A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targeting M1 and S2 in Central Poststroke Pain: A Pilot Trial

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation focusing on patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb: a randomized sham-controlled parallel trial

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of navigation-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb. This randomized, blinded, sham-controlled, parallel trial included a rTMS protocol (10-Hz, 2000 pulses/session) consisting of five daily sessions, followed by one session per week for the next seven weeks. Pain intensity, as well as pain-related disability, quality of life, and psychological status, were assessed. For the primary outcome, pain intensity was measured daily using a numerical rating scale as a pain diary. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to the active rTMS or sham-stimulation groups. In the primary outcome, the decrease (least square [LS] mean ± standard error) in the weekly average of a pain diary at week 9 compared to the baseline was 0.84 ± 0.31 in the active rTMS group and 0.58 ± 0.29 in the sham group (LS mean difference, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, - 0.60 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on the interaction between the treatment group and time point. Pain-related disability score improved, but other assessments showed no differences. No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not show significant pain relief; however, active rTMS tended to provide better results than sham. rTMS has the potential to improve pain-related disability in addition to pain relief.Clinical Trial Registration number: jRCTs052190110 (20/02/2020).

Anatomo-physiological basis and applied techniques of electrical neuromodulation in chronic pain

Chronic pain, a complex and debilitating condition, poses a significant challenge to both patients and healthcare providers worldwide. Conventional pharmacological interventions often prove inadequate in delivering satisfactory relief while carrying the risks of addiction and adverse reactions. In recent years, electric neuromodulation emerged as a promising alternative in chronic pain management. This method entails the precise administration of electrical stimulation to specific nerves or regions within the central nervous system to regulate pain signals. Through mechanisms that include the alteration of neural activity and the release of endogenous pain-relieving substances, electric neuromodulation can effectively alleviate pain and improve patients' quality of life. Several modalities of electric neuromodulation, with a different grade of invasiveness, provide tailored strategies to tackle various forms and origins of chronic pain. Through an exploration of the anatomical and physiological pathways of chronic pain, encompassing neurotransmitter involvement, this narrative review offers insights into electrical therapies' mechanisms of action, clinical utility, and future perspectives in chronic pain management.

Pain in the Context of Sensory Deafferentation

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

Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for central post-stroke pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Although rare, central post-stroke pain remains one of the most refractory forms of neuropathic pain. It has been reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be effective in these cases of pain.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of rTMS in patients with central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

Methods

We included randomized controlled trials or Controlled Trials published until October 3rd, 2022, which studied the effect of rTMS compared to placebo in CPSP. We included studies of adult patients (>18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke, in which the intervention consisted of the application of rTMS to treat CSP.

Results

Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; 6 studies (4 RCT and 2 non-RCT), with 180 participants, were included in the quantitative analysis. A significant reduction in CPSP was found in favor of rTMS compared with sham, with a large effect size (SMD: -1.45; 95% CI: -1.87; -1.03; p < 0.001; I2: 58%).

Conclusion

The findings of the present systematic review with meta-analysis suggest that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of rTMS in reducing CPSP.

Systematic review registration

Identifier (CRD42022365655).

Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation in central post-stroke pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) in the treatment of central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation versus placebo or other usual therapy in patients with CPSP. Articles in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French were included. A bibliographic search was independently conducted on June 1, 2022, by two authors, using the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. The risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 2,674 records were identified after removing duplicates, of which 5 eligible studies were included, involving a total of 119 patients. All five studies evaluated repetitive TMS, four of which stimulated the primary motor cortex (M1) and one stimulated the premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Only the former one reported a significant pain reduction in the short term, while the latter one was interrupted due to a consistent lack of analgesic effect.

CONCLUSION

NBS in the M1 area seems to be effective in reducing short-term pain; however, more high-quality homogeneous studies, with long-term follow-up, are required to determine the efficacy of this treatment in CSPS.

