The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with neuropathic pain from spinal cord injury

Treating neuropathic pain and comorbid affective disorders: Preclinical and clinical evidence

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain (NP) significantly impacts quality of life and often coexists with affective disorders such as anxiety and depression. Addressing both NP and its psychiatric manifestations requires a comprehensive understanding of therapeutic options. This study aimed to review the main pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for NP and comorbid affective disorders to describe their mechanisms of action and how they are commonly used in clinical practice.

METHODS

A review was conducted across five electronic databases, focusing on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for NP and its associated affective disorders. The following combination of MeSH and title/abstract keywords were used: "neuropathic pain," "affective disorders," "depression," "anxiety," "treatment," and "therapy." Both animal and human studies were included to discuss the underlying therapeutic mechanisms of these interventions.

RESULTS

Pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids, modulate neural synaptic transmission to alleviate NP. Topical agents, such as capsaicin, lidocaine patches, and botulinum toxin A, offer localized relief by desensitizing pain pathways. Some of these drugs, especially antidepressants, also treat comorbid affective disorders. Non-pharmacological techniques, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and photobiomodulation therapy, modulate cortical activity and have shown promise for NP and mood disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

The interconnection between NP and comorbid affective disorders necessitates holistic therapeutic strategies. Some pharmacological treatments can be used for both conditions, and non-pharmacological interventions have emerged as promising complementary approaches. Future research should explore novel molecular pathways to enhance treatment options for these interrelated conditions.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Orthopedic Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) appears to alleviate chronic pain via a brain-down mechanism. Although several review studies have examined the effects of tDCS on patients with chronic pain, no systematic review or meta-analysis has comprehensively analyzed the effects of tDCS on chronic orthopedic joint pain in one study. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS for pain reduction in chronic orthopedic patients; (2) Methods: A comprehensive search of five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane) was performed. Only randomized controlled trials that compared tDCS with a control intervention were included. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified four categories of chronic orthopedic pain: knee (k = 8), lower back (k = 7), shoulder (k = 2), and orofacial pain (k = 1). Random effect models were utilized, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted in the presence of significant heterogeneity. Studies within each pain condition were further classified according to the number of treatment sessions: 1-5 sessions, 6-10 sessions, and >10 sessions.; (3) Results: Significant reductions in chronic orthopedic joint pain were observed following tDCS compared to controls for knee (g = 0.59, p = 0.005), lower back (g = 1.14, p = 0.005), and shoulder (g = 1.17, p = 0.020). Subgroup analyses showed pain reductions after 6-10 tDCS sessions for knee pain and after 1-5 and >10 sessions for lower back pain; (4) Conclusions: tDCS could be considered a potential stand-alone or supplemental therapy for chronic knee and lower back pain. The effectiveness of tDCS treatment varies depending on the number of treatment sessions. Our findings suggest the importance of implementing individualized treatment plans when considering tDCS for chronic pain conditions.

Neuropathic Pain and Spinal Cord Injury: Management, Phenotypes, and Biomarkers

Chronic neuropathic pain after a spinal cord injury (SCI) continues to be a complex condition that is difficult to manage due to multiple underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and the association with psychosocial factors. Determining the individual contribution of each of these factors is currently not a realistic goal; however, focusing on the primary mechanisms may be more feasible. One approach used to uncover underlying mechanisms includes phenotyping using pain symptoms and somatosensory function. However, this approach does not consider cognitive and psychosocial mechanisms that may also significantly contribute to the pain experience and impact treatment outcomes. Indeed, clinical experience supports that a combination of self-management, non-pharmacological, and pharmacological approaches is needed to optimally manage pain in this population. This article will provide a broad updated summary integrating the clinical aspects of SCI-related neuropathic pain, potential pain mechanisms, evidence-based treatment recommendations, neuropathic pain phenotypes and brain biomarkers, psychosocial factors, and progress regarding how defining neuropathic pain phenotypes and other surrogate measures in the neuropathic pain field may lead to targeted treatments for neuropathic pain after SCI.

Brain stimulation for chronic pain management: a narrative review of analgesic mechanisms and clinical evidence

Chronic pain constitutes one of the most common chronic complaints that people experience. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs longer than 3 months. Chronic pain has a significant impact on individuals' well-being and psychosocial health and the economy of healthcare systems as well. Despite the availability of numerous therapeutic modalities, treatment of chronic pain can be challenging. Only about 30% of individuals with non-cancer chronic pain achieve improvement from standard pharmacological treatment. Therefore, numerous therapeutic approaches were proposed as a potential treatment for chronic pain including non-opioid pharmacological agents, nerve blocks, acupuncture, cannabidiol, stem cells, exosomes, and neurostimulation techniques. Although some neurostimulation methods such as spinal cord stimulation were successfully introduced into clinical practice as a therapy for chronic pain, the current evidence for brain stimulation efficacy in the treatment of chronic pain remains unclear. Hence, this narrative literature review aimed to give an up-to-date overview of brain stimulation methods, including deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation as a potential treatment for chronic pain.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) triggers dose-dependent homeostatic rewiring in recurrent neuronal networks

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique used to induce neuronal plasticity in healthy individuals and patients. Designing effective and reproducible rTMS protocols poses a major challenge in the field as the underlying biomechanisms remain elusive. Current clinical protocol designs are often based on studies reporting rTMS-induced long-term potentiation or depression of synaptic transmission. Herein, we employed computational modeling to explore the effects of rTMS on long-term structural plasticity and changes in network connectivity. We simulated a recurrent neuronal network with homeostatic structural plasticity between excitatory neurons, and demonstrated that this mechanism was sensitive to specific parameters of the stimulation protocol (i.e., frequency, intensity, and duration of stimulation). The feedback-inhibition initiated by network stimulation influenced the net stimulation outcome and hindered the rTMS-induced homeostatic structural plasticity, highlighting the role of inhibitory networks. These findings suggest a novel mechanism for the lasting effects of rTMS, i.e., rTMS-induced homeostatic structural plasticity, and highlight the importance of network inhibition in careful protocol design, standardization, and optimization of stimulation.

Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with peripheral stimulation in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The combination of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) with peripheral stimulation may optimize their effects and bring positive results in treatment of people with chronic pain.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials was performed to investigate the combination of tDCS with peripheral stimulation in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was pain intensity. Six studies were included in this review (sample of 228 participants), which investigated the combination of tDCS and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, peripheral electrical stimulation, breathing-controlled electrical stimulation and intramuscular electrical stimulation. The conditions studied were knee osteoarthritis, spinal cord injury, chronic low back pain, and neurogenic pain of the arms. Pain intensity, measured by visual analog scale or numerical rating scale, was reduced in all included studies when at least one of the interventions was active, regardless they were combined or alone, with or without tDCS. However, meta-analysis showed superiority of tDCS used in combination with peripheral stimulation.

