Motor/Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Following Lumbar Surgery Reduces Postoperative Analgesia Use

Independent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation and social influence on pain

ABSTRACT

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulatory technique with the potential to provide pain relief. However, tDCS effects on pain are variable across existing studies, possibly related to differences in stimulation protocols and expectancy effects. We investigated the independent and joint effects of contralateral motor cortex tDCS (anodal vs cathodal) and socially induced expectations (analgesia vs hyperalgesia) about tDCS on thermal pain. We employed a double-blind, randomized 2 × 2 factorial cross-over design, with 5 sessions per participant on separate days. After calibration in Session 1, Sessions 2 to 5 crossed anodal or cathodal tDCS (20 minutes 2 mA) with socially induced analgesic or hyperalgesic expectations, with 6 to 7 days between the sessions. The social manipulation involved videos of previous "participants" (confederates) describing tDCS as inducing a low-pain state ("analgesic expectancy") or hypersensitivity to sensation ("hyperalgesic expectancy"). Anodal tDCS reduced pain compared with cathodal stimulation (F(1,19.9) = 19.53, P < 0.001, Cohen d = 0.86) and analgesic expectancy reduced pain compared with hyperalgesic expectancy (F(1,19.8) = 5.62, P = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.56). There was no significant interaction between tDCS and social expectations. Effects of social suggestions were related to expectations, whereas tDCS effects were unrelated to expectancies. The observed additive effects provide novel evidence that tDCS and socially induced expectations operate through independent processes. They extend clinical tDCS studies by showing tDCS effects on controlled nociceptive pain independent of expectancy effects. In addition, they show that social suggestions about neurostimulation effects can elicit potent placebo effects.

Delivery of an at-home transcranial direct current stimulation intervention to mitigate pain in patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis (ESKD/HD)

Background

Poorly controlled pain remains a problem for many patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring hemodialysis (ESKD/HD) and customary approaches to pain management (e.g., opioids, non-steroidals) confer substantial risk. Accordingly, non-pharmacologic therapies are needed for use in this population. Non-invasive transcranial Direct Current Simulation (tDCS) constitutes a promising nonpharmacologic method for pain management in affected individuals.

Aims

This study seeks to: 1) determine the effects of an 8-week course of at-home tDCS vs. sham tDCS on pain intensity, pain interference, medication usage, quality of life, and mood; 2) determine if tDCS effects vary by race/ethnicity; and 3) ascertain patient satisfaction with device use.

Methods

This double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial will enroll 100 ESKD/HD patients with moderate-to-severe (≥4 on 0-10 scale) chronic pain. The active study intervention consists of 20 min of tDCS delivered over the primary motor cortex 5 days/week for 8 weeks. The comparator is a sham procedure that provides no effective stimulation. The primary outcome analysis will evaluate efficacy of tDCS for pain reduction after two months of stimulation. We will also assess the effects of treatment on analgesic consumption, pain interference, depressed mood, and quality of life. The statistical plan will include fixed classification factors for treatment (vs. sham), clinic sites, and assessment time, and the interaction of these factors adjusting for covariates (e.g., race/ethnicity, pain level).

Conclusion

At-home tDCS constitutes a promising nonpharmacologic treatment for pain mitigation in persons with ESKD/HD. This unique RCT could transform the way pain is managed in this vulnerable population.

Trial Registration

NCT05311956.

A bibliometric of research trends in acupuncture for spinal cord injury: Quantitative and qualitative analyses

Introduction

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a severe disease of the central nervous system with a very high disability rate that seriously affects the daily life of patients. Acupuncture is one of the rehabilitation therapies that has shown significant efficacy in treating post-SCI complications such as motor disorders, neuropathic pain, and neurogenic bladder. Current studies have focused on the effectiveness and mechanisms of acupuncture for SCI, but no studies are available to analyze the bibliometrics of publications related to this area.

Methods

Publications related to acupuncture for SCI were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection for quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analysis was unfolded in the following six main areas: annual publications, countries, institutions, authors, sources, and keywords. The qualitative analysis section screened out publications with high annual citation rates and categorized them according to the study content.

