Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex attenuates pain perception in complex regional pain syndrome type I

Assessing the effectiveness of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-mastectomy pain in breast cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Post-mastectomy pain Syndrome (PMPS), characterized by chronic neuropathic pain stemming from intercostobrachial nerve lesions, presents a formidable clinical challenge. With the incidence of breast cancer surging, effective interventions for PMPS are urgently needed. To address this, we conducted this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to study the efficacy of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) therapy over the motor cortex on pain, quality of life and thermal sensitivity in PMPS patients.

METHODS

We delivered 15 rTMS sessions over three weeks in a cohort of 34 PMPS patients. These patients were allocated randomly to either rTMS therapy or sham therapy groups. Pain assessments, utilizing the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), alongside quality-of-life evaluations through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), were recorded before and after the 15 sessions. Additionally, we assessed thermal sensitivity using Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST).

RESULTS

Our findings demonstrate the superior efficacy of rTMS therapy (over sham therapy) in reducing VAS and SF-MPQ scores (p < 0.0001), improving physical (p = 0.037), emotional (p = 0.033), and functional well-being (p = 0.020) components of quality of life, as quantified by FACT-B. Our investigation also unveiled marked enhancements in thermal sensitivity within the rTMS therapy group, with statistically significant improvements in cold detection threshold (p = 0.0001), warm detection threshold (p = 0.0033), cold pain threshold (p = 0.0078), and hot pain tolerance threshold (p = 0.0078).

CONCLUSION

The study underscores the profound positive impact of rTMS therapy on pain, quality of life, and thermal sensitivity in patients having PMPS, opening new avenues for pain management strategies.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation focusing on patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb: a randomized sham-controlled parallel trial

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of navigation-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb. This randomized, blinded, sham-controlled, parallel trial included a rTMS protocol (10-Hz, 2000 pulses/session) consisting of five daily sessions, followed by one session per week for the next seven weeks. Pain intensity, as well as pain-related disability, quality of life, and psychological status, were assessed. For the primary outcome, pain intensity was measured daily using a numerical rating scale as a pain diary. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to the active rTMS or sham-stimulation groups. In the primary outcome, the decrease (least square [LS] mean ± standard error) in the weekly average of a pain diary at week 9 compared to the baseline was 0.84 ± 0.31 in the active rTMS group and 0.58 ± 0.29 in the sham group (LS mean difference, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, - 0.60 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on the interaction between the treatment group and time point. Pain-related disability score improved, but other assessments showed no differences. No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not show significant pain relief; however, active rTMS tended to provide better results than sham. rTMS has the potential to improve pain-related disability in addition to pain relief.Clinical Trial Registration number: jRCTs052190110 (20/02/2020).

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Analgesic effect of neuromodulation using the AT-04 portable magnetic field-generating device in a patient with neuropathic pain: a case report

BACKGROUND

Neuromodulation by magnetic field through the AT-04 (ait® (AT-04); Peace of Mind Co., Ltd., Kumamoto, Japan) has improved allodynia in neuropathic pain model rats. This report focuses on neuromodulation through magnetic field exposure using the AT-04 that provided an analgesic effect in a patient with neuropathic pain.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 47-year-old man presented with flaccid paralysis and extensive neuropathic pain and scored 7 on the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for his left upper limb. The patient was treated with neuromodulation by magnetic field exposure using the AT-04. Baseline NRS scores were obtained three times daily during the baseline period (days 1-5). Magnetic field exposure was then performed for 30 min three times daily (morning, noon, and evening) at home for 36 days, which was termed the intervention period (days 6-41). During the baseline period, the median NRS score was 7 and the baseline NRS score for calculating the percentage of nonoverlap data (PND) was 6. During the intervention period, the median NRS score was 4 and the PND value of the NRS score was 77.8% (28/36). Neuromodulation by magnetic field exposure using the AT-04 effectively decreased the patient's NRS score. The patient had no adverse effects during the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuromodulation by magnetic field exposure using the AT-04 was effective in decreasing the NRS score in a patient with neuropathic pain. The AT-04 portable magnetic field-generating device shows potential as a therapeutic option for refractory neuropathic pain.