EXPERT OPINION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests positive effects of tDCS combined with peripheral stimulation in chronic pain conditions. However, the evidence of the primary outcome was classified as low quality due to the limited number of studies.

Effective Connectivity in Spinal Cord Injury-Induced Neuropathic Pain

AIM

The aim of this study was to differentiate the effects of spinal cord injury (SCI) and central neuropathic pain (CNP) on effective connectivity during motor imagery of legs, where CNP is typically experienced.

METHODS

Multichannel EEG was recorded during motor imagery of the legs in 3 groups of people: able-bodied (N = 10), SCI with existing CNP (N = 10), and SCI with no CNP (N = 20). The last group was followed up for 6 months to check for the onset of CNP. Source reconstruction was performed to obtain cortical activity in 17 areas spanning sensorimotor regions and pain matrix. Effective connectivity was calculated using the directed transfer function in 4 frequency bands and compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 50% of the SCI group with no CNP developed CNP later. Statistically significant differences in effective connectivity were found between all groups. The differences between groups were not dependent on the frequency band. Outflows from the supplementary motor area were greater for the able-bodied group while the outflows from the secondary somatosensory cortex were greater for the SCI groups. The group with existing CNP showed the least differences from the able-bodied group, appearing to reverse the effects of SCI. The connectivities involving the pain matrix were different between able-bodied and SCI groups irrespective of CNP status, indicating their involvement in motor networks generally.

SIGNIFICANCE

The study findings might help guide therapeutic interventions targeted at the brain for CNP alleviation as well as motor recovery post SCI.

Resting-state occipital alpha power is associated with treatment outcome in patients with chronic migraine

ABSTRACT

Preventive treatment is crucial for patients with chronic migraine (CM). This study explored the association between resting-state cortical oscillations and 3-month treatment outcome in patients with CM. Treatment-naïve patients with CM were recruited with their demographic data, psychosocial data, and headache profiles as well as the healthy controls (HCs). Resting-state cortical activities were recorded using an electroencephalogram and analysed using source-based and electrode-based spectral power method. The regions of interest were the bilateral primary somatosensory (S1) and visual (V1) cortices. After 3-month treatment with flunarizine, patients with CM were categorized into responders and nonresponders. Demographic, clinical, and electroencephalogram data from 72 patients with CM and 50 HCs were analysed. Elevated anxiety, depression, and stress were observed in patients with CM. Theta power in bilateral S1 and alpha and gamma powers in the right S1 increased in patients with CM. Nonresponders (n = 34) exhibited larger alpha powers in bilateral V1 than those in responders (n = 38). Alpha powers also exhibited significant correlations with changes of monthly headache days. Notably, in responders and nonresponders, occipital alpha powers did not differ at baseline and in the third month. In conclusion, patients with CM who were not responsive to preventive treatment were associated with augmented resting-state occipital alpha activity. Moreover, changes in migraine attack frequency were associated with baseline occipital alpha power. However, the prognostic feature of visual alpha oscillation seems to be inherent because it is not altered by flunarizine treatment. These findings may be useful for developing personalised migraine treatment plans.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain

The research and clinical application of the noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique in the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) are increasing. In this review article, we outline the effectiveness and limitations of the NIBS approach in treating common central neuropathic pain (CNP). This article summarizes the research progress of NIBS in the treatment of different CNPs and describes the effects and mechanisms of these methods on different CNPs. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) analgesic research has been relatively mature and applied to a variety of CNP treatments. But the optimal stimulation targets, stimulation intensity, and stimulation time of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for each type of CNP are still difficult to identify. The analgesic mechanism of rTMS is similar to that of tDCS, both of which change cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity, regulate the release of related neurotransmitters and affect the structural and functional connections of brain regions associated with pain processing and regulation. Some deficiencies are found in current NIBS relevant studies, such as small sample size, difficulty to avoid placebo effect, and insufficient research on analgesia mechanism. Future research should gradually carry out large-scale, multicenter studies to test the stability and reliability of the analgesic effects of NIBS.

Relieving Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Older Adults Using Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Effects on Pain Intensity, Quality, and Pain-Related Outcomes

Introduction

Chronic pain is a significant health problem and is particularly prevalent amongst the elderly. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has been proposed to reduce chronic pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of active and sham tDCS in reducing pain in older individuals living with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Materials and Methods

Twenty-four older individuals (mean age: 68 ± 7 years) suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain were randomized to receive either anodal tDCS over the contralateral motor cortex (2 mA, 20 min; n = 12) or sham tDCS (20 min; n = 12) for five consecutive days. Pain logbooks were used to measure pain intensity. Questionnaires (McGill Pain Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory [BDI], Beck Anxiety Inventory, Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS], and Margolis Pain Drawing and Scoring System [MPDSS]) were also used to assess pain in its globality.

Results

Analysis of pain logbooks revealed that active tDCS led to a reduction in daily average pain intensity (all p ≤ 0.04), while sham tDCS did not produce any change (p = 0.15). Between-group comparisons for change in pain intensity reduction between active and sham tDCS showed a trend during treatment (p = 0.08) which was significant at the follow-up period (p = 0.02). Active tDCS also improved scores of all questionnaires (all p ≤ 0.02), while sham tDCS only reduced MPDSS scores (p = 0.04). Between-group comparisons for the pain-related outcomes showed significant differences for BDI et PCS after the last tDCS session.

Conclusions

These results suggest that anodal tDCS applied over the primary motor cortex is an effective modality to decrease pain in older individuals. tDCS can also improve other key outcomes, such as physical and emotional functioning, and catastrophic thinking.

Long-term physical therapy for neuropathic pain after cervical spinal cord injury and resting state electroencephalography: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury is difficult to treat, and it is associated with abnormalities in the function of the thalamus-to-cortex neural circuitry. Aerobic exercise provides immediate improvement in neuropathic pain and is associated with abnormal resting electroencephalography (EEG) findings in patients with spinal cord injury. This study aimed to investigate whether physical therapy, including walking, can improve neuropathic pain and EEG peak alpha frequency (PAF) in the long term in a patient with cervical spinal cord injury.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 50-year-old man was admitted with a cervical spinal cord insufficiency injury sustained one week prior. The residual height was C5. Neuropathic pain was observed in the fingers bilaterally. A numerical rating scale (NRS) was evaluated to measure the weekly mean and maximum intensities of pain. Resting EEG was measured, and the PAF was calculated. Each time point was evaluated in 2-week intervals from the time of admission, and the rate of change (Δ) of PAF was calculated based on the initial evaluation. Interventions included 18 weeks of standard physical therapy focusing on gait, with additional intensive gait training (4-10 weeks). The NRS scores for the mean and maximum intensities of pain decreased significantly after 6 weeks, and ΔPAF increased significantly after 4 weeks. Improvement in PAF coincided with the start of intensive gait training.