Results

There were 213 relevant publications, more than half of which were journal articles. The number of publications showed a fluctuating upward trend. China and the United States were hub countries for related publications and had extensive cooperation with other countries. The most relevant author was Yuanshan Zeng from Sun Yat-sen University, China. The efficacy and mechanism of acupuncture for neuropathic pain after SCI was the first research hotspot in this field, and electroacupuncture was the most widely used technique. In the past 5 years, the mechanism of acupuncture to improve the local microenvironment of SCI and promote nerve regeneration had become a new research trend. At the same time, acupuncture had been gradually applied to various complications after SCI and in veterinary medicine.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that research on acupuncture for SCI is still flourishing, and more research on electroacupuncture for promoting nerve repair and regeneration after SCI will be available in the future.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in pain and opioid consumption after spine surgery

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown promising results in alleviating different types of pain. The present study compares the efficacy of 3 sessions of anodal tDCS applied over primary motor area (M1) or the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) or sham on reducing pain and the total opioid consumption in post-operative spine surgery patients.

MATERIALS

Sixty-seven out of 75 eligible patients for post-operative spine surgery were randomly allocated into one of the three experimental groups. Group A received anodal tDCS applied over M1 cortex, group B over left DLPF cortex (2mA, 20 min) and group C received sham tDCS, all for 3 consecutive postoperative days. Patients were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and adynamic visual analogue scale (DVAS) at baseline, and on each of the treatment days. The total morphine consumption over the 3 post-operative days was assessed.

RESULTS

Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in resting VAS between the 3 groups. However, there was significant pain improvement (P< 0.001) in DVAS in both active groups (group A and B) compared to the sham group (group C) in the post-operative period, with no significant difference between the active groups. Morphine consumption was significantly reduced in both active groups compared with the sham group, but there was no difference in consumption between the active groups.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant post-operative reduction in morphine consumption and DVAS scores after three sessions of active tDCS.

SIGNIFICANCE

tDCS is a promising tool for alleviating pain in the field of postoperative spine surgery.

The Concept, Development, and Application of a Home-Based High-Definition tDCS for Bilateral Motor Cortex Modulation in Migraine and Pain

Whereas, many debilitating chronic pain disorders are dominantly bilateral (e.g., fibromyalgia, chronic migraine), non-invasive and invasive cortical neuromodulation therapies predominantly apply unilateral stimulation. The development of excitatory stimulation targeting bilateral primary motor (M1) cortices could potentially expand its therapeutic effect to more global pain relief. However, this is hampered by increased procedural and technical complexity. For example, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and 4 × 1/2 × 2 high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (4 × 1/2 × 2 HD-tDCS) are largely center-based, with unilateral-target focus-bilateral excitation would require two rTMS/4 × 1 HD-tDCS systems. We developed a system that allows for focal, non-invasive, self-applied, and simultaneous bilateral excitatory M1 stimulation, supporting long-term home-based treatment with a well-tolerated wearable battery-powered device. Here, we overviewed the most employed M1 neuromodulation methods, from invasive techniques to non-invasive TMS and tDCS. The evaluation extended from non-invasive diffuse asymmetric bilateral (M1-supraorbital [SO] tDCS), non-invasive and invasive unilateral focal (4 × 1/2 × 2 HD-tDCS, rTMS, MCS), to non-invasive and invasive bilateral bipolar (M1-M1 tDCS, MCS), before outlining our proposal for a neuromodulatory system with unique features. Computational models were applied to compare brain current flow for current laboratory-based unilateral M11 and bilateral M12 HD-tDCS models with a functional home-based M11-2 HD-tDCS prototype. We concluded the study by discussing the promising concept of bilateral excitatory M1 stimulation for more global pain relief, which is also non-invasive, focal, and home-based.

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 (a-tCDS) after subacromial injections in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: a randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) is a common complaint in orthopaedics. Subacromial corticosteroid injections (CSI) can relieve pain in the short term. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) has been used for symptomatic pain relief in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The aim of this pilot study was to assess whether the application a-tDCS could enhance the symptomatic relief provided by CSI in patients affected by SAPS.

METHODS

Thirty-eight participants (18 to 65-year-old) suffering from SAPS were recruited to have a CSI and randomly allocated to receive, 1 weeks post CSI, real a-tDCS (r-tDCS), sham tDCS (s-tDCS) or no intervention (Control). Upper limb function was measured 1 week prior to the CSI, at the 2- and 4-week follow-ups using self-administered questionnaires and physical measures. Self-reported pain and activity during each day were logged by the participants using visual analog scales (VAS). Differences between groups were tested using repeated-measures ANOVAs.

RESULTS

Pain VAS and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scale (SANE) showed significant improvement from baseline 2 weeks and 4 weeks after CSI in all groups (p < 0.05). There were no significant group X time interaction 2 weeks following tDCS treatment in any of the variables.