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

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

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Human Motor Cortex Modulates Processing of Heat Pain Sensation as Assessed by the Offset Analgesia Paradigm

Offset analgesia (OA), which is defined as a disproportionately large reduction in pain perception following a small decrease in a heat stimulus, quantifies temporal aspects of endogenous pain modulation. In this study on healthy subjects, we aimed to (i) determine the Heat Pain Threshold (HPT) and the response to constant and dynamic heat stimuli assessing sensitization, adaptation and OA phenomena at the thenar eminence; (ii) evaluate the effects of high-frequency repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) on these measures. Twenty-four healthy subjects underwent quantitative sensory testing before and after active or sham 10 Hz rTMS (1200 stimuli) of the left M1, during separate sessions. We did not observe any rTMS-related changes in the HPT or visual analogue scale (VAS) values recorded during the constant trial. Of note, at baseline, we did not find OA at the thenar eminence. Only after active rTMS did we detect significantly reduced VAS values during dynamic heat stimuli, indicating a delayed and attenuated OA phenomenon. rTMS of the left M1 may activate remote brain areas that belong to the descending pain modulatory and reward systems involved in the OA phenomenon. Our findings provide insights into the mechanisms by which rTMS of M1 could exert its analgesic effects.

Neuromodulation Through Magnetic Fields Irradiation with AT-04 Improves Hyperalgesia in a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain via Descending Pain Modulatory Systems and Opioid Analgesia

Neuromodulation through magnetic fields irradiation with ait® (AT-04), a device that irradiates a mixed alternating magnetic fields (2 kHz and 83.3 MHz), has been shown to have high efficacy for fibromyalgia and low back pain in our previous clinical trials. The aim of this study was to elucidate the underlying analgesic mechanism of the AT-04 using the partial sciatic nerve ligation (PSL) model as an animal model of neuropathic pain. AT-04 was applied to PSL model rats with hyperalgesia and its pain-improving effect was verified by examining mechanical allodynia using the von Frey method. The results demonstrated a significant improvement in hyperalgesia in PSL model rats. We also examined the involvement of descending pain modulatory systems in the analgesic effects of AT-04 using antagonism by serotonin and noradrenergic receptor antagonists. These antagonists significantly reduced the analgesic effect of AT-04 on pain in PSL model rats by approximately 50%. We also measured the amount of serotonin and noradrenaline in the spinal fluid of PSL model rats using microdialysis during AT-04 treatment. Both monoamines were significantly increased by magnetic fields irradiation with AT-04. Furthermore, we evaluated the involvement of opioid analgesia in the analgesic effects of AT-04 using naloxone, the main antagonist of the opioid receptor, and found that it significantly antagonized the effects by approximately 60%. Therefore, the analgesic effects of AT-04 in PSL model rats involve both the endogenous pain modulation systems, including the descending pain modulatory system and the opioid analgesic system.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-term analgesic effect of trans-spinal direct current stimulation compared to non-invasive motor cortex stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome

The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation using high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Thirty-three patients with complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to one of the three treatment groups (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, n = 11; transcranial direct current stimulation, n = 10; transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, n = 12) and received a series of 12 sessions of stimulation for 3 weeks (induction phase) and 11 sessions for 4 months (maintenance therapy). The primary end-point was the mean pain intensity assessed weekly with a visual numerical scale during the month prior to treatment (baseline), the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month after the treatment. The weekly visual numerical scale pain score was significantly reduced at all time points compared to baseline in the transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation group, at the last two time points in the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group (end of the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month later), but at no time point in the transcranial direct current stimulation group. A significant pain relief was observed at the end of induction phase using transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.008) and to transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.003). In this trial, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation was more efficient to relieve pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome compared to motor cortex stimulation techniques (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation). This efficacy was found during the induction phase and was maintained thereafter. This study warrants further investigation to confirm the potentiality of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation as a therapeutic option in complex regional pain syndrome.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation regulates neuroinflammation in neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a frequent condition caused by a lesion in, or disease of, the central or peripheral somatosensory nervous system and is associated with excessive inflammation in the central and peripheral nervous systems. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a supplementary treatment for NP. In clinical research, rTMS of 5-10 Hz is widely placed in the primary motor cortex (M1) area, mostly at 80%-90% RMT, and 5-10 treatment sessions could produce an optimal analgesic effect. The degree of pain relief increases greatly when stimulation duration is greater than 10 days. Analgesia induced by rTMS appears to be related to reestablishing the neuroinflammation system. This article discussed the influences of rTMS on the nervous system inflammatory responses, including the brain, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia (DRG), and peripheral nerve involved in the maintenance and exacerbation of NP. rTMS has shown an anti-inflammation effect by decreasing pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, and increasing anti-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-10 and BDNF, in cortical and subcortical tissues. In addition, rTMS reduces the expression of glutamate receptors (mGluR5 and NMDAR2B) and microglia and astrocyte markers (Iba1 and GFAP). Furthermore, rTMS decreases nNOS expression in ipsilateral DRGs and peripheral nerve metabolism and regulates neuroinflammation.

Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Tension-Type Headache: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Nearly 1-3% of the population is affected by chronic tension-type headaches (CTTH). However, it is still difficult to treat owing to the lack of knowledge of the disease's pathophysiology. Available literature suggests a role for pericranial muscle activity and abnormal modulation of central pain. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy done at the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) can help modulate pericranial muscle overactivity and central pain modulation in subjects with CTTH.

AIM

This randomized controlled study aimed to assess the effect of rTMS used in the low-frequency dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on pain and muscle activity in subjects with a chronic tension-type headache.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present randomized controlled clinical study was commenced in a health care center on 20 subjects with chronic tension-type headaches who were given either sham or low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The therapy effect was evaluated statistically using Welch's corrected t-test.

RESULTS

The study results depicted that daily use of rTMS therapy for two weeks led to a considerable reduction in the intensity of the pain, the activity of pericranial muscles, and headache impact, along with an increase in the nociceptive excitability thresholds in subjects with CTTH, with p=0.001 compared to the sham group.

CONCLUSION

Considering its limitations, the present study depicts that rTMS is an efficacious management tool for reducing pain associated with CTTH and can serve as the cornerstone for additional investigations.

The effect of theta burst stimulation over the primary motor cortex on experimental hamstring pain: A randomised, controlled study

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) is an emerging technique that may have utility in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain. However, previous work exploring the analgesic effects of noninvasive brain stimulation has been limited largely to the arm or hand, despite 80% of acute musculoskeletal injuries occurring in the lower limb. This is a pertinent point, given the functional and neurophysiological differences between upper and lower limb musculature, as well as evidence suggesting that reorganization of corticomotor pathways is region-specific. This study investigated the effect of excitatory TBS on pain, function, and corticomotor organization during experimentally induced lower limb pain. Twenty-eight healthy participants attended 2 experimental sessions. On Day 0, participants completed 10 sets of 10 maximal eccentric contractions of the right hamstring muscles to induce delayed onset muscle soreness. Four consecutive blocks of either active or sham TBS were delivered on Day 2. Measures of mechanical sensitivity, pain (muscle soreness, pain intensity, pain area) function (single-leg hop distance, maximum voluntary isometric contraction, lower extremity functional scale), and corticomotor organization were recorded before and after TBS on Day 2. Pain and function were also assessed daily from Days 2 to 10. Active TBS reduced mechanical sensitivity compared to sham stimulation (P = .01). Corticomotor organization did not differ between groups, suggesting that improvements in mechanical sensitivity were not mediated by changes in M1. Subjective reports of pain intensity and function did not change following active TBS, contrasting previous reports in studies of the upper limb. PERSPECTIVE: M1 TBS reduces mechanical sensitivity associated with experimentally induced hamstring pain. Though further work is needed, these findings may hold important implications for those seeking to expedite recovery or reduce muscle sensitivity following hamstring injury.

Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Different Stimulus Parameters for Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1-rTMS) using different stimulation parameters to explore the optimal stimulus condition for treating neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, blinded, crossover exploratory study. Four single sessions of M1-rTMS at different parameters were administered in random order. The tested stimulation conditions were as follows: 5-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 2000 pulses per session, and sham stimulation. Analgesic effects were assessed by determining the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ2) score immediately before and immediately after intervention.

