Delayed pain decrease following M1 tDCS in spinal cord injury: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Reduces Pressure Pain Sensitivity in Patients With Noncancer Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Noncancer chronic pain is a clinical challenge because pharmacological treatment often fails to relieve pain. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a treatment that could have the potential for pain relief and improvement in quality of life. However, there is a lack of clinical trials evaluating the effects of tDCS on the pain system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of 5 days of anodal tDCS treatment on the pain system in patients with chronic noncancer pain using quantitative sensory testing and quality of life questionnaires: (1) Brief Pain Inventory-short form, (2) European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30, and (3) Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale.

METHODS

Eleven patients with noncancer chronic pain (51 ± 13.6 y old, 5M) participated in the study. Anodal tDCS was applied for 5 consecutive days, followed by sham stimulation after a washout period of at least 2 weeks. Pressure pain thresholds and pain tolerance thresholds (PTT) were assessed in different body regions on days 1 and 5.

RESULTS

Anodal tDCS appeared to maintain PTT at C5 (clavicle) on day 5, but sham stimulation decreased PTT ( P = 0.007). In addition, anodal tDCS increased PTT compared with sham at day 5 at Th10 ventral dermatomes ( P = 0.014). Both anodal and sham tDCS decreased the Brief Pain Inventory-short form total and interference scores, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30 fatigue score, but no interaction effect was observed.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the evidence in the literature that tDCS may be a potential therapeutic tool for the management of noncancer chronic pain.

Treating neuropathic pain and comorbid affective disorders: Preclinical and clinical evidence

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain (NP) significantly impacts quality of life and often coexists with affective disorders such as anxiety and depression. Addressing both NP and its psychiatric manifestations requires a comprehensive understanding of therapeutic options. This study aimed to review the main pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for NP and comorbid affective disorders to describe their mechanisms of action and how they are commonly used in clinical practice.

METHODS

A review was conducted across five electronic databases, focusing on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for NP and its associated affective disorders. The following combination of MeSH and title/abstract keywords were used: "neuropathic pain," "affective disorders," "depression," "anxiety," "treatment," and "therapy." Both animal and human studies were included to discuss the underlying therapeutic mechanisms of these interventions.

RESULTS

Pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids, modulate neural synaptic transmission to alleviate NP. Topical agents, such as capsaicin, lidocaine patches, and botulinum toxin A, offer localized relief by desensitizing pain pathways. Some of these drugs, especially antidepressants, also treat comorbid affective disorders. Non-pharmacological techniques, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and photobiomodulation therapy, modulate cortical activity and have shown promise for NP and mood disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

The interconnection between NP and comorbid affective disorders necessitates holistic therapeutic strategies. Some pharmacological treatments can be used for both conditions, and non-pharmacological interventions have emerged as promising complementary approaches. Future research should explore novel molecular pathways to enhance treatment options for these interrelated conditions.

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.

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

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

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Pain Management in End-Stage Renal Disease - Report of an Early Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Chronic pain in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is an increasingly neglected clinical problem affecting more than 60% of patients. Long-term chronic pain could be associated with brain imbalance in circuits of pain matrix and is associated with poor quality of life (QoL) and mood disturbance.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was evaluating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on pain, QoL, depression, anxiety and affectivity in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial included 30 patients with chronic pain undergoing HD. Participants were allocated to Active tDCS and Sham tDCS and received ten non-consecutive sessions of anodal motor cortex stimulation (M1/Sp2 montage) at 2 mA intensity for 20 min. The primary outcome was pain assessed using numeric rating scale (NRS) and collected at baseline, immediately after the 10th day of intervention, one week, two weeks, and four weeks after the last stimulation. Secondary outcomes included QoL, depression, anxiety and affectivity collected before and after intervention.

RESULTS

A mixed ANOVA model showed significant interaction between group and time on pain F(4.112) = 3.106, P = 0.01 with main effects of group (P = 0.03). Before and after intervention, a significant improvement was observed in QoL (P = 0.009), general health (P = 0.03), fatigue (P = 0.05), symptoms (P = 0.05) depression (P = 0.01) and anxiety (P = 0.01). No difference was found for affectivity.

CONCLUSION

Anodal tDCS over the motor cortex emerges as a potential therapeutic approach for improving pain, QoL, and mood in patients with ESRD.

