may account for such a variability such as biological variations, measurement reproducibility, and the neuronal state of the stimulated area. One possible strategy, to reduce this variability is to monitor the neuronal state in real time using EEG and trigger TMS pulses only at pre-defined state. In addition, another strategy under study is to use the spaced application of multiple NIBS protocols within a session to improve the reliability and extend the duration of NIBS effects. Further studies, although time consuming, are required for improving the so far limited effect sizes of NIBS protocols for treatment of neurological or psychiatric disorders.

Patient-delivered tDCS on chronic neuropathic pain in prior responders to TMS (a randomized controlled pilot study)

Background

Successful response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex requires continued maintenance treatments. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) may provide a more convenient alternative.

Methods

This pilot study aimed to examine the feasibility of a randomized, double-blind, double-crossover pilot study for patients to self-administer tDCS motor cortex stimulation for 20 minutes/day over five consecutive days. Primary outcomes were as follows: usability of patient-administered tDCS, compliance with device, recruitment, and retention rates. Secondary outcomes were as follows: effect on overall pain levels and quality of life via Short Form-36 anxiety and depression via Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Mini-Mental State scores.

Results

A total of 24 subjects with neuropathic pain, who had previously experienced rTMS motor cortex stimulation (13 with reduction in pain scores, 11 nonresponders) were recruited at the Pain Research Institute, Fazakerley, UK. A total of 21 subjects completed the study. Recruitment rate was 100% but retention rate was only 87.5%. All patients reported satisfactory usability of the tDCS device. No significant difference was shown between Sham vs Anodal (−0.16, 95% CI: −0.43 to 0.11) P=0.43, Sham vs Cathodal (0.11, 95% CI: −0.16 to 0.37) P=0.94, or Cathodal vs Anodal (−0.27, 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.00) P=0.053 treatments. Furthermore, no significant changes were demonstrated in anxiety, depression, or quality of life measurements. The data collected to estimate sample size for a definitive study suggested that the study’s sample size was already large enough to detect a change of 15% in pain levels at 90% power for the overall group of 21 patients.

Conclusion

This study did not show a beneficial effect of tDCS in this group of patients and does not support the need for a larger definitive study using the same experimental paradigm.

Trial registration

ISRCTN56839387

Neurostimulation in dry eye disease-past, present, and future

Neuromodulation is a novel approach that utilizes electrical signals, pharmaceutical agents, or other forms of energy to modulate abnormal neural function through neurostimulation. Neurostimulation is a novel technique that uses electrical currents to stimulate the nervous system. During the recent few decades, neuromodulation has gained significant attention, in particular for the treatment of chronic neurological diseases, due to its success in treating patients unresponsive to conventional pharmacological therapies. Dry eye disease (DED) is a chronic, multifactorial disease that affects millions of people worldwide. Recent data have demonstrated that neurosensory abnormalities contribute to the pathogenesis of DED. Current mainstays of dry eye therapy include lubrication, tear retention, and anti-inflammatory therapies, among others. The recent development of intranasal neurostimulation therapy for DED utilizes the nasolacrimal reflex as an alternative pathway, not only to increase tear production via increased lacrimation, but also to target other tear film components, such as mucin and meibum secretion, promoting tear film homeostasis. This review aims to describe the different types of neuromodulation devices available and their application for non-ocular diseases, as well as to review recent advances and literature on ocular neurostimulation.

Non pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain: Invasive and non-invasive cortical stimulation

The use of medications in chronic neuropathic pain may be limited with regard to efficacy and tolerance. Therefore, non-pharmacological approaches, using electrical stimulation of the cortex has been proposed as an alternative. First, in the early nineties, surgically-implanted epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) was proven to be effective to relieve refractory neuropathic pain. Later, non-invasive stimulation techniques were found to produce similar analgesic effects, at least by means of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the primary motor cortex (M1). Following "high-frequency" rTMS (e.g., stimulation frequency ranging from 5 to 20Hz) delivered to the precentral gyrus (e.g., M1 region), it is possible to obtain an analgesic effect via the modulation of several remote brain regions involved in nociceptive information processing or control. This pain reduction can last for weeks beyond the time of the stimulation, especially if repeated sessions are performed, probably related to processes of long-term synaptic plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), another form of transcranial stimulation, using low-intensity electrical currents, generally delivered by a pair of large electrodes, has also shown some efficacy to improve patients with chronic pain syndromes. The mechanism of action of tDCS differs from that of EMCS and rTMS, but the cortical target is the same, which is M1. Although the level of evidence of therapeutic efficacy in the context of neuropathic pain is lower for tDCS than for rTMS, interesting perspectives are opened by using at-home tDCS protocols for long-term management. Now, there is a scientific basis for recommending both EMCS and rTMS of M1 to treat refractory chronic neuropathic pain, but their application in clinical practice remains limited due to practical and regulatory issues.

