A preliminary study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of refractory chronic pelvic pain

Inflammation, brain connectivity, and neuromodulation in post-traumatic headache

Post-traumatic headache (PTH) is a debilitating condition that affects individuals with different levels of traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity. The difficulties in developing an effective treatment are related to a lack of understanding the complicated mechanisms and neurobiological changes in brain function after a brain injury. Preclinical studies have indicated that peripheral and central sensitization of the trigeminal nociceptive pathways contributes to PTH. While recent brain imaging studies have uncovered widespread changes in brain functional connectivity following trauma, understanding exactly how these networks contribute to PTH after injury remains unknown. Stimulation of peripheral (trigeminal or vagus) nerves show promising efficacies in PTH experimental animals, likely mediated by influencing TBI-induced pathological plasticity by decreasing neuroinflammation and neuronal apoptosis. Non-invasive brain stimulations, such as transcranial magnetic or direct current stimulations, show analgesia for multiple chronic pain conditions, including PTH. Better mechanistic understanding of analgesia achieved by neuromodulations can define peripheral and central mechanisms involved in the development, the resolution, and the management of PTH.

Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have demonstrated their potential for chronic pain management, yet their efficacy exhibits variability across studies. Refining stimulation targets and exploring additional targets offer a possible solution to this challenge. This study aimed to identify potential brain surface targets for NIBS in treating chronic pain disorders by integrating literature review, neuroimaging meta-analysis, and functional connectivity analysis on 90 chronic low back pain patients. Our results showed that the primary motor cortex (M1) (C3/C4, 10-20 EEG system) and prefrontal cortex (F3/F4/Fz) were the most used brain stimulation targets for chronic pain treatment according to the literature review. The bilateral precentral gyrus (M1), supplementary motor area, Rolandic operculum, and temporoparietal junction, were all identified as common potential NIBS targets through both a meta-analysis sourced from Neurosynth and functional connectivity analysis. This study presents a comprehensive summary of the current literature and refines the existing NIBS targets through a combination of imaging meta-analysis and functional connectivity analysis for chronic pain conditions. The derived coordinates (with integration of the international electroencephalography (EEG) 10/20 electrode placement system) within the above brain regions may further facilitate the localization of these targets for NIBS application. Our findings may have the potential to expand NIBS target selection beyond current clinical trials and improve chronic pain treatment.

Noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of functional urological and pelvic floor disorders: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Functional pelvic floor disorders (PFD) such as bowel and bladder dysfunctions can be challenging to manage with our current therapeutic modalities. Recently, noninvasive brain stimulation has emerged as a novel strategy for noninvasive pelvic floor management. Here, we assessed the current state of research on this topic.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted with Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase, in conjunction with clinicaltrials.gov, encompassing all manuscripts published without past time limit up until June 30, 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 880 abstracts identified in a blind selection by two reviewers, 14 publications with an evidence level of 1 or 2 (Oxford scale) were eligible and included in this review. Review articles, case reports (<5 patients), letters, and protocol studies were excluded. PFDs were described as either pelvic pain or lower urinary tracts symptoms (LUTS) with repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as the most common treatment modality. Despite heterogeneous therapeutic protocols, significant improvements were observed such as reduction in postvoid residual of urine, increased bladder capacity, improved voiding flow paraments, and decreased chronic pelvic, and bladder pain. No appreciable adverse effects were noted. However, low sample populations allowed only provisional conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive transcranial neurostimulation for LUTS and pelvic pain is emerging as an effective tool for clinicians to utilize in the future. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the full significance of the indicated outcomes.

Self-administered transcranial direct current stimulation treatment of knee osteoarthritis alters pain-related fNIRS connectivity networks

Significance

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease that causes chronic pain in the elderly population. Currently, OA is mainly treated pharmacologically with analgesics, although research has shown that neuromodulation via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be beneficial in reducing pain in clinical settings. However, no studies have reported the effects of home-based self-administered tDCS on functional brain networks in older adults with knee OA.

Aim

We used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to investigate the functional connectivity effects of tDCS on underlying pain processing mechanisms at the central nervous level in older adults with knee OA.

Approach

Pain-related brain connectivity networks were extracted using fNIRS at baseline and for three consecutive weeks of treatment from 120 subjects randomly assigned to two groups undergoing active tDCS and sham tDCS.

Results

Our results showed that the tDCS intervention significantly modulated pain-related connectivity correlation only in the group receiving active treatment. We also found that only the active treatment group showed a significantly reduced number and strength of functional connections evoked during nociception in the prefrontal cortex, primary motor (M1), and primary somatosensory (S1) cortices. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the effect of tDCS on pain-related connectivity networks is investigated using fNIRS.

Conclusions

fNIRS-based functional connectivity can be effectively used to investigate neural circuits of pain at the cortical level in association with nonpharmacological, self-administered tDCS treatment.

Development of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Treatment Success with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

The study’s objective was to develop a clinical prediction rule that predicts a clinically significant analgesic effect on chronic knee osteoarthritis pain after transcranial direct current stimulation treatment. This is a secondary analysis from a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Data from 51 individuals with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain and an impaired descending pain inhibitory system were used. The intervention comprised a 15-session protocol of anodal primary motor cortex transcranial direct current stimulation. Treatment success was defined by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale. Accuracy statistics were calculated for each potential predictor and for the final model. The final logistic regression model was statistically significant (p < 0.01) and comprised five physical and psychosocial predictor variables that together yielded a positive likelihood ratio of 14.40 (95% CI: 3.66−56.69) and an 85% (95%CI: 60−96%) post-test probability of success. This is the first clinical prediction rule proposed for transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic pain. The model underscores the importance of both physical and psychosocial factors as predictors of the analgesic response to transcranial direct current stimulation treatment. Validation of the proposed clinical prediction rule should be performed in other datasets.