Neuromodulation of somatosensory pain thresholds of the neck musculature using a novel transcranial direct current stimulation montage: a randomized double-blind, sham controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of primary motor cortex (M1) and cathodal of the primary sensory cortex (S1) have previously shown to modulate the sensory thresholds when administered with the reference electrode located over the contralateral supraorbital area (SO). Combining the two stimulation paradigms into one with simultaneous stimulation of the two brain areas (M1 + S1 - tDCS) may result in a synergistic effect inducing a prominent neuromodulation, noticeable in the pain thresholds. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of the novel M1 + S1 - tDCS montage compared to sham-stimulation in modulating the pain thresholds in healthy adults.

METHODS

Thirty-nine (20 males) subjects were randomly assigned to either receiving 20 min. active M1 + S1 - tDCS or sham tDCS in a double-blinded single session study. Thermal and mechanical pain thresholds were assessed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the pain thresholds within either group, or between the M1 + S1 - tDCS group and the Sham-tDCS group (p>0.05), indicating that the intervention was ineffective in inducing a neuromodulation of the somatosensory system.

CONCLUSIONS

Experimental investigations of novel tDCS electrode montages, that are scientifically based on existing studies or computational modelling, are essential to establish better tDCS protocols. Here simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex and primary sensory cortex showed no effect on the pain thresholds of the neck musculature in healthy subjects. This tDCS montage may have been ineffective due to how the electrical field reaches the targeted neurons, or may have been limited by the design of a single tDCS administration. The study adds to the existing literature of the studies investigating effects of new tDCS montages with the aim of establishing novel non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for chronic neck pain rehabilitation. North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics (VN-20180085) ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04658485).

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain

The research and clinical application of the noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique in the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) are increasing. In this review article, we outline the effectiveness and limitations of the NIBS approach in treating common central neuropathic pain (CNP). This article summarizes the research progress of NIBS in the treatment of different CNPs and describes the effects and mechanisms of these methods on different CNPs. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) analgesic research has been relatively mature and applied to a variety of CNP treatments. But the optimal stimulation targets, stimulation intensity, and stimulation time of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for each type of CNP are still difficult to identify. The analgesic mechanism of rTMS is similar to that of tDCS, both of which change cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity, regulate the release of related neurotransmitters and affect the structural and functional connections of brain regions associated with pain processing and regulation. Some deficiencies are found in current NIBS relevant studies, such as small sample size, difficulty to avoid placebo effect, and insufficient research on analgesia mechanism. Future research should gradually carry out large-scale, multicenter studies to test the stability and reliability of the analgesic effects of NIBS.

Central Neuropathic Pain Syndromes: Current and Emerging Pharmacological Strategies

Central neuropathic pain is caused by a disease or lesion of the brain or spinal cord. It is difficult to predict which patients will develop central pain syndromes after a central nervous system injury, but depending on the etiology, lifetime prevalence may be greater than 50%. The resulting pain is often highly distressing and difficult to treat, with no specific treatment guidelines currently available. This narrative review discusses mechanisms contributing to central neuropathic pain, and focuses on pharmacological approaches for managing common central neuropathic pain conditions such as central post-stroke pain, spinal cord injury-related pain, and multiple sclerosis-related neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids have some evidence for efficacy in central neuropathic pain. Medications from other pharmacologic classes may also provide pain relief, but current evidence is limited. Certain non-pharmacologic approaches, neuromodulation in particular, may be helpful in refractory cases. Emerging data suggest that modulating the primary afferent input may open new horizons for the treatment of central neuropathic pain. For most patients, effective treatment will likely require a multimodal therapy approach.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study aims to systematically evaluate the effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury and compare the effects of two different NIBS.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of NIBS on NP after spinal cord injury (SCI) were retrieved from the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM from inception to September 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane handbook of systematic review. Statistical analysis was conducted with Stata (version 16) and R software (version 4.0.2).

Results

A total of 17 studies involving 507 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that NIBS could reduce the pain score (SMD = −0.84, 95% CI −1.27 −0.40, P = 0.00) and the pain score during follow-up (SMD = −0.32, 95%CI −0.57 −0.07, P = 0.02), and the depression score of the NIBS group was not statistically significant than that of the control group (SMD = −0.43, 95%CI −0.89–0.02, P = 0.06). The network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the pain score was repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (P = 0.62) > transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (P = 0.38).