RESULTS

We enrolled 22 adults (age: 59.8 ± 12.1 years) with intractable neuropathic pain. Linear-effects models showed significant effects of the stimulation condition on changes in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.01). Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that 10-Hz rTMS with 2000 pulses provided better pain relief than sham stimulation, with greater decreases in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that high-dose stimulation (specifically, 10-Hz rTMS at 2000 pulses) is more effective than lower-dose stimulation for treating neuropathic pain.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cortical Modulation of Nociception

Nociception is the neuronal process of encoding noxious stimuli and could be modulated at peripheral, spinal, brainstem, and cortical levels. At cortical levels, several areas including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), prefrontal cortex (PFC), ventrolateral orbital cortex (VLO), insular cortex (IC), motor cortex (MC), and somatosensory cortices are involved in nociception modulation through two main mechanisms: (i) a descending modulatory effect at spinal level by direct corticospinal projections or mostly by activation of brainstem structures (i.e. periaqueductal grey matter (PAG), locus coeruleus (LC), the nucleus of raphe (RM) and rostroventral medulla (RVM)); and by (ii) cortico-cortical or cortico-subcortical interactions. This review summarizes evidence related to the participation of the aforementioned cortical areas in nociception modulation and different neurotransmitters or neuromodulators that have been studied in each area. Besides, we point out the importance of considering intracortical neuronal populations and receptors expression, as well as, nociception-induced cortical changes, both functional and connectional, to better understand this modulatory effect. Finally, we discuss the possible mechanisms that could potentiate the use of cortical stimulation as a promising procedure in pain alleviation.

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

Background

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in chronic tension-type headache: A pilot study

Background & objectives:

Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common type of primary headache disorder. Its chronic form is often the most ignored and challenging to treat. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a novel technique in the treatment of chronic pain. The aim of this pilot study was to explore the effect of low-frequency repetitive TMS (rTMS) on pain status in chronic TTH (CTTH) by subjective and objective pain assessment.

Methods:

Patients (n=30) diagnosed with CTTH were randomized into rTMS (n=15) and placebo (n=15) groups in this study. Pre-intervention detailed history of patients was taken. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain and questionnaires [Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), McGill Pain Questionnaire, Pain Beliefs Questionnaire, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Test, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and WHO-Quality of Life Questionnaire-Brief version] were filled, and objective assessments such as nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) and conditioned pain modulation were done. The tests were repeated after 20 sessions (5 days/week). In the rTMS group, 1200 pulses in eight trains of 150 pulses each were given at 1Hz over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (RDLPFC). In the placebo group, the rTMS coil was placed such that magnetic stimulation did not reach the cortex.

Results:

The NRS score decreased significantly (P<0.001) and NFR thresholds increased significantly (P=0.011) in the rTMS group when compared to placebo group.

Interpretation & conclusions:

Subjective improvements in the NRS, HIT-6, McGill Present Pain Intensity, trait of anxiety and psychological pain beliefs were observed. The increase in the thresholds of NFR served as an objective marker for improvement in pain status. Further studies need to be done to confirm our preliminary findings.

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

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

Neuropsychological Changes in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)

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

Neuroimaging the pain network - Implications for treatment

In this chapter, we provide an overview of neuroimaging studies in chronic pain. We start with an introduction about the phenomenology of pain. In the following section, the application of functional and structural imaging techniques is shown in selected chronic pain syndromes (chronic back pain, fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), phantom limb pain, and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)), and commonalities and peculiarities of imaging correlates across different types of chronic pain are discussed. We conclude this chapter with implications for treatments, with focus on behavioral interventions, sensory and motor trainings, and mirror and motor imagery trainings.

Analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on modified 2010 criteria-diagnosed fibromyalgia: Pilot study

AIM

Fibromyalgia is often comorbid with depression, and less than half those patients achieve satisfactory improvement after adequate pharmacological intervention. The investigation of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) at left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for modified-2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) fibromyalgia and major depressive disorder (MDD) is still in its infancy.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, sham-control study, subjects diagnosed with ACR-2010 fibromyalgia and DSM-IV-TR MDD were recruited and received either active or sham interventions for 2 weeks. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the 10-cm visual analogue pain scale were evaluated at baseline, week 1, and week 2. Multivariable generalized estimating equations analysis was performed for the association between depression and pain scores at each checkpoint.

