Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: guidelines for pain treatment research

Effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with fibromyalgia: a meta-analysis

Even though repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been used for a decade for the treatment of fibromyalgia, evidence of its effectiveness has not been definitely presented. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is evidence of rTMS being effective in decreasing the severity of pain among patients with fibromyalgia. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and relevant references of the identified studies were searched. Randomized controlled studies on adults with fibromyalgia were included. The outcome studied was change in pain severity. Methodological quality was assessed using the scale introduced in the Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. A random-effects meta-analysis was carried out with a test for heterogeneity using the I and pooled estimate as a nonstandardized mean of difference in change in pain severity measures by a numeric rating scale. The search resulted in 791 records, eight relevant, and meta-analyses on seven trials. The risk of bias was considered low for seven studies. Pain severity before and after the last stimulation decreased by -1.2 points on 0-10 numeric rating scale (95% confidence interval: -1.7 to -0.8). Pain severity before and 1 week to 1 month after the last stimulation decreased by -0.7 points (95% confidence interval: -1.0 to -0.3). Both pooled results were below the minimal clinically important difference of 1.5 points. There is moderate evidence that rTMS is not more effective than sham in reducing the severity of pain in fibromyalgia patients, questioning the routine recommendation of this method for fibromyalgia treatment.

Transcranial Magnetic and Direct Current Stimulation in Children

Promising results in adult neurologic and psychiatric disorders are driving active research into transcranial brain stimulation techniques, particularly transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), in childhood and adolescent syndromes. TMS has realistic utility as an experimental tool tested in a range of pediatric neuropathologies such as perinatal stroke, depression, Tourette syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). tDCS has also been tested as a treatment for a number of pediatric neurologic conditions, including ASD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, epilepsy, and cerebral palsy. Here, we complement recent reviews with an update of published TMS and tDCS results in children, and discuss developmental neuroscience considerations that should inform pediatric transcranial stimulation.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.

Effect of high rate rTMS on somatosensory evoked potential in migraine

Background

Sensitization and impaired habituation of cortical neurons have been reported in migraineurs. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may change these phenomena and be the basis of therapeutic response. We report the effect of 10 Hz rTMS on sensitization and habituation of median somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) in migraineurs, and correlate these changes with clinical response.

Methods

Migraineurs having four or more episodes of headache per month were included and their clinical details were noted. Three sessions of 10 Hz rTMS, 600 pulses in 412.4 seconds were delivered on the left frontal cortex corresponding to the hot spot of right abductor digiti minimi, on alternate days. Median SEP was done before and 30 minutes after the third rTMS session. Sensitization (block I N20 amplitude) and impaired habituation (if N20 amplitude of block 2 or 3 were not suppressed compared to block I) were noted. The reduction in frequency and severity of headache in the next month were noted and correlated with SEP changes.

Results

Ninety-four migraineurs were included; 56 received true rTMS and 38 sham stimulation. Following stimulation, reduction in N20 amplitude of block 1 correlated with a reduction in frequency and severity of headache at one month. The impaired habituation significantly improved in the true rTMS group compared to sham stimulation, and correlated with a reduction in the severity of headache but not with frequency.

Conclusion

In migraineurs, 10 Hz rTMS improves habituation and may be the biological basis of headache relief.

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

The treatment of neuropathic pain by neuromodulation is an objective for more than 40 years in modern clinical practice. With respect to spinal cord and deep brain structures, the cerebral cortex is the most recently evaluated target of invasive neuromodulation therapy for pain. In the early 90s, the first successes of invasive epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) were published. A few years later was developed repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive stimulation technique. Then, electrical transcranial stimulation returned valid and is currently in full development, with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Regarding transcranial approaches, the main studied and validated target was still the motor cortex, but other cortical targets are under investigation. The mechanisms of action of these techniques share similarities, especially between EMCS and rTMS, but they also have differences that could justify specific indications and applications. It is therefore important to know the principles and to assess the merit of these techniques on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the results, to avoid fad. Various types of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes can be significantly relieved by EMCS or repeated daily sessions of high-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS or anodal tDCS over weeks, at least when pain is lateralized and stimulation is applied to the motor cortex contralateral to pain side. However, cortical stimulation therapy remains to be optimized, especially by improving EMCS electrode design, rTMS targeting, or tDCS montage, to reduce the rate of nonresponders, who do not experience clinically relevant effects of these techniques.

