The Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as an Add-on Modality to Graded Motor Imagery for Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Proof of Concept Study

Complex regional pain syndrome type II localized to the index finger. A case report translating scientific evidence into clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome type II (CRPS-II) is a rare condition associated with peripheral nervous system lesions. Its localized distribution in the fingers is unique, and its treatment is unclear.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 56-year-old male presented to the emergency department with a saw-cut index finger injury with associated tendon and nerve injuries. After surgery, he was admitted to physical therapy (PT) with persistent pain, joint stiffness, allodynia, and trophic changes compatible with CRPS-II localized in the index finger. The diagnosis was confirmed after applying the Budapest Criteria, and PT was progressive and individualized according to the patient's needs, including graded motor imagery, mobilizations, exercises, and education.

OUTCOMES

After 12 weeks of PT, a clinically significant decrease in pain intensity and improvements in mobility and index finger and upper limb functionality was observed, reducing CRPS symptomatology.

DISCUSSION

This report provides information about a unique case of a localized form of CRPS-II. After reviewing the literature on clinical cases of both CRPS-II and localized forms of CRPS, we highlight that the clinical features of this patient and his positive therapeutic response support the importance of translating the scientific evidence on CRPS into clinical practice.

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.

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.

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.

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 electrical stimulation in combination with aerobic exercise: A pilot study in post-COVID-19 systemic autoimmune rheumatic patients

BACKGROUND

Systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) are a group of diseases with multiorgan involvement and a high prevalence of chronic pain and fatigue. Patients with SARDs and post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome experience aggravation of symptoms. In this context, it is essential to establish strategies to reduce chronic pain and fatigue and improve quality of life.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for the treatment of fatigue and pain-associated post-COVID-19 syndrome in patients with SARDs.

METHODS

This study included nine patients with different types of SARDs. All patients had reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test confirmed COVID-19 as well as significant, persistent fatigue and pain that began to worsen after infection. Anodal tDCS was administered in five daily sessions (2mA, 20 min). Concomitantly, patients were involved in aerobic exercise program. All participants were evaluated using specific questionnaires and strength assessment by handgrip and physical function by timed-up-and-go test and sit-to-stand test at baseline (within one week before tDCS protocol), and one week after tDCS protocol. During all procedures, the patients’ treatments remained unchanged.

RESULTS

The sample comprised eight women and one man with a mean age of 48.7 ± 9.6 years. After the tDCS protocol, pain and fatigue significantly improved on the visual analog scale (P < 0.05). The physical function also improved 9.5 ± 2.7 vs 6.8 ± 0.8 (P = 0.001) for timed-up-go-test and 10.3 ± 3.7 vs 15.1 ± 4.0 (P = 0.037) for sit-to-stand test. None of the patients experienced any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that tDCS in combination with aerobic exercise was effective in improving physical function, and reducing fatigue/pain in SARDs patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome.

Time since onset might be of essence: A recommendation to assess the effects of combination of non-pharmacological neuromodulatory approaches at early stage since symptoms onset

In the past decade researchers began to assess the potential beneficial effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with a behavioral task as a treatment approach for various medical conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex combined with another treatment approach has been assessed as analgesic treatment in neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain conditions, and was found to exert only modest pain relief. Our group results show that combined tDCS and mirror therapy dramatically reduced acute phantom limb pain intensity with long-lasting effects, potentially preventing pain chronification. A review of the scientific literature indicates that our approach differs from that of others: We applied the intervention at the acute stage of the disease, whereas other studies applied the intervention in patients whose disease had already been established. We suggest that the timing of administration of the combined intervention is critical. Unlike in patients with chronic painful condition, in which the maladaptive plasticity associated with pain chronification and chronicity is well-consolidated, early treatment at the acute pain stage may be more successful in counterbalancing the not-yet consolidated maladaptive plasticity. We encourage the research community to test our hypothesis, both in the treatment of pain, and beyond.

Modern Principles of Diagnosis and Treatment in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a relatively common complication, occurring in 5% of cases after injury or surgery, particularly in the limbs. The incidence of CPRS is around 5-26/100 000. The latest revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) now categorizes CRPS as a primary pain condition of multifactorial origin, rather than a disease of the skeletal system or the autonomic nervous system.

METHODS

Method: Based on a selective search of the literature, we summarize current principles for the diagnosis and treatment of CRPS.

RESULTS

Results: Regional findings in CRPS are accompanied by systemic symptoms, especially by neurocognitive disorders of body perception and of symptom processing. The therapeutic focus is shifting from predominantly passive peripheral measures to early active treatments acting both centrally and peripherally. The treatment is centered on physiotherapy and occupational therapy to improve sensory perception, strength, (fine) motor skills, and sensorimotor integration/ body perception. This is supported by stepped psychological interventions to reduce anxiety and avoidance behavior, medication to decrease inflammation and pain, passive physical measures for reduction of edema and of pain, and medical aids to improve functioning in daily life. Interventional procedures should be limited to exceptional cases and only be performed in specialized centers. Spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion stimulation, respectively, are the interventions with the best evidence.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion: The modern principles for the diagnosis and treatment of CRPS consider both, physiological and psychological mechanisms, with the primary goal of restoring function and participation. More research is needed to strengthen the evidence base in this field.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation beneficial for treating pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Chronic pain is often accompanied by emotional dysfunction. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used for reducing pain, depressive and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients, but its therapeutic effect remains unknown.