Dopamine D2 receptor antagonist modulates rTMS-induced pain experiences and corticospinal excitability dependent on stimulation targets

Both the primary motor cortex (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) rTMS have the potential to reduce certain chronic pain conditions. However, the analgesic mechanisms remain unclear, in which M1- and DLPFC-rTMS may have different impact on the release of dopamine receptor D2 neurotransmissions (DRD2). Using a double-blind, randomised, sham- and placebo-controlled design, this study investigated the influence of DRD2 antagonist on rTMS-induced analgesia and corticospinal excitability across the M1 and DLPFC. Healthy participants in each group (M1, DLPFC, or Sham) received an oral dose of chlorpromazine or placebo before the delivery of rTMS in two separate sessions. Heat pain and cortical excitability were assessed before drug administration and after rTMS intervention. DRD2 antagonist selectively abolished the increased heat pain threshold induced by DLPFC stimulation and increased pain unpleasantness. The absence of analgesic effects in DLPFC stimulation was not accompanied by plastic changes in the corticospinal pathway. In contrast, DRD2 antagonist increased corticospinal excitability and rebalanced excitation-inhibition relationship following motor cortex stimulation, although there were no clear changes in pain experiences. These novel findings together highlight the influence of dopaminergic neurotransmission on rTMS-induced analgesia and corticospinal excitability dependent on stimulation targets.

rTMS targeted to the secondary somatosensory cortex influences sleep in CRPS patients, as measured with the OURA ring

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain associates with various sleep problems. Patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) often report impaired sleep, but objective measurements of sleep in CRPS patients are scarce. Neuromodulation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can alleviate pain and improve sleep. Secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) is a possible rTMS target for the treatment of chronic pain, but the effect of S2-targeted rTMS on sleep is unknown.

METHODS

This randomized, sham-controlled trial assessed the effect of S2-targeted rTMS on sleep in patients with CRPS. Patients (n = 31) received either S2-targeted rTMS (10 Hz) or sham stimulation for 3 weeks. The effect of treatment on sleep was assessed with validated questionnaires, with a sleep and pain diary, and with a consumer-grade sleep tracker, the Oura ring. In addition to an ordinary univariate analysis of the results, we conducted multivariate testing of the Oura data using linear discriminant analysis (LDA).

RESULTS

S2-targeted rTMS decreased sleep restlessness that significantly differed between the rTMS and sham stimulation patient groups (p = .028). In the multivariate analysis of the Oura data, LDA classification accuracy to separate the rTMS and sham groups exceeded 95% confidence level in four out of the seven tested models. In the subjective evaluation of sleep, the effect of rTMS and sham did not differ.

CONCLUSION

S2-targeted rTMS influenced sleep in patients with CRPS. Improved sleep may enhance CRPS symptom alleviation and be of clinical importance. A univariate analysis could separate the rTMS and sham treatments. The multivariate analysis revealed that including multiple sleep-related parameters can be beneficial when analyzing rTMS effects on sleep. As sleep is related both to pain and quality of life, and sleep rTMS can be directly affected by rTMS, objective monitoring of sleep in various future rTMS trials could be fruitful.

Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the motor cortex provides supplementary relief for some individuals with chronic pain who are refractory to pharmacological treatment. As rTMS slowly enters treatment guidelines for pain relief, its starts to be confronted with challenges long known to pharmacological approaches: efficacy at the group-level does not grant pain relief for a particular patient. In this review, we present and discuss a series of ongoing attempts to overcome this therapeutic challenge in a personalized medicine framework.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Relevant scientific publications published in main databases such as PubMed and EMBASE from inception until March 2023 were systematically assessed, as well as a wide number of studies dedicated to the exploration of the mechanistic grounds of rTMS analgesic effects in humans, primates and rodents.

RESULTS

The main strategies reported to personalize cortical neuromodulation are: (i) the use of rTMS to predict individual response to implanted motor cortex stimulation; (ii) modifications of motor cortex stimulation patterns; (iii) stimulation of extra-motor targets; (iv) assessment of individual cortical networks and rhythms to personalize treatment; (v) deep sensory phenotyping; (vi) personalization of location, precision and intensity of motor rTMS. All approaches except (i) have so far low or moderate levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current evidence for most strategies under study remains at best moderate, the multiple mechanisms set up by cortical stimulation are an advantage over single-target 'clean' drugs, as they can influence multiple pathophysiologic paths and offer multiple possibilities of individualization.

