Cortical neurostimulation for neuropathic pain: state of the art and perspectives

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.

Anterior insular cortex mediates hyperalgesia induced by chronic pancreatitis in rats

Central sensitization plays a pivotal role in the maintenance of chronic pain induced by chronic pancreatitis (CP), but cortical modulation of painful CP remains elusive. This study was designed to examine the role of anterior insular cortex (aIC) in the pathogenesis of hyperalgesia in a rat model of CP. CP was induced by intraductal administration of trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS). Abdomen hyperalgesia and anxiety were assessed by von Frey filament and open field tests, respectively. Two weeks after surgery, the activation of aIC was indicated by FOS immunohistochemical staining and electrophysiological recordings. Expressions of VGluT1, NMDAR subunit NR2B and AMPAR subunit GluR1 were analyzed by immunoblottings. The regulatory roles of aIC in hyperalgesia and pain-related anxiety were detected via pharmacological approach and chemogenetics in CP rats. Our results showed that TNBS treatment resulted in long-term hyperalgesia and anxiety-like behavior in rats. CP rats exhibited increased FOS expression and potentiated excitatory synaptic transmission within aIC. CP rats also showed up-regulated expression of VGluT1, and increased membrane trafficking and phosphorylation of NR2B and GluR1 within aIC. Blocking excitatory synaptic transmission significantly attenuated abdomen mechanical hyperalgesia. Specifically inhibiting the excitability of insular pyramidal cells reduced both abdomen hyperalgesia and pain-related anxiety. In conclusion, our findings emphasize a key role for aIC in hyperalgesia and anxiety of painful CP, providing a novel insight into cortical modulation of painful CP and shedding light on aIC as a potential target for neuromodulation interventions in the treatment of CP.

The efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic orofacial pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) have been described as promising alternatives to treat different pain syndromes. This study evaluated the effects of TMS and tDCS in the treatment of chronic orofacial pain, through a systematic review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in major databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, BBO, Open Gray and CINAHL. The eligibility criteria comprised randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that applied TMS or tDCS to treat chronic orofacial pain. The variables analyzed were pain, functional limitation, quality of life, tolerance to treatment, somatosensory changes, and adverse effects. The risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through GRADE. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018090774).

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 636 studies. Thereafter, the eligibility criteria were applied and the duplicates removed, resulting in eight RCTs (four TMS and four tDCS). The findings of these studies suggest that rTMS applied to the Motor cortex (M1), the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) provide adequate orofacial pain relief. Two studies reported significant pain improvement with tDCS applied over M1 while the other two failed to demonstrate significant effects compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS, applied to M1, DLPFC or S2, is a promising approach for the treatment of chronic orofacial pain. Moreover, tDCS targeting M1 seems to be also effective in chronic orofacial pain treatment. The included studies used a wide variety of therapeutic protocols. In addition, most of them used small sample sizes, with a high risk of biases in their methodologies, thus producing a low quality of evidence. The results indicate that further research should be carried out with caution and with better-standardized therapeutic protocols.

The "virtual lesion" approach to transcranial magnetic stimulation: studying the brain-behavioral relationships in experimental pain

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to create a temporary “virtual lesion” (VL) of a target cortical area, disrupting its function and associated behavior. Transcranial magnetic stimulation can therefore test the functional role of specific brain areas. This scoping review aims at investigating the current literature of the “online” TMS-evoked VL approach to studying brain–behavioral relationships during experimental pain in healthy subjects. Ovid-Medline, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Included studies tested different TMS-based VLs of various pain brain areas during continuous experimental pain or when time-locked to a noxious stimulus. Outcome measures assessed different pain measurements. Initial screening resulted in a total of 403 studies, of which 17 studies were included in the review. The VLs were directed to the prefrontal, primary and secondary somatosensory, primary motor, and parietal cortices through single/double/triple/sequence of five-TMS pulses or through repeated TMS during mechanical, electrical contact, radiant heat, or capsaicin-evoked noxious stimulation. Despite a wide variability among the VL protocols, outcome measures, and study designs, a behavioral VL effect (decrease or increase in pain responses) was achieved in the majority of the studies. However, such findings on the relationships between the modified brain activity and the manifested pain characteristics were often mixed. To conclude, TMS–elicited VLs during experimental pain empower our understanding of brain–behavior relationships at specific time points during pain processing. The mixed findings of these relationships call for an obligatory standard of all pain-related TMS protocols for clearly determining the magnitude and direction of TMS-induced behavioral effects.