Ten sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation for chronic chikungunya arthralgia: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The chikungunya virus infection is still an epidemic in Brazil with an incidence of 59.4 cases per 100 000 in the Northeast region. More than 60% of the patients present relapsing and remitting chronic arthralgia with debilitating pain lasting for years. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) appears promising as a novel neuromodulation approach for pain-related networks to alleviate pain in several pain syndromes. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS (C3/Fp2 montage) on pain, muscle strength, functionality and quality of life in chronic arthralgia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol is a single-centre, parallel-design, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Forty participants will be randomised to either an active or sham tDCS. A total of 10 sessions will be administered over 2 weeks (one per weekday) using a monophasic continuous current with an intensity of 2 mA for 20 min. Participants will be evaluated at baseline, after the 10th session, 2 weeks and 4 weeks after intervention.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pain assessed using numeric rating scale and algometry.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

muscle strength, functionality and quality of life. The effects of stimulation will be calculated using a mixed analysis of variance model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairí, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (No. 2.413.851) and registered on the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials. Study results will be disseminated through presentations at conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

RBR-469yd6.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Pain Management in End-Stage Renal Disease - Report of an Early Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Chronic pain in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is an increasingly neglected clinical problem affecting more than 60% of patients. Long-term chronic pain could be associated with brain imbalance in circuits of pain matrix and is associated with poor quality of life (QoL) and mood disturbance.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was evaluating the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on pain, QoL, depression, anxiety and affectivity in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial included 30 patients with chronic pain undergoing HD. Participants were allocated to Active tDCS and Sham tDCS and received ten non-consecutive sessions of anodal motor cortex stimulation (M1/Sp2 montage) at 2 mA intensity for 20 min. The primary outcome was pain assessed using numeric rating scale (NRS) and collected at baseline, immediately after the 10th day of intervention, one week, two weeks, and four weeks after the last stimulation. Secondary outcomes included QoL, depression, anxiety and affectivity collected before and after intervention.

RESULTS

A mixed ANOVA model showed significant interaction between group and time on pain F(4.112) = 3.106, P = 0.01 with main effects of group (P = 0.03). Before and after intervention, a significant improvement was observed in QoL (P = 0.009), general health (P = 0.03), fatigue (P = 0.05), symptoms (P = 0.05) depression (P = 0.01) and anxiety (P = 0.01). No difference was found for affectivity.

CONCLUSION

Anodal tDCS over the motor cortex emerges as a potential therapeutic approach for improving pain, QoL, and mood in patients with ESRD.

Whole Brain Hemodynamic Response Based on Synchrony Analysis of Brain Signals for Effective Application of HD-tDCS in Stroke Patients: An fNIRS Study

In this study, the effective application of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) based on the whole brain hemodynamic response in stroke patients was investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The intrahemispheric and interhemispheric synchronization and cortical activity based on the time during 1 mA HD-tDCS were examined in 26 chronic cerebrovascular disease patients. At the beginning of HD-tDCS, the synchronization and brain activity in the whole brain increased rapidly and decreased after 5 min. In the middle of tDCS, the synchronization began to increase again, and strong synchronic connections were formed around the desired stimulation area. After tDCS, strong cortical activation was observed in the stimulation area, indicating that the baseline of the oxyhemoglobin (HbO) signal increased in the desired stimulation area. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that HD-tDCS can be applied efficiently to enhance the effect of tDCS. This stimulation method with tDCS can be explored clinically for more neurorehabilitation of patients with degenerative brain diseases.

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.

The effect of transcranial direct stimulation as an add-on treatment to conventional physical therapy on pain intensity and functional ability in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of adding transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to conventional physiotherapy treatment (PT) on pain and performance of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

METHODS

Eighty people suffering from chronic KOA participated in this study. They were randomly divided into four treatment groups, including PT combined with tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1), PT combined with tDCS over the primary sensory cortex (S1), PT combined with tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and PT combined with sham tDCS. A visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire for knee-related disability, and several performance tests (stepping 15 s, chair stand test in 30 s, and walking 4 × 10 m) were used for assessment following 10 sessions of tDCS (T1), and one month after the last session of tDCS (T2).

RESULTS

Differential effects on pain intensity, knee-related disability, and performance were found between groups. Compared to sham tDCS: (i) tDCS over M1 improved VAS pain score, KOOS disability score, and performance tests at T1 and T2; (ii) tDCS over S1 improved VAS pain score at T1 and T2 and KOOS disability score and performance tests at T2; (iii) tDCS over the DLPFC improved VAS pain score at T1 and performance tests at T1 and T2.

CONCLUSION

tDCS could be a beneficial add-on treatment to conventional PT for pain relief, disability reduction and functional improvement in patients with KOA.

Magnetic resonance imaging for chronic pain: diagnosis, manipulation, and biomarkers

Pain is a multidimensional subjective experience with biological, psychological, and social factors. Whereas acute pain can be a warning signal for the body to avoid excessive injury, long-term and ongoing pain may be developed as chronic pain. There are more than 100 million people in China living with chronic pain, which has raised a huge socioeconomic burden. Studying the mechanisms of pain and developing effective analgesia approaches are important for basic and clinical research. Recently, with the development of brain imaging and data analytical approaches, the neural mechanisms of chronic pain have been widely studied. In the first part of this review, we briefly introduced the magnetic resonance imaging and conventional analytical approaches for brain imaging data. Then, we reviewed brain alterations caused by several chronic pain disorders, including localized and widespread primary pain, primary headaches and orofacial pain, musculoskeletal pain, and neuropathic pain, and present meta-analytical results to show brain regions associated with the pathophysiology of chronic pain. Next, we reviewed brain changes induced by pain interventions, such as pharmacotherapy, neuromodulation, and acupuncture. Lastly, we reviewed emerging studies that combined advanced machine learning and neuroimaging techniques to identify diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in chronic pain patients.