RESULTS

Twenty subjects were recruited. There was a significant difference over the 2 weeks between the rTMS and sham stimulation groups (P = 0.029), but subgroup analyses were further performed due to significant interaction of group and HDRS on pain outcomes (P = 0.020). The active group had significant improvement in pain at week 2 compared with week 1 (P = 0.021), but the control group did not have any improvement in pain (P = 0.585). Of the mild-moderate depression patients, the pain score in the active group was significantly lower than in the sham group at week 1 (P = 0.001) and at week 2 (P < 0.001). For the severe depression group, there was significantly lower pain over the 2 weeks in the active group (P = 0.045) but the sham group had significantly relapsing pain at week 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Left prefrontal rTMS has an analgesic effect in modified-ACR 2010-defined fibromyalgia and MDD patients. Further investigation is required, however, in order to determine how to regulate the different rTMS treatment protocols according to individual baseline depression severity in patients with MDD and fibromyalgia.

Identifying and Engaging Neuronal Oscillations by Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Crossover, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Pilot Study

Chronic pain is associated with maladaptive reorganization of the central nervous system. Recent studies have suggested that disorganization of large-scale electrical brain activity patterns, such as neuronal network oscillations in the thalamocortical system, plays a key role in the pathophysiology of chronic pain. Yet, little is known about whether and how such network pathologies can be targeted with noninvasive brain stimulation as a nonpharmacological treatment option. We hypothesized that alpha oscillations, a prominent thalamocortical activity pattern in the human brain, are impaired in chronic pain and can be modulated with transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). We performed a randomized, crossover, double-blind, sham-controlled study in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) to investigate how alpha oscillations relate to pain symptoms for target identification and whether tACS can engage this target and thereby induce pain relief. We used high-density electroencephalography to measure alpha oscillations and found that the oscillation strength in the somatosensory region at baseline before stimulation was negatively correlated with pain symptoms. Stimulation with alpha-tACS compared to sham (placebo) stimulation significantly enhanced alpha oscillations in the somatosensory region. The stimulation-induced increase of alpha oscillations in the somatosensory region was correlated with pain relief. Given these findings of successful target identification and engagement, we propose that modulating alpha oscillations with tACS may represent a target-specific, nonpharmacological treatment approach for CLBP. This trial has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03243084). PERSPECTIVE: This study suggests that a rational design of transcranial alternating current stimulation, which is target identification, engagement, and validation, could be a nonpharmacological treatment approach for patients with CLBP.

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

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

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Can a single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to the motor cortex interrupt pain processing?

The modulatory role of the primary motor cortex (M1), reflected by an inhibitory effect of M1-stimulation on clinical pain, motivated us to deepen our understanding of M1’s role in pain modulation. We used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)-induced virtual lesion (VL) to interrupt with M1 activity during noxious heat pain. We hypothesized that TMS-VL will effect experimental pain ratings. Three VL protocols were applied consisting of single-pulse TMS to transiently interfere with right M1 activity: (1) VL_M1- TMS applied to 11 subjects, 20 msec before the individual’s first pain-related M1 peak activation, as determined by source analysis (sLORETA), (2) VL_-50 (N = 16; TMS applied 50 ms prior to noxious stimulus onset), and (3) VL₊₁₅₀ (N = 16; TMS applied 150 ms after noxious stimulus onset). Each protocol included 3 conditions ('pain-alone', ' TMS-VL', and ‘SHAM-VL’), each consisted of 30 noxious heat stimuli. Pain ratings were compared, in each protocol, for TMS-VL vs. SHAM-VL and vs. pain-alone conditions. Repeated measures analysis of variance, corrected for multiple comparisons revealed no significant differences in the pain ratings between the different conditions within each protocol. Therefore, our results from this exploratory study suggest that a single pulse TMS-induced VL that is targeted to M1 failed to interrupt experimental pain processing in the specific three stimulation timing examined here.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Enhanced Reality Showing Long-Lasting Analgesia after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial

To overcome the limitation of short-term efficacy of virtual reality (VR), an enhanced reality (ER) analgesia, (combination of the VR, real-time motion capture, mirror therapy [MT]) involving a high degree of patients’ presence or embodiment was explored. Patients, who underwent unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA), received ER analgesia. The duration was 5 times a week, for 2 weeks for one group and 5 times a week, for 1 week in the other. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at rest and during movement, active knee range of motion (ROM) for flexion and extension were measured repeatedly. After screening 157 patients, 60 were included. Pre-interventional evaluation was performed at 6.7 days and ER was initiated at 12.4 days after surgery. Evaluation was performed at 5, 12, 33 days after the initiation of ER. Analgesia in the 2 week therapy group was effective until the third evaluation (p = 0.000), whereas in the other group, it was effective only until the second evaluation (p = 0.010). Improvement in ROM in the 2 week group was also maintained until the third evaluation (p = 0.037, p = 0.009). It could lay the foundations for the development of safe and long-lasting analgesic tools.

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

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

Evidence of motor system reorganization in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: A case report

Background

Central nervous system reorganization, particularly in networks devoted to somatosensation, is thought to be a significant feature of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

Aims

In the present case report, we evaluated the corticomotor system of a woman suffering from CRPS, as she started and completed her rehabilitation, in order to explore whether CRPS could also be linked to changes in motor networks.

Methods

The patient, a 58-year-old woman, was diagnosed with right-hand CRPS. Transcranial magnetic stimulation measures, reflecting the strength of the corticospinal projections, were evaluated before, during, and after an 8-week graded motor imagery (GMI) program.

Results

Before treatment, the patient reported significant pain and disability, and the strength of the corticospinal projections of the first dorsal interosseous of the affected hand was reduced compared to the healthy, unaffected hand. Pain and disability decreased as the patient completed the GMI program. These changes were paralleled by an increase in the strength of the corticospinal projections.

Conclusions

These observations suggest that corticomotor changes can be observed in individuals suffering from CRPS and that some of the clinical manifestations observed in these patients (e.g., pain, disability) could possibly be linked to these neurophysiological changes.

Effect of Deep Intramuscular Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Neurophysiological Biomarkers in Chronic Myofascial Pain Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the neuromodulation techniques effects (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and deep intramuscular stimulation therapy [DIMST]) on pain intensity, peripheral, and neurophysiological biomarkers chronic myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) patients.

DESIGN

Randomized, double blind, factorial design, and controlled placebo-sham clinical trial.

SETTING

Clinical trial in the Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (NCT02381171).

SUBJECTS

We recruited women aged between 19- and 75-year old, with MPS diagnosis.

METHODS

Patients were randomized into four groups: rTMS + DIMST, rTMS + sham-DIMST, sham-rTMS + DIMST, sham-rTMS + sham-DIMST; and received 10 sessions for 20 minutes each one (rTMS and DIMST). Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS); neurophysiological parameters were assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation; biochemical parameters were: BDNF, S100β, lactate dehydrogenase, inflammatory (TNF-α, IL6, and IL10), and oxidative stress parameters.

RESULTS

We observed the pain relief assessed by VAS immediately assessed before and after the intervention (P < 0.05, F(1,3)= 3.494 and F(1,3)= 4.656, respectively); in the sham-rTMS + DIMST group and both three active groups in relation to sham-rTMS + sham-DIMST group, respectively. There was an increase in the MEP after rTMS + sham-DIMST (P < 0.05). However, there was no change in all-peripheral parameters analyzed across the treatment (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our findings add additional evidence about rTMS and DIMST in relieving pain in MPS patients without synergistic effect. No peripheral biomarkers reflected the analgesic effect of both techniques; including those related to cellular damage. Additionally, one neurophysiological parameter (increased MEP amplitude) needs to be investigated.