A practical algorithm for using rTMS to treat patients with chronic pain

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex has a good level of evidence of efficacy as a method for providing analgesic effects in patients with chronic pain. However, there is still no consensus regarding the parameters of stimulation to use and the detailed protocol to apply for therapeutic practice. In this article, we review the main technical points to address, and we propose a practical algorithm of how to use rTMS for chronic pain treatment in daily clinical practice.

The Value of High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex to Treat Central Pain Sensitization Associated With Knee Osteoarthritis

Aim

Chronic pain associated with knee osteoarthritis may develop in connection with a maladaptive process of pain sensitization in the central nervous system. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat various pain syndromes related to central sensitization phenomenon, but was never applied in the context of knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

A 71-year-old woman presenting clinical evidence of central sensitization of pain associated with left knee osteoarthritis underwent monthly sessions of rTMS delivered at 10 Hz over the right motor cortex.

Results

From the week following the third session, she began to improve on various clinical aspects, including pain. After 10 sessions (i.e., almost one year of follow-up), pain was reduced by 67%, especially regarding neuropathic components, while sleep disorders and fatigue also improved by 57–67%. The central sensitization inventory (CSI) score was reduced by 70%.

Conclusion

This observation suggests that high-frequency motor cortex rTMS could be a therapeutic option to treat neuropathic pain and psychological symptoms associated with central sensitization developing in the context of chronic osteoarthritis of the knee joint.

[Motor cortex stimulation in deafferentation facial pain]

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the results of treatment of poorly controlled deafferentation facial pain using motor cortex stimulation and to review the relevant literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 8 patients (3 males and 5 females) with deafferentation facial pain who were implanted with a system of constant motor cortex stimulation at the Illinois University in Chicago in 2004-2016 and Novosibirsk Federal Center of Neurosurgery in 2017. The patients' age ranged from 37 to 81 years (mean age, 57.5 years). Scale-based assessment of the pain severity was performed at admission to hospital, at discharge, and during follow-up. The visual analogue pain scale, Barrow Neurological Institute pain scale (BNIPS), and McLaughlin scale were used.

RESULTS

Immediately after surgery, a significant improvement in the form of pain reduction by 80-100% occurred in 4 patients. The pain intensity at discharge from the hospital decreased by 55%, on average. During the follow-up period, the efficacy of motor cortex stimulation was assessed (McLaughlin scale) as very good by 3 of the 8 patients, as good by 4 patients, and as unsatisfactory by 1 patient.

CONCLUSION

Our findings and recent studies have demonstrated that motor cortex stimulation is one of the treatment options for deafferentation facial pain. Even a slight decrease in the intensity of excruciating and debilitating pain (assessed by patients as a good effect) gives grounds for application of the procedure. Further research is needed to define more precise criteria for selecting patients for this treatment and to increase the efficacy of stimulation.

Brain Modulation by Electric Currents in Fibromyalgia: A Structured Review on Non-invasive Approach With Transcranial Electrical Stimulation

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a complex disorder where widespread musculoskeletal pain is associated with many heterogenous symptoms ranging from affective disturbances to cognitive dysfunction and central fatigue. FMS is currently underdiagnosed and often very poorly responsive to pharmacological treatment. Pathophysiology of the disease remains still obscure even if in the last years fine structural and functional cerebral abnormalities have been identified, principally by neurophysiological and imaging studies delineating disfunctions in pain perception, processing and control systems. On such basis, recently, neurostimulation of brain areas involved in mechanism of pain processing and control (primary motor cortex: M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: DLPFC) has been explored by means of different approaches and particularly through non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (transcranial magnetic and electric stimulation: TMS and tES). Here we summarize studies on tES application in FMS. The great majority of reports, based on direct currents (transcranial direct currents stimulation: tDCS) and targeting M1, showed efficacy on pain measures and less on cognitive and affective symptoms, even if several aspects as maintenance of therapeutical effects and optimal stimulation parameters remain to be established. Differently, stimulation of DLPFC, explored in a few studies, was ineffective on pain and showed limited effects on cognitive and affective symptoms. Very recently new tES techniques as high-density tDCS (HD-tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and tDCS devices for home-based treatment have been explored in FMS with interesting even if very preliminary results opening interesting perspectives for more effective, well tolerated, cheap and easy therapeutic approaches.