DISCUSSION

PAF shifts to a high frequency during intensive gait training, suggesting the effectiveness of aerobic exercise. Furthermore, there is a close relationship between PAF, pain, and the quantification of pain changes.

An Educational and Exercise Mobile Phone–Based Intervention to Elicit Electrophysiological Changes and to Improve Psychological Functioning in Adults With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain (BackFit App): Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Background

Concomitant psychological and cognitive impairments modulate nociceptive processing and contribute to chronic low back pain (CLBP) maintenance, poorly correlated with radiological findings. Clinical practice guidelines recommend self-management and multidisciplinary educational and exercise-based interventions. However, these recommendations are based on self-reported measurements, which lack evidence of related electrophysiological changes. Furthermore, current mobile health (mHealth) tools for self-management are of low quality and scarce evidence. Thus, it is necessary to increase knowledge on mHealth and electrophysiological changes elicited by current evidence-based interventions.

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate changes elicited by a self-managed educational and exercise-based 4-week mHealth intervention (BackFit app) in electroencephalographic and electrocardiographic activity, pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), pain, disability, and psychological and cognitive functioning in CLBP versus the same intervention in a face-to-face modality.

Methods

A 2-arm parallel nonrandomized clinical trial was conducted at the University of the Balearic Islands (Palma, Spain). A total of 50 patients with nonspecific CLBP were assigned to a self-managed group (23/50, 46%; mean age 45.00, SD 9.13 years; 10/23, 43% men) or a face-to-face group (27/50, 54%; mean age 48.63, SD 7.54 years; 7/27, 26% men). The primary outcomes were electroencephalographic activity (at rest and during a modified version of the Eriksen flanker task) and heart rate variability (at rest), PPTs, and pressure pain intensity ratings. The secondary outcomes were pain, disability, psychological functioning (mood, anxiety, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance beliefs), and cognitive performance (percentage of hits and reaction times).

Results

After the intervention, frequency analysis of electroencephalographic resting-state data showed increased beta-2 (16-23 Hz; 0.0020 vs 0.0024; P=.02) and beta-3 (23-30 Hz; 0.0013 vs 0.0018; P=.03) activity. In addition, source analyses revealed higher power density of beta (16-30 Hz) at the anterior cingulate cortex and alpha (8-12 Hz) at the postcentral gyrus and lower power density of delta (2-4 Hz) at the cuneus and precuneus. Both groups also improved depression (7.74 vs 5.15; P=.01), kinesiophobia (22.91 vs 20.87; P=.002), activity avoidance (14.49 vs 12.86; P<.001), helplessness (6.38 vs 4.74; P=.02), fear-avoidance beliefs (35 vs 29.11; P=.03), and avoidance of physical activity (12.07 vs 9.28; P=.01) scores, but there was an increase in the disability score (6.08 vs 7.5; P=.01). No significant differences between the groups or sessions were found in heart rate variability resting-state data, electroencephalographic data from the Eriksen flanker task, PPTs, subjective ratings, or cognitive performance.

Conclusions

Both intervention modalities increased mainly beta activity at rest and improved psychological functioning. Given the limitations of our study, conclusions must be drawn carefully and further research will be needed. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting electroencephalographic changes in patients with CLBP after an mHealth intervention.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04576611; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04576611

Analytic consistency and neural correlates of peak alpha frequency in the study of pain

BACKGROUND

Several studies have found evidence of reduced resting-state peak alpha frequency (PAF) in populations with pain. However, the stability of PAF from different analytic pipelines used to study pain has not been determined and underlying neural correlates of PAF have not been validated in humans.

NEW METHOD

For the first time we compare analytic pipelines and the relationship of PAF to activity in the whole brain and thalamus, a hypothesized generator of PAF. We collected resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) data and subsequently 64 channel resting-state electroencephalographic (EEG) from 47 healthy men, controls from an ongoing study of chronic prostatitis (a pain condition affecting men). We identified important variations in EEG processing for PAF from a review of 17 papers investigating the relationship between pain and PAF. We tested three progressively complex pre-processing pipelines and varied four postprocessing variables (epoch length, alpha band, calculation method, and region-of-interest [ROI]) that were inconsistent across the literature.

RESULTS

We found a single principal component, well-represented by the average PAF across all electrodes (grand-average PAF), explained > 95% of the variance across participants. We also found the grand-average PAF was highly correlated among the pre-processing pipelines and primarily impacted by calculation method and ROI. Across methods, interindividual differences in PAF were correlated with rs-fMRI-estimated activity in the thalamus, insula, cingulate, and sensory cortices.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest PAF is a relatively stable marker with respect to common pre and post-processing methods used in pain research and reflects interindividual differences in thalamic and salience network function.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study aims to systematically evaluate the effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury and compare the effects of two different NIBS.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of NIBS on NP after spinal cord injury (SCI) were retrieved from the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM from inception to September 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane handbook of systematic review. Statistical analysis was conducted with Stata (version 16) and R software (version 4.0.2).

Results

A total of 17 studies involving 507 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that NIBS could reduce the pain score (SMD = −0.84, 95% CI −1.27 −0.40, P = 0.00) and the pain score during follow-up (SMD = −0.32, 95%CI −0.57 −0.07, P = 0.02), and the depression score of the NIBS group was not statistically significant than that of the control group (SMD = −0.43, 95%CI −0.89–0.02, P = 0.06). The network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the pain score was repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (P = 0.62) > transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (P = 0.38).

Conclusion

NIBS can relieve NP after SCI. The effect of rTMS on NP is superior to that of tDCS. We suggest that the rTMS parameters are 80–120% resting motion threshold and 5–20 Hz, while the tDCS parameters are 2 mA and 20 min. However, it is necessary to carry out more large-scale, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality RCT to explore the efficacy and mechanism of NIBS for NP after SCI.

Effects of rTMS and tDCS on neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury: a randomized placebo-controlled pilot study

Neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury (NPBPI) is a highly disabling clinical condition and is increasingly prevalent due to increased motorcycle accidents. Currently, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in patients suffering from NPBPI. In this study, we directly compare the efficacy of 10-Hz rTMS and anodal 2 mA tDCS techniques applied over the motor cortex (5 daily consecutive sessions) in 20 patients with NPBPI, allocated into 2 parallel groups (active or sham). The order of the sessions was randomised for each of these treatment groups according to a crossover design and separated by a 30-day interval. Scores for "continuous" and "paroxysmal" pain (primary outcome) were tabulated after the last stimulation day and 30 days after. Secondary outcomes included the improvement in multidimensional aspects of pain, anxiety state and quality of life from a qualitative and quantitative approach. Active rTMS and tDCS were both superior to sham in reducing continuous (p < 0.001) and paroxysmal (p = 0.002; p = 0.02) pain as well as in multidimensional aspects of pain (p = 0.001; p = 0.002) and anxiety state (p =  < 0.001; p = 0.005). Our results suggest rTMS and tDCS are able to treat NPBPI with little distinction in pain and anxiety state, which may promote the use of tDCS in brachial plexus injury pain management, as it constitutes an easier and more available technique.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/, RBR-5xnjbc - Sep 3, 2018.