The Current State of Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Pain and Its Context in Other Forms of Neuromodulation

Chronic intractable pain is debilitating for those touched, affecting 5% of the population. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has fallen out of favour as the centrally implantable neurostimulation of choice for chronic pain since the 1970–1980s, with some neurosurgeons favouring motor cortex stimulation as the ‘last chance saloon’. This article reviews the available data and professional opinion of the current state of DBS as a treatment for chronic pain, placing it in the context of other neuromodulation therapies. We suggest DBS, with its newer target, namely anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), should not be blacklisted on the basis of a lack of good quality study data, which often fails to capture the merits of the treatment.

Less Might Be More: Conduction Failure as a Factor Possibly Limiting the Efficacy of Higher Frequencies in rTMS Protocols

Introduction: rTMS has been proven effective in the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions, with class A (definite efficacy) evidence for treatment of depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). The efficacy in stimulation protocols is, however, quite heterogeneous. Saturation of neuronal firing by HFrTMS without allowing time for recovery may lead to neuronal response failures (NRFs) that compromise the efficacy of stimulation with higher frequencies.

Objectives: To examine the efficacy of different rTMS temporal stimulation patterns focusing on a possible upper stimulation limit related to response failures. Protocol patterns were derived from published clinical studies on therapeutic rTMS for depression and pain. They were compared with conduction failures in cell cultures.

Methodology: From 57 papers using protocols rated class A for depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014) we extracted Inter-train interval (ITI), average frequency, total duration and total number of pulses and plotted them against the percent improvement on the outcome scale. Specifically, we compared 10 Hz trains with ITIs of 8 s (protocol A) and 26 s (protocol B) in vitro on cultured cortical neurons.

Results: In the in vitro experiments, protocol A with 8-s ITIs resulted in more frequent response failures, while practically no response failures occurred with protocol B (26-s intervals). The HFrTMS protocol analysis exhibited no significant effect of ITIs on protocol efficiency.

Discussion: In the neuronal culture, longer ITIs appeared to allow the neuronal response to recover. In the available human dataset on both depression and chronic pain, data concerning shorter ITIs is does not allow a significant conclusion.

Significance: NRF may interfere with the efficacy of rTMS stimulation protocols when the average stimulation frequency is too high, proposing ITIs as a variable in rTMS protocol efficacy. Clinical trials are necessary to examine effect of shorter ITIs on the clinical outcome in a controlled setting.

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Deafferentation Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since the early 1990s, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been a unique treatment modality for patients with drug-resistant deafferentation pain. While underpowered studies and case reports have limited definitive, data-driven analysis of MCS in the past, recent research has brought new clarity to the MCS literature and has helped identify appropriate indications for MCS and its long-term efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, new research in MCS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are analyzed and compared with historical landmark papers. Currently, MCS is effective in providing relief to 40-64% of patients, with decreasing analgesic effect over time addressed by altering stimulation settings. rTMS and tDCS, two historic, non-invasive stimulation techniques, are providing new alternatives for the treatment of deafferentation pain, with rTMS finding utility in identifying MCS responders. Future advances in electrode arrays, neuro-navigation, and high-definition tDCS hold promise in providing pain relief to growing numbers of patients. Deafferentation pain is severe, disabling, and remains a challenge for patients and providers alike. Over the last several years, the MCS literature has been revitalized with studies and meta-analyses demonstrating MCS effectiveness and providing guidance in identifying responders. At the same time, rTMS and tDCS, two time-honored non-invasive stimulation techniques, are finding new utility in managing deafferentation pain and identifying good MCS candidates. As the number of potential therapies grow, the clinician's role is shifting to personalizing treatment to the unique pain of each patient. With new treatment modalities, this form of personalized medicine is more possible than ever before.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation accuracy as a spinal cord stimulation outcome predictor in patients with neuropathic pain

OBJECT

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective albeit invasive and relatively expensive treatment of neuropathic pain. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) is a non-invasive treatment of neuropathic pain. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether rTMS can predict the successful outcome of SCS.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 22 patients with neuropathic pain who had undergone SCS and rTMS. We conducted statistical analyses to identify the factors that predict pain reduction following SCS.