Pregabalin on Hdac2 and Inpp5f levels in rats with CCI-induced neuropathic pain

Hdac2/Inpp5f on the therapeutic effect of pregabalin on neuropathic pain in chronic constriction injury (CCI) rats was investigated. A total of 90 healthy SD rats were selected and divided into the treatment group, the model control group and the normal control group with 30 rats in each group. Rats in the treatment and model control groups were used to construct CCI model. The control group was treated with sham surgery. The model control group was not treated after surgery. The treatment group was treated with pregabalin on the 8th day after operation. Behavioral experiments were performed to measure mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT) and thermal withdrawal latency (TWL). The expression of inflammatory cytokines TNFα and IL-1β was detected by ELISA kit and expression of Hdac2 and Inpp5f mRNA was detected by RT-qPCR. Before treatment, compared with the normal control group, MWT and TWL values of the treatment and model control groups were significantly decreased (P<0.05). At different time-points after treatment, MWT and TWL were higher in the treatment group than in the model control group and were lower than in the normal control group. At 21 days after operation, the levels of TNFα and IL-1β in the model control and treatment groups were higher than those in the normal control group (P<0.05). The expression level of Hdac2 was higher in the treatment group than in the normal control group (P<0.05). The expression level of Inpp5f mRNA in the treatment and normal control groups was significantly higher than that in the model control group (P<0.05), but the expression level of Inpp5f mRNA in the treatment group was lower than that in the normal control group (P<0.05). Therefore, pregabalin can effectively relieve neuropathic pain in CCI rats, and its efficacy is related to Hdac2 and Inpp5f. Our study provides reference for clinical treatment of neuropathic pain induced by CCI.

Neural basis of induced phantom limb pain relief

OBJECTIVE

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is notoriously difficult to treat, partly due to an incomplete understanding of PLP-related disease mechanisms. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is used to modulate plasticity in various neuropathological diseases, including chronic pain. Although NIBS can alleviate neuropathic pain (including PLP), both disease and treatment mechanisms remain tenuous. Insight into the mechanisms underlying both PLP and NIBS-induced PLP relief is needed for future implementation of such treatment and generalization to related conditions.

METHODS

We used a within-participants, double-blind, and sham-controlled design to alleviate PLP via task-concurrent NIBS over the primary sensorimotor missing hand cortex (S1/M1). To specifically influence missing hand signal processing, amputees performed phantom hand movements during anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain activity was monitored using neuroimaging during and after NIBS. PLP ratings were obtained throughout the week after stimulation.

RESULTS

A single session of intervention NIBS significantly relieved PLP, with effects lasting at least 1 week. PLP relief associated with reduced activity in the S1/M1 missing hand cortex after stimulation. Critically, PLP relief and reduced S1/M1 activity correlated with preceding activity changes during stimulation in the mid- and posterior insula and secondary somatosensory cortex (S2).

INTERPRETATION

The observed correlation between PLP relief and decreased S1/M1 activity confirms our previous findings linking PLP with increased S1/M1 activity. Our results further highlight the driving role of the mid- and posterior insula, as well as S2, in modulating PLP. Lastly, our novel PLP intervention using task-concurrent NIBS opens new avenues for developing treatment for PLP and related pain conditions. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:59-73.

Clinical neurophysiology of pain

Clinical neurophysiologic investigation of pain pathways in humans is based on specific techniques and approaches, since conventional methods of nerve conduction studies and somatosensory evoked potentials do not explore these pathways. The proposed techniques use various types of painful stimuli (thermal, laser, mechanical, or electrical) and various types of assessments (measurement of sensory thresholds, study of nerve fiber excitability, or recording of electromyographic reflexes or cortical potentials). The two main tests used in clinical practice are quantitative sensory testing and pain-related evoked potentials (PREPs). In particular, PREPs offer the possibility of an objective assessment of nociceptive pathways. Three types of PREPs can be distinguished depending on the type of stimulation used to evoke pain: laser-evoked potentials, contact heat evoked potentials, and intraepidermal electrical stimulation evoked potentials (IEEPs). These three techniques investigate both small-diameter peripheral nociceptive afferents (mainly Aδ nerve fibers) and spinothalamic tracts without theoretically being able to differentiate the level of lesion in the case of abnormal results. In routine clinical practice, PREP recording is a reliable method of investigation for objectifying the existence of a peripheral or central lesion or loss of function concerning the nociceptive pathways, but not the existence of pain. Other methods, such as nerve fiber excitability studies using microneurography, more directly reflect the activities of nociceptive axons in response to provoked pain, but without detecting or quantifying the presence of spontaneous pain. These methods are more often used in research or experimental study design. Thus, it should be kept in mind that most of the results of neurophysiologic investigation performed in clinical practice assess small fiber or spinothalamic tract lesions rather than the neuronal mechanisms directly at the origin of pain and they do not provide objective quantification of pain.