The CanPain SCI clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation management of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: 2021 update

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to update the 2016 version of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain in people with spinal cord injury (SCI).

SETTING

The guidelines are relevant for inpatient, outpatient and community SCI rehabilitation settings in Canada.

METHODS

The guidelines were updated in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A Steering Committee and Working Group reviewed the relevant evidence on neuropathic pain management (encompassing screening and diagnosis, treatment and models of care) after SCI. The quality of evidence was scored using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A consensus process was followed to achieve agreement on recommendations and clinical considerations.

RESULTS

The working group identified and reviewed 46 additional relevant articles published since the last version of the guidelines. The panel agreed on 3 new screening and diagnosis recommendations and 8 new treatment recommendations. Two key changes to these treatment recommendations included the introduction of general treatment principles and a new treatment recommendation classification system. No new recommendations to model of care were made.

CONCLUSIONS

The CanPainSCI recommendations for the management of neuropathic pain after SCI should be used to inform practice.

Noninvasive neuromodulation and rehabilitation to promote functional restoration in persons with spinal cord injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will focus on the use of clinically accessible neuromodulatory approaches for functional restoration in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI).

RECENT FINDINGS

Functional restoration is a primary rehabilitation priority for individuals with SCI. High-tech neuromodulatory modalities have been used in laboratory settings to improve hand and walking function as well as to reduce spasticity and pain in persons with SCI. However, the cost, limited accessibility, and required expertise are prohibitive for clinical applicability of these high-tech modalities. Recent literature indicates that noninvasive and clinically accessible approaches targeting supraspinal, spinal, and peripheral neural structures can modulate neural excitability. Although a limited number of studies have examined the use of these approaches for functional restoration and amelioration of secondary complications in SCI, early evidence investigating their efficacy when combined with training is encouraging.

SUMMARY

Larger sample studies addressing both biomarker identification and dosing are crucial next steps in the field of neurorehabilitation research before novel noninvasive stimulation approaches can be incorporated into standard clinical practice.

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 Current Stimulation on Chronic Neuropathic Pain in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Chronic neuropathic pain is a common symptom in multiple sclerosis (MS). This randomized controlled single-blinded study investigated whether a new protocol involving five days of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with an interval period would be effective to reduce pain using the visual analog scale (VAS). Other secondary outcomes included the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS), Depression Anxiety Stress Score (DASS), Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SFMPQ), and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life 54 (MSQOL54).

DESIGN

A total of 30 participants were recruited for the study, with 15 participants randomized to a sham group or and 15 randomized to an active group. After a five-day course of a-tDCS, VAS and NPS scores were measured daily and then weekly after treatment up to four weeks after treatment. Secondary outcomes were measured pretreatment and then weekly up to four weeks.

RESULTS

After a five-day course of a-tDCS, VAS scores were significantly reduced compared with sham tDCS and remained significantly low up to week 2 post-treatment. There were no statistically significant mean changes in MSQOL54, SFMPQ, NPS, or DASS for the sham or treatment group before treatment or at four-week follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that repeated stimulation with a-tDCS for five days can reduce pain intensity for a prolonged period in patients with MS who have chronic neuropathic pain.

Specific Electroencephalographic Signatures for Pain and Descending Pain Inhibitory System in Spinal Cord Injury

OBJECTIVES

The pain related to Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) is difficult to treat and it is associated with significant morbidity. One aspect to improve therapeutics is to explore markers of pain and its correlates in SCI.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional neurophysiological analysis of a randomized, double-blind controlled trial, thirty-nine patients with SCI were included. We analyzed conditioned pain modulation (CPM) efficiency as the index of the descending pain inhibitory system, EEG variables, and clinical pain levels as measured by the Visual Analogue Scale. Regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship among EEG variables, pain levels, and CPM.

RESULTS

We included 39 SCI patients, 74% reported SCI-related pain. We found that (1)less alpha and beta power are related to pain presence, (2)less alpha and beta power are associated with higher pain levels among patients with pain, (3)patients with pain have decreased peak alpha-theta frequency compared to no-pain group, (4)more relative theta power are related to the presence of low CPM efficiency, (5)higher relative theta power is associated with lower CPM efficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm and provide additional data on the relationship between decreased alpha and beta frequencies and higher pain levels. One important finding, though, was a specific and different EEG signature for the descending inhibitory pain system, as we showed that increased theta EEG power is related to decreased CPM efficiency; suggesting that, although low CPM efficiency plays a major role in pain in these participants, it does seem to be associated with a specific oscillatory brain rhythm different from clinical pain. These findings have significant implications for future research on EEG-based biomarkers of pain in post-SCI and new interventions as neurofeedback to manage pain in this population.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain

Several types of pain occur following spinal cord injury (SCI); however, neuropathic pain (NP) is one of the most intractable. Invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation techniques have been studied in clinical trials to treat chronic NP following SCI. The evidence for invasive stimulation including motor cortex and deep brain stimulation via the use of implanted electrodes to reduce SCI-related NP remains limited, due to the small scale of existing studies. The lower risk of complications associated with non-invasive stimulation, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), provide potentially attractive alternative central neuromodulation techniques. Compared to rTMS, tDCS is technically easier to apply, more affordable, available, and potentially feasible for home use. Accordingly, several new studies have investigated the efficacy of tDCS to treat NP after SCI. In this review, articles relating to the mechanisms, clinical efficacy and safety of tDCS on SCI-related NP were searched from inception to December 2019. Six clinical trials, including five randomized placebo-controlled trials and one prospective controlled trial, were included for evidence specific to the efficacy of tDCS for treating SCI-related NP. The mechanisms of action of tDCS are complex and not fully understood. Several factors including stimulation parameters and individual patient characteristics may affect the efficacy of tDCS intervention. Current evidence to support the efficacy of utilizing tDCS for relieving chronic NP after SCI remains limited. Further strong evidence is needed to confirm the efficacy of tDCS intervention for treating SCI-related NP.

