Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Chronic Pain: A Meta-analysis

A comparative study of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex targeting approaches for transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment: Insights from the healthy control data

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is an established treatment for medication-resistant depression. Several targeting methods for the left DLPFC have been proposed including identification with resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) neuronavigation, stimulus coordinates based on structural MRI, or electroencephalography (EEG) F3 site by Beam F3 method. To date, neuroanatomical and neurofunctional differences among those approaches have not been investigated on healthy subjects, which are structurally and functionally unaffected by psychiatric disorders. This study aimed to compare the mean location, its dispersion, and its functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate cortex (SGC), which is known to be associated with the therapeutic outcome in depression, of various approaches to target the DLPFC in healthy subjects. Fifty-seven healthy subjects underwent MRI scans to identify the stimulation site based on their resting-state functional connectivity and were measured their head size for targeting with Beam F3 method. In addition, we included two fixed stimulus coordinates over the DLPFC in the analysis, as recommended in previous studies. From the results, the rs-fMRI method had, as expected, more dispersed target sites across subjects and the greatest anticorrelation with the SGC, reflecting the known fact that personalized neuronavigation yields the greatest antidepressant effect. In contrast, the targets located by the other methods were relatively close together with less dispersion, and did not differ in anticorrelation with the SGC, implying their limitation of the therapeutic efficacy and possible interchangeability of them.

Interpersonal neural synchrony and mental disorders: unlocking potential pathways for clinical interventions

Introduction

Interpersonal synchronization involves the alignment of behavioral, affective, physiological, and brain states during social interactions. It facilitates empathy, emotion regulation, and prosocial commitment. Mental disorders characterized by social interaction dysfunction, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), and Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD), often exhibit atypical synchronization with others across multiple levels. With the introduction of the "second-person" neuroscience perspective, our understanding of interpersonal neural synchronization (INS) has improved, however, so far, it has hardly impacted the development of novel therapeutic interventions.

Methods

To evaluate the potential of INS-based treatments for mental disorders, we performed two systematic literature searches identifying studies that directly target INS through neurofeedback (12 publications; 9 independent studies) or brain stimulation techniques (7 studies), following PRISMA guidelines. In addition, we narratively review indirect INS manipulations through behavioral, biofeedback, or hormonal interventions. We discuss the potential of such treatments for ASD, RAD, and SAD and using a systematic database search assess the acceptability of neurofeedback (4 studies) and neurostimulation (4 studies) in patients with social dysfunction.

Results

Although behavioral approaches, such as engaging in eye contact or cooperative actions, have been shown to be associated with increased INS, little is known about potential long-term consequences of such interventions. Few proof-of-concept studies have utilized brain stimulation techniques, like transcranial direct current stimulation or INS-based neurofeedback, showing feasibility and preliminary evidence that such interventions can boost behavioral synchrony and social connectedness. Yet, optimal brain stimulation protocols and neurofeedback parameters are still undefined. For ASD, RAD, or SAD, so far no randomized controlled trial has proven the efficacy of direct INS-based intervention techniques, although in general brain stimulation and neurofeedback methods seem to be well accepted in these patient groups.

Discussion

Significant work remains to translate INS-based manipulations into effective treatments for social interaction disorders. Future research should focus on mechanistic insights into INS, technological advancements, and rigorous design standards. Furthermore, it will be key to compare interventions directly targeting INS to those targeting other modalities of synchrony as well as to define optimal target dyads and target synchrony states in clinical interventions.

Peripherally acting anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies alter cortical gray matter thickness in migraine patients: A prospective cohort study