RESULTS

Multiple regression analyses showed that only degree of pain relief following rTMS was statistically correlated with success in SCS; on the other hand, age, sex, lesion location, pain duration and laterality, and targeted extremities were not correlated. Using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses of the pain relief following rTMS, the diagnostic sensitivity for successful SCS was 0.60 and the specificity was 0.83.

CONCLUSIONS

The degree of pain relief following rTMS over M1 is a significant prognostic factor of SCS outcome in patients with intractable neuropathic pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

The current study provides evidence showing that rTMS, a non-invasive and relatively easy to administer procedure, may aid in the selection of suitable candidates for SCS treatment.

Theta Burst Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Orofacial Pain: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a modified form of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with promising effect in chronic pain. The aim of our double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group, randomized study was to assess an efficacy of intermittent TBS (iTBS) in the treatment of patients with chronic orofacial pain. Nineteen patients (twelve females) with chronic orofacial pain were prospectively included and randomly assigned to single session of an active (iTBS) or sham (intermediate TBS; imTBS) stimulation delivered to the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to painful side. The primary outcome was pain relief assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) after stimulation and at the end of two-week follow- up. The secondary outcomes were changes in the quantitative sensory testing (QST). QST set the threshold for thermal and tactile (touch) sensation in the affected facial area. Intermittent TBS, compared with the sham, showed significant improvement in VAS after stimulation, but not at the end of two-week follow-up. Regarding the secondary outcomes (QST), we failed to find any significant difference between iTBS and sham. Our findings demonstrate that iTBS of M1 transiently provides transient and modest subjective pain relief in chronic orofacial pain.

Pulse-train Stimulation of Primary Somatosensory Cortex Blocks Pain Perception in Tail Clip Test

Human studies of brain stimulation have demonstrated modulatory effects on the perception of pain. However, whether the primary somatosensory cortical activity is associated with antinociceptive responses remains unknown. Therefore, we examined the antinociceptive effects of neuronal activity evoked by optogenetic stimulation of primary somatosensory cortex. Optogenetic transgenic mice were subjected to continuous or pulse-train optogenetic stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex at frequencies of 15, 30, and 40 Hz, during a tail clip test. Reaction time was measured using a digital high-speed video camera. Pulse-train optogenetic stimulation of primary somatosensory cortex showed a delayed pain response with respect to a tail clip, whereas no significant change in reaction time was observed with continuous stimulation. In response to the pulse-train stimulation, video monitoring and local field potential recording revealed associated paw movement and sensorimotor rhythms, respectively. Our results show that optogenetic stimulation of primary somatosensory cortex at beta and gamma frequencies blocks transmission of pain signals in tail clip test.

State of the Art: Novel Applications for Cortical Stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Electrical stimulation via implanted electrodes that overlie the cortex of the brain is an upcoming neurosurgical technique that was hindered for a long time by insufficient knowledge of how the brain functions in a dynamic, physiological, and pathological way, as well as by technological limitations of the implantable stimulation devices.

METHODS

This paper provides an overview of cortex stimulation via implantable devices and introduces future possibilities to improve cortex stimulation.

RESULTS

Cortex stimulation was initially used preoperatively as a technique to localize functions in the brain and only later evolved into a treatment technique. It was first used for pain, but more recently a multitude of pathologies are being targeted by cortex stimulation. These disorders are being treated by stimulating different cortical areas of the brain. Risks and complications are essentially similar to those related to deep brain stimulation and predominantly include haemorrhage, seizures, infection, and hardware failures. For cortex stimulation to fully mature, further technological development is required to predict its outcomes and improve stimulation designs. This includes the development of network science-based functional connectivity approaches, genetic analyses, development of navigated high definition transcranial alternating current stimulation, and development of pseudorandom stimulation designs for preventing habituation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, cortex stimulation is a nascent but very promising approach to treating a variety of diseases, but requires further technological development for predicting outcomes, such as network science based functional connectivity approaches, genetic analyses, development of navigated transcranial electrical stimulation, and development of pseudorandom stimulation designs for preventing habituation.