Systematic review of combined functional near-infrared spectroscopy and transcranial direct-current stimulation studies

Significance: Combining transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a recent approach to exploring brain activation evoked by neurostimulation. Aim: To critically evaluate studies combining tDCS and fNIRS and provide a consolidated overview of cortical hemodynamic responses to neurostimulation. Approach: Key terms were searched in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) with cross-referencing and works from Google Scholar also evaluated. All studies reporting on fNIRS-derived hemoglobin changes evoked by tDCS were included. Results: Literature searches revealed 474 articles, of which 28 were included for final review (22 in healthy individuals: 9 involving rest and 13 with tasks; 6 in the clinical setting). At rest, an overall increase in cortical activation was observed in fNIRS responses at the site of stimulation, with evidence suggesting nonstimulated brain regions are also similarly affected. Conversely, during tasks, reduced cortical activation was observed during online stimulation. Offline and poststimulation effects were less consistent, as is the impact on clinical populations and their symptom correlation. Conclusion: This review explores the methodological frameworks for fNIRS-tDCS evaluations and summarizes hemodynamic responses associated with tDCS in all populations. Our findings provide further evidence of the impact of tDCS on neuronal activation within functionally connected networks.

The Impact of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Upper-Limb Motor Performance in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has previously been reported to improve facets of upper limb motor performance such as accuracy and strength. However, the magnitude of motor performance improvement has not been reviewed by contemporaneous systematic review or meta-analysis of sham vs. active tDCS.

Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyse the existing evidence regarding the benefits of tDCS on upper limb motor performance in healthy adults.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted to obtain relevant articles from three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) yielding 3,200 abstracts. Following independent assessment by two reviewers, a total of 86 articles were included for review, of which 37 were deemed suitable for meta-analysis.

Results: Meta-analyses were performed for four outcome measures, namely: reaction time (RT), execution time (ET), time to task failure (TTF), and force. Further qualitative review was performed for accuracy and error. Statistically significant improvements in RT (effect size −0.01; 95% CI −0.02 to 0.001, p = 0.03) and ET (effect size −0.03; 95% CI −0.05 to −0.01, p = 0.017) were demonstrated compared to sham. In exercise tasks, increased force (effect size 0.10; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.13, p < 0.001) and a trend towards improved TTF was also observed.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides evidence attesting to the impact of tDCS on upper limb motor performance in healthy adults. Improved performance is demonstrable in reaction time, task completion time, elbow flexion tasks and accuracy. Considerable heterogeneity exists amongst the literature, further confirming the need for a standardised approach to reporting tDCS studies.

Optimised transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for fibromyalgia-targeting the endogenous pain control system: a randomised, double-blind, factorial clinical trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common debilitating condition with limited therapeutic options. Medications have low efficacy and are often associated with adverse effects. Given that FM is associated with a defective endogenous pain control system and central sensitisation, combining interventions such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and aerobic exercise (AE) to modulate pain-processing circuits may enhance pain control.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective, randomised (1:1:1:1), placebo-controlled, double-blind, factorial clinical trial will test the hypothesis that optimised tDCS (16 anodal tDCS sessions combined with AE) can restore of the pain endogenous control system. Participants with FM (n=148) will undergo a conditioning exercise period and be randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) active tDCS and AE, (2) sham tDCS and AE, (3) active tDCS and non-aerobic exercise (nAE) or (4) sham tDCS and nAE. Pain inhibitory activity will be assessed using conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal slow pain summation (TSPS)-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include the following assessments: Transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography as cortical markers of pain inhibitory control and thalamocortical circuits; secondary clinical outcomes on pain, FM, quality of life, sleep and depression. Finally, the relationship between the two main mechanistic targets in this study-CPM and TSPS-and changes in secondary clinical outcomes will be tested. The change in the primary efficacy endpoint, CPM and TSPS, from baseline to week 4 of stimulation will be tested with a mixed linear model and adjusted for important demographic variables.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study obeys the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Partners Healthcare under the protocol number 2017P002524. Informed consent will be obtained from participants. Study findings will be reported in conferences and peer-reviewed journal publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03371225.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Treatment of Primary Dysmenorrhea: Preliminary Results of a Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial

Objective

The aim of this trial was to investigate the effects of five consecutive sessions of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the motor cortex (M1) on pain, mood, and physical performance in patients with primary dysmenorrhea (PDM).

Design

This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Subjects

Twenty-two participants with PDM according to the No. 345-PDM Consensus Guideline were included.

Methods

Eleven active treatment and 11 sham stimulation patients received five applications over a one-week period. The primary outcome measures were pain evaluated by numeric rating scale (NRS) and McGill Questionnaire score. Secondary outcomes measures were responses to the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), grip strength, and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Baseline data were performed during the first menstrual cycle, and during the second menstrual cycle, participants were conducted to tDCS treatment, and postintervention data were collected.