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-invasive neuromodulation is on the verge of personalised medicine. Strategies ranging from integration of detailed clinical phenotyping into treatment design to advanced patient neurophysiological characterisation are being actively explored and creating a framework for actual individualisation of care.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in central post-stroke pain: current status and future perspective

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is an incapacitating disorder that impacts a substantial proportion of stroke survivors and can diminish their quality of life. Conventional therapies for CPSP, including tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids, are frequently ineffective, necessitating the investigation of alternative therapeutic strategies. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is now recognized as a promising noninvasive pain management method for CPSP. rTMS modulates neural activity through the administration of magnetic pulses to specific cortical regions. Trials analyzing the effects of rTMS on CPSP have generated various outcomes, but the evidence suggests possible analgesic benefits. In CPSP and other neuropathic pain conditions, high-frequency rTMS targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) with figure-eight coils has demonstrated significant pain alleviation. Due to its associaton with analgesic benefits, M1 is the most frequently targeted area. The duration and frequency of rTMS sessions, as well as the stimulation intensity, have been studied in an effort to optimize treatment outcomes. The short-term pain relief effects of rTMS have been observed, but the long-term effects (> 3 months) require further investigation. Aspects such as stimulation frequency, location, and treatment period can influence the efficacy of rTMS and ought to be considered while planning the procedure. Standardized guidelines for using rTMS in CPSP would optimize therapy protocols and improve patient outcomes. This review article provides an up-to-date overview of the incidence, clinical characteristics, outcome of rTMS in CPSP patients, and future perspective in the field.

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.

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

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

The mechanism and effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke pain

Post-stroke pain (PSP) is a common complication after stroke and affects patients' quality of life. Currently, drug therapy and non-invasive brain stimulation are common treatments for PSP. Given the poor efficacy of drug therapy and various side effects, non-invasive brain stimulation, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), has been accepted by many patients and attracted the attention of many researchers because of its non-invasive and painless nature. This article reviews the therapeutic effect of rTMS on PSP and discusses the possible mechanisms. In general, rTMS has a good therapeutic effect on PSP. Possible mechanisms of its analgesia include altering cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity, modulating the release of related neurotransmitters, and affecting the structural and functional connectivity of brain regions involved in pain processing and modulation. At present, studies on the mechanism of rTMS in the treatment of PSP are lacking, so we hope this review can provide a theoretical basis for future mechanism studies.

The Effectiveness of High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Patients with Neuropathic Orofacial Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been widely used in the treatment of neuropathic orofacial pain (NOP). The consistency of its therapeutic efficacy with the optimal protocol is highly debatable.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of rTMS on pain intensity, psychological conditions, and quality of life (QOL) in individuals with NOP based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We carefully screened and browsed 5 medical databases from inception to January 1, 2022. The study will be included that use of rTMS as the intervention for patients with NOP. Two researchers independently completed record retrieval, data processing, and evaluation of methodological quality. Quality and evidence were assessed using the PEDro scores and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

Results

Six RCTs with 214 participants were included in this systematic review: 2 studies were considered level 1 evidence, and 4 were considered level 2 evidence. Six studies found that high-frequency rTMS had a pain-relieving effect, while 4 studies found no improvement in psychological conditions and QOL. Quality of evidence (GRADE system) ranged from moderate to high. No significant side effects were found.

Conclusions

There is moderate-to-high evidence to prove that high-frequency rTMS is effective in reducing pain in individuals with NOP, but it has no significant positive effect on psychological conditions and QOL. High-frequency rTMS can be used as an alternative treatment for pain in individuals with NOP, but further studies will be conducted to unify treatment parameters, and the sample size will be expanded to explore its influence on psychological conditions and QOL.

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.

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.