Effectiveness of repetitive trancranial or peripheral magnetic stimulation in neuropathic pain

PURPOSE

Maladaptive plasticity in the sensorimotor system, following neurological lesions or diseases, plays a central role in the generation and maintenance of neuropathic pain. Repetitive magnetic stimulation of the central and peripheral nervous system has gained relevance as noninvasive approach for neuromodulation and pain relief. Systematic reviews that evaluate the effectiveness and specificity of different protocols of repetitive magnetic stimulation to control neuropathic pain in clinical populations have the potential to improve the therapeutic applicability of this technique.

METHODS

Studies whose primary goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitive magnetic stimulation for the treatment of various types of neuropathic pain published in PubMed until August 2015 have been included in this systematic review.

RESULTS

A total of 39 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analyzed of which 37 studies investigated pain modulation using repetitive magnetic stimulation over the motor or non-motor cortices and two studies evaluated pain modulation using repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex using high frequency stimulation protocols can effectively reduce neuropathic pain, particularly in individuals with pain related to non-cerebral lesions. The application of multiple sessions can lead to long-lasting pain modulation and cumulative effects. Implications for Rehabilitation Maladaptive plasticity plays a central role in sensitization of nociceptive pathways, generation and maintainance of neuropathic pain; Most neuropathic pain conditions are refractory to pharmacological therapies; Repetitive magnetic stimulation of the central and peripheral nervous system has gained relevance as noninvasive approach for neuromodulation and pain relief.

Optimizing Rehabilitation for Phantom Limb Pain Using Mirror Therapy and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial Study Protocol

Background

Despite the multiple available pharmacological and behavioral therapies for the management of chronic phantom limb pain (PLP) in lower limb amputees, treatment for this condition is still a major challenge and the results are mixed. Given that PLP is associated with maladaptive brain plasticity, interventions that promote cortical reorganization such as non-invasive brain stimulation and behavioral methods including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and mirror therapy (MT), respectively, may prove to be beneficial to control pain in PLP. Due to its complementary effects, a combination of tDCS and MT may result in synergistic effects in PLP.

Objective

The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS and MT as a rehabilitative tool for the management of PLP in unilateral lower limb amputees.

Methods

A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, factorial, superiority clinical trial will be carried out. Participants will be eligible if they meet the following inclusion criteria: lower limb unilateral traumatic amputees that present PLP for at least 3 months after the amputated limb has completely healed. Participants (N=132) will be randomly allocated to the following groups: (1) active tDCS and active MT, (2) sham tDCS and active MT, (3) active tDCS and sham MT, and (4) sham tDCS and sham MT. tDCS will be applied with the anodal electrode placed over the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the amputation side and the cathode over the contralateral supraorbital area. Stimulation will be applied at the same time of the MT protocol with the parameters 2 mA for 20 minutes. Pain outcome assessments will be performed at baseline, before and after each intervention session, at the end of MT, and in 2 follow-up visits. In order to assess cortical reorganization and correlate with clinical outcomes, participants will undergo functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) before and after the intervention.

Results

This clinical trial received institutional review board (IRB) approval in July of 2015 and enrollment started in December of 2015. To date 2 participants have been enrolled. The estimate enrollment rate is about 30 to 35 patients per year; thus we expect to complete enrollment in 4 years.

Conclusions

This factorial design will provide relevant data to evaluate whether tDCS combined with MT is more effective than each therapy alone, as well as with no intervention (sham/sham) in patients with chronic PLP after unilateral lower limb amputation. In addition, this randomized clinical trial will help to investigate the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the disease, which could potentially provide relevant findings for further management of this chronic condition and also help to optimize the use of this novel intervention.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02487966; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02487966 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6i3GrKMyf)

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Pain Relief: Do Corollary Discharges Play a Role?

Both invasive and non-invasive motor cortex stimulation techniques have been successfully employed in the treatment of chronic pain, but the precise mechanism of action of such treatments is not fully understood. It has been hypothesized that a mismatch of normal interaction between motor intention and sensory feedback may result in central pain. Sensory feedback may come from peripheral nerves, vision and also from corollary discharges originating from the motor cortex itself. Therefore, a possible mechanism of action of motor cortex stimulation might be corollary discharge reinforcement, which could counterbalance sensory feedback deficiency. In other instances, primary deficiency in the production of corollary discharges by the motor cortex might be the culprit and stimulation of cortical motor areas might then be beneficial by enhancing production of such discharges. Here we review evidence for a possible role of motor cortex corollary discharges upon both the pathophysiology and the response to motor cortex stimulation of different types of chronic pain. We further suggest that the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPC), thought to constantly monitor incongruity between corollary discharges, vision and proprioception, might be an interesting target for non-invasive neuromodulation in cases of chronic neuropathic pain.

