Is the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation somatotopically driven or not?

Rates and Predictors of Pain Reduction With Intracranial Stimulation for Intractable Pain Disorders

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Intracranial modulation paradigms, namely deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS), have been used to treat intractable pain disorders. However, treatment efficacy remains heterogeneous, and factors associated with pain reduction are not completely understood.

METHODS

We performed an individual patient review of pain outcomes (visual analog scale, quality-of-life measures, complications, pulse generator implant rate, cessation of stimulation) after implantation of DBS or MCS devices. We evaluated 663 patients from 36 study groups and stratified outcomes by pain etiology and implantation targets.

RESULTS

Included studies comprised primarily retrospective cohort studies. MCS patients had a similar externalized trial success rate compared with DBS patients (86% vs 81%; P = .16), whereas patients with peripheral pain had a higher trial success rate compared with patients with central pain (88% vs 79%; P = .004). Complication rates were similar for MCS and DBS patients (12% vs 15%; P = .79). Patients with peripheral pain had lower likelihood of device cessation compared with those with central pain (5.7% vs 10%; P = .03). Of all implanted patients, mean pain reduction at last follow-up was 45.8% (95% CI: 40.3-51.2) with a 31.2% (95% CI: 12.4-50.1) improvement in quality of life. No difference was seen between MCS patients (43.8%; 95% CI: 36.7-58.2) and DBS patients (48.6%; 95% CI: 39.2-58) or central (41.5%; 95% CI: 34.8-48.2) and peripheral (46.7%; 95% CI: 38.9-54.5) etiologies. Multivariate analysis identified the anterior cingulate cortex target to be associated with worse pain reduction, while postherpetic neuralgia was a positive prognostic factor.

CONCLUSION

Both DBS and MCS have similar efficacy and complication rates in the treatment of intractable pain. Patients with central pain disorders tended to have lower trial success and higher rates of device cessation. Additional prognostic factors include anterior cingulate cortex targeting and postherpetic neuralgia diagnosis. These findings underscore intracranial neurostimulation as an important modality for treatment of intractable pain disorders.

Non-invasive brain stimulation improves pain in patients with central post-stroke pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) significantly interferes with the quality of life and psychological well-being of stroke patients. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has attracted significant attention as an emerging method for treating patients with CPSP.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation on pain, and psychological status of patients with central post-stroke pain using meta-analysis.

METHODS

A computerized search of multiple databases was performed for identification of randomized controlled trials involving NIBS-led treatment of CPSP patients. Two researchers worked independently on literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Research was conducted from inception of the database until October 2023. RevMan 5.0 and Stata 15.0 software were used to conduct statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen papers with 807 patients were finally included. The results showed that NIBS reduced patients' pain intensity [SMD = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.54, -0.24), p < 0.01] and was more effective in short-term CPSP patients. However, the included studies did not show a significant impact on psychological status, particularly depression. Subgroup analysis suggested that the M1 stimulation point was more effective than other stimulation points [SMD = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.65, -0.25), p < 0.001]. Other stimulation modalities also demonstrated favorable outcomes when compared to rTMS [SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.25), p < 0.01].

CONCLUSION

NIBS has a positive impact on pain relief in patients with CPSP, but does not enhance patients' psychological well-being in terms of anxiety or depression. Furthermore, large-sample, high-quality, and multi-center RCTs are needed to explore the benefits of different stimulation durations and parameters in patients with CPSP. The current study has been registered with Prospero under the registration number CRD42023468419.

Neuropathic pain: Evidence based recommendations

Neuropathic pain continues to be a significant problem that lacks effective solutions for every single patient. In 2015, international guidelines (NeuPSIG) were published, while the French recommendations were updated in 2020. The purpose of this minireview is to provide an update on the process of developing evidence-based recommendations and explore potential changes to the current recommendations. Primary treatments for neuropathic pain include selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such as duloxetine and venlafaxine, gabapentin, tricyclic antidepressants, as well as topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which are specifically suggested for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Pregabalin is a first line treatment according to international guidelines but second-line in the more recent French guidelines, due to lower efficacy seen in more recent studies and misuse risk. Additionally, tramadol, combination therapies, and psychotherapy as adjuncts are proposed second line; high-concentration capsaicin patches, and botulinum toxin A are proposed specifically for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. In cases where primary and secondary treatments prove insufficient, third-line options come into play. These include high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation, and the use of strong opioids when no alternative is available. To ensure optimal management of neuropathic pain in real-life situations, it is imperative to disseminate these recommendations widely and secure the acceptance of practitioners. By doing so, we can bridge the gap between theory and practice, and enhance the overall care and treatment of individuals suffering from neuropathic pain.

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.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

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

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

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

French guidelines for neuropathic pain: An update and commentary

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet need. French recommendations were updated in 2020. The goal of this minireview is to provide an update on these published guidelines. Despite newer relevant studies, our proposed algorithm remains relevant. First-line treatments include serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants, topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation being specifically proposed for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Second-line treatments include pregabalin (such position being confirmed by newer studies), tramadol, combinations and psychotherapy as add on, high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A being proposed specifically for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Third-line treatments include high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation and strong opioids (in the lack of alternative). Disseminating these recommendations and ensuring that they are well accepted by French practitioners will be necessary to optimize neuropathic pain management in real life.