Top-Down Cortical Control of Acute and Chronic Pain

Acute pain has an evolutionary role in the detection of physical harm and the response to it. In some cases, however, acute pain can impair function and lead to other morbidities. Chronic pain, meanwhile, can present as a psychopathological condition that significantly interferes with daily living. Most basic and translational pain research has focused on the molecular and cellular mechanisms in the spinal and peripheral nervous systems. In contrast, the brain plays a key role in the affective manifestation and cognitive control of pain. In particular, several cortical regions, such as the somatosensory cortex, prefrontal cortex, insular, and anterior cingulate cortex, are well known to be activated by acute pain signals, and neurons in these regions have been demonstrated to undergo changes in response to chronic pain. Furthermore, these cortical regions can project to a number of forebrain and limbic structures to exert powerful top-down control of not only sensory pain transmission but also affective pain expression, and such cortical regulatory mechanisms are particularly relevant in chronic pain states. Newer techniques have emerged that allow for detailed studies of central pain circuits in animal models, as well as how such circuits are modified by the presence of chronic pain and other predisposing psychosomatic factors. These mechanistic approaches can complement imaging in human studies. At the therapeutic level, a number of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions have recently been shown to engage these top-down control systems to provide analgesia. In this review, we will discuss how pain signals reach important cortical regions and how these regions in turn project to subcortical areas of the brain to exert profound modulation of the pain experience. In addition, we will discuss the clinical relevance of such top-down pain regulation mechanisms.

When pain gets stuck: the evolution of pain chronification and treatment resistance

It is well-recognized that, despite similar pain characteristics, some people with chronic pain recover, whereas others do not. In this review, we discuss possible contributions and interactions of biological, social, and psychological perturbations that underlie the evolution of treatment-resistant chronic pain. Behavior and brain are intimately implicated in the production and maintenance of perception. Our understandings of potential mechanisms that produce or exacerbate persistent pain remain relatively unclear. We provide an overview of these interactions and how differences in relative contribution of dimensions such as stress, age, genetics, environment, and immune responsivity may produce different risk profiles for disease development, pain severity, and chronicity. We propose the concept of "stickiness" as a soubriquet for capturing the multiple influences on the persistence of pain and pain behavior, and their stubborn resistance to therapeutic intervention. We then focus on the neurobiology of reward and aversion to address how alterations in synaptic complexity, neural networks, and systems (eg, opioidergic and dopaminergic) may contribute to pain stickiness. Finally, we propose an integration of the neurobiological with what is known about environmental and social demands on pain behavior and explore treatment approaches based on the nature of the individual's vulnerability to or protection from allostatic load.

Motor Responses to Noxious Stimuli Shape Pain Perception in Chronic Pain Patients

Pain serves vital protective functions, which crucially depend on appropriate motor responses to noxious stimuli. Such responses not only depend on but can themselves shape the perception of pain. In chronic pain, perception is often decoupled from noxious stimuli and motor responses are no longer protective, which suggests that the relationships between noxious stimuli, pain perception, and behavior might be changed. We here performed a simple experiment to quantitatively assess the relationships between noxious stimuli, perception and behavior in 22 chronic pain patients and 22 age-matched healthy human participants. Brief noxious and tactile stimuli were applied to the participants’ hands and participants performed speeded motor responses and provided perceptual ratings of the stimuli. Multi-level moderated mediation analyses assessed the relationships between stimulus intensity, perceptual ratings and reaction times for both stimulus types. The results revealed a significantly stronger involvement of motor responses in the translation of noxious stimuli into perception than in the translation of tactile stimuli into perception. This significant influence of motor responses on pain perception was found for both chronic pain patients and healthy participants. Thus, stimulus-perception-behavior relationships appear to be at least partially preserved in chronic pain patients and motor-related as well as behavioral interventions might harness these functional relationships to modulate pain perception.