Neuromodulation for Pain Management in the Inpatient Setting: A Narrative Review

Pain is highly prevalent and pharmacological therapy is not always efficacious. There are a few pathophysiological reasons to believe that neuromodulation would increase the rate of success of pain management. This review article is focused on that aspect, discussing non-invasive or minimally invasive neuromodulation techniques in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. This article provides an in-depth discussion of the multiple neuromodulation techniques available over time to be suitable and effective when used as analgesic therapies for chronic pain. We reviewed the literature and discussed all available neuromodulation options that were tested in the inpatient and outpatient setting. Neuromodulation plays a very important role in treating chronic pain in both inpatient and outpatient setting.

Go Virtual to Get Real: Virtual Reality as a Resource for Spinal Cord Treatment

Increasingly, refined virtual reality (VR) techniques allow for the simultaneous and coherent stimulation of multiple sensory and motor domains. In some clinical interventions, such as those related to spinal cord injuries (SCIs), the impact of VR on people's multisensory perception, movements, attitudes, and even modulations of socio-cognitive aspects of their behavior may influence every phase of their rehabilitation treatment, from the acute to chronic stages. This work describes the potential advantages of using first-person-perspective VR to treat SCIs and its implications for manipulating sensory-motor feedback to alter body signals. By situating a patient with SCI in a virtual environment, sensorial perceptions and motor intention can be enriched into a more coherent bodily experience that also promotes processes of neural regeneration and plasticity. In addition to the great potential of research, the most significant areas of interest concern is managing neuropathic pain, motor rehabilitation, and psychological well-being.

Motor cortical excitability behavior in chronic spinal cord injury neuropathic pain individuals submitted to transcranial direct current stimulation-case reports

INTRODUCTION

Increased excitability of the motor cortex through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been described as a non-pharmacological strategy for the treatment of Spinal Cord Injury neuropathic pain (SCINP). It is also believed that the ability to enhance motor cortex excitability (MCE) could be impaired within chronic SCINP individuals. The following case reports describe the MCE behavior in individuals with chronic SCINP submitted to electrical non-invasive neuromodulation.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

This article reports 11 cases with chronic SCINP in which each individual was submitted to a 5-day pre-post MCE analysis in order to evaluate its behavior after the anodal tDCS sessions. All cases maintained ongoing pharmacological treatment. Four individuals have shown negative variation of the MCE, two of which reported pain intensity reduction. Three other individuals had MCE-positive variation along 5 days, from which only one reported a VAS 0.5 pain reduction after the 5th day of observation. The other four individuals did not present significant variation of the MCE.

DISCUSSION

The positive variation of MCE was significantly altered by adjunctive tDCS only in three individuals, though no clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity was reported among these participants. Key factors such as pain and injury duration, age, chronic medication use and underlying maladaptive neuroplasticity may influence responsiveness to brain stimulation within this population. These case reports try to add evidence for cautious recommendation of tDCS in chronic SCINP individuals and to the necessity of identifying groups of individuals that are most susceptible to neuromodulation.

The brain and behavioral correlates of motor-related analgesia (MRA)

The human motor system has the capacity to act as an internal form of analgesia. Since the discovery of the potential influence of motor systems on analgesia in rodent models, clinical applications of targeting the motor system for analgesia have been implemented. However, a neurobiological basis for motor activation's effects on analgesia is not well defined. Motor-related analgesia (MRA) is a phenomenon wherein a decrease in pain symptoms can be achieved through either indirect or direct activation of the motor axis. To date, research has focused on (a) evaluating the pain-motor interaction as one focused on the acute protection from painful stimuli; (b) motor cortex stimulation for chronic pain; or (c) exercise as a method of improving chronic pain in animal and human models. This review evaluates (1) current knowledge surrounding how pain interferes with canonical neurological performance throughout the motor axis; and (2) the physiological basis for motor-related analgesia as a means to reduce pain symptom loads for patients. A proposal for future research directions is provided.

A systematic review of transcranial direct current stimulation effects in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) stands out as the most prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder of childhood, with global prevalence ranging from 3.4% to 7•2%. Its cognitive symptoms result from the combination of complex etiological processes encompassing genetic and environmental components. Available therapeutic approaches are associated with significant challenges such as modest efficacy or side effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising tool for enhancing cognitive performance in neuropsychiatric disorders. Trials investigating its applicability in ADHD have showed propitious, however, still preliminary findings.

METHODS

We performed a systemic review by searching on Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Embase using the descriptors: "attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder" or "ADHD"; and "transcranial direct current stimulation" or "tDCS"; following PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 383 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, 45 studies were assessed for eligibility, and after careful review, 11 manuscripts applying tDCS in ADHD were included. Significant improvements in attention, inhibitory control and working memory were reported, in addition to increased brain connectivity following use of active tDCS.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation was the small number of trials investigating use of tDCS in ADHD. Study methods and outcome measures were quite variable, and generally did not include long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the extent literature indicates promising findings, the available data remains highly preliminary. Further trials evaluating the efficacy of tDCS for ADHD, with longer follow-up, are necessary. These studies will be needed to determine the optimal protocol for clinical efficacy.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation followed by exercise on neuropathic pain in chronic spinal cord injury: a double-blinded randomized controlled pilot trial

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blinded randomized controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of multiple sessions of tDCS followed by exercise on neuropathic pain and brain activity in individuals with chronic SCI.

SETTING

Rehabilitation center in Taipei, Taiwan.

METHODS

Twelve individuals with neuropathic pain after SCI were randomized into the experimental (real) or control (sham) tDCS group. All participants received 12 sessions of real or sham tDCS, and moderate upper body exercises over 4-6 weeks. Pain intensity, characters of pain, self-rating change of pain, brain activity, and quality of life were assessed at pre, posttest, and 4-week follow-up.

RESULTS

The between-group differences (95% CI) of pain intensity at posttest and at 4-week follow-up were -2.2/10 points (-3.0 to 1.0, p = 0.060) and -2.0/10 points (-5.0 to -0.4, p = 0.035), respectively. The between-group differences of paresthesia/dysesthesia pain character were -2.0/10 points (-3.2 to 1.0, p = 0.053) at posttest and -2.3/10 points (-5.0 to 2.5, p = 0.054) at follow-up. No significant changes in brain activity and quality of life were noted at post-intervention and follow-up in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The multiple sessions of anodal tDCS combined with moderate upper body exercise were feasible for individuals with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. However, the analgesic effect was not superior to exercise alone after 12 sessions of intervention, and the beneficial effect was observed at 4-week follow-up.

Effect of non-invasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some studies indicated that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) could relieve neuropathic pain (NP) following a spinal cord injury (SCI), whereas some studies showed no pain relief effect. In addition, some studies showed the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on NP post SCI, whereas other studies showed no effect.

METHODS

We systematically searched on the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, Google Scholar for studies exploring the analgesic effect of rTMS or tDCS on NP post SCI until November 2019. Meta-analysis was conducted to summarize results of these studies.

