Effects of rTMS and tDCS on neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pain in the Context of Sensory Deafferentation

Pain that accompanies deafferentation is one of the most mysterious and misunderstood medical conditions. Prevalence rates for the assorted conditions vary considerably but the most reliable estimates are greater than 50% for strokes involving the somatosensory system, brachial plexus avulsions, spinal cord injury, and limb amputation, with controversy surrounding the mechanistic contributions of deafferentation to ensuing neuropathic pain syndromes. Deafferentation pain has also been described for loss of other body parts (e.g., eyes and breasts) and may contribute to between 10% and upwards of 30% of neuropathic symptoms in peripheral neuropathies. There is no pathognomonic test or sign to identify deafferentation pain, and part of the controversy surrounding it stems from the prodigious challenges in differentiating cause and effect. For example, it is unknown whether cortical reorganization causes pain or is a byproduct of pathoanatomical changes accompanying injury, including pain. Similarly, ascertaining whether deafferentation contributes to neuropathic pain, or whether concomitant injury to nerve fibers transmitting pain and touch sensation leads to a deafferentation-like phenotype can be clinically difficult, although a detailed neurologic examination, functional imaging, and psychophysical tests may provide clues. Due in part to the concurrent morbidities, the physical, psychologic, and by extension socioeconomic costs of disorders associated with deafferentation are higher than for other chronic pain conditions. Treatment is symptom-based, with evidence supporting first-line antineuropathic medications such as gabapentinoids and antidepressants. Studies examining noninvasive neuromodulation and virtual reality have yielded mixed results.

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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.

Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Neuropathic Pain: A Narrative Review

Neuropathic pain, affecting 6.9-10% of the general population, has a negative impact on patients' quality of life and potentially leads to functional impairment and disability. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)-a safe, indirect and non-invasive technique-has been increasingly applied for treating neuropathic pain. The mechanism underlying rTMS is not yet well understood, and the analgesic effects of rTMS have been inconsistent with respect to different settings/parameters, causing insufficient evidence to determine its efficacy in patients with neuropathic pain. This narrative review aimed to provide an up-to-date overview of rTMS for treating neuropathic pain as well as to summarize the treatment protocols and related adverse effects from existing clinical trials. Current evidence supports the use of 10 Hz HF-rTMS of the primary motor cortex to reduce neuropathic pain, especially in patients with spinal cord injury, diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. However, the lack of standardized protocols impedes the universal use of rTMS for neuropathic pain. rTMS was hypothesized to achieve analgesic effects by upregulating the pain threshold, inhibiting pain impulse, modulating the brain cortex, altering imbalanced functional connectivity, regulating neurotrophin and increasing endogenous opioid and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Further studies are warranted to explore the differences in the parameters/settings of rTMS for treating neuropathic pain due to different disease types.

Effects of High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting the Anterior Cingulate Cortex on the Pain Thresholds: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The majority of existing clinical studies used active transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over superficial areas of the pain neuromatrix to regulate pain, with conflicting results. Few studies have investigated the effect of tDCS on pain thresholds by focusing on targets in deep parts of the pain neuromatrix.

METHODS

This study applied a single session of high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) targeting the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and used a parallel and sham-controlled design to compare the antinociceptive effects in healthy individuals by assessing changes in pain thresholds. Sixty-six female individuals (mean age, 20.5 ± 2.4 years) were randomly allocated into the anodal, cathodal, or sham HD-tDCS groups. The primary outcome of the study was pain thresholds (pressure pain threshold, heat pain threshold, and cold pain threshold), which were evaluated before and after stimulation through the use of quantitative sensory tests.

RESULTS

Only cathodal HD-tDCS targeting the ACC significantly increased heat pain threshold (P < 0.05) and pressure pain threshold (P < 0.01) in healthy individuals compared with sham stimulation. Neither anodal nor cathodal HD-tDCS showed significant analgesic effects on cold pain threshold. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found in pain thresholds between anodal and sham HD-tDCS (P > 0.38). Independent of HD-tDCS protocols, the positive and negative affective schedule scores were decreased immediately after stimulation compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has found that cathodal HD-tDCS targeting the ACC provided a strong antinociceptive effect (increase in pain threshold), demonstrating a positive biological effect of HD-tDCS.