Non pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain: Invasive and non-invasive cortical stimulation

The use of medications in chronic neuropathic pain may be limited with regard to efficacy and tolerance. Therefore, non-pharmacological approaches, using electrical stimulation of the cortex has been proposed as an alternative. First, in the early nineties, surgically-implanted epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) was proven to be effective to relieve refractory neuropathic pain. Later, non-invasive stimulation techniques were found to produce similar analgesic effects, at least by means of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the primary motor cortex (M1). Following "high-frequency" rTMS (e.g., stimulation frequency ranging from 5 to 20Hz) delivered to the precentral gyrus (e.g., M1 region), it is possible to obtain an analgesic effect via the modulation of several remote brain regions involved in nociceptive information processing or control. This pain reduction can last for weeks beyond the time of the stimulation, especially if repeated sessions are performed, probably related to processes of long-term synaptic plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), another form of transcranial stimulation, using low-intensity electrical currents, generally delivered by a pair of large electrodes, has also shown some efficacy to improve patients with chronic pain syndromes. The mechanism of action of tDCS differs from that of EMCS and rTMS, but the cortical target is the same, which is M1. Although the level of evidence of therapeutic efficacy in the context of neuropathic pain is lower for tDCS than for rTMS, interesting perspectives are opened by using at-home tDCS protocols for long-term management. Now, there is a scientific basis for recommending both EMCS and rTMS of M1 to treat refractory chronic neuropathic pain, but their application in clinical practice remains limited due to practical and regulatory issues.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a Therapeutic Tool for Chronic Pain

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates spontaneous neuronal activity that can generate long-term neuroplastic changes. It has been used in numerous therapeutic trials showing significant clinical effects especially when combined with other behavioral therapies. One area of intensive tDCS research is chronic pain. Since the initial tDCS trials for chronic pain treatment using current parameters of stimulation, more than 60 clinical trials have been published testing its effects in different pain syndromes. However, as the field moves in the direction of clinical application, several aspects need to be taken into consideration regarding tDCS effectiveness and parameters of stimulation. In this article, we reviewed the evidence of tDCS effects for the treatment of chronic pain and critically analyzed the literature pertaining its safety and efficacy, and how to optimize tDCS clinical effects in a therapeutic setting. We discuss optimization of tDCS effects in 3 different domains: (i) parameters of stimulation, (ii) combination therapies, and (iii) subject selection. This article aims to provide insights for the development of future tDCS clinical trials.

The Current State of Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Pain and Its Context in Other Forms of Neuromodulation

Chronic intractable pain is debilitating for those touched, affecting 5% of the population. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has fallen out of favour as the centrally implantable neurostimulation of choice for chronic pain since the 1970–1980s, with some neurosurgeons favouring motor cortex stimulation as the ‘last chance saloon’. This article reviews the available data and professional opinion of the current state of DBS as a treatment for chronic pain, placing it in the context of other neuromodulation therapies. We suggest DBS, with its newer target, namely anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), should not be blacklisted on the basis of a lack of good quality study data, which often fails to capture the merits of the treatment.

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Deafferentation Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since the early 1990s, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been a unique treatment modality for patients with drug-resistant deafferentation pain. While underpowered studies and case reports have limited definitive, data-driven analysis of MCS in the past, recent research has brought new clarity to the MCS literature and has helped identify appropriate indications for MCS and its long-term efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, new research in MCS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are analyzed and compared with historical landmark papers. Currently, MCS is effective in providing relief to 40-64% of patients, with decreasing analgesic effect over time addressed by altering stimulation settings. rTMS and tDCS, two historic, non-invasive stimulation techniques, are providing new alternatives for the treatment of deafferentation pain, with rTMS finding utility in identifying MCS responders. Future advances in electrode arrays, neuro-navigation, and high-definition tDCS hold promise in providing pain relief to growing numbers of patients. Deafferentation pain is severe, disabling, and remains a challenge for patients and providers alike. Over the last several years, the MCS literature has been revitalized with studies and meta-analyses demonstrating MCS effectiveness and providing guidance in identifying responders. At the same time, rTMS and tDCS, two time-honored non-invasive stimulation techniques, are finding new utility in managing deafferentation pain and identifying good MCS candidates. As the number of potential therapies grow, the clinician's role is shifting to personalizing treatment to the unique pain of each patient. With new treatment modalities, this form of personalized medicine is more possible than ever before.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, Transcranial Pulsed Current Stimulation, and Their Combination on Brain Oscillations in Patients with Chronic Visceral Pain: A Pilot Crossover Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

Chronic visceral pain (CVP) syndromes are persistently painful disorders with a remarkable lack of effective treatment options. This study aimed at evaluating the effects of different neuromodulation techniques in patients with CVP on cortical activity, through electreocephalography (EEG) and on pain perception, through clinical tests.