Migraine is underpinned by central nervous system neuroplastic alterations thought to be caused by the repetitive peripheral afferent barrage the brain receives during the headache phase (cortical hyperexcitability). Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP-mAbs) are highly effective migraine preventative treatments. Their ability to alter brain morphometry in treatment-responders vs. non-responders is not well understood. Our aim was to determine the effects of the anti-CGRP-mAb galcanezumab on cortical thickness after 3-month treatment of patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging was performed pre- and post-treatment in 36 migraine patients. In this group, 19 patients were classified responders (≥50 % reduction in monthly migraine days) and 17 were considered non-responders (<50 % reduction in monthly migraine days). Following cross-sectional processing to analyze the baseline differences in cortical thickness, two-stage longitudinal processing and symmetrized percent change were conducted to investigate treatment-related brain changes. At baseline, no significant differences were found between the responders and non-responders. After 3-month treatment, decreased cortical thickness (compared to baseline) was observed in the responders in regions of the somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal cortex, superior frontal gyrus, and supramarginal gyrus. Non-responders demonstrated decreased cortical thickness in the left dorsomedial cortex and superior frontal gyrus. We interpret the cortical thinning seen in the responder group as suggesting that reduction in head pain could lead to changes in neural swelling and dendritic complexity and that such changes reflect the recovery process from maladaptive neural activity. This conclusion is further supported by our recent study showing that 3 months after treatment initiation, the incidence of premonitory symptoms and prodromes that are followed by headache decreases but not the incidence of the premonitory symptoms or prodromes themselves (that is, cortical thinning relates to reductions in the nociceptive signals in the responders). We speculate that a much longer recovery period is required to allow the brain to return to a more 'normal' functioning state whereby prodromes and premonitory symptoms no longer occur.

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Cancer Pain Management in Nonbrain Malignancy: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been reported to have analgesic effects on fibromyalgia and chronic neuropathic pain; however, its effects on cancer pain have yet to be determined. The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of NIBS on patients with pain secondary to nonbrain malignancy. Methods. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through June 5th, 2022. Parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were included that enrolled adult patients with cancer pain, except for that caused by brain tumors, compared NIBS with placebo stimulation, and reported sufficient data for performing meta-analysis. Results. Four parallel, randomized, sham-controlled studies were included: two of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), one of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and one of cranial electrical stimulation (CES). rTMS significantly improved pain in the subgroup analysis (standardized mean difference (SMD): −1.148, 95% confidence interval (CI): −1.660 to −0.637, ( $p<0.001$ )), while NIBS was not benefited in reducing pain intensity (SMD: −0.632, 95% CI: −1.356 to 0.092, p = 0.087). Also, NIBS significantly improved depressive symptoms (SMD: −0.665, 95% CI: −1.178 to −0.153, p = 0.011), especially in the form of rTMS (SMD: −0.875, 95% CI: −1.356 to −0.395, $p<0.001$ ) and tDCS (SMD: −1.082, 95% CI: −1.746 to −0.418, p = 0.001). Conclusion. rTMS significantly improved pain secondary to nonbrain malignancy apart from other forms of NIBS without major adverse events.

Advances in Pain Medicine: a Review of New Technologies

Purpose of Review

This narrative review highlights the interventional musculoskeletal techniques that have evolved in recent years.

Recent Findings

The recent progress in pain medicine technologies presented here represents the ideal treatment of the pain patient which is to provide personalized care. Advances in pain physiology research and pain management technologies support each other concurrently.

Summary

As new technologies give rise to new perspectives and understanding of pain, new research inspires the development of new technologies

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.

Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation in multiple sclerosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize evidence on the therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on core symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Specifically, findings from studies deploying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocols were summarized in this review.

Methods:

We systematically searched articles published in four databases, until 31 May 2021, which compared the effects of active tDCS or rTMS with sham intervention in MS patients. We used a random-effects model for this meta-analysis. Meta-regression and subgroup meta-analysis were used to examine the effects of stimulation dose and different stimulation protocols, respectively.

Results:

Twenty-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review, consisting of 19 tDCS and 6 rTMS studies. tDCS led to a significant and immediate reduction of fatigue with a large effect size (Hedges’s g = −0.870, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = [−1.225 to −0.458], number needed to treat (NNT) = 2). Particularly, a subgroup analysis showed that applying tDCS over the left DLPFC and bilateral S1 led to fatigue reductions compared to sham stimulation. Furthermore, tDCS had favorable effects on fatigue in MS patients with low physical disability but not those with high physical disability, and additionally improved cognitive function. Finally, whereas rTMS was observed to reduce muscle spasticity, these NIBS protocols showed no further effect on MS-associated pain and mood symptoms.

Conclusion:

tDCS in MS alleviates fatigue and improves cognitive function whereas rTMS reduces muscle spasticity. More high-quality studies are needed to substantiate the therapeutic effects of different NIBS protocols in MS.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain on the Non-Motor Cortex: An Evidence Mapping of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed to summarize and analyze the quality of the available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the non-motor cortex (non-M1) for neuropathic pain (NP) through an evidence mapping approach.