Better Fields or Currents? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Transcranial Magnetic (rTMS) Versus Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Neuropathic Pain

While high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) is now included in the armamentarium to treat chronic neuropathic pain (NP), direct-current anodal stimulation (a-tDCS) to the same cortical targets may represent a valuable alternative in terms of feasibility and cost. Here we performed a head-to-head, randomized, single-blinded, cross-over comparison of HF-rTMS versus a-tDCS over the motor cortex in 56 patients with drug-resistant NP, who received 5 daily sessions of each procedure, with a washout of at least 4 weeks. Daily scores of pain, sleep, and fatigue were obtained during 5 consecutive weeks, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to a motor task was performed in a subgroup of 31 patients. The percentage of responders, defined by a reduction in pain scores of > 2 SDs from pre-stimulus levels, was similar to both techniques (42.0% vs. 42.3%), while the magnitude of "best pain relief" was significantly skewed towards rTMS. Mean pain ratings in responders decreased by 32.6% (rTMS) and 29.6% (tDCS), with half of them being sensitive to only one technique. Movement-related fMRI showed significant activations in motor and premotor areas, which did not change after 5 days of stimulation, and did not discriminate responders from non-responders. Both HF-rTMS and a-tDCS showed efficacy at 1 month in drug-resistant NP, with magnitude of relief slightly favoring rTMS. Since a significant proportion of patients responded to one procedure only, both modalities should be tested before declaring a patient as unresponsive.

Review of rehabilitation protocols for brachial plexus injury

Brachial plexus injury (BPI) is one of the most serious peripheral nerve injuries, resulting in severe and persistent impairments of the upper limb and disability in adults and children alike. With the relatively mature early diagnosis and surgical technique of brachial plexus injury, the demand for rehabilitation treatment after brachial plexus injury is gradually increasing. Rehabilitation intervention can be beneficial to some extent during all stages of recovery, including the spontaneous recovery period, the postoperative period, and the sequelae period. However, due to the complex composition of the brachial plexus, location of injury, and the different causes, the treatment varies. A clear rehabilitation process has not been developed yet. Rehabilitation therapy that has been widely studied focusing on exercise therapy, sensory training, neuroelectromagnetic stimulation, neurotrophic factors, acupuncture and massage therapy, etc., while interventions like hydrotherapy, phototherapy, and neural stem cell therapy are less studied. In addition, rehabilitation methods in some special condition and group often neglected, such as postoperative edema, pain, and neonates. The purpose of this article is to explore the potential contributions of various methods to brachial plexus injury rehabilitation and to provide a concise overview of the interventions that have been shown to be beneficial. The key contribution of this article is to form relatively clear rehabilitation processes based on different periods and populations, which provides an important reference for the treatment of brachial plexus injuries.

PSD-95 in the anterior cingulate cortex contributes to neuropathic pain by interdependent activation with NR2B

Studies suggest that the scaffolding protein, postsynaptic density protein-95 (PSD-95), is involved in multiple neurological dysfunctions. However, the role of PSD-95 in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in neuropathic pain (NP) has not been investigated. The current study addressed the role of PSD-95 in the ACC in NP and its modulating profile with NMDA receptor subunit 2B (NR2B). The NP model was established by chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the sciatic nerve, and mechanical and thermal tests were used to evaluate behavioral hyperalgesia. Protein expression and distribution were evaluated using immunohistochemistry and western blotting. The results showed that PSD-95 and NR2B were co-localized in neurons in the ACC. After CCI, both PSD-95 and NR2B were upregulated in the ACC. Inhibiting NR2B with Ro 25-6981 attenuated pain hypersensitivity and decreased the over-expression of PSD-95 induced by CCI. Furthermore, intra-ACC administration of PSD-95 antisense oligonucleotide not only attenuated pain hypersensitivity but also downregulated the NR2B level and the phosphorylation of cyclic AMP response element-binding protein. These results demonstrated that PSD-95 in the ACC contributes to NP by interdependent activation of NR2B.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Primary Motor Cortex beyond Motor Rehabilitation: A Review of the Current Evidence

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has emerged as a novel technique to stimulate the human brain through the scalp. Over the years, identifying the optimal brain region and stimulation parameters has been a subject of debate in the literature on therapeutic uses of repetitive TMS (rTMS). Nevertheless, the primary motor cortex (M1) has been a conventional target for rTMS to treat motor symptoms, such as hemiplegia and spasticity, as it controls the voluntary movement of the body. However, with an expanding knowledge base of the M1 cortical and subcortical connections, M1-rTMS has shown a therapeutic efficacy that goes beyond the conventional motor rehabilitation to involve pain, headache, fatigue, dysphagia, speech and voice impairments, sleep disorders, cognitive dysfunction, disorders of consciousness, anxiety, depression, and bladder dysfunction. In this review, we summarize the latest evidence on using M1-rTMS to treat non-motor symptoms of diverse etiologies and discuss the potential mechanistic rationale behind the management of each of these symptoms.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

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