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.

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.

Motor cortex stimulation in chronic neuropathic orofacial pain syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Invasive motor Cortex Stimulation (iMCS) was introduced in the 1990's for the treatment of chronic neuropathic orofacial pain (CNOP), although its effectiveness remains doubtful. However, CNOP is known to be a heterogeneous group of orofacial pain disorders, which can lead to different responses to iMCS. Therefore, this paper investigated (1) whether the effectiveness of iMCS is significantly different among different CNOP disorders and (2) whether other confounding factors can be impacting iMCS results in CNOP. A systematic review and meta-analysis using a linear mixed-model was performed. Twenty-three papers were included, totaling 140 CNOP patients. Heterogeneity of the studies showed to be 55.8%. A visual analogue scale (VAS) measured median pain relief of 66.5% (ranging from 0-100%) was found. Linear mixed-model analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia responded significantly more favorable to iMCS than patients suffering from dysfunctional pain syndromes (p = 0.030). Also, patients suffering from CNOP caused by (supra)nuclear lesions responded marginally significantly better to iMCS than patients suffering from CNOP due to trigeminal nerve lesions (p = 0.049). No other confounding factors were elucidated. This meta-analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia and patients suffering from (supra)nuclear lesions causing CNOP responded significantly more favorable than others on iMCS. No other confounding factors were found relevant.

Deep brain and motor cortex stimulation

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) are established surgical modalities that have been successfully used over the last several decades for treatment of numerous chronic pain disorders. Most often, these approaches are reserved for severe, disabling, and medically refractory syndromes after less invasive approaches have been tried and have failed. Although the exact mechanism of action for DBS and MCS remains unknown, it appears that these central neuromodulation processes have multifactorial effects on central pain processing and descending pain inhibition. Clinical studies and laboratory reports have shed some light on stimulation details and optimal parameters, as well as the choice of stimulation targets, best surgical indications, and expected long-term outcomes. Based on the worldwide published experience, it appears that additional data is needed to obtain regulatory approval for both MCS and DBS for the treatment of pain. Following approval, further clinical research will shape the ability to initiate, implement, and update comprehensive patient and procedure selection paradigms.

Supraspinal stimulation for treatment of refractory pain

Refractory pain syndromes often have far reaching effects and are quite a challenge for primary care providers and specialists alike to treat. With the help of site-specific neuromodulation and appropriate patient selection these difficult to treat pain syndromes may be managed. In this article, we focus on supraspinal stimulation (SSS) for treatment of intractable pain and discuss off-label uses of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in context to emerging indications in neuromodulation. Consideration for neuromodulatory treatment begins with rigorous patient selection based on exhaustive conservative management, elimination of secondary gains, and a proper psychology evaluation. Trial stimulation prior to DBS is nearly always performed while trial stimulation prior to MCS surgery is symptom dependent. Overall, a review of the literature demonstrates that DBS should be considered for refractory conditions including nociceptive/neuropathic pain, phantom limb pain, and chronic cluster headache (CCH). MCS should be considered primarily for trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) and central pain. DBS outcome studies for post-stroke pain as well as MCS studies for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) show more modest results and are also discussed in detail.