METHODS

We follow the Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) methodology. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, were included. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted according to a defined population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions (stimulation target, frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)) and comparison (sham rTMS or other targets). The evidence mapping was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 23 SRs were included. According to the AMSTAR-2, 20 SRs scored "very low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SRs scored "low," and 1 SR scored "high." A total of 17 PICOs were extracted. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is the most studied of the non-motor cortex targets. PICOs of DLPFC, premotor cortex (PMC), frontal cortex, and secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) were mainly categorized with a "potentially better" conclusion. High-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS of non-M1 usually lead to "potentially better" conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

DLPFC, PMC, frontal cortex, and S2 seem to be promising new targets for rTMS treatment of certain NP. Evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence gap that more research efforts are necessary in order to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols for non-M1 targets and standardize parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Further investigation is advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

Paired Acute Invasive/Non-invasive Stimulation (PAINS) study: A phase I/II randomized, sham-controlled crossover trial in chronic neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, an invasive method of neuromodulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive method of altering cortical excitability, have both proven effective in relieving chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE

We employed a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study design to investigate whether single-session tDCS would have an additive therapeutic effect alongside DRG stimulation (DRGS) in the treatment of chronic pain.

METHODS

Sixteen neuropathic pain patients who were previously implanted with DRG stimulators were recruited. Baseline pain scores were established with DRGS-OFF. Pain scores were then recorded with DRGS-ON, after paired sham tDCS stimulation, and after paired active anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) stimulation. For active tDCS, patients were randomized to 'MEG (magnetoencephalography) localized' tDCS or contralateral motor cortex (M1) tDCS for 30 min. EEG recordings and evaluations of tDCS adverse effects were also collected.

RESULTS

All participants reported the interventions to be tolerable with no significant adverse effects during the session. Paired DRGS/active tDCS resulted in a significant reduction in pain scores compared to paired DRGS-ON/sham tDCS or DRGS alone. There was no difference in the additive effect of M1 vs. MEG-localized tDCS. Significant augmentation of beta activity was observed between DRGS-OFF and DRGS-ON conditions, as well as between paired DRGS-ON/sham tDCS and paired DRGS-ON/active tDCS.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that a single session of tDCS alongside DRGS is safe and can significantly reduce pain acutely in neuropathic pain patients. Paired invasive/non-invasive neuromodulation is a promising new treatment strategy for pain management and should be evaluated further to assess long-term benefits.

Comparing the Impact of Multi-Session Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal and Primary Motor Cortex Neuronavigated Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (nrTMS) on Chronic Pain Patients

Repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to produce an analgesic effect and therefore has a potential for treating chronic refractory pain. However, previous studies used various stimulation parameters (including cortical targets), and the best stimulation protocol is not yet identified. The present study investigated the effects of multi-session 20 Hz (2000 pulses) and 5 Hz (1800 pulses) rTMS stimulation of left motor cortex (M1-group) and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC-group), respectively. The M1-group (n = 9) and DLPFC-group (n = 7) completed 13 sessions of neuronavigated stimulation, while a Sham-group (n = 8) completed seven sessions of placebo stimulation. The outcome was measured using the German Pain Questionnaire (GPQ), Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS), and SF-12 questionnaire. Pain perception significantly decreased in the DLPFC-group (38.17%) compared to the M1-group (56.11%) (p ≤ 0.001) on the later sessions. Health-related quality of life also improved in the DLPFC-group (40.47) compared to the Sham-group (35.06) (p = 0.016), and mental composite summary (p = 0.001) in the DLPFC-group (49.12) compared to M1-group (39.46). Stimulation of the left DLPFC resulted in pain relief, while M1 stimulation was not effective. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to identify optimal cortical target sites and stimulation parameters.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in management of chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) with frequencies 5-20 Hz is an expanding non-invasive treatment for chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Outcome data, however, show considerable inhomogeneity with concern to the levels of effect due to the great diversity of treated conditions. The aim of this review was to survey the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of M1 rTMS, and the accuracy to predict a positive response to epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) which is supposed to give a more longstanding pain relief.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to June 2019 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We used the PICO Model to define two specific clinical questions: (1) Does rTMS of M1 relieve NP better than sham treatment? (2) Can the response to rTMS be used to predict the effect of epidural MCS? After article selection, data extraction, and study quality assessment, the certainty of evidence of treatment effect was defined using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Data on 5-20 Hz (high-frequency) rTMS vs. sham was extracted from 24 blinded randomised controlled trials which were of varying quality, investigated highly heterogeneous pain conditions, and used excessively variable stimulation parameters. The difference in pain relief between active and sham stimulation was statistically significant in 9 of 11 studies using single-session rTMS, and in 9 of 13 studies using multiple sessions. Baseline data could be extracted from 6 single and 12 multiple session trials with a weighted mean pain reduction induced by active rTMS, compared to baseline, of -19% for single sessions, -32% for multiple sessions with follow-up <30 days, and -24% for multiple sessions with follow-up ≥30 days after the last stimulation session. For single sessions the weighted mean difference in pain reduction between active rTMS and sham was 15 percentage points, for multiple sessions the difference was 22 percentage points for follow-ups <30 days, and 15 percentage points for follow-ups ≥30 days. Four studies reported data that could be used to evaluate the accuracy of rTMS to predict response to MCS, showing a specificity of 60-100%, and a positive predictive value of 75-100%. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS targeting M1 can result in significant reduction of chronic NP which, however, is transient and shows a great heterogeneity between studies; very low certainty of evidence for single sessions and low for multiple sessions. Multiple sessions of rTMS can maintain a more longstanding effect. rTMS seems to be a fairly good predictor of a positive response to epidural MCS and may be used to select patients for implantation of permanent epidural electrodes. More studies are needed to manifest the use of rTMS for this purpose. Pain relief outcomes in a longer perspective, and outcome variables other than pain reduction need to be addressed more consistently in future studies to consolidate the applicability of rTMS in routine clinical practice.