Conclusion

NIBS can relieve NP after SCI. The effect of rTMS on NP is superior to that of tDCS. We suggest that the rTMS parameters are 80–120% resting motion threshold and 5–20 Hz, while the tDCS parameters are 2 mA and 20 min. However, it is necessary to carry out more large-scale, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality RCT to explore the efficacy and mechanism of NIBS for NP after SCI.

The CanPain SCI clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation management of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: 2021 update

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to update the 2016 version of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain in people with spinal cord injury (SCI).

SETTING

The guidelines are relevant for inpatient, outpatient and community SCI rehabilitation settings in Canada.

METHODS

The guidelines were updated in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A Steering Committee and Working Group reviewed the relevant evidence on neuropathic pain management (encompassing screening and diagnosis, treatment and models of care) after SCI. The quality of evidence was scored using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A consensus process was followed to achieve agreement on recommendations and clinical considerations.

RESULTS

The working group identified and reviewed 46 additional relevant articles published since the last version of the guidelines. The panel agreed on 3 new screening and diagnosis recommendations and 8 new treatment recommendations. Two key changes to these treatment recommendations included the introduction of general treatment principles and a new treatment recommendation classification system. No new recommendations to model of care were made.

CONCLUSIONS

The CanPainSCI recommendations for the management of neuropathic pain after SCI should be used to inform practice.

Effect of High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Conditioned Pain Modulation in Healthy Adults: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial

The disorder of the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) system is one of the main causes of pain perception in individuals. High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) targeting specific brain areas was indicated to have an analgesic effect possibly by activating the endogenous pain inhibition pathway evident in CPM. However, discrepancies were found in previous limited studies of varied homogeneity and quality. Therefore, the present study applied 2 mA HD-tDCS (20 min) in the left primary motor cortex (M1) among 35 healthy adults with a blinded crossover study design, to investigate its effectiveness on optimizing the analgesic effect in healthy individuals through assessing changes of the CPM. The univariate and multivariate general linear models were used to evaluate the intervention effect between-group on the Δ-value (after-intervention minus before-intervention) during CPM (primary outcome), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and cold pressure threshold (CPT) (secondary outcome), respectively. A significant between-group difference in Δ-CPM was found for active stimulation. HD-tDCS significantly improved the analgesic efficiency of Δ-CPM, compared with the sham control, after adjusting the confounding factors including age, gender, psychological status, as well as the sequence effect. The changes of CPM were positively correlated with the total physical activity volume. In conclusion, our findings provide evidence support to the effectiveness of HD-tDCS on endogenous pain modulation among healthy adults. Further studies are required to explore the analgesic effect of tDCS among patients with chronic pain, thereby facilitating optimal chronic pain management.

To Combine or Not to Combine Physical Therapy With tDCS for Stroke With Shoulder Pain? Analysis From a Combination Randomized Clinical Trial for Rehabilitation of Painful Shoulder in Stroke

Purpose: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an intervention that seems to be an ideal tool to enhance the effects of rehabilitation therapies given it facilitates generation of plasticity in the stimulated brain area. In stroke this strategy has been highly utilized; however, the results have been mixed. In this trial we have evaluated the analgesic and functional effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) combined with physiotherapy in stroke survivors with shoulder pain. Methods: Twenty-six stroke surviving adults with shoulder pain received 10 sessions of passive mobilization and performed upper limb exercises using a cycle ergometer, combined with active or sham tDCS. The intensity of pain in the hemiplegic shoulder was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS); secondary outcomes were the level of motor impairment, handgrip strength, range of motion, motor function of the upper limbs, and quality of life (QOL) assessed before and after 10 sessions and 1 month after the end of the treatment. Results: A clinically important pain reduction (3 points) was found in both groups and was maintained at follow-up; there was no significant difference between groups (p = 0.3). Similarly, the shoulder range of motion improved, motor function and quality of life improved showed no significant differences between groups. One result that needs to be underscored is that both groups had a significant effect size toward improvement in all of these outcomes. Conclusions: We discuss in this study that tDCS is not a useful combination strategy when the physical therapy has a large effect by itself and we also review other negative trials of combined therapy under this framework of ceiling effect of the main physical therapy. Trial registry: Trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, RBR-8F5MNY (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8f5mny/). Registered on June 2, 2017. Beginning of the recruitment of the volunteers: august, 2017.

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.

OBJECTIVE

We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.