DESIGN

A pilot crossover randomized controlled study.

SETTINGS

Out-patient.

SUBJECTS

Adults with CVP (>3 months).

METHODS

Participants received four interventions in a randomized order: (1) transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) and active transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined, (2) tPCS alone, (3) tDCS alone, and (4) sham condition. Resting state quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) and pain assessments were performed before and after each intervention. Results were compared with a cohort of 47 healthy controls.

RESULTS

We enrolled six patients with CVP for a total of 21 visits completed. Compared with healthy participants, patients with CVP showed altered cortical activity characterized by increased power in theta, alpha and beta bands, and a significant reduction in the alpha/beta ratio. Regarding tES, the combination of tDCS with tPCS had no effect on power in any of the bandwidths, nor brain regions. Comparing tPCS with tDCS alone, we found that tPCS induced higher increase in power within the theta and alpha bandwidths.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that patients with CVP present abnormal EEG-indexed cortical activity compared with healthy controls. Moreover, we showed that combining two types of neurostimulation techniques had no effect, whereas the two interventions, when applied individually, have different neural signatures.

Non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for management of chronic central neuropathic pain: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pain can affect people regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. Chronic central neuropathic pain (CCNP) is a debilitating condition that affects populations such as stroke survivors, amputees, spinal cord injury patients and patients with multiple sclerosis, with prevalence rates between 30% and 80%. This condition can be caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system. CCNP is notoriously drug resistant, and few effective CCNP treatment or management strategies exist. The emergence of non-invasive brain stimulation and neuromodulation techniques provide novel avenues for managing chronic central neuropathic pain. This scoping review aims to systematically identify the methods and effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for treating and managing chronic central neuropathic pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The following databases will be searched systematically: PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), Association of Computing Machinary (ACM) and Scopus. Additional literature will be identified by searching the reference lists of identified studies. Studies will include reviews and original research in both published and grey literatures. Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion. A quantitative analysis on the intervention type, application and efficacy will be synthesised along with a qualitative analysis to describe the effectiveness of each intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No primary data will be collected and hence formal ethics review is not required. The results of the scoping review will be presented at relevant national and international conferences, published in a peer-reviewed journal and provided to the stakeholders with plain language to be posted on their websites. This scoping review will provide a foundation to guide the development of future primary research on non-invasive brain stimulation and CCNP.

Paired motor cortex and cervical epidural electrical stimulation timed to converge in the spinal cord promotes lasting increases in motor responses

Key points

Pairing motor cortex stimulation and spinal cord epidural stimulation produced large augmentation in motor cortex evoked potentials if they were timed to converge in the spinal cord.

The modulation of cortical evoked potentials by spinal cord stimulation was largest when the spinal electrodes were placed over the dorsal root entry zone.

Repeated pairing of motor cortex and spinal cord stimulation caused lasting increases in evoked potentials from both sites, but only if the time between the stimuli was optimal.

Both immediate and lasting effects of paired stimulation are likely mediated by convergence of descending motor circuits and large diameter afferents onto common interneurons in the cervical spinal cord.

Abstract

Convergent activity in neural circuits can generate changes at their intersection. The rules of paired electrical stimulation are best understood for protocols that stimulate input circuits and their targets. We took a different approach by targeting the interaction of descending motor pathways and large diameter afferents in the spinal cord. We hypothesized that pairing stimulation of motor cortex and cervical spinal cord would strengthen motor responses through their convergence. We placed epidural electrodes over motor cortex and the dorsal cervical spinal cord in rats; motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were measured from biceps. MEPs evoked from motor cortex were robustly augmented with spinal epidural stimulation delivered at an intensity below the threshold for provoking an MEP. Augmentation was critically dependent on the timing and position of spinal stimulation. When the spinal stimulation was timed to coincide with the descending volley from motor cortex stimulation, MEPs were more than doubled. We then tested the effect of repeated pairing of motor cortex and spinal stimulation. Repetitive pairing caused strong augmentation of cortical MEPs and spinal excitability that lasted up to an hour after just 5 min of pairing. Additional physiology experiments support the hypothesis that paired stimulation is mediated by convergence of descending motor circuits and large diameter afferents in the spinal cord. The large effect size of this protocol and the conservation of the circuits being manipulated between rats and humans makes it worth pursuing for recovery of sensorimotor function after injury to the central nervous system.