Objectives

To ascertain the treatment effect of tDCS on pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms of patients suffering from chronic pain, and potential factors that modulate the effectiveness of tDCS.

Methods

Literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the effects of tDCS on pain and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain were included.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included in this review. Overall pooled results indicated that the use of tDCS can effectively alleviate short-term pain intensity [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.75 to -0.12, P = 0.007] and depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.31, 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.14, P < 0.001), middle-term depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.11, P = 0.004), long-term depressive symptoms (ES: -0.38, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.13, P = 0.003) and anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.02, P = 0.03) compared with the control group.

Conclusion

tDCS may be an effective short-term treatment for the improvement of pain intensity and concomitant depression and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients. Stimulation site, stimulation frequency, and type of chronic pain were significant influence factors for the therapeutic effect of tDCS.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=297693, identifier: CRD42022297693.

Non-invasive brain stimulation and pain neuroscience education in the cognitive-affective treatment of chronic low back pain: Evidence and future directions

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is among the leading causes of disability worldwide. Beyond the physical and functional limitations, people's beliefs, cognitions, and perceptions of their pain can negatively influence their prognosis. Altered cognitive and affective behaviors, such as pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia, are correlated with changes in the brain and share a dynamic and bidirectional relationship. Similarly, in the presence of persistent pain, attentional control mechanisms, which serve to organize relevant task information are impaired. These deficits demonstrate that pain may be a predominant focus of attentional resources, leaving limited reserve for other cognitively demanding tasks. Cognitive dysfunction may limit one's capacity to evaluate, interpret, and revise the maladaptive thoughts and behaviors associated with catastrophizing and fear. As such, interventions targeting the brain and resultant behaviors are compelling. Pain neuroscience education (PNE), a cognitive intervention used to reconceptualize a person's pain experiences, has been shown to reduce the effects of pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia. However, cognitive deficits associated with chronic pain may impact the efficacy of such interventions. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of anxiety, depression, and pain. In addition, as with the treatment of most physical and psychological diagnoses, an active multimodal approach is considered to be optimal. Therefore, combining the neuromodulatory effects of NIBS with a cognitive intervention such as PNE could be promising. This review highlights the cognitive-affective deficits associated with CLBP while focusing on current evidence for cognition-based therapies and NIBS.

Non-invasive brain stimulation combined with psychosocial intervention for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This review investigates the efficacy and safety of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with psychosocial intervention on depressive symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched five electronic databases from their inception to June 2021: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Medline. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials in which NIBS plus psychosocial intervention was compared to control conditions in people with depressive symptoms were included.

RESULTS

A total of 17 eligible studies with 660 participants were included. The meta-analysis results showed that NIBS combined with psychosocial therapy had a positive effect on moderate to severe depression ([SMD = - 0.46, 95%CI (- 0.90, - 0.02), I² = 73%, p < .01]), but did not significantly improve minimal to mild depression ([SMD = - 0.12, 95%CI (- 0.42, 0.18), I² = 0%, p = .63]). Compared with NIBS alone, the combination treatment had a significantly greater effect in alleviating depressive symptoms ([SMD = - 0.84, 95%CI (- 1.25, - 0.42), I² = 0%, p = .93]). However, our results suggested that the pooled effect size of ameliorating depression of NIBS plus psychosocial intervention had no significant difference compared with the combination of sham NIBS [SMD = - 0.12, 95%CI (- 0.31, 0.07), I² = 0%, p = .60] and psychosocial intervention alone [SMD = - 0.97, 95%CI (- 2.32, 0.38), I² = 72%, p = .01].

CONCLUSION

NIBS when combined with psychosocial intervention has a significant positive effect in alleviating moderately to severely depressive symptoms. Further well-designed studies of NIBS combined with psychosocial intervention on depression should be carried out to consolidate the conclusions and explore the in-depth underlying mechanism.

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.

The Short-term Effect of Graded Motor Imagery on the Affective Components of Pain in Subjects with Chronic Shoulder Pain Syndrome: Open-Label Single-Arm Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the short-term effect of graded motor imagery (GMI) on the affective components of pain and range of motion in subjects with chronic shoulder pain syndrome.

DESIGN

Open-label single-arm prospective study.

SETTING

The Physical Therapy Laboratory, Universidad de las Americas.

SUBJECTS

One hundred seven patients with chronic shoulder pain syndrome.

METHODS

The subjects received a six-week GMI program based on laterality training, imagined movements, and mirror therapy. We assessed pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS), fear of movement was assessed using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), and catastrophizing was assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). The patient's flexion active range of motion (AROM) was also recorded.

RESULTS

At the end of treatment, the VAS showed a decrease of 4.2 cm (P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 3.3), TSK showed a decrease of 17.0 points (P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 2.8), catastrophizing showed a decrease of 19.2 points (P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 3.2), and shoulder flexion AROM showed an increment of 30.3º (P < 0.000, Cohen's d = 1.6).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a short-term GMI program improves the affective components of pain and shoulder flexion AROM in patients with chronic shoulder pain syndrome.

The effects of the addition of motor imagery to home exercises on pain, disability and psychosocial parameters in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery: A randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Patients who have suffered from persistent symptoms often undergo lumbar spinal surgery (LSS). Motor imagery should be added to postoperative home exercises to reduce patient complaints.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of home exercise plus motor imagery and only home exercise in patients undergoing LSS.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled study.

SETTINGS

This study was designed by researchers at Dokuz Eylul University.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-seven patients undergoing LSS were randomized to motor imagery group (n = 19) and control group (n = 18).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain was measured by Visual Analogue Scale, disability related to low back pain by Oswestry Disability Index, pain-related fear by Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, depression by Beck Depression Inventory, quality of life by World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale-Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF). All assessments were repeated in the preoperative period, three weeks after and six weeks after the surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Motor imagery group underwent home exercise plus motor imagery program applied by voice recording. Control group underwent only home exercise program. Exercise program compliance was monitored by exercise diary and telephone calls once every week.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in pain at rest and during activity, disability, kinesiophobia, depression, physical health and psychological sub-parameters of WHOQOL-BREF between preoperative period, and the third week and sixth week in both groups (p < 0.05). When comparing groups for gain scores, there was a more significant improvement in pain during activity in motor imagery group (p < 0.05). Motor imagery should be addressed as an effective treatment after LSS.

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

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

Mechanism-specific rehabilitation management of complex regional pain syndrome: Proposed recommendations from evidence synthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

INTRODUCTION

There are a variety of treatments with demonstrated effectiveness for the management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However given the variability in symptom presentation in this population, therapists may be unsure what treatments would be most effective for individual clients.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To present a brief synthesis of the literature and propose a rehabilitation version of a mechanism-specific management algorithm to guide personalized treatment of CRPS.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines addressing rehabilitation of CRPS. Results were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers and final selection of articles was reached by consensus, Data was extracted using standardized forms, and a single rater gave quality ratings. Both reviewers then used the extracted data to present a synthesis of the evidence categorized by the proposed mechanisms of effect.

RESULTS

A total of 111 articles were retrieved and reviewed for inclusion; 49 were selected for data extraction. A synthesis of the key recommendations was compiled into a rehabilitation-specific version of the mechanism-based management algorithm proposed by Gierthmühlen et al (2014).

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of mechanism-appropriate rehabilitation interventions may assist therapists to select the most appropriate and effective treatments from the body of evidence supporting rehabilitation of CRPS.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool for Chronic Pain

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates spontaneous neuronal activity that can generate long-term neuroplastic changes. It has been used in numerous therapeutic trials showing significant clinical effects especially when combined with other behavioral therapies. One area of intensive tDCS research is chronic pain. Since the initial tDCS trials for chronic pain treatment using current parameters of stimulation, more than 60 clinical trials have been published testing its effects in different pain syndromes. However, as the field moves in the direction of clinical application, several aspects need to be taken into consideration regarding tDCS effectiveness and parameters of stimulation. In this article, we reviewed the evidence of tDCS effects for the treatment of chronic pain and critically analyzed the literature pertaining its safety and efficacy, and how to optimize tDCS clinical effects in a therapeutic setting. We discuss optimization of tDCS effects in 3 different domains: (i) parameters of stimulation, (ii) combination therapies, and (iii) subject selection. This article aims to provide insights for the development of future tDCS clinical trials.

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.

Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: an updated systematic review and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

Although multiple treatments have been advocated for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), the levels of supportive evidence are variable and sometimes limited. The purpose of this updated review is to provide a critical analysis of the evidence pertaining to the treatment of CRPS derived from recent randomized-controlled trials (RCTs).

SOURCE

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify relevant RCTs conducted on human subjects and published in English between 1 May 2009 and 24 August 2017.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The search yielded 35 RCTs of variable quality pertaining to the treatment of CRPS. Published trials continue to support the use of bisphosphonates and short courses of oral steroids in the setting of CRPS. Although emerging evidence suggests a therapeutic role for ketamine, memantine, intravenous immunoglobulin, epidural clonidine, intrathecal clonidine/baclofen/adenosine, aerobic exercise, mirror therapy, virtual body swapping, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation, further confirmatory RCTs are warranted. Similarly, trials also suggest an expanding role for peripheral sympathetic blockade (i.e., lumbar/thoracic sympathetic, stellate ganglion, and brachial plexus blocks).

CONCLUSIONS

Since our prior systematic review article (published in 2010), 35 RCTs related to CRPS have been reported. Nevertheless, the quality of trials remains variable. Therefore, further research is required to continue investigating possible treatments for CRPS.