METHODS

Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.

RESULTS

Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).

CONCLUSION

All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain

Several types of pain occur following spinal cord injury (SCI); however, neuropathic pain (NP) is one of the most intractable. Invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation techniques have been studied in clinical trials to treat chronic NP following SCI. The evidence for invasive stimulation including motor cortex and deep brain stimulation via the use of implanted electrodes to reduce SCI-related NP remains limited, due to the small scale of existing studies. The lower risk of complications associated with non-invasive stimulation, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), provide potentially attractive alternative central neuromodulation techniques. Compared to rTMS, tDCS is technically easier to apply, more affordable, available, and potentially feasible for home use. Accordingly, several new studies have investigated the efficacy of tDCS to treat NP after SCI. In this review, articles relating to the mechanisms, clinical efficacy and safety of tDCS on SCI-related NP were searched from inception to December 2019. Six clinical trials, including five randomized placebo-controlled trials and one prospective controlled trial, were included for evidence specific to the efficacy of tDCS for treating SCI-related NP. The mechanisms of action of tDCS are complex and not fully understood. Several factors including stimulation parameters and individual patient characteristics may affect the efficacy of tDCS intervention. Current evidence to support the efficacy of utilizing tDCS for relieving chronic NP after SCI remains limited. Further strong evidence is needed to confirm the efficacy of tDCS intervention for treating SCI-related NP.

Methods and strategies of tDCS for the treatment of pain: current status and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that has been widely studied for the treatment of chronic pain. It is considered a promising and safe alternative pain therapy. Different targets have been tested, each having their own particular mechanisms for modulating pain perception.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the current state of the art of tDCS to manage pain and future strategies to optimize tDCS' effects. Current strategies include primary motor cortex tDCS, prefrontal tDCS and tDCS combined with behavioral interventions while future strategies, on the other hand, include high-intensity tDCS, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, cerebellar tDCS, home-based tDCS, and tDCS with extended number of sessions.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

It has been shown that the stimulation of the prefrontal and primary motor cortex is efficient for pain reduction while a few other new strategies, such as high-intensity tDCS and network-based tDCS, are believed to induce strong neuroplastic effects, although the underlying neural mechanisms still need to be fully uncovered. Hence, conventional tDCS approaches demonstrated promising effects to manage pain and new strategies are under development to enhance tDCS effects and make this approach more easily available by using, for instance, home-based devices.

Central Neuropathic Mechanisms in Pain Signaling Pathways: Current Evidence and Recommendations

Purpose

This is a comprehensive review of the current literature on central neuropathic pain mechanisms that is secondary to spinal cord injury. It reviews recent and seminal findings on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment and compares treatment options and recommendations.

Recent Findings

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a common complication of spinal cord injury (SCI). Chronicity of NP is attributed to increased abundance of inflammatory mediators and ion channel dysfunction leading to afferent nerve sensitization; nerve damage and nerve–glia cross talk have also been implicated. Conventional treatment is medical and has had limited success. Recent studies have made headway in identifying novel biomarkers, including microRNA and psychosocial attributes that can predict progress from SCI to chronic NP (CNP). Recent advances have provided evidence of efficacy for two promising drugs. Baclofen was able to provide good, long-lasting pain relief. Ziconotide, a voltage-gated calcium channel blocker, was studied in a small trial and was able to provide good analgesia in most participants. However, several participants had to be withdrawn because of worrisome creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations, and further studies are required to define its safety profile. Non-medical interventions include brain sensitization and biofeedback techniques. These methods have recently had encouraging results, albeit preliminary. Case reports of non-conventional techniques, such as hypnosis, were also reported.

Summary

CNP is a common complication of SCI and is a prevalent disorder with significant morbidity and disability. Conventional medical treatment is limited in efficacy. Recent studies identified baclofen and ziconotide as possible new therapies, alongside non-medical interventions. Further research into the pathophysiology is required to identify further therapy candidates. A multidisciplinary approach, including psychosocial support, medical and non-medical interventions, is likely needed to achieve therapeutic effects in this difficult to treat syndrome.

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Does Not Improve Neuropathic Pain in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury.