RESULTS

The present quantitative meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in the effect of treatment on NP following SCI between rTMS and sham rTMS over the motor cortex at about 1 week after the end of the rTMS period (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.27 to 6.04). However, the study indicated that rTMS showed significantly better pain relief of treatment compared with sham rTMS between 2 and 6 weeks after the end of the rTMS period (SMD = 3.81, 95%CI: 0.80-7.52). However, no sufficient evidence could be provided to make a meta-analysis for the analgesic effect of tDCS on NP following SCI over the primary motor area (M1).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggested that rTMS did not show early analgesic effect on NP after SCI, but showed better middle-term analgesic effect, compared with sham rTMS. More large scale, blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were needed to explore the analgesic effect of rTMS and tDCS on NP following SCI.

Electroacupuncture-Related Metabolic Brain Connectivity in Neuropathic Pain due to Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury in Rats

Objective: The present study aimed to investigate the analgesic effect of electroacupuncture (EA) in neuropathic pain due to brachial plexus avulsion injury (BPAI) and related changes in the metabolic brain connectivity. Methods: Neuropathic pain model due to BPAI was established in adult female Sprague-Dawley rats. EA stimulations (2/15 Hz, 30 min/day, 5-day intervention followed by 2-day rest in each session) were applied to the fifth-seventh cervical "Jiaji" acupoints on the noninjured side from 1st to 12th weeks following BPAI (EA group, n = 8). Three control groups included sham EA (nonelectrical acupuncture applied to 3 mm lateral to the real "Jiaji" acupoints), BPAI-only, and normal rats (no particular intervention; eight rats in each group). Thermal withdrawal latency (TWL) of the noninjured forepaw was regularly tested to evaluate the threshold of thermalgesia. Small animal [fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-_D-glucose (¹⁸F-FDG) PET/CT scans of brain were conducted at the end of 4th, 12th, and 16th weeks to explore metabolic alterations of brain. Results: In the EA group, the TWL of the noninjured forepaw significantly decreased following BPAI and then increased following EA stimulation, compared with sham EA (P < 0.001). The metabolic brain connectivity among somatosensory cortex (SC), motor cortex (MC), caudate putamen (Cpu), and dorsolateral thalamus (DLT) in bilateral hemispheres decreased throughout the 16 weeks' observation in the BPAI-only group, compared with the normal rats (P < 0.05). In the EA group, the strength of connectivity among the above regions were found to be increased at the end of 4th week following BPAI modeling, decreased at 12th week, and then increased again at 16th week (P < 0.05). The changes in metabolic connectivity were uncharacteristic and dispersed in the sham EA group. Conclusion: The study revealed long-term and extensive changes of metabolic brain connectivity in EA-treated BPAI-induced neuropathic pain rats. Bilateral sensorimotor and pain-related brain regions were mainly involved in this process. It indicated that modulation of brain metabolic connectivity might be an important mechanism of analgesic effect in EA stimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

New Developments in Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Chronic Pain

Purpose of Review

The goal of this review is to present a summary of the recent literature of a non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to alleviate pain in people with chronic pain syndromes. This article reviews the current evidence for the use of transcranial direct current (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to improve outcomes in chronic pain. Finally, we introduce the reader to novel stimulation methods that may improve therapeutic outcomes in chronic pain.

Recent Findings

While tDCS is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia in Canada and the European Union, no NIBS method is currently approved for chronic pain in the United States. Increasing sample sizes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) seems the most efficient way to increase confidence in initial promising results. Trends at funding agencies reveal increased interest and support for NIBS such as recent Requests for Application from the National Institutes of Health. NIBS in conjunction with cognitive behavioral therapy and physical therapy may enhance outcomes in chronic pain. Novel stimulation methods, such as transcranial ultrasound stimulation, await rigorous study in chronic pain.

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Does Not Improve Neuropathic Pain in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury.

METHODS

A meta-analysis on pain intensity, depression, and anxiety levels was conducted to evaluate the effect of noninvasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury. The authors searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Randomized controlled trials comparing noninvasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation were included.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were selected. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, or cranial electrotherapy stimulation on neuropathic pain reduction after spinal cord injury. In addition, noninvasive brain stimulation showed no beneficial effect over sham stimulation on the improvement of depression, while it yielded a significant reduction of anxiety levels immediately after treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that only cranial electrotherapy stimulation had a significant effect on the reduction of anxiety levels among the three types of noninvasive brain stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with spinal cord injury, no significant effects of noninvasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain and depression were observed. Cranial electrotherapy stimulation may be beneficial for the management of anxiety. These findings do not support the routine use of noninvasive brain stimulation for neuropathic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury.

Network remodeling induced by transcranial brain stimulation: A computational model of tDCS-triggered cell assembly formation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a variant of noninvasive neuromodulation, which promises treatment for brain diseases like major depressive disorder. In experiments, long-lasting aftereffects were observed, suggesting that persistent plastic changes are induced. The mechanism underlying the emergence of lasting aftereffects, however, remains elusive. Here we propose a model, which assumes that tDCS triggers a homeostatic response of the network involving growth and decay of synapses. The cortical tissue exposed to tDCS is conceived as a recurrent network of excitatory and inhibitory neurons, with synapses subject to homeostatically regulated structural plasticity. We systematically tested various aspects of stimulation, including electrode size and montage, as well as stimulation intensity and duration. Our results suggest that transcranial stimulation perturbs the homeostatic equilibrium and leads to a pronounced growth response of the network. The stimulated population eventually eliminates excitatory synapses with the unstimulated population, and new synapses among stimulated neurons are grown to form a cell assembly. Strong focal stimulation tends to enhance the connectivity within new cell assemblies, and repetitive stimulation with well-chosen duty cycles can increase the impact of stimulation even further. One long-term goal of our work is to help in optimizing the use of tDCS in clinical applications.

Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques like tDCS have the potential to directly interfere with neural activity, but may also trigger activity-dependent plasticity. We propose a model to study the mechanism of tDCS and persistent aftereffects that may be induced as a consequence of homeostatic structural plasticity. Based on the idea that tDCS perturbs the ongoing activity of neurons, our model predicts that the stimulation also triggers a rearrangement of synapses among stimulated and unstimulated neurons, eventually leading to network remodeling and cell assembly formation. Focal and strong stimulation leads to stronger cell assemblies, and so does repetitive stimulation with optimized stimulation protocols. This is the first original work studying possible long-lasting aftereffects of transcranial stimulation at the mesoscopic neuronal network level using a computational model.