Pairing motor cortex stimulation and spinal cord epidural stimulation produced large augmentation in motor cortex evoked potentials if they were timed to converge in the spinal cord.

The modulation of cortical evoked potentials by spinal cord stimulation was largest when the spinal electrodes were placed over the dorsal root entry zone.

Repeated pairing of motor cortex and spinal cord stimulation caused lasting increases in evoked potentials from both sites, but only if the time between the stimuli was optimal.

Both immediate and lasting effects of paired stimulation are likely mediated by convergence of descending motor circuits and large diameter afferents onto common interneurons in the cervical spinal cord.

Delayed pain decrease following M1 tDCS in spinal cord injury: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Despite some encouraging findings for the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) directed to the primary motor cortex (M1) has faced some mixed results. Prior to translating this technology to clinical care, consistent results and durable effects need to be found. We, therefore, aimed to assess the direct and long-term effects of tDCS on pain following SCI. We performed a two-phase randomized sham-controlled clinical trial where patients received 5days of tDCS followed by a 3-month follow-up period (Phase I); then, Phase II consisted of 10days of tDCS with an 8-week follow-up period. We assessed the level of pain with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Patients' quality of life and life satisfaction were also evaluated. 33 patients were enrolled in Phase I and 9 in Phase II. We observed a treatment effect at 1-week follow-up for Phase I and at 4-week follow-up for Phase II. The overall level of pain was significantly lower for the active group, as compared to sham, in Phase II. Our exploratory study shows that tDCS does seem to be a promising tool to manage pain in patients with SCI and repeated stimulation sessions are needed to induce long-lasting effects. Based on our protocol, it appears that adding a second treatment period could induce long-lasting effects. Clinicaltrials.gov identification number: NCT01599767.

Strategies for replacing non-invasive brain stimulation sessions: recommendations for designing neurostimulation clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the potential impact of missed visits on the outcomes of neuromodulation treatments, it is not clear how this issue has been addressed in clinical trials. Given this gap in the literature, we reviewed articles on non-invasive brain stimulation in participants with depression or chronic pain, and investigated how missed visits were handled. Areas covered: We performed a search on PUBMED/MEDLINE using the keywords: 'tDCS', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', 'transcranial magnetic stimulation', 'depression', and 'pain'. We included studies with a minimum of five participants who were diagnosed with depression or chronic pain, who underwent a minimum of five tDCS or TMS sessions. A total of 181 studies matched our inclusion criteria, 112 on depression and 69 on chronic pain. Of these, only fifteen (8%) articles reported or had a protocol addressing missed visits. This review demonstrates that, in most of the trials, there is no reported plan to handle missed visits. Expert commentary: Based on our findings and previous studies, we developed suggestions on how to handle missed visits in neuromodulation protocols. A maximum of 20% of missing sessions should be allowed before excluding a patient and these sessions should be replaced at the end of the stimulation period.

Recent advances in understanding and managing cancer pain

Cancer pain remains a significant clinical problem worldwide. Causes of cancer pain are multifactorial and complex and are likely to vary with an array of tumor-related and host-related factors and processes. Pathophysiology is poorly understood; however, new laboratory research points to cross-talk between cancer cells and host’s immune and neural systems as an important potential mechanism that may be broadly relevant to many cancer pain syndromes. Opioids remain the most effective pharmaceuticals used in the treatment of cancer pain. However, their role has been evolving due to emerging awareness of risks of chronic opioid therapy. Despite extensive research efforts, no new class of analgesics has been developed. However, many potential therapeutic targets that may lead to the establishment of new pharmaceuticals have been identified in recent years. It is also expected that the role of non-pharmacological modalities of treatment will grow in prominence. Specifically, neuromodulation, a rapidly expanding field, may play a major role in the treatment of neuropathic cancer pain provided that further technological progress permits the development of non-invasive and inexpensive neuromodulation techniques.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on temperature and pain perception