CONCLUSION

All groups showed significant improvement in pain VAS and SANE scores following the CSI. One session of a-tDCS treatment 2 weeks following CSI did not result in any additive or potentializing effects when compared to a s-tDCS or a control group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03967574 . Registered 30 May 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Transcranial direct current stimulation: A review of electrode characteristics and materials

Electrode characteristics are crucial in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) since electrode design and placement determine the cortical area being modulated, current density and spatial resolution of stimulation. Early research on tDCS sought to determine optimal parameters for stimulation by specifying maximum current, duration and sizes of electrodes. Further research focused on determining efficient ways to deliver stimulation to targeted regions on the cortex with minimal discomfort to the user by altering electrode size, placement, shape and material. This review aims to give an insight on the main characteristics of electrodes used in tDCS and on the variability found in electrode parameters and placements from tDCS to high definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) applications and beyond.

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.

A randomized trial to examine the mechanisms of cognitive, behavioral and mindfulness-based psychosocial treatments for chronic pain: Study protocol

This randomized trial will evaluate the mechanisms of three chronic pain treatments: cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and activation skills (AS). We will determine the extent to which late-treatment improvement in primary outcome (pain interference) is predicted by early-treatment changes in cognitive content, cognitive process, and/or activity level. The shared versus specific role of these mechanisms across the three treatments will be evaluated during treatment (Primary Aim), and immediately post-treatment to examine relapse mechanisms (Secondary Aim). We will enroll 300 individuals with chronic pain (with low back pain as a primary or secondary condition), with 240 projected to complete the study. Participants will be randomly assigned to eight, 1.5 h telehealth group sessions of CT, MM, or AS. Mechanisms and outcomes will be assessed twice daily during 2-week baseline, 4-week treatment period, and 4-week post-treatment epoch via random cue-elicited ecological momentary assessment (EMA); activity level will be monitored during these time epochs via daily monitoring with ActiGraph technology. The primary outcome will be measured by the PROMIS 5-item Pain Interference scale. Structural equation modeling (SEM) will be used to test the primary aims. This study is pre-registered on clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03687762). This study will determine the temporal sequence of lagged mediation effects to evaluate rates of change in outcome as a function of change in mediators. The findings will provide an empirical basis for enhancing and streamlining psychosocial chronic pain interventions. Further, results will guide future efforts towards optimizing maintenance of gains to effectively reduce relapse risk.

New Developments in Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Chronic Pain

Purpose of Review

The goal of this review is to present a summary of the recent literature of a non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to alleviate pain in people with chronic pain syndromes. This article reviews the current evidence for the use of transcranial direct current (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to improve outcomes in chronic pain. Finally, we introduce the reader to novel stimulation methods that may improve therapeutic outcomes in chronic pain.

Recent Findings

While tDCS is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia in Canada and the European Union, no NIBS method is currently approved for chronic pain in the United States. Increasing sample sizes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) seems the most efficient way to increase confidence in initial promising results. Trends at funding agencies reveal increased interest and support for NIBS such as recent Requests for Application from the National Institutes of Health. NIBS in conjunction with cognitive behavioral therapy and physical therapy may enhance outcomes in chronic pain. Novel stimulation methods, such as transcranial ultrasound stimulation, await rigorous study in chronic pain.

Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Patient-Controlled Intravenous Morphine Analgesia on Analgesic Use and Post-Thoracotomy Pain. A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled, Proof-of-Concept Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is used for various chronic pain conditions, but experience with tDCS for acute postoperative pain is limited. This study investigated the effect of tDCS vs. sham stimulation on postoperative morphine consumption and pain intensity after thoracotomy.

METHODS

This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracotomy under general anesthesia. All patients received patient-controlled (PCA) intravenous morphine and intercostal nerve blocks at the end of surgery. The intervention group (a-tDCS, n = 31) received anodal tDCS over the left primary motor cortex (C3-Fp2) for 20 min at 1.2 mA, on five consecutive days; the control group (n = 31) received sham stimulation. Morphine consumption, number of analgesia demands, and pain intensity at rest, with movement and with cough were recorded at the following intervals: immediately before (T1), immediately after intervention (T2), then every hour for 4 h (Т3-Т6), then every 6 h (Т7-Т31) for 5 days. We recorded outcomes on postoperative days 1 and 5 and conducted a phone interview inquiring about chronic pain 1 year later (NCT03005548).

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients enrolled, but tDCS was prematurely stopped in six patients. Fifty-five patients (27 a-tDCS, 28 sham) had three or more tDCS applications and were included in the analysis. Cumulative morphine dose in the first 120 h after surgery was significantly lower in the tDCS [77.00 (54.00-123.00) mg] compared to sham group [112.00 (79.97-173.35) mg, p = 0.043, Cohen's d = 0.42]. On postoperative day 5, maximum visual analog scale (VAS) pain score with cough was significantly lower in the tDCS group [29.00 (20.00-39.00) vs. 44.50 (30.00-61.75) mm, p = 0.018], and pain interference with cough was 80% lower [10.00 (0.00-30.00) vs. 50.00 (0.00-70.00), p = 0.013]. One year after surgery, there was no significant difference between groups with regard to chronic pain and analgesic use.

CONCLUSION

In lung cancer patients undergoing thoracotomy, three to five tDCS sessions significantly reduced cumulative postoperative morphine use, maximum VAS pain scores with cough, and pain interference with cough on postoperative day 5, but there was no obvious long-term benefit from tDCS.

Patient-Controlled Intravenous Morphine Analgesia Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Post-Thoracotomy Pain: A Cost-Effectiveness Study and A Feasibility For Its Future Implementation

This prospective randomized study aims to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with patient controlled intravenous morphine analgesia (PCA-IV) as part of multimodal analgesia after thoracotomy. Patients assigned to the active treatment group (a-tDCS, n = 27) received tDCS over the left primary motor cortex for five days, whereas patients assigned to the control group (sham-tDCS, n = 28) received sham tDCS stimulations. All patients received postoperative PCA-IV morphine. For cost-effectiveness analysis we used data about total amount of PCA-IV morphine and maximum visual analog pain scale with cough (VASP-C_max). Direct costs of hospitalization were assumed as equal for both groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the incremental cost (RSD or US$) per incremental gain in mm of VASP-C_max reduction. Calculated ICER was 510.87 RSD per VASP-C_max 1 mm reduction. Conversion on USA market (USA data 1.325 US$ for 1 mg of morphine) revealed ICER of 189.08 US$ or 18960.39 RSD/1 VASP-C_max 1 mm reduction. Cost-effectiveness expressed through ICER showed significant reduction of PCA-IV morphine costs in the tDCS group. Further investigation of tDCS benefits with regards to reduction of postoperative pain treatment costs should also include the long-term benefits of reduced morphine use.

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.

Effects of Acute and Subchronic Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Morphine-Induced Responses in Hotplate Apparatus

Background:

The endogenous opioid system plays a basic role in pain suppression. The opiate analgesia is the most powerful and useful technique for reducing severe pain in many medical conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulator technique by which the cerebral cortex is stimulated with a weak and constant electrical current by the painless and non-invasive method.

Materials and Methods:

In this experimental study, we investigated the effect of tDCS on morphine (1.25, 2.5 and 5 mg/kg)-induced pain responses; as we applied left prefrontal anodal stimulation with 0.2 mA intensity and 20 minutes.

Results:

our results revealed that the acute (One-time electrical stimulation 24 hours after the last administration of morphine three days) and subchronic (three times electrical stimulation; one session/day before each administration of morphine three days) left prefrontal anodal tDCS does not alter pain perception induced by different dose of morphine significantly.

Conclusion:

Finally, our data indicated that there is no potentiated effect between acute tDCS or subchronic tDCS and morphine administration with tested parameters significantly.

Transcranial direct current stimulation to prevent and treat surgery-induced opioid dependence: a systematic review

Opioid misuse leading to dependence is a major health issue. Recent studies explored valid alternatives to treat pain in postsurgical settings. This systematic review aims to discuss the role of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in preventing and treating postoperative pain and opioid dependence. PubMed and Embase databases were screened, considering studies testing tDCS effects on pain and opioid consumption in surgical settings and opioid addiction. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Results showed a reduction of postoperative pain, opioid consumption and cue-induced craving following cortical stimulation. Despite the limited number of studies, this review shows preliminary encouraging evidence regarding the analgesic role of tDCS. However, future studies are needed to further investigate the application of tDCS in postsurgical settings.

Role of the Prefrontal Cortex in Pain Processing

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is not only important in executive functions, but also pain processing. The latter is dependent on its connections to other areas of the cerebral neocortex, hippocampus, periaqueductal gray (PAG), thalamus, amygdala, and basal nuclei. Changes in neurotransmitters, gene expression, glial cells, and neuroinflammation occur in the PFC during acute and chronic pain, that result in alterations to its structure, activity, and connectivity. The medial PFC (mPFC) could serve dual, opposing roles in pain: (1) it mediates antinociceptive effects, due to its connections with other cortical areas, and as the main source of cortical afferents to the PAG for modulation of pain. This is a ‘loop’ where, on one side, a sensory stimulus is transformed into a perceptual signal through high brain processing activity, and perceptual activity is then utilized to control the flow of afferent sensory stimuli at their entrance (dorsal horn) to the CNS. (2) It could induce pain chronification via its corticostriatal projection, possibly depending on the level of dopamine receptor activation (or lack of) in the ventral tegmental area-nucleus accumbens reward pathway. The PFC is involved in biopsychosocial pain management. This includes repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, antidepressants, acupuncture, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, music, exercise, partner support, empathy, meditation, and prayer. Studies demonstrate the role of the PFC during placebo analgesia, and in establishing links between pain and depression, anxiety, and loss of cognition. In particular, losses in PFC grey matter are often reversible after successful treatment of chronic pain.