Prolonged Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Motor Cortex Modulates Cortical Excitability But not Pain Perception

Over the past decade, theta-burst stimulation (TBS) has become a focus of interest in neurostimulatory research. Compared to conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), TBS produces more robust changes in cortical excitability (CE). There is also some evidence of an analgesic effect of the method. Previously published studies have suggested that different TBS parameters elicit opposite effects of TBS on CE. While intermittent TBS (iTBS) facilitates CE, continuous TBS (cTBS) attenuates it. However, prolonged TBS (pTBS) with twice the number of stimuli produces the opposite effect. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study with healthy subjects (n = 24), we investigated the effects of various pTBS (cTBS, iTBS, and placebo TBS) over the right motor cortex on CE and pain perception. Changes in resting motor thresholds (RMTs) and absolute motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were assessed before and at two time-points (0–5 min; 40–45 min) after pTBS. Tactile and thermal pain thresholds were measured before and 5 min after application. Compared to the placebo, prolonged cTBS (pcTBS) transiently increased MEP amplitudes, while no significant changes were found after prolonged iTBS. However, the facilitation of CE after pcTBS did not induce a parallel analgesic effect. We confirmed that pcTBS with twice the duration converts the conventional inhibitory effect into a facilitatory one. Despite the short-term boost of CE following pcTBS, a corresponding analgesic effect was not demonstrated. Therefore, the results indicate a more complex regulation of pain, which cannot be explained entirely by the modulation of excitability.

Equipment for Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique used for the treatment of a great variety of neurological disorders. The technique involves applying a magnetic field in certain areas of the cerebral cortex in order to modify neuronal excitability outside the skull. However, the exact brain mechanisms underlying rTMS effects are not completely elucidated. For that purpose, and in order to generate a pulsed magnetic field, a half-bridge converter controlled by a microcontroller has been designed to apply rTMS in small animals. Moreover, the small size of the rodent head makes it necessary to design a magnetic transducer, with the aim of focusing the magnetic field on selected brain areas using a specific and a small magnetic head. Using such devices, our purpose was to compare the effects of five different rTMS dosages on rat brain metabolic activity. The experimental results showed that one day of stimulation leads to an enhancement of brain metabolic activity in cortical areas, meanwhile with three days of stimulation it is possible to also modify subcortical zones, results that were not found when extending the number of rTMS applications up to seven days. In consequence, the number of pulses delivered might be an important parameter in rTMS protocols, highlighting its importance in rTMS impact.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain, Headache, and Comorbid Depression: INS-NANS Expert Consensus Panel Review and Recommendation

BACKGROUND

While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been studied for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, emerging evidence supports its use for pain and headache by stimulating either motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, its clinical implementation is hindered due to a lack of consensus in the quality of clinical evidence and treatment recommendation/guideline(s). Thus, working collaboratively, this multinational multidisciplinary expert panel aims to: 1) assess and rate the existing outcome evidence of TMS in various pain/headache conditions; 2) provide TMS treatment recommendation/guidelines for the evaluated conditions and comorbid depression; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness and technical issues relevant to the long-term clinical implementation of TMS for pain and headache.