Results

The intervention provided significant improvements on NRS in active tDCS, shown as an interaction between group intervention vs pre/postintervention vs days of menstrual cycle (Wald x2 = 10.54, P = 0.005), main effect of days of menstrual cycle (Wald x2 = 25.42, P &lt; 0.001), and pre/postintervention (Wald x2 = 6.97, P = 0.008). McGill showed an interaction effect between pre/postintervention and group of stimulation (Wald x2 = 18.45, P = 0.001), with a large reduction in active tDCS (P &lt; 0.001, d = 0.75). Psychological and functional outcomes did not differ between groups or pre/postintervention.

Conclusions

tDCS could provide pain relief in subjects with PDM. These results provide some preliminary evidence for the potential role of tDCS as a contributor to the management of symptoms of PDM.

Reduction of intra-abdominal pain through transcranial direct current stimulation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique to modulate cortical excitability and to induce neuronal plasticity. With a wide range of applications in neurological and psychiatric disorders, the efficiency of tDCS is also studied in the treatment of various pain conditions. Treatment with tDCS might accordingly provide pain relief for patients with acute or chronic pain and thus lead to an increase in quality of life. Moreover, applied as an adjunct therapy, tDCS can reduce help to reduce pain medication intake and accompanying adverse events. To this end, this review examines studies evaluating the efficacy of tDCS in pain relief in patients with intra-abdominal pain.

METHODS

A structured search of the PubMed medical database was carried out to identify possibly relevant studies. Studies were compared in terms of treatment characteristics, general conditions, and results. Jadad scale was applied for quality analyses.

RESULTS

Out of 289 articles that were found initially, 6 studies were identified that met eligibility criteria. Five out of 6 studies reported significant effects for pain reduction in different types of intra-abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that tDCS might be able to reduce intra-abdominal pain. However, more randomized-controlled trials with larger sample size are necessary to define clinically relevant effects as well as treatment characteristics such as duration of stimulation.

[Interest of transcranial stimulation in pelvic and perineal disorders]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to describe the diagnostic and therapeutic value of transcranial stimulation in pelvic and perineal disorders.

METHODS

A literature review (Medline database and Google scholar) with no time limit was performed using keywords: "transcranial direct stimulation", "transcranial magnetic stimulation", "neurogenic bladder", "urinary incontinence", "Parkinson disease", "multiple sclerosis", "stroke", "muscle spasticity", "pelvic pain", "visceral pain".

RESULTS

Twelve articles have been selected. Transcranial magnetic or electrical stimulation is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique widely used to establish brain maps to highlight causal relationships between brain and function. Regarding pelvic-perineal disorders, repeated transcranial stimulation has shown significant effects for the treatment of overactive bladder in Parkinson's disease (P<0.05) and multiple sclerosis, but also for the treatment of refractory chronic pelvic pain (P=0.026). Finally, therapeutic effects have also been demonstrated in irritable bowel syndrome. No evidence of efficacy was found on genito-sexual disorders.

CONCLUSION

Data from the literature suggest that transcranial stimulation is a noninvasive treatment that may have a role in the management of pelvic and perineal disorders. Its promising field of action would require prospective and randomized studies on a larger scale.

The Impact of Female Chronic Pelvic Pain Questionnaire (IF-CPPQ): A Validation Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and factor structure of the Impact of Female Chronic Pelvic Pain Questionnaire (IF-CPPQ).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional questionnaire study that was administered online. To be eligible to participate, women had to have experienced chronic pelvic pain for a minimum of 6 months and be at least 18 years of age. A total of 969 women (mean age: 35.4 y, SD=12.0) took part. The main outcome measure was the IF-CPPQ. Additional validated measures that assessed related constructs were also administered. Principal axis factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure of the IF-CPPQ. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach α. Convergent and discriminant validity was assessed using Pearson correlations between factor scores on the IF-CPPQ and measures of related constructs. The consistency and model fit of the resulting factor structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis.

RESULTS

The final 26-item questionnaire comprised 5 factors (Psychological Impact, Sexual Impact, Relationship Impact, Occupational Impact, and Emotional Impact). Findings suggested good convergent and discriminant validity and internal consistency.

DISCUSSION

The findings indicate that the IF-CPPQ is a reliable and valid measure of the impact of chronic pelvic pain on women. While the IF-CPPQ has the potential for multiple uses within research and clinical practice, further research is needed to determine the questionnaire's ability to detect clinically meaningful changes with treatment.

Patient-delivered tDCS on chronic neuropathic pain in prior responders to TMS (a randomized controlled pilot study)

Background

Successful response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex requires continued maintenance treatments. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) may provide a more convenient alternative.

Methods

This pilot study aimed to examine the feasibility of a randomized, double-blind, double-crossover pilot study for patients to self-administer tDCS motor cortex stimulation for 20 minutes/day over five consecutive days. Primary outcomes were as follows: usability of patient-administered tDCS, compliance with device, recruitment, and retention rates. Secondary outcomes were as follows: effect on overall pain levels and quality of life via Short Form-36 anxiety and depression via Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Mini-Mental State scores.

Results

A total of 24 subjects with neuropathic pain, who had previously experienced rTMS motor cortex stimulation (13 with reduction in pain scores, 11 nonresponders) were recruited at the Pain Research Institute, Fazakerley, UK. A total of 21 subjects completed the study. Recruitment rate was 100% but retention rate was only 87.5%. All patients reported satisfactory usability of the tDCS device. No significant difference was shown between Sham vs Anodal (−0.16, 95% CI: −0.43 to 0.11) P=0.43, Sham vs Cathodal (0.11, 95% CI: −0.16 to 0.37) P=0.94, or Cathodal vs Anodal (−0.27, 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.00) P=0.053 treatments. Furthermore, no significant changes were demonstrated in anxiety, depression, or quality of life measurements. The data collected to estimate sample size for a definitive study suggested that the study’s sample size was already large enough to detect a change of 15% in pain levels at 90% power for the overall group of 21 patients.