At-Home Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) With Telehealth Support for Symptom Control in Chronically-Ill Patients With Multiple Symptoms

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) delivered in multiple sessions can reduce symptom burden, but access of chronically ill patients to tDCS studies is constrained by the burden of office-based tDCS administration. Expanded access to this therapy can be accomplished through the development of interventions that allow at-home tDCS applications.

Objective: We describe the development and initial feasibility assessment of a novel intervention for the chronically ill that combines at-home tDCS with telehealth support.

Methods: In the developmental phase, the tDCS procedure was adjusted for easy application by patients or their informal caregivers at home, and a tDCS protocol with specific elements for enhanced safety and remote adherence monitoring was created. Lay language instructional materials were written and revised based on expert feedback. The materials were loaded onto a tablet allowing for secure video-conferencing. The telehealth tablet was paired with an at-home tDCS device that allowed for remote dose control via electronic codes dispensed to patients prior to each session. tDCS was delivered in two phases: once daily on 10 consecutive days, followed by an as needed regimen for 20 days. Initial feasibility of this tDCS-telehealth system was evaluated in four patients with advanced chronic illness and multiple symptoms. Change in symptom burden and patient satisfaction were assessed with the Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (CMSAS) and a tDCS user survey.

Results: The telehealth-tDCS protocol includes one home visit and has seven patient-tailored elements and six elements enhancing safety monitoring. Replicable electrode placement at home without 10–20 EEG measurement is achieved via a headband that holds electrodes in a pre-determined position. There were no difficulties with patients’ training, protocol adherence, or tolerability. A total of 60 tDCS sessions were applied. No session required discontinuation, and there were no adverse events. Data collection was feasible and there were no missing data. Satisfaction with the tDCS-telehealth procedure was high and the patients were comfortable using the system.

Conclusion: At-home tDCS with telehealth support appears to be a feasible approach for the management of symptom burden in patients with chronic illness. Further studies to evaluate and optimize the protocol effectiveness for symptom-control outcomes are warranted.

Prefrontal versus motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effects on post-surgical opioid use

BACKGROUND

Pain is often a complaint that precedes total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however the procedure itself is associated with considerable post-operative pain lasting days to weeks which can predict longer-term surgical outcomes. Previously, we reported significant opioid-sparing effects of motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation from a single-blind trial. In the present study, we used double-blind methodology to compare motor cortex tDCS and prefrontal cortex tDCS to both sham and active-control (active electrodes over non-pain modulating brain areas) tDCS.

METHODS

58 patients undergoing unilateral TKA were randomly assigned to receive 4 20-min sessions (a total of 80 min) of tDCS (2 mA) post-surgery with electrodes placed to create 4 groups: 1) MOTOR (n = 14); anode-motor/cathode-right prefrontal, 2) PREFRONTAL (n = 16); anode-left-prefrontal/cathode-right-sensory, 3) ACTIVE-CONTROL (n = 15); anode-left-temporal-occipital junction/cathode-medial-anterior-premotor-area, and 4) SHAM (n = 13); 0 mA-current stimulation using placements 1 or 2. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA; hydromorphone) use was tracked during the ∼72-h post-surgery.

RESULTS

Patients in the sham group and the active-control group used 15.4 mg (SD = 14.1) and 16.0 mg (SD = 9.7) of PCA hydromorphone respectively. There was no difference between the slopes of the cumulative PCA usage curves between these two groups (p = 0.25; ns). Patients in the prefrontal tDCS group used an average of 11.7 mg (SD = 5.0) of PCA hydromporhone, and the slope of the cumulative PCA usage curve was significantly lower than sham (p < 0.0001). However, patients in the motor tDCS group used an average of 19.6 mg (SD = 11.9) hydromorphone and the slope of the PCA use curve was significantly higher than sham (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this double-blind cortical-target-optimization study suggest that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left prefrontal cortex may be a reasonable approach to reducing post-TKA opioid requirements. Given the unexpected finding that motor cortex failed to produce an opioid sparing effect in this follow-up trial, further research in the area of post-operative cortical stimulation is still needed.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.