Effect of non-invasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Motor Dysfunction After Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation on motor dysfunction after incomplete spinal cord injury.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from the inception dates to April 30, 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of noninvasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation on motor dysfunction in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury were included. Two reviewers performed the data extraction and assessed study quality using Cochrane Collaboration's Tool. The primary outcomes involved upper limb function, lower limb function, spasticity, and activities of daily living. They were analyzed using meta-analysis method and the results were reported as standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies involving 225 patients were included. Noninvasive brain stimulation reduced spasticity at the end of intervention (standardized mean difference = -0.68, 95% confidence interval = -1.32 to -0.03, P = 0.04) and 1-wk follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.82, 95% confidence interval = -1.48 to -0.16, P = 0.02), but no beneficial effect at 1-mo follow-up (standardized mean difference = -0.32, 95% confidence interval = -1.06 to 0.42, P = 0.39). In addition, noninvasive brain stimulation also increased lower limb muscle strength at 1-mo follow-up (standardized mean difference = 0.69, 95% confidence interval = 0.11 to 1.28, P = 0.02). Other main outcomes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive brain stimulation can reduce spasticity, and the favorable effect can sustain for 1 wk after intervention. In addition, noninvasive brain stimulation can increase lower limb muscle strength at 1-mo follow-up.

Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.

SETTING

Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.

RESULTS

Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.

CONCLUSION

Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).

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.

Should Non-Pharmacological and Non-Surgical Interventions be Used to Manage Neuropathic Pain in Adults With Spinal Cord Injury? - A Systematic Review

Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) results in a permanent or temporary alteration of the motor, sensory and/or autonomic functions, frequently leading to neuropathic pain. To deal with this comorbidity, several non-pharmacological and non-surgical (NP-NS) interventions have been developed. However, their efficacy is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically synthetize the available evidence assessing the efficacy of NP-NS interventions for treating neuropathic pain in people with SCI. Thus, an electronic search was conducted in five databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, Web of Science and EBSCO) and trials registry databases, in addition to a manual search strategy to retrieve additional records. The review included randomized controlled trials with adults with SCI, in any stage of the condition. Data on the efficacy of the interventions was narratively synthetized. Once the research was completed, of 4853 identified references, 24 were included with a total of 653 participants with SCI and neuropathic pain, mostly male and with paraplegia. These studies investigated the effect of 13 types of NP-NS interventions with different protocols and methodological limitations. Seven different assessment scales were analyzed, with neuropathic pain being the primary outcome in 21 studies. Such high heterogeneity impaired the conduction of meta-analysis for any of the interventions. Although promising results were found regarding analgesic effect of NP-NS on neuropathic pain in people with SCI, it is not yet possible to safely state that these interventions are in fact effective. Further studies with homogeneous protocols and methodological quality are still needed. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a review of existing studies on the effectiveness of NP-NS interventions in neuropathic pain in SCI. This synthesis could potentially alert and motivate clinicians to develop studies on this topic, so that interventions can be objectively evaluated and recommendations for an evidence-based practice be created.

The effects of robot-assisted gait training combined with non-invasive brain stimulation on lower limb function in patients with stroke and spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

This study aimed to investigate the effect of robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) therapy combined with non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on lower limb function in patients with stroke and spinal cord injury (SCI).

Data sources

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched.

Study selection

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published as of 3 March 2021. RCTs evaluating RAGT combined with NIBS, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), for lower limb function (e.g., Fugl-Meyer assessment for patients with stroke) and activities (i.e., gait velocity) in patients with stroke and SCI were included.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently screened the records, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias.

Data synthesis

A meta-analysis of five studies (104 participants) and risk of bias were conducted. Pooled estimates demonstrated that RAGT combined with NIBS significantly improved lower limb function [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.06–0.99] but not lower limb activities (SMD = −0.13; 95% CI = −0.63–0.38). Subgroup analyses also failed to find a greater improvement in lower limb function of RAGT with tDCS compared to sham stimulation. No significant differences between participant characteristics or types of NIBS were observed.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that RAGT therapy in combination with NIBS was effective in patients with stroke and SCI. However, a greater improvement in lower limb function and activities were not observed using RAGT with tDCS compared to sham stimulation.

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.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain

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

Is transcranial magnetic stimulation as treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury efficient? A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neuropathic pain is a clinically relevant complication in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Pharmacological pain treatment is often insufficient and leads to undesirable side effects. Thus, alternative therapeutic approaches such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are of critical importance. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of rTMS in neuropathic pain secondary to SCI.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (via OVID) database up April 2021. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Results regarding the pain intensity scores were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 203 potential articles. Of these, eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria for qualitative synthesis providing the total data of 141 patients. All studies applied high-frequency rTMS. In seven studies, rTMS was applied over the motor cortex, and in one study over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Five studies reported a significant improvement in baseline pain scores after treatment, and three studies found a significant difference between sham vs. non-sham stimulation at any time. Six RCTs were included in the quantitative synthesis and showed a significant overall reduction of pain intensity in the rTMS groups compared with the sham groups (mean difference - 0.81, 95%CI - 1.45 to - 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that high-frequency rTMS of the primary motor cortex and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex might be promising stimulation targets for neuropathic pain in SCI.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Long-term selective stimulation of transplanted neural stem/progenitor cells for spinal cord injury improves locomotor function

In cell transplantation therapy for spinal cord injury (SCI), grafted human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural stem/progenitor cells (hiPSC-NS/PCs) mainly differentiate into neurons, forming synapses in a process similar to neurodevelopment. In the developing nervous system, the activity of immature neurons has an important role in constructing and maintaining new synapses. Thus, we investigate how enhancing the activity of transplanted hiPSC-NS/PCs affects both the transplanted cells themselves and the host tissue. We find that chemogenetic stimulation of hiPSC-derived neural cells enhances cell activity and neuron-to-neuron interactions in vitro. In a rodent model of SCI, consecutive and selective chemogenetic stimulation of transplanted hiPSC-NS/PCs also enhances the expression of synapse-related genes and proteins in surrounding host tissues and prevents atrophy of the injured spinal cord, thereby improving locomotor function. These findings provide a strategy for enhancing activity within the graft to improve the efficacy of cell transplantation therapy for SCI.