A modified Hodgkin-Huxley model to show the effect of motor cortex stimulation on the trigeminal neuralgia network

BACKGROUND

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a severe neuropathic pain, which has an electric shock-like characteristic. There are some common treatments for this pain such as medicine, microvascular decompression or radio frequency. In this regard, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is another therapeutic method to reduce pain, which has been recently attracting the therapists' attention. The positive effect of tDCS on TN was shown in many previous studies. However, the mechanism of the tDCS effect has remained unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to model the neuronal behavior of the main known regions of the brain participating in TN pathways to study the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation.

METHOD

The proposed model consists of several blocks: (1) trigeminal nerve, (2) trigeminal ganglion, (3) PAG (periaqueductal gray in the brainstem), (4) thalamus, (5) motor cortex (M1) and (6) somatosensory cortex (S1). Each of these components is represented by a modified Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) model. The modification of the HH model was done based on some neurological facts of pain sodium channels. The input of the model involves any stimuli to the 'trigeminal nerve,' which cause the pain, and the output is the activity of the somatosensory cortex. An external current, which is considered as an electrical current, was applied to the motor cortex block of the model.

RESULT

The results showed that by decreasing the conductivity of the slow sodium channels (pain channels) and applying tDCS over the M1, the activity of the somatosensory cortex would be reduced. This reduction can cause pain relief.

CONCLUSION

The proposed model provided some possible suggestions about the relationship between the effects of tDCS and associated components in TN, and also the relationship between the pain measurement index, somatosensory cortex activity, and the strength of tDCS.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on the rehabilitation of painful shoulder following a stroke: protocol for a randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial

Background

Shoulder pain is reported to be one of the major challenges faced in the functional recovery of patients in rehabilitation following a stroke. In such cases, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used as an additional therapeutic tool for improvements in central and peripheral pain. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the effect of tDCS when combined with upper limb physical therapy on pain intensity and functional improvement in stroke survivors with shoulder pain in the hemiplegic limb.

Methods

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial is proposed. The volunteers will be randomly allocated to receive passive movement on the upper limb, which will be performed by the therapist for 20 min followed by either active tDCS or sham tDCS (current stimulation for 30 s) during simultaneous physical activity of the upper limb (“mini-bike”) for 20 min, totaling 40 min of intervention performed in 10 consecutive sessions. The anode electrode will be positioned over the primary motor cortex with a current of 2 mA and the cathode electrode will be positioned in the supraorbital region contralateral to the anode. The primary outcome will be shoulder pain intensity, which will be measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) on three occasions: 1) pre-intervention; 2) after 10 interventions (5 weekly sessions, for 2 weeks); and 3) 30 days after the end of the interventions. The secondary outcomes will be motor performance, upper limb function, and quality of life.

Trial registration

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, RBR-8F5MNY. Registered on June 2, 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3266-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pilot study of feasibility and effect of anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on chronic neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN

A single-blind crossover study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate neuropathic pain in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) after the application of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS).

SETTING

Outpatient Clinic of the Rehabilitation Department, Seoul National University Hospital.

METHODS

The effect of single sessions of both anodal and sham tsDCS (2 mA, 20 min) on chronic neuropathic pain in ten volunteers with complete motor cervical SCI was assessed. The active electrode was placed over the spinal process of the tenth thoracic vertebra and the reference electrode, at the top of the head. Pre- to post-tsDCS intervention changes in pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS), patient global assessment, and present pain intensity (PPI) were assessed before and after the tsDCS session (immediately post stimulation, and at 1 and 2 h post stimulation).

RESULTS

All participants underwent the stimulation procedure without dropout. Our results showed no significant pre- to post-treatment difference in pain intensity between the active and sham tsDCS groups. Only in the sham tsDCS stimulation, NRS and PPI scores were reduced after the stimulation session. Furthermore, in the mixed effect model analysis, the response in the second period appeared to be more favorable.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a single session of anodal tsDCS with the montage used in this study is feasible but does not have a significant analgesic effect in individuals with chronic cervical SCI.

SPONSORSHIP

The study was funded by Seoul National University Hospital (No. 0420160470) and Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service.

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

Polarity-specific modulation of pain processing by transcranial direct current stimulation - a blinded longitudinal fMRI study

Background

To enrich the hitherto insufficient understanding regarding the mechanisms of action of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in pain disorders, we investigated its modulating effects on cerebral pain processing using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Methods

Thirteen right-handed healthy participants received 20 min of 1.5 mA tDCS applied over the primary motor cortex thrice and under three different stimulation pattern (1.anodal-tDCS, 2.cathodal-tDCS, and 3.sham-tDCS) in a blinded cross-over design. After tDCS neural response to electric trigeminal-nociceptive stimulation was investigated using a block designed fMRI.

Results

Pain stimulation showed a distinct activation pattern within well-established brain regions associated with pain processing. Following anodal tDCS increased activation was detected in the thalamus, basal ganglia, amygdala, cingulate, precentral, postcentral, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while cathodal t-DCS showed decreased response in these areas (p_FWE < 0.05). Interestingly the observed effect was reversed in both control conditions (visual- and motor-stimulation). Behavioral data remained unchanged irrespective of the tDCS stimulation mode.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates polarity-specific modulation of cerebral pain processing, in reconfirmation of previous electrophysiological data. Anodal tDCS leads to an activation of the central pain-network while cathodal tDCS does not. Results contribute to a network-based understanding of tDCS’s impact on cerebral pain-processing.

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on metabolite changes at the anterior cingulate cortex in neuropathic pain: a pilot study

Background

Neuropathic pain (NP) in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) is both common and highly refractory to treatment. Primary motor cortex stimulation can relieve pain by interrupting the transmission of noxious information of descending pain modulatory systems including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Previous research has shown that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can produce pain relief in individuals with NP. However, the underlying mechanisms for these effects are not yet understood. Research findings suggest the possibility that changes in brain metabolite concentrations produced by tDCS might explain some of these effects. For example, previous research has shown that SCI-related NP is associated with elevated levels of glutamine combined glutamate (Glx) per creatine (Glx/Cr). In addition, decreased N-acetylaspartate (NAA) has been observed in the ACC in individuals with chronic pain.

Methods

We used magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to study changes in NAA and Glx levels in the ACC after tDCS treatment. Ten patients with SCI with NP were given five daily anodal tDCS sessions, and an MRS evaluation was performed before and after treatment.

Results

The results showed treatment-related reductions in pain, and increases in both Glx/Cr and NAA/Cr in the ACC. The observed increase in NAA/Cr is consistent with the possibility that tDCS improves the descending pain modulation system by increasing the neuronal activity in the ACC.

Conclusion

The findings suggest the possibility that tDCS’s beneficial effects on neuropathic pain may be due, at least in part, to the changes it produces in Glx/Cr and NAA/Cr levels in the ACC. Additional research with larger samples sizes and a control group to evaluate this possibility is warranted.