Conclusion

This study did not show a beneficial effect of tDCS in this group of patients and does not support the need for a larger definitive study using the same experimental paradigm.

Trial registration

ISRCTN56839387

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.

Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Device Development: An Updated Protocol Used at Home in Healthy Subjects and Fibromyalgia Patients

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) method, which modulates the membrane potential of neurons in the cerebral cortex by a low-intensity direct current. tDCS is a low-cost technique with minimal adverse effects and easy application. This neurostimulation method has a promising future to improve pain therapy, treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, and physical rehabilitation.

Current studies demonstrate the benefits of using tDCS over consecutive multiple sessions. However, the daily displacement to the specialized centers, travel costs, and disruptions to daily activities are some of the difficulties faced by patients. Thus, to be more comfortable, easy-to-use, and not disrupt daily commitments, a home-based tDCS was designed. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a portable tDCS device for home use in healthy subjects and fibromyalgia patients.

Despite increased tDCS use and a reasonably large body of research on the effects across a range of clinical conditions, there is a limited amount of research on developing secure devices that guarantee the dose and contain a block system to avoid excessive use. Therefore, we used a tDCS device with a security system to permit daily use for 20 minutes with a minimal interval of 12 hours between sessions. A programmer preconfigures the equipment, which has a neoprene cap that allows the electrode positions in any assembly, according to individualized protocols for treatments or research. After, researchers can assess the effectiveness of treatment, and its adherence using information kept in the device software.

Results suggest that the device is feasible for home use, with proper monitoring of adherence and contact impedance. There were reports of a few adverse effects, which do not differ from those reported in the literature in studies with the treatment under direct supervision.

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with group exercise treatment in subjects with chronic low back pain: a pilot randomized control trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in addition to group exercise on non-specific chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Double-blinded randomized control trial.

SUBJECTS

Patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 35 subjects were recruited and allocated to real- or sham-tDCS followed by a group exercise protocol. Each patient underwent five sessions of brain stimulation followed by 10 sessions of group exercise. Subjects were evaluated before and after tDCS, after group exercise and one month after the combined treatment. Outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale for pain intensity, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, EuroQuol-5 Dimension and Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

RESULTS

Significant between-group difference in pain intensity (-27.7 ± 30.4 mm in real-tDCS group compared to -2.2 ± 30.1 mm in sham-tDCS group) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (-4.9 ± 4.2 in real-tDCS group compared to -1.1 ± 2.7 in sham-tDCS group) was found one month after the combined treatment ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that real-tDCS can induce significant larger effects on pain and psychological well-being, compared to sham-tDCS, when it is associated with a group exercise program. The effects were observed mostly in the follow-up.

The role of nonpharmacologic therapies in management of chronic pelvic pain: what to do when surgery fails

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on nonsurgical and nonpharmacologic strategies for the management of chronic pelvic pain (CPP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Effective treatment of patients with CPP requires a multifaceted approach, with thoughtful consideration of surgical, pharmacologic, and nonpharmacologic strategies. Evidence for physical therapy and trigger point injections for treatment of myofascial components of CPP is increasing. Neuromodulation techniques, such as percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous electrical stimulation, have limited but favorable preliminary data in patients with CPP. Behavioral strategies, such as exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mindfulness, have demonstrated significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life in patients with a variety of chronic pain conditions and are promising avenues for future research in CPP.

SUMMARY

Nonpharmacologic therapies are important adjuncts to surgical and pharmacologic treatment for CPP and should be considered integral to a comprehensive treatment approach.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Mapping the changed hubs and corresponding functional connectivity in idiopathic restless legs syndrome

OBJECTIVE

The hubs of the brain network play a key role in integrating and transferring information between different functional modules. However, whether the changed pattern in functional network hubs contributes to the onset of leg discomfort symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients remains unclear. Using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) and graph theory methods, we investigated whether alterations of hubs can be detected in RLS.

METHODS

First, we constructed the whole-brain voxelwise functional connectivity and calculated a functional connectivity strength (FCS) map in each of 16 drug-naive idiopathic RLS patients and 26 gender- and age-matched healthy control (HC) subjects. Next, a two-sample t test was applied to compare the FCS maps between HC and RLS patients, and to identify significant changes in FCS in RLS patients. To further elucidate the corresponding changes in the functional connectivity patterns of the aberrant hubs in RLS patients, whole-brain resting-state functional connectivity analyses for the hub areas were performed.

RESULTS

The hub analysis revealed decreased FCS in the cuneus, fusiform gyrus, paracentral lobe, and precuneus, and increased FCS in the superior frontal gyrus and thalamus in idiopathic drug-naive RLS patients. Subsequent functional connectivity analyses revealed decreased functional connectivity in sensorimotor and visual processing networks and increased functional connectivity in the affective cognitive network and cerebellar-thalamic circuit. Furthermore, the mean FCS value in the superior frontal gyrus was significantly correlated with Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores in RLS patients, and the mean FCS value in the fusiform gyrus was significantly correlated with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings may provide novel insight into the pathophysiology of RLS.

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.

Safety of repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are increasingly used for therapeutic applications. However, adverse events (AEs) associated with repeated sessions have not been comprehensively evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the safety of repeated sessions of tDCS, examining AE risk relative to tDCS exposure. Further, to identify whether certain participant populations are particularly at risk from tDCS.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis included sham-controlled studies (up to June 2017) involving two or more tDCS sessions, spaced not more than a day apart. Data was extracted on AEs reported, total tDCS exposure (cumulative charge), and diagnostic groups (Healthy, Pain Disorder, Stroke, Neurocognitive Disorder, Neuropsychiatric Disorder, and Other). Univariate simple linear meta-regression analyses examined AE likelihood, comparing active and sham tDCS, with increasing exposure. Rates of AEs were compared for diagnostic groups.