Efficacy of Pulsed Electromagnetic Therapy for Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial studied the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic therapy (PEMT) in patients with chronic lower back pain. Active PEMT ( n = 17) or placebo treatment ( n = 19) was performed three times a week for 3 weeks. Patients were assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS) and revised Oswestry disability scores for 4 weeks after therapy. PEMT produced significant pain reduction throughout the observation period compared with baseline values. The percentage change in the NRS score from baseline was significantly greater in the PEMT group than the placebo group at all three time-points measured. The mean revised Oswestry disability percentage after 4 weeks was significantly improved from the baseline value in the PEMT group, whereas there were no significant differences in the placebo group. In conclusion, PEMT reduced pain and disability and appears to be a potentially useful therapeutic tool for the conservative management of chronic lower back pain.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: guidelines for pain treatment research

Recognizing that electrically stimulating the motor cortex could relieve chronic pain sparked development of noninvasive technologies. In transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), electromagnetic coils held against the scalp influence underlying cortical firing. Multiday repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can induce long-lasting, potentially therapeutic brain plasticity. Nearby ferromagnetic or electronic implants are contraindications. Adverse effects are minimal, primarily headaches. Single provoked seizures are very rare. Transcranial magnetic stimulation devices are marketed for depression and migraine in the United States and for various indications elsewhere. Although multiple studies report that high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex reduces neuropathic pain, their quality has been insufficient to support Food and Drug Administration application. Harvard's Radcliffe Institute therefore sponsored a workshop to solicit advice from experts in TMS, pain research, and clinical trials. They recommended that researchers standardize and document all TMS parameters and improve strategies for sham and double blinding. Subjects should have common well-characterized pain conditions amenable to motor cortex rTMS and studies should be adequately powered. They recommended standardized assessment tools (eg, NIH's PROMIS) plus validated condition-specific instruments and consensus-recommended metrics (eg, IMMPACT). Outcomes should include pain intensity and qualities, patient and clinician impression of change, and proportions achieving 30% and 50% pain relief. Secondary outcomes could include function, mood, sleep, and/or quality of life. Minimum required elements include sample sources, sizes, and demographics, recruitment methods, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline and posttreatment means and SD, adverse effects, safety concerns, discontinuations, and medication-usage records. Outcomes should be monitored for at least 3 months after initiation with prespecified statistical analyses. Multigroup collaborations or registry studies may be needed for pivotal trials.

Modulation of human visceral sensitivity by noninvasive magnetoelectrical neural stimulation in health and irritable bowel syndrome

Visceral pain is a particularly difficult symptom to manage in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Our aim was to examine whether noninvasive neurostimulation applied to the motor cortex or lumbosacral region can modulate human visceral sensation. Sixteen healthy adult volunteers and 10 patients with IBS were evaluated. Single-pulse lumbosacral magnetic stimulation (LSMS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to assess spinal root and cortical excitability as well as the effect of neurostimulation on anorectal sensation and pain, which were provoked by a local electrical stimulus. Initially, healthy volunteers received 6 stimulation paradigms in a randomised order (3 repetitive LSMS [1 Hz, 10 Hz, and sham]) and 3 repetitive TMS (1 Hz, 10 Hz, and sham) to investigate the effects on neural function and visceral sensation over 1 hour. The most effective cortical and spinal interventions were then applied in patients with IBS. Only 1-Hz rLSMS altered healthy anal motor excitability, increasing spinal (58 ± 12.3 vs 38.5 ± 5.7 μV, P = 0.04) but not cortical responses. Both 1-Hz rLSMS and 10-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation increased healthy rectal pain thresholds for up to an hour after intervention (P < 0.05). When applied to patients with IBS, rectal pain thresholds were increased across all time points after both 1-Hz rLSMS and 10-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P < 0.05) compared with sham. The application of magnetoelectric stimuli to the cortical and lumbosacral areas modulates visceral sensation in healthy subjects and patients with IBS. This proof-of-concept study provides supportive evidence for neurostimulation in managing functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation as a new tool to control pain perception

Treatment for chronic pain is frequently unsuccessful or characterized by side-effects. The high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) has been suggested in the management of refractory chronic pain. Various studies have shown that HF-rTMS sessions of long-duration applied at primary motor cortex induce pain relief through mechanisms of plastic changes. Efficacy of rTMS mostly depends on stimulation parameters, but this aspect requires better characterization. A rationale to target other cortical areas exists. Current data are promising, but a careful analysis of stimulation settings and maintenance treatment design are need.