METHODS

A meta-analysis on pain intensity, depression, and anxiety levels was conducted to evaluate the effect of noninvasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury. The authors searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Randomized controlled trials comparing noninvasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation were included.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were selected. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, or cranial electrotherapy stimulation on neuropathic pain reduction after spinal cord injury. In addition, noninvasive brain stimulation showed no beneficial effect over sham stimulation on the improvement of depression, while it yielded a significant reduction of anxiety levels immediately after treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that only cranial electrotherapy stimulation had a significant effect on the reduction of anxiety levels among the three types of noninvasive brain stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with spinal cord injury, no significant effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain and depression were observed. Cranial electrotherapy stimulation may be beneficial for the management of anxiety. These findings do not support the routine use of noninvasive brain stimulation for neuropathic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Add-on Treatment to Cognitive-Behavior Therapy in First Episode Drug-Naïve Major Depression Patients: The ESAP Study Protocol

Background: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) affects more than 264 million people worldwide. Current treatments include the use of psychotherapy and/or drugs, however ~30% of patients either do not respond to these treatments, or do not tolerate the side effects associated to the use of pharmacological interventions. Thus, it is important to study non-pharmacological interventions targeting mechanisms not directly involved with the regulation of neurotransmitters. Several studies demonstrated that transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) can be effective for symptoms relief in MDD. However, tDCS seems to have a better effect when used as an add-on treatment to other interventions. Methods/Design: This is a study protocol for a parallel, randomized, triple-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial in which a total of 90 drug-naïve, first-episode MDD patients (45 per arm) will be randomized to one of two groups to receive a 6-weeks of CBT combined with either active or sham tDCS to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The primary outcome will depressive symptoms improvement as assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at 6-weeks. The secondary aim is to test whether CBT combined with tDCS can engage the proposed mechanistic target of restoring the prefrontal imbalance and connectivity through the bilateral modulation of the DLPFC, as assessed by changes over resting-state and emotional task eliciting EEG. Discussion: This study evaluates the synergetic clinical effects of CBT and tDCS in the first episode, drug-naïve, patients with MDD. First episode MDD patients provide an interesting opportunity, as their brains were not changed by the pharmacological treatments, by the time course, or by the recurrence of MDD episodes (and other comorbidities). Trial Registration: This study is registered with the United States National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials Registry (NCT03548545). Registered June 7, 2018, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03548545. Protocol Version 1.

Developing an optimized strategy with transcranial direct current stimulation to enhance the endogenous pain control system in fibromyalgia

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia affects more than 5 million people in the United States and has a detrimental impact on individuals' quality of life. Current pharmacological treatments provide limited benefits to relieve the pain of fibromyalgia, along with a risk of adverse effects; a scenario that explains the increasing interest for multimodal approaches. A tailored strategy to focus on this dysfunctional endogenous pain inhibitory system is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex. By combining tDCS with aerobic exercise, the effects can be optimized. Areas covered: The relevant literature was reviewed and discussed the methodological issues for designing a mechanistic clinical trial to test this combined intervention. Also, we reviewed the neural control of different pathways that integrate the endogenous pain inhibitory system, as well as the effects of tDCS and aerobic exercise both alone and combined. In addition, potential neurophysiological assessments are addressed: conditioned pain modulation, temporal slow pain summation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and electroencephalography in the context of fibromyalgia. Expert commentary: By understanding the neural mechanisms underlying pain processing and potential optimized interventions in fibromyalgia with higher accuracy, the field has an evident potential of advancement in the direction of new neuromarkers and tailored therapies.

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with group exercise treatment in subjects with chronic low back pain: a pilot randomized control trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in addition to group exercise on non-specific chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Double-blinded randomized control trial.

SUBJECTS

Patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 35 subjects were recruited and allocated to real- or sham-tDCS followed by a group exercise protocol. Each patient underwent five sessions of brain stimulation followed by 10 sessions of group exercise. Subjects were evaluated before and after tDCS, after group exercise and one month after the combined treatment. Outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale for pain intensity, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, EuroQuol-5 Dimension and Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

RESULTS

Significant between-group difference in pain intensity (-27.7 ± 30.4 mm in real-tDCS group compared to -2.2 ± 30.1 mm in sham-tDCS group) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (-4.9 ± 4.2 in real-tDCS group compared to -1.1 ± 2.7 in sham-tDCS group) was found one month after the combined treatment ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that real-tDCS can induce significant larger effects on pain and psychological well-being, compared to sham-tDCS, when it is associated with a group exercise program. The effects were observed mostly in the follow-up.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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