RESULTS

158 studies (total 4130 participants) met inclusion criteria and were included for quantitative analyses. The incidence of AEs (examined per session, by proportion of participants, and by the number of studies reporting AEs) did not increase with higher levels of tDCS exposure. Furthermore, AE rates were not found to be greater for any diagnostic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Little evidence was found to suggest that repeated sessions of active tDCS pose increased risk to participants compared to sham tDCS within the limits of parameters used to date. Increased risks associated with greater levels of exposure to tDCS, or rare and under-reported AEs, however, cannot be ruled out.

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.

Addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to quadriceps strengthening exercise in knee osteoarthritis: A pilot randomised controlled trial

A randomised, assessor- and participant-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of adding transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to quadriceps strengthening exercise in knee osteoarthritis (OA), and provide data to inform a fully powered trial. Participants were randomised to receive active tDCS+exercise (AT+EX) or sham tDCS+exercise (ST+EX) twice weekly for 8 weeks whilst completing home exercises twice per week. Feasibility, safety, patient-perceived response, pain, function, pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) were assessed before and after treatment. Fifty-seven people were screened for eligibility. Thirty (52%) entered randomisation and 25 (84%) completed the trial. One episode of headache in the AT+EX group was reported. Pain reduced in both groups following treatment (AT+EX: p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.55; ST+EX: p = 0.026, partial η2 = 0.18) but no between-group differences were observed (p = 0.18, partial η2 = 0.08). Function improved in the AT+EX (p = 0.01, partial η2 = 0.22), but not the ST+EX (p = 0.16, partial η2 = 0.08) group, between-group differences did not reach significance (p = 0.28, partial η2 = 0.052). AT+EX produced greater improvements in PPTs than ST+EX (p<0.05) (superolateral knee: partial η2 = 0.17; superior knee: partial η2 = 0.3; superomedial knee: partial η2 = 0.26). CPM only improved in the AT+EX group but no between-group difference was observed (p = 0.054, partial η2 = 0.158). This study provides the first feasibility and safety data for the addition of tDCS to quadriceps strengthening exercise in knee OA. Our data suggest AT+EX may improve pain, function and pain mechanisms beyond that of ST+EX, and provides support for progression to a fully powered randomised controlled trial.

Non-invasive stimulation techniques to relieve abdominal/pelvic pain: Is more always better?

Chronic abdominal and pelvic pain is a common condition that has significant impact on quality of life, and causes billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs. Emerging data suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), alone or in combination with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), could be a promising therapeutic avenue to reduce chronic pain. The encouraging results coming from these studies prompted us to try combining TENS and tDCS in 4 of our patients who suffered from chronic abdominal/pelvic pain and to compare the effect with 5 other patients who received TENS alone. Pain intensity was assessed with a visual analog scale before, during and after the stimulation. We observed that there was a slight decrease in pain which was similar in both patient groups (TENS alone and TENS combined with tDCS). These observations suggest that combining TENS and tDCS in patients suffering from chronic pelvic and/or abdominal pain produces no additional benefit, compared to TENS alone. Future studies, looking at the effect of several/consecutive TENS and tDCS sessions should be conducted.

Treating low back pain with combined cerebral and peripheral electrical stimulation: A randomized, double-blind, factorial clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that chronic low back pain is associated with plastic changes in the brain that can be modified by neuromodulation strategies. This study investigated the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined simultaneously with peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) for pain relief, disability and global perception in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

Ninety-two patients with CLBP were randomized to receive 12 sessions on nonconsecutive days of anodal tDCS (primary motor cortex, M1), 100 Hz sensory PES (lumbar spine), tDCS + PES or sham tDCS + PES. Pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale), disability and global perception were applied before treatment and four weeks, three months and six months post randomization.

RESULTS

A two points reduction was achieved only by the tDCS + PES (mean reduction [MR] = -2.6, CI95% = -4.4 to -0.9) and PES alone (MR = -2.2, CI95% = -3.9 to -0.4) compared with the sham group, but not of tDCS alone (MR = -1.7, CI95% = -3.4 to -0.0). In addition to maintaining the analgesic effect for up to three months, tDCS + PES had a higher proportion of respondents in different cutoff points. Global perception was improved at four weeks and maintained three months after treatment only with tDCS + PES. None of the treatments improved disability and the affective aspect of pain consistently with pain reduction.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that tDCS + PES and PES alone are effective in relieving CLBP in the short term. However, only tDCS + PES induced a long-lasting analgesic effect. tDCS alone showed no clinical meaningful pain relief.

SIGNIFICANCE

Transcranial direct current stimulation combined simultaneously with PES leads to a significant and clinical pain relief that can last up to three months in chronic low back pain patients. For this article, a commentary is available at the Wiley Online Library.