Transcranial direct current stimulation modifies cortical excitability and in consequence some cerebral functions. In the present study we aimed to elucidate whether tDCS could affect temperature and pain perceptions in healthy subjects testing different stimulation parameters. A total of 20 healthy subjects were studied by means of quantitative sensory testing. Two different experiments were performed. First, we studied the effects of 15 minutes 2 mA anodal transcranial direct current stimulation applied over left M1 and parietal cortex in two separated sessions. Then, we tested the effects of 5 minutes tDCS over M1 by means of a sham controlled design to optimize the possibility to study minimal effects of tDCS using different polarities (cathodal and anodal) and intensities (1 and 2 mA). 2 mA anodal tDCS, when applied for both 15 and 5 minutes over the motor cortex, increased cold perception threshold. Conversely, motor cortex cathodal tDCS modulated cold perception threshold only when 1 mA intensity was used. M1-tDCS can modify the temperature perception; these effects are polarity and intensity dependent. As stimulation intensity seems critical to determine the effects, we suggest that for clinical application strong anodal tDCS (>1 mA) or weak cathodal tDCS (<2 mA) should be used for pain control.

Corticospinal excitability as a biomarker of myofascial pain syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common chronic pain disorder that lacks effective diagnostic criteria. To better understand neurophysiological changes in chronic pain, several trials exploring corticospinal excitability in different populations of patients with chronic pain have been performed.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review, we aimed to investigate the current literature on MPS and intracortical disinhibition, by means of increased intracortical facilitation and decreased intracortical inhibition (ICI).

METHODS

We performed a search on PubMed to identify clinical trials on MPS and transcranial magnetic stimulation measurements. We then applied the Harford Hill criteria to the identified studies to assess the possible causal relationship between intracortical disinhibition measurements and MPS. Finally, we compared our findings on MPS with other chronic pain conditions.

RESULTS

Four studies assessing corticospinal excitability in patients with MPS were found. Although the amount of trials available is limited, all the reported studies indicated an increased intracortical disinhibition in patients with MPS. Importantly, these measurements were also correlated with psychological factors, such as pain catastrophism, or anxiety. However, based on the Harford Hill criteria, we could not assert a strong causal relationship between these markers and MPS. Although intracortical disinhibition has been consistently found in patients having MPS, this lack of cortical inhibition was not only observed in this specific chronic pain syndrome but also in fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain conditions.

CONCLUSION

Intracortical disinhibition seems to be a marker that has been consistently observed in MPS. Future prospective cohort studies could provide new insights in the development of neoplastic and maladaptive changes occurring in chronic pain syndromes and help the development of new therapeutic options.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system, including peripheral fibres (Aβ, Aδ and C fibres) and central neurons, and affects 7-10% of the general population. Multiple causes of neuropathic pain have been described and its incidence is likely to increase owing to the ageing global population, increased incidence of diabetes mellitus and improved survival from cancer after chemotherapy. Indeed, imbalances between excitatory and inhibitory somatosensory signalling, alterations in ion channels and variability in the way that pain messages are modulated in the central nervous system all have been implicated in neuropathic pain. The burden of chronic neuropathic pain seems to be related to the complexity of neuropathic symptoms, poor outcomes and difficult treatment decisions. Importantly, quality of life is impaired in patients with neuropathic pain owing to increased drug prescriptions and visits to health care providers, as well as the morbidity from the pain itself and the inciting disease. Despite challenges, progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is spurring the development of new diagnostic procedures and personalized interventions, which emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of neuropathic pain.

Surgical Neurostimulation for Spinal Cord Injury

Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating neurological condition characterized by a constellation of symptoms including paralysis, paraesthesia, pain, cardiovascular, bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction. Current treatment for SCI involves acute resuscitation, aggressive rehabilitation and symptomatic treatment for complications. Despite the progress in scientific understanding, regenerative therapies are lacking. In this review, we outline the current state and future potential of invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation strategies including deep brain stimulation (DBS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), transcutaneous direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the context of SCI. We consider the ability of these therapies to address pain, sensorimotor symptoms and autonomic dysregulation associated with SCI. In addition to the potential to make important contributions to SCI treatment, neuromodulation has the added ability to contribute to our understanding of spinal cord neurobiology and the pathophysiology of SCI.

Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents

Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques. Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions' magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models. Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS. Conclusion: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation, a Tool to Revert Maladaptive Plasticity in Neuropathic Pain

Neuromodulatory effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been extensively studied in chronic pain. A hypothetic mechanism of action would be to prevent or revert the ongoing maladaptive plasticity within the pain matrix. In this review, the authors discuss the mechanisms underlying the development of maladaptive plasticity in patients with chronic pain and the putative mechanisms of NIBS in modulating synaptic plasticity in neuropathic pain conditions.