METHODS

Seven task groups were formed under the guidance of a 5-member steering committee with four task groups assessing the utilization of TMS in the treatment of Neuropathic Pain (NP), Acute Pain, Primary Headache Disorders, and Posttraumatic Brain Injury related Headaches (PTBI-HA), and remaining three assessing the treatment for both pain and comorbid depression, and the cost-effectiveness and technological issues relevant to the treatment.

RESULTS

The panel rated the overall level of evidence and recommendability for clinical implementation of TMS as: 1) high and extremely/strongly for both NP and PTBI-HA respectively; 2) moderate for postoperative pain and migraine prevention, and recommendable for migraine prevention. While the use of TMS for treating both pain and depression in one setting is clinically and financially sound, more studies are required to fully assess the long-term benefit of the treatment for the two highly comorbid conditions, especially with neuronavigation.

CONCLUSIONS

After extensive literature review, the panel provided recommendations and treatment guidelines for TMS in managing neuropathic pain and headaches. In addition, the panel also recommended more outcome and cost-effectiveness studies to assess the feasibility of the long-term clinical implementation of the treatment.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018)

A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

[Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the diagnostic and treatment of pain syndromes in children and adults]

The authors review the literature and own data concerning therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in children and adult patients with pain syndromes of different origins. TMS may act as a tool to excite or inhibit neuroplasticity in the central nervous system, which depends of the therapeutic regime used. TMS induces neurogenesis and synaptogenesis, rhythmic TMS may cause long-lasting after-effects, including pain inhibitory effect. A decrease in the threshold and an increase in the amplitude of motor evoked potentials in TMS are the most frequent changes in pain syndromes in the diagnostic modality. The efficacy of different regimes in the treatment of pain syndromes remains understudied. Despite vast knowledge on clinical use of TMS in pain syndromes in adults, in pediatrics its use is limited to migraine treatment. TMS is a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool that should be more often implemented in neurorehabilitation and treatment of neurological diseases in adults and children with pain syndromes.

ANTITUMOR EFFECT OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND THEIR EFFECT ON PAIN IN EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY

The review examined and analyzed scientific publications on the effect of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on various sys­tems of the human body and animals with tumors, as well as on pain in the experiment and the clinic. The theoretical foundations and practical results of the use of EMF in various modulations and modes in the goals and objectives of oncology, including how to optimize the process of anesthesia and correct the vital activity of the body's functional systems with a tumor, are consecrated. Information is given on possible physicochemical effects, features, and mecha­nisms of therapeutic influence at various levels of a living organism. The ability of electromagnetic waves to transfer in­formation both within a single biosystem and at the level of a whole living organism with a tumor is shown. Studies of combined action of EMF and chemotherapy were analyzed. It has been established that there are experimental prerequisites for using this factor in order to induce changes in the permeability of the membranes of tumor cells by in­creasing the internalization of chemotherapeutic agents and, thus, enhance the antitumor effect. The role of EMF in the induction of apoptosis in tumor cells is shown. It has been shown that chemotherapy together with electromagnetic fields induces apoptosis and has an inhibitory effect on DNA synthesis in osteosarcoma cells, breast cancer, colon cancer, melanoma and other tumors. The role of magnetic fields in order to enhance the analgesic effect was investigated. The analgesic effect is due to the cessation or weakening of nerve impulses from the painful focus due to the elimination of hypoxia, the improvement of microcirculation, and the reduction of edema, it has been shown. Transcranial magnetic therapy is used as an analgesic tool in onconurology. The therapeutic anti-pain effect is associated with the stimulation of the antinociceptive system, an increase in the synthesis of natural analgesics — endorphins with their subsequent release into the cerebrospinal fluid and blood. As it has already been shown, with the increase in the intensity of pain and its duration, all indicators of the quality of life and the results of treatment of the patient deteriorate, so the search for ways to improve the antitumor effectiveness of specialized treatment and eliminate the causes that prevent their im­plementation continue to be relevant and in demand.

The Effectiveness of High-frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Persistent Somatoform Pain Disorder: A Case Series

Somatoform pain disorders (SPD) are common, disabling and do not respond well to existing treatment modalities. We investigated the usefulness of 18 sessions of high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation delivered at the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in five right-handed patients with SPD. All patients reported significant improvement in pain relief and activities of daily living. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivered at the left DLPFC may be useful in SPD.