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.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paired with massed practice training to promote adaptive plasticity and motor recovery in chronic incomplete tetraplegia: A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to determine if pairing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with rehabilitation for two weeks could augment adaptive plasticity offered by these residual pathways to elicit longer-lasting improvements in motor function in incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI).

DESIGN

Longitudinal, randomized, controlled, double-blinded cohort study.

SETTING

Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Eight male subjects with chronic incomplete motor tetraplegia.

INTERVENTIONS

Massed practice (MP) training with or without tDCS for 2 hrs, 5 times a week.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed neurophysiologic and functional outcomes before, after and three months following intervention. Neurophysiologic measures were collected with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). TMS measures included excitability, representational volume, area and distribution of a weaker and stronger muscle motor map. Functional assessments included a manual muscle test (MMT), upper extremity motor score (UEMS), action research arm test (ARAT) and nine hole peg test (NHPT).

RESULTS

We observed that subjects receiving training paired with tDCS had more increased strength of weak proximal (15% vs 10%), wrist (22% vs 10%) and hand (39% vs. 16%) muscles immediately and three months after intervention compared to the sham group. Our observed changes in muscle strength were related to decreases in strong muscle map volume (r=0.851), reduced weak muscle excitability (r=0.808), a more focused weak muscle motor map (r=0.675) and movement of weak muscle motor map (r=0.935).

CONCLUSION

Overall, our results encourage the establishment of larger clinical trials to confirm the potential benefit of pairing tDCS with training to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for individuals with SCI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01539109.

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.

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.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in the modulation of neuropathic pain: a systematic review

Objective To investigate the neuromodulating effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Neuropathic Pain (NP). Method A systematic review of articles published in the past five years in MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PEDro. The search was carried out from February to May 2017 using the keywords: neuropathic pain, neuralgia, nerve pain, central pain, peripheral nerve pain, tDCS. The selected studies were full articles written in Portuguese, English, or Spanish with at least one control group, and no less than one pre- or post-intervention variable, with the exclusion of case studies or case series, animal model studies, and studies with combined therapy. The quality of the selected articles was evaluated through PEDro scale, whereas the level of agreement among reviewers was measured with the Cohen's κ test, considering P < 0.05 to be significant. Results Eight articles were selected (PEDro: 8.5 ± 0.6; Cohen's κ test: 0.703, P < 0.01), six of which were randomized controlled trials and two were controlled clinical trials. The following causes of NP were observed: spinal cord injury (SCI), amputation, stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), and radiculopathy. All of the studies showed significant effects of tDCS on NP when compared to the control group, except for one with SCI and another related to radiculopathy. Discussion The shortage of good quality articles, the varying of ramp-on and ramp-off durations, and number of sessions, as well as the diversity of results found did not allow any definite conclusion on the efficacy of the neuromodulating effect of tDCS on NP.

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.

Does Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with Peripheral Electrical Stimulation Have an Additive Effect in the Control of Hip Joint Osteonecrosis Pain Associated with Sickle Cell Disease? A Protocol for a One-Session Double Blind, Block-Randomized Clinical Trial

Chronic pain in Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) is probably related to maladaptive plasticity of brain areas involved in nociceptive processing. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Peripheral Electrical Stimulation (PES) can modulate cortical excitability and help to control chronic pain. Studies have shown that combined use of tDCS and PES has additive effects. However, to date, no study investigated additive effects of these neuromodulatory techniques on chronic pain in patients with SCD. This protocol describes a study aiming to assess whether combined use of tDCS and PES more effectively alleviate pain in patients with SCD compared to single use of each technique. The study consists of a one-session double blind, block-randomized clinical trial (NCT02813629) in which 128 participants with SCD and femoral osteonecrosis will be enrolled. Stepwise procedures will occur on two independent days. On day 1, participants will be screened for eligibility criteria. On day 2, data collection will occur in four stages: sample characterization, baseline assessment, intervention, and post-intervention assessment. These procedures will last ~5 h. Participants will be divided into two groups according to homozygous for S allele (HbSS) (n = 64) and heterozygous for S and C alleles (HbSC) (n = 64) genotypes. Participants in each group will be randomly assigned, equally, to one of the following interventions: (1) active tDCS + active PES; (2) active tDCS + sham PES; (3) sham tDCS + active PES; and (4) sham tDCS + sham PES. Active tDCS intervention will consist of 20 min 2 mA anodic stimulation over the primary motor cortex contralateral to the most painful hip. Active PES intervention will consist of 30 min sensory electrical stimulation at 100 Hz over the most painful hip. The main study outcome will be pain intensity, measured by a Visual Analogue Scale. In addition, electroencephalographic power density, cortical maps of the gluteus maximus muscle elicited by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), serum levels of Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF), and Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) will be assessed as secondary outcomes. Data will be analyzed using ANOVA of repeated measures, controlling for confounding variables.

Limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (LOTES-2017): Engineering principles, regulatory statutes, and industry standards for wellness, over-the-counter, or prescription devices with low risk

We present device standards for low-power non-invasive electrical brain stimulation devices classified as limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). Emerging applications of limited output tES to modulate brain function span techniques to stimulate brain or nerve structures, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), have engendered discussion on how access to technology should be regulated. In regards to legal regulations and manufacturing standards for comparable technologies, a comprehensive framework already exists, including quality systems (QS), risk management, and (inter)national electrotechnical standards (IEC). In Part 1, relevant statutes are described for medical and wellness application. While agencies overseeing medical devices have broad jurisdiction, enforcement typically focuses on those devices with medical claims or posing significant risk. Consumer protections regarding responsible marketing and manufacture apply regardless. In Part 2 of this paper, we classify the electrical output performance of devices cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) including over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription electrostimulation devices, devices available for therapeutic or cosmetic purposes, and devices indicated for stimulation of the body or head. Examples include iontophoresis devices, powered muscle stimulators (PMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) devices. Spanning over 13 FDA product codes, more than 1200 electrical stimulators have been cleared for marketing since 1977. The output characteristics of conventional tDCS, tACS, and tPCS techniques are well below those of most FDA cleared devices, including devices that are available OTC and those intended for stimulation on the head. This engineering analysis demonstrates that with regard to output performance and standing regulation, the availability of tDCS, tACS, or tPCS to the public would not introduce risk, provided such devices are responsibly manufactured and legally marketed. In Part 3, we develop voluntary manufacturer guidance for limited output tES that is aligned with current regulatory standards. Based on established medical engineering and scientific principles, we outline a robust and transparent technical framework for ensuring limited output tES devices are designed to minimize risks, while also supporting access and innovation. Alongside applicable medical and government activities, this voluntary industry standard (LOTES-2017) further serves an important role in supporting informed decisions by the public.