Neural signature of tDCS, tPCS and their combination: Comparing the effects on neural plasticity

Transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are two noninvasive neuromodulatory brain stimulation techniques whose effects on human brain and behavior have been studied individually. In the present study we aimed to quantify the effects of tDCS and tPCS, individually and in combination, on cortical activity, sensitivity and pain-related assessments in healthy individuals in order to understand their neurophysiological mechanisms and potential applications in clinical populations. A total of 48 healthy individuals participated in this randomized double blind sham controlled study. Participants were randomized to receive a single stimulation session of either: active or sham tPCS and active or sham tDCS. Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), sensitivity and pain assessments were used before and after each stimulation session. We observed that tPCS had a higher effect on power, as compared to tDCS, in several bandwidths on various cortical regions: the theta band in the parietal region (p=0.021), the alpha band in the temporal (p=0.009), parietal (p=0.0063), and occipital (p<0.0001) regions. We found that the combination of tPCS and tDCS significantly decreased power in the low beta bandwidth of the frontal (p=0.0006), central (p=0.0001), and occipital (p=0.0003) regions, when compared to sham stimulation. Additionally, tDCS significantly increased power in high beta over the temporal (p=0.0015) and parietal (p=0.0007) regions, as compared to sham. We found no effect on sensitivity or pain-related assessments. We concluded that tPCS and tDCS have different neurophysiological mechanisms, elicit distinct signatures, and that the combination of the two leads to no effect or a decrease on qEEG power. Further studies are required to examine the effects of these techniques on clinical populations in which EEG signatures have been found altered.

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.

Efficacy of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in women with provoked vestibulodynia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Provoked vestibulodynia is the most common form of vulvodynia. Despite its high prevalence and deleterious sexual, conjugal, and psychological repercussions, effective evidence-based interventions for provoked vestibulodynia remain limited. For a high proportion of women, significant pain persists despite the currently available treatments. Growing evidence suggests that the central nervous system (CNS) could play a key role in provoked vestibulodynia; thus, treatment targeting the CNS, rather than localized dysfunctions, may be beneficial for women suffering from provoked vestibulodynia. In this study, we aim to build on the promising results of a previous case report and evaluate whether transcranial direct-current stimulation, a non-invasive brain stimulation technique targeting the CNS, could be an effective treatment option for women with provoked vestibulodynia.

Methods/design

This single-center, triple-blind, parallel group, randomized, controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy of transcranial direct-current stimulation with sham transcranial direct-current stimulation in women with provoked vestibulodynia. Forty women diagnosed with provoked vestibulodynia by a gynecologist, following a standardized treatment protocol, are randomized to either active transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment for ten sessions of 20 minutes at an intensity of 2 mA or sham transcranial direct-current stimulation over a 2-week period. Outcome measures are collected at baseline, 2 weeks after treatment and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome is pain during intercourse, assessed with a numerical rating scale. Secondary measurements focus on the sexual function, vestibular pain sensitivity, psychological distress, treatment satisfaction, and the patient’s global impression of change.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized controlled trial to examine the efficacy of transcranial direct-current stimulation in women with provoked vestibulodynia. Findings from this trial are expected to provide significant information about a promising intervention targeting the centralization of pain in women with provoked vestibulodynia.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02543593. Registered on September 4, 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1366-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Neuroplastic Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Painful Symptoms Reduction in Chronic Hepatitis C: A Phase II Randomized, Double Blind, Sham Controlled Trial

Introduction: Pegylated Interferon Alpha (Peg-IFN) in combination with other drugs is the standard treatment for chronic hepatitis C infection (HCV) and is related to severe painful symptoms. The aim of this study was access the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in controlling the painful symptoms related to Peg-IFN side effects.

Materials and Methods: In this phase II double-blind trial, twenty eight (n = 28) HCV subjects were randomized to receive either 5 consecutive days of active tDCS (n = 14) or sham (n = 14) during 5 consecutive days with anodal stimulation over the primary motor cortex region using 2 mA for 20 min. The primary outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) pain and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) serum levels. Secondary outcomes were the pressure-pain threshold (PPT), the Brazilian Profile of Chronic Pain: Screen (B-PCP:S), and drug analgesics use.

Results: tDCS reduced the VAS scores (P < 0.003), with a mean pain drop of 56% (p < 0.001). Furthermore, tDCS was able to enhance BDNF levels (p < 0.01). The mean increase was 37.48% in the active group. Finally, tDCS raised PPT (p < 0.001) and reduced the B-PCP:S scores and analgesic use (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Five sessions of tDCS were effective in reducing the painful symptoms in HCV patients undergoing Peg-IFN treatment. These findings support the efficacy of tDCS as a promising therapeutic tool to improve the tolerance of the side effects related to the use of Peg-IFN. Future larger studies (phase III and IV trials) are needed to confirm the clinical use of the therapeutic effects of tDCS in such condition.

Trial registration: Brazilian Human Health Regulator for Research with the approval number CAAE 07802012.0.0000.5327.

State-of-art neuroanatomical target analysis of high-definition and conventional tDCS montages used for migraine and pain control

Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies promise to modulate cortical regions associated with pain, the electric current produced usually spreads beyond the area of the electrodes' placement. Using a forward-model analysis, this study compared the neuroanatomic location and strength of the predicted electric current peaks, at cortical and subcortical levels, induced by conventional and High-Definition-tDCS (HD-tDCS) montages developed for migraine and other chronic pain disorders. The electrodes were positioned in accordance with the 10-20 or 10-10 electroencephalogram (EEG) landmarks: motor cortex-supraorbital (M1-SO, anode and cathode over C3 and Fp2, respectively), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) bilateral (DLPFC, anode over F3, cathode over F4), vertex-occipital cortex (anode over Cz and cathode over Oz), HD-tDCS 4 × 1 (one anode on C3, and four cathodes over Cz, F3, T7, and P3) and HD-tDCS 2 × 2 (two anodes over C3/C5 and two cathodes over FC3/FC5). M1-SO produced a large current flow in the PFC. Peaks of current flow also occurred in deeper brain structures, such as the cingulate cortex, insula, thalamus and brainstem. The same structures received significant amount of current with Cz-Oz and DLPFC tDCS. However, there were differences in the current flow to outer cortical regions. The visual cortex, cingulate and thalamus received the majority of the current flow with the Cz-Oz, while the anterior parts of the superior and middle frontal gyri displayed an intense amount of current with DLPFC montage. HD-tDCS montages enhanced the focality, producing peaks of current in subcortical areas at negligible levels. This study provides novel information regarding the neuroanatomical distribution and strength of the electric current using several tDCS montages applied for migraine and pain control. Such information may help clinicians and researchers in deciding the most appropriate tDCS montage to treat each pain disorder.

The neurobiology of pain perception in normal and persistent pain

SUMMARY 

Pain is a significant national burden in terms of patient suffering, expenditure and lost productivity. Understanding pain is fundamental to improving evaluation, treatment and innovation in the management of acute and persistent pain syndromes. Pain perception begins in the periphery, and then ascends in several tracts, relaying at different levels. Pain signals arrive in the thalamus and midbrain structures which form the pain neuromatrix, a constantly shifting set of networks and connections that determine conscious perception. Several cortical regions become active simultaneously during pain perception; activity in the cortical pain matrix evolves over time to produce a complex pain perception network. Dysfunction at any level has the potential to produce unregulated, persistent pain.

Treatment of Female Sexual Pain Disorders: A Systematic Review

Sexual pain disorders affect women's sexual and reproductive health and are poorly understood. Although many treatments have been evaluated, there is no one "gold standard" treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate what treatments for female sexual pain have been evaluated in clinical studies and their effectiveness. The search strategy resulted in 65 papers included in this review. The articles were divided into the following categories: medical treatments; surgical treatments; physical therapies; psychological therapies; comparative treatment studies; and miscellaneous and combined treatments. Topical and systemic medical treatments have generally been found to lead to improvements in, but not complete relief of, pain, and side effects are quite common. Surgical procedures have demonstrated very high success rates, although there has been variability in complete relief of pain after surgery, which suggests less invasive treatments should be considered first. Physical therapies and psychological therapies have been shown to be promising treatments, supporting a biopsychosocial approach to sexual pain disorders. Although most of the interventions described have been reported as effective, many women still experience pain. A multidisciplinary team with active patient involvement may be needed to optimize treatment outcome.

Evaluation of a home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) treatment device for chronic pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) has been shown to reduce the pain of neuropathy in multiple studies. There are several methods of stimulation both invasive and non-invasive. Recent work by this laboratory has seen that 40% of a sample of chronic neuropathic pain patients responded positively to non-invasive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the motor cortex with a reduction in pain levels by at least 20%. The effect however is short lived and multiple return visits are necessary to maintain this response. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) offers a more mobile method of motor cortex stimulation and is similarly non-invasive. The protocol described is designed to assess the analgesic effect of a home-based tDCS treatment device on chronic neuropathic pain in both responders and non-responders to previous TMS treatment.

Methods/design

This article reports the protocol for a randomised, sham-controlled, double-blinded crossover study in which patients with chronic neuropathic pain (n = 24) will receive anodal, cathodal and sham tDCS over M1. All patients will have previously completed a study of rTMS of the motor cortex and have been designated as responders or non-responders to this modality.

Patients receive all three tDCS stimulation types by self-administration. We assess the effect on pain scores [numerical rating scale (NRS)], self reported health status (Short Form-36 Health Survey) and anxiety/depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). A linear mixed model with fixed effects will analyse changes in pain scores from pre- to post- interventions. Analysis will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. A proportion analysis will also be carried out with patients separated into either responders or non-responders to previous TMS.

Safety will be assessed throughout the study by monitoring of adverse events.

Discussion

The result of this trial will assess the efficacy of self-administered tDCS of the motor cortex in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and also provide insight into whether a potential differential effect is seen in patients that have previously been shown to be either responsive or non-responsive to rTMS over the same area.

Trial registration

ISRCTN56839387 date 27 January 2014. First patient randomised to trial 30 October 2012.

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation preceding cognitive behavioural management for chronic low back pain: sham controlled double blinded randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation alone and in combination with cognitive behavioural management in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

DESIGN

Double blind parallel group randomised controlled trial with six months' follow-up conducted May 2011-March 2013. Participants, physiotherapists, assessors, and analyses were blinded to group allocation.

SETTING

Interdisciplinary chronic pain centre.

PARTICIPANTS

135 participants with non-specific chronic low back pain >12 weeks were recruited from 225 patients assessed for eligibility.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomised to receive anodal (20 minutes to motor cortex at 2 mA) or sham transcranial direct current stimulation (identical electrode position, stimulator switched off after 30 seconds) for five consecutive days immediately before cognitive behavioural management (four week multidisciplinary programme of 80 hours).

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Two primary outcome measures of pain intensity (0-100 visual analogue scale) and disability (Oswestry disability index) were evaluated at two primary endpoints after stimulation and after cognitive behavioural management.

RESULTS

Analyses of covariance with baseline values (pain or disability) as covariates showed that transcranial direct current stimulation was ineffective for the reduction of pain (difference between groups on visual analogue scale 1 mm (99% confidence interval -8.69 mm to 6.3 mm; P=0.68)) and disability (difference between groups 1 point (-1.73 to 1.98; P=0.86)) and did not influence the outcome of cognitive behavioural management (difference between group 3 mm (-10.32 mm to 6.73 mm); P=0.58; difference between groups on Oswestry disability index 0 point (-2.45 to 2.62); P=0.92). The stimulation was well tolerated with minimal transitory side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This results of this trial on the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation for the reduction of pain and disability do not support its clinical use for managing non-specific chronic low back pain.Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN89874874.