Potential Mechanisms Supporting the Value of Motor Cortex Stimulation to Treat Chronic Pain Syndromes

Throughout the first years of the twenty-first century, neurotechnologies such as motor cortex stimulation (MCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have attracted scientific attention and been considered as potential tools to centrally modulate chronic pain, especially for those conditions more difficult to manage and refractory to all types of available pharmacological therapies. Interestingly, although the role of the motor cortex in pain has not been fully clarified, it is one of the cortical areas most commonly targeted by invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation technologies. Recent studies have provided significant advances concerning the establishment of the clinical effectiveness of primary MCS to treat different chronic pain syndromes. Concurrently, the neuromechanisms related to each method of primary motor cortex (M1) modulation have been unveiled. In this respect, the most consistent scientific evidence originates from MCS studies, which indicate the activation of top-down controls driven by M1 stimulation. This concept has also been applied to explain M1-TMS mechanisms. Nevertheless, activation of remote areas in the brain, including cortical and subcortical structures, has been reported with both invasive and non-invasive methods and the participation of major neurotransmitters (e.g., glutamate, GABA, and serotonin) as well as the release of endogenous opioids has been demonstrated. In this critical review, the putative mechanisms underlying the use of MCS to provide relief from chronic migraine and other types of chronic pain are discussed. Emphasis is placed on the most recent scientific evidence obtained from chronic pain research studies involving MCS and non-invasive neuromodulation methods (e.g., tDCS and TMS), which are analyzed comparatively.

Pain Related Cortical Oscillations: Methodological Advances and Potential Applications

Alongside the time-locked event-related potentials (ERPs), nociceptive somatosensory inputs can induce modulations of ongoing oscillations, appeared as event-related synchronization or desynchronization (ERS/ERD) in different frequency bands. These ERD/ERS activities are suggested to reflect various aspects of pain perception, including the representation, encoding, assessment, and integration of the nociceptive sensory inputs, as well as behavioral responses to pain, even the precise details of their roles remain unclear. Previous studies investigating the functional relevance of ERD/ERS activities in pain perception were normally done by assessing their latencies, frequencies, magnitudes, and scalp distributions, which would be then correlated with subjective pain perception or stimulus intensity. Nevertheless, these temporal, spectral, and spatial profiles of stimulus induced ERD/ERS could only partly reveal the dynamics of brain oscillatory activities. Indeed, additional parameters, including but not limited to, phase, neural generator, and cross frequency couplings, should be paid attention to comprehensively and systemically evaluate the dynamics of oscillatory activities associated with pain perception and behavior. This would be crucial in exploring the psychophysiological mechanisms of neural oscillation, and in understanding the neural functions of cortical oscillations involved in pain perception and behavior. Notably, some chronic pain (e.g., neurogenic pain and complex regional pain syndrome) patients are often associated with the occurrence of abnormal synchronized oscillatory brain activities, and selectively modulating cortical oscillatory activities has been showed to be a potential therapy strategy to relieve pain with the application of neurostimulation techniques, e.g., repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). Thus, the investigation of the oscillatory activities proceeding from phenomenology to function, opens new perspectives to address questions in human pain psychophysiology and pathophysiology, thereby promoting the establishment of rational therapeutic strategy.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation in autism spectrum disorder: Challenges, promise, and roadmap for future research

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a behaviorally defined complex neurodevelopmental syndrome characterized by impairments in social communication, by the presence of restricted and repetitive behaviors, interests and activities, and by abnormalities in sensory reactivity. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a promising, emerging tool for the study and potential treatment of ASD. Recent studies suggest that TMS measures provide rapid and noninvasive pathophysiological ASD biomarkers. Furthermore, repetitive TMS (rTMS) may represent a novel treatment strategy for reducing some of the core and associated ASD symptoms. However, the available literature on the TMS use in ASD is preliminary, composed of studies with methodological limitations. Thus, off-label clinical rTMS use for therapeutic interventions in ASD without an investigational device exemption and outside of an IRB approved research trial is premature pending further, adequately powered and controlled trials. Leaders in this field have gathered annually for a two-day conference (prior to the 2014 and 2015 International Meeting for Autism Research, IMFAR) to share recent progress, promote collaboration across laboratories, and establish consensus on protocols. Here we review the literature in the use of TMS in ASD in the context of the unique challenges required for the study and exploration of treatment strategies in this population. We also suggest future directions for this field of investigations. While its true potential in ASD has yet to be delineated, TMS represents an innovative research tool and a novel, possibly transformative approach to the treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders.