Interventional neurophysiology for pain control: duration of pain relief following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation focusing on patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb: a randomized sham-controlled parallel trial

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of navigation-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb. This randomized, blinded, sham-controlled, parallel trial included a rTMS protocol (10-Hz, 2000 pulses/session) consisting of five daily sessions, followed by one session per week for the next seven weeks. Pain intensity, as well as pain-related disability, quality of life, and psychological status, were assessed. For the primary outcome, pain intensity was measured daily using a numerical rating scale as a pain diary. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to the active rTMS or sham-stimulation groups. In the primary outcome, the decrease (least square [LS] mean ± standard error) in the weekly average of a pain diary at week 9 compared to the baseline was 0.84 ± 0.31 in the active rTMS group and 0.58 ± 0.29 in the sham group (LS mean difference, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, - 0.60 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on the interaction between the treatment group and time point. Pain-related disability score improved, but other assessments showed no differences. No serious adverse events were observed. This study did not show significant pain relief; however, active rTMS tended to provide better results than sham. rTMS has the potential to improve pain-related disability in addition to pain relief.Clinical Trial Registration number: jRCTs052190110 (20/02/2020).

Optimal Frequency in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Management of Chronic Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to be effective for pain modulation in a variety of pathological conditions causing neuropathic pain. The purpose of this study is to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials to identify the most optimal frequency required to achieve chronic pain modulation using rTMS.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of rTMS for chronic pain management. A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria, and a NMA was conducted to identify the most effective rTMS frequency for chronic pain management.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed that high frequency rTMS (20 Hz) was the most effective frequency for chronic pain modulation. Patients treated with 20 Hz had lower pain levels than those treated at 5 Hz (mean difference [MD] = -3.11 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -5.61 - -0.61], P = 0.032) and control (MD = -1.99 [95% CI: -3.11 - -0.88], P = 0.023). Similarly, treatment with 10 Hz had lower pain levels compared to 5 Hz (MD = -2.56 [95% CI: -5.05 - -0.07], P = 0.045) and control (MD = -1.44 [95% CI: -2.52 - -0.36], P = 0.031). 20 Hz and 10 Hz were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA suggests that high frequency rTMS (20 Hz) is the most optimal frequency for chronic pain modulation. These findings have important clinical implications and can guide healthcare professionals in selecting the most effective frequency for rTMS treatment in patients with chronic pain.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for central post-stroke pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Although rare, central post-stroke pain remains one of the most refractory forms of neuropathic pain. It has been reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be effective in these cases of pain.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of rTMS in patients with central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

Methods

We included randomized controlled trials or Controlled Trials published until October 3rd, 2022, which studied the effect of rTMS compared to placebo in CPSP. We included studies of adult patients (>18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke, in which the intervention consisted of the application of rTMS to treat CSP.

Results

Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; 6 studies (4 RCT and 2 non-RCT), with 180 participants, were included in the quantitative analysis. A significant reduction in CPSP was found in favor of rTMS compared with sham, with a large effect size (SMD: -1.45; 95% CI: -1.87; -1.03; p < 0.001; I2: 58%).

Conclusion

The findings of the present systematic review with meta-analysis suggest that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of rTMS in reducing CPSP.

Systematic review registration

Identifier (CRD42022365655).

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in central post-stroke pain: current status and future perspective

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is an incapacitating disorder that impacts a substantial proportion of stroke survivors and can diminish their quality of life. Conventional therapies for CPSP, including tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids, are frequently ineffective, necessitating the investigation of alternative therapeutic strategies. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is now recognized as a promising noninvasive pain management method for CPSP. rTMS modulates neural activity through the administration of magnetic pulses to specific cortical regions. Trials analyzing the effects of rTMS on CPSP have generated various outcomes, but the evidence suggests possible analgesic benefits. In CPSP and other neuropathic pain conditions, high-frequency rTMS targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) with figure-eight coils has demonstrated significant pain alleviation. Due to its associaton with analgesic benefits, M1 is the most frequently targeted area. The duration and frequency of rTMS sessions, as well as the stimulation intensity, have been studied in an effort to optimize treatment outcomes. The short-term pain relief effects of rTMS have been observed, but the long-term effects (> 3 months) require further investigation. Aspects such as stimulation frequency, location, and treatment period can influence the efficacy of rTMS and ought to be considered while planning the procedure. Standardized guidelines for using rTMS in CPSP would optimize therapy protocols and improve patient outcomes. This review article provides an up-to-date overview of the incidence, clinical characteristics, outcome of rTMS in CPSP patients, and future perspective in the field.

Effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation vs. conventional therapy in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a prevalent entrapment neuropathy resulting in hand pain, numbness and/or weakness, which significantly impairs hand function in daily activities. Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a potential therapeutic option for focal peripheral nerve disease and may be beneficial for CTS treatment. We aimed to compare the effects of rPMS and conventional therapy in the management of CTS.

Methods

A blinded assessor randomly assigned 24 participants with electrodiagnostically-confirmed mild or moderate CTS to either rPMS or conventional therapy. Both groups were briefed on disease progression and tendon-gliding exercises. In the intervention group, the rPMS protocol, five sessions of rPMS-with a frequency of 10 Hz, 10 pulses/train, and 100 trains/session-were performed over a period of 2 weeks, with three sessions in the first week and two sessions in the second week. At baseline and the end of the second week, the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire, pinch strength, and electrodiagnostic results were evaluated.

Results

The rPMS group demonstrated significantly greater within-group improvement in symptom severity scores (2.3 vs. 1.6, p = 0.009) and pinch strength (10.6 lbs vs. 13.8 lbs, p < 0.001). Regarding electrodiagnostic parameters, sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude was significantly increased (8.7 µV vs. 14.3 µV, p = 0.002) within the group treated with rPMS. With conventional therapy, there were no statistically significant within-group differences. Multiple linear regression models showed that there were no significant differences in other outcomes in between-group comparisons.

Conclusions

Five sessions of rPMS resulted in significant reduction in symptom severity, improvement in pinch strength and increase in SNAP amplitude. Future research should investigate the clinical utility of rPMS using a larger sample and longer treatment and follow-up durations.

Effect of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation under different intensities upon rehabilitation of chronic pelvic pain syndrome: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Nearly one in seven women worldwide suffers from chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) each year. Often, CPPS necessitates a combination of treatments. Studies have shown the good therapeutic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) upon CPPS. We wish to undertake a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to observe the effect of high-frequency rTMS at different intensities upon CPPS.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

In this prospective, double-blinded RCT, 63 female CPPS participants will be recruited and randomized (1:1:1) to high-intensity rTMS, low-intensity rTMS, or sham rTMS. The control group will receive a 10-day course of conventional pelvic floor (PF) rehabilitation (neuromuscular stimulation, magnetic therapy, or light therapy of the PF). On the basis of conventional treatment, participants in the high-intensity rTMS group will receive pulses of 10 Hz with a resting motor threshold (RMT) of 110% for a total of 15,000 pulses. Participants in the low-intensity rTMS group will receive pulses of 10 Hz with an RMT of 80% with 15,000 pulses. The sham rTMS group will be subjected to sham stimulation with the same sound as produced by the real magnetic stimulation coil. The primary outcome will be determined using a visual analog scale, the Genitourinary Pain Index, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale. The secondary outcome will be determined by electromyography of the surface of PF muscles at baseline and after treatment completion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Ethics Committee of Bao'an People's Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province (approval number: BYL20211203). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at scientific conferences (Protocol version 1.0-20220709).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chictr.org.cn, ID: ChiCTR2200055615. Registered on 14 January 2022, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=146720 . Protocol version 1.0-20220709.

Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Different Stimulus Parameters for Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1-rTMS) using different stimulation parameters to explore the optimal stimulus condition for treating neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, blinded, crossover exploratory study. Four single sessions of M1-rTMS at different parameters were administered in random order. The tested stimulation conditions were as follows: 5-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 2000 pulses per session, and sham stimulation. Analgesic effects were assessed by determining the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ2) score immediately before and immediately after intervention.

RESULTS

We enrolled 22 adults (age: 59.8 ± 12.1 years) with intractable neuropathic pain. Linear-effects models showed significant effects of the stimulation condition on changes in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.01). Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that 10-Hz rTMS with 2000 pulses provided better pain relief than sham stimulation, with greater decreases in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that high-dose stimulation (specifically, 10-Hz rTMS at 2000 pulses) is more effective than lower-dose stimulation for treating neuropathic pain.

Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is vast published literature proposing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology on the motor cortex (M1) for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Systematic reviews (SRs) focus on a specific problem and do not provide a comprehensive overview of a research area. This study aimed to summarize and analyze the evidence of rTMS on the M1 for NP treatment through a new synthesis method called evidence mapping.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library to identify the studies that summarized the effectiveness of rTMS for NP. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, was included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted following a defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions [frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)] and compared. The evidence map was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 38 SRs met the eligibility criteria. After duplicate primary studies were removed, these reviews included 70 primary studies that met the scope of evidence mapping. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the quality of the included SRs was critically low. Of these studies, 34 SRs scored "critically low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SR scored "low," 1 SR scored "moderate," and 1 SR scored "high."

CONCLUSION

Evidence mapping is a useful methodology to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of studies on rTMS for NP. Evidence mapping also shows that further investigations are necessary to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols and standardize all parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Given that the methodological quality of most included SRs was "critically low," further investigations are advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

The role of endogenous opioid neuropeptides in neurostimulation-driven analgesia

Due to the prevalence of chronic pain worldwide, there is an urgent need to improve pain management strategies. While opioid drugs have long been used to treat chronic pain, their use is severely limited by adverse effects and abuse liability. Neurostimulation techniques have emerged as a promising option for chronic pain that is refractory to other treatments. While different neurostimulation strategies have been applied to many neural structures implicated in pain processing, there is variability in efficacy between patients, underscoring the need to optimize neurostimulation techniques for use in pain management. This optimization requires a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying neurostimulation-induced pain relief. Here, we discuss the most commonly used neurostimulation techniques for treating chronic pain. We present evidence that neurostimulation-induced analgesia is in part driven by the release of endogenous opioids and that this endogenous opioid release is a common endpoint between different methods of neurostimulation. Finally, we introduce technological and clinical innovations that are being explored to optimize neurostimulation techniques for the treatment of pain, including multidisciplinary efforts between neuroscience research and clinical treatment that may refine the efficacy of neurostimulation based on its underlying mechanisms.

Difference in Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation According to the Site of Pain

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex for neuropathic pain has been shown to be effective, according to systematic reviews and therapeutic guidelines. However, our large, rigorous, investigator-initiated, registration-directed clinical trial failed to show a positive primary outcome, and its subgroup analysis suggested that the analgesic effect varied according to the site of pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in analgesic effects of rTMS for neuropathic pain between different pain sites by reviewing our previous clinical trials. We included three clinical trials in this mini meta-analysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial at seven hospitals (N = 64), an investigator-initiated registration-directed clinical trial at three hospitals (N = 142), and an exploratory clinical trial examining different stimulation parameters (N = 22). The primary efficacy endpoint (change in pain scale) was extracted for each patient group with pain in the face, upper limb, or lower limb, and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of active rTMS against sham stimulation was performed. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for pain change using a random-effects model. The analgesic effect of rTMS for upper limb pain was favorable (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.13). In contrast, rTMS did not produce significant pain relief on lower limb pain (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.41) or face (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -1.59 to 1.12). In conclusion, these findings suggest that rTMS provides analgesic effects in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb, but not in the lower limb or face, under the conditions of previous clinical trials. Owing to the main limitation of small number of studies included, many aspects should be clarified by further research and high-quality studies in these patients.

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a chronic pain condition caused by lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a neuroregulatory tool that uses pulsed magnetic fields to modulate the cerebral cortex. This review aimed to ascertain the therapeutic effect of rTMS on NP and potential factors regulating the therapeutic effect of rTMS. Database search included Web of Science, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2021. Eligible studies included randomized controlled studies of the analgesic effects of rTMS in patients with NP. Thirty-eight studies were included. Random effect analysis showed effect sizes of -0.66 (95 % CI, -0.87 to -0.46), indicating that real rTMS was better than sham condition in reducing pain (P < 0.001). This comprehensive review indicated that stimulation frequency, intervention site, and location of lesion were important factors affecting the therapeutic effect. The findings of this study may guide clinical decisions and future research.

High-frequency rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on chronic and provoked pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-frequency rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has demonstrated mixed effects on chronic and provoked pain.

OBJECTIVES/METHODS

In this study, a meta-analysis was conducted to characterise the potential analgesic effects of high-frequency rTMS over the DLPFC on both chronic and provoked pain.

RESULTS

A total of 626 studies were identified in a systematic search. Twenty-six eligible studies were included for the quantitative review, among which 17 modulated chronic pain and the remaining investigated the influence on provoked pain. The left side DLPFC was uniformly targeted in the chronic pain studies. While our data identified no overall effect of TMS across chronic pain conditions, there was a significant short-term analgesia in neuropathic pain conditions only (SMD = -0.87). In terms of long-lasting analgesia, there was an overall pain reduction in the midterm (SMD = -0.53, 24.6 days average) and long term (SMD = -0.63, 3 months average) post DLPFC stimulation, although these effects were not observed within specific chronic pain conditions. Surprisingly, the number of sessions was demonstrated to have no impact on rTMS analgesia. In the analysis of provoked pain, our data also indicated a significant analgesic effect following HF-rTMS over the DLPFC (SMD = -0.73). Importantly, we identified a publication bias in the studies of provoked pain but not for chronic pain conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our findings support that HF-DLPFC stimulation is able to induce an analgesic effect in chronic pain and in response to provoked pain. These results highlight the potential of DLPFC-rTMS in the management of certain chronic pain conditions and future directions are discussed to enhance the potential long-term analgesic effects.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation alone and in combination with motor control exercise for the treatment of individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (ExTraStim trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

While multiple pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions treating chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) are available, they have been shown to produce at best modest effects. Interventions such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, have exhibited promising results to alleviate chronic pain. However, evidence on the effectiveness of rTMS for CLBP is scarce due to limited rigorous clinical trials. Combining rTMS with motor control exercises (MCE) may help to address both central and nociceptive factors contributing to the persistence of LBP. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of a combination of rTMS and MCE to repeated rTMS sessions alone, sham rTMS and a combination of sham rTMS and MCE on pain intensity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

One hundred and forty participants (35/group) with CLBP will be randomised into four groups (active rTMS+MCE, sham rTMS+MCE, active rTMS and sham rTMS) to receive 10 sessions of their allocated intervention. The primary outcome will be the pain intensity, assessed at baseline, 4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include disability, fear of movement, quality of life and patient global rating of change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Comité d'éthique de la recherche sectoriel en réadaptation et intégration sociale, CIUSS de la Capitale Nationale in June 2019 (#2020-1844 - CER CIUSSS-CN). The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04555278.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in management of chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) with frequencies 5-20 Hz is an expanding non-invasive treatment for chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Outcome data, however, show considerable inhomogeneity with concern to the levels of effect due to the great diversity of treated conditions. The aim of this review was to survey the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of M1 rTMS, and the accuracy to predict a positive response to epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) which is supposed to give a more longstanding pain relief.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to June 2019 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We used the PICO Model to define two specific clinical questions: (1) Does rTMS of M1 relieve NP better than sham treatment? (2) Can the response to rTMS be used to predict the effect of epidural MCS? After article selection, data extraction, and study quality assessment, the certainty of evidence of treatment effect was defined using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Data on 5-20 Hz (high-frequency) rTMS vs. sham was extracted from 24 blinded randomised controlled trials which were of varying quality, investigated highly heterogeneous pain conditions, and used excessively variable stimulation parameters. The difference in pain relief between active and sham stimulation was statistically significant in 9 of 11 studies using single-session rTMS, and in 9 of 13 studies using multiple sessions. Baseline data could be extracted from 6 single and 12 multiple session trials with a weighted mean pain reduction induced by active rTMS, compared to baseline, of -19% for single sessions, -32% for multiple sessions with follow-up <30 days, and -24% for multiple sessions with follow-up ≥30 days after the last stimulation session. For single sessions the weighted mean difference in pain reduction between active rTMS and sham was 15 percentage points, for multiple sessions the difference was 22 percentage points for follow-ups <30 days, and 15 percentage points for follow-ups ≥30 days. Four studies reported data that could be used to evaluate the accuracy of rTMS to predict response to MCS, showing a specificity of 60-100%, and a positive predictive value of 75-100%. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS targeting M1 can result in significant reduction of chronic NP which, however, is transient and shows a great heterogeneity between studies; very low certainty of evidence for single sessions and low for multiple sessions. Multiple sessions of rTMS can maintain a more longstanding effect. rTMS seems to be a fairly good predictor of a positive response to epidural MCS and may be used to select patients for implantation of permanent epidural electrodes. More studies are needed to manifest the use of rTMS for this purpose. Pain relief outcomes in a longer perspective, and outcome variables other than pain reduction need to be addressed more consistently in future studies to consolidate the applicability of rTMS in routine clinical practice.

Pilot study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is one of the intractable long-term side effects of anticancer medications and results in pain and dysesthesia. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex has been demonstrated to provide effective relief for intractable neuropathic pain. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of rTMS treatment on CIPN in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eleven female patients with breast cancer or gynecologic cancer (mean age 64.8 [standard deviation 7.8]) who had neuropathic pain and/or peripheral sensory neuropathy, with a minimum two grade severity based on the scale of the National Cancer Institutes' Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) were enrolled. Patients received rTMS (5-Hz; 500 pulses/session; figure-8 coil) on their primary motor cortex corresponding to the target extremity. The intensity of pain and dysesthesia for all extremities was evaluated using a visual analog scale for pain, dysesthesia, and the Japanese version of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SFMPQ2).

RESULTS

rTMS for target extremity significantly decreased the visual analog scale of pain and dysesthesia. The intensity of pain measured by the SFMPQ2 was also decreased in the target extremity. Regarding non-target extremities, only dysesthesia significantly decreased as a result of rTMS. No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

This is an initial report demonstrating the potential of rTMS for the treatment of CIPN. We suggest rTMS could be potentially beneficial and effective as a treatment for pain and dysesthesia in patients with CIPN.

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as Treatment in Multiple Neurologic Conditions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a method of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation that is based on electro-physical principles discovered by Michael Faraday. A TMS device is made of one or two copper coils, positioned superficially to a site of interest in the brain, to non-invasively produce a brief magnetic pulse to an estimated depth from the surface of the scalp with the following axonal depolarization. This axonal depolarization activates cortical and subcortical networks with multiple effects. There are different methods of TMS used, all with different mechanisms of action. TMS is well tolerated with very few side effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

TMS is now approved for major depression disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. There is significant data to consider approval of TMS for many neurological disorders. This is a review of the uses of TMS in diverse neurological conditions, including stroke and spasticity, migraine, and dementia. TMS is a device that utilizes non-invasive brain stimulation, and it has shown promising results with objective clinical and basic science data. Its ability to trigger neuronal plasticity and potentiating synaptic transmission gives it incredible therapeutic potential. There are diverse mechanisms of action, and this could be troublesome in elaborating clinical trials and standardization of therapy.

A systematic review of high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor cortex areas as a migraine preventive treatment

Background:

The results of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for migraine have been inconsistent. However, high-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex is a treatment that may be effective in relieving symptoms of migraine with a low risk of side effects.

Methods:

A systematic review of high-frequency rTMS over the brain motor cortex areas in human participants was conducted to assess efficacy in treating migraine. Articles that were not looking at migraine patients, stimulation over the left motor cortex, or were not in English were excluded. Nine articles representing eight experiments using high-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas for migraine in human participants were extracted from the databases of PubMed, PsycINFO, MedLine, CINAHL, and BioMed Central.

Results:

Two-hundred and seven of 213 patients completed treatment throughout all the studies examined. High-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas for migraine improved migraine frequency in seven of eight studies. Two of the eight studies were randomized controlled trials at low risk for biases and found high-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas effective in improving migraine frequency and severity. Other details of treatment prescription and symptoms were also examined.

Conclusion:

High-frequency rTMS over the motor cortex areas for migraine demonstrated efficacy as a migraine treatment, had minimal side effects, and should be further investigated.

Noninvasive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in Chronic Refractory Pain: A Systematic Review

Efficacy and tolerance of pharmacological medications in chronic pain are limited. Therefore, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is regarded as a secure therapeutic option for pain relief, and it was proven to produce an analgesic effect. A wide variety of stimulation parameters can influence its long-lasting antalgic effect. Defining the best stimulation protocol can afford greater uniformity and consistency for considering rTMS as a promising effective tool. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate the current literature on transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients suffering from chronic pain, assess its efficacy, and estimate the best stimulation protocol. The Screened and tested electronic databases comprised PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane database library, and Google scholar from the year 2000 till 2018. The keywords utilizing search terms “Transcranial magnetic stimulation”, “chronic pain”, “neuropathic pain” were used to study all possible randomized clinical trials about the impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation on long-lasting pain. All articles were judged for the possibility of prejudice using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for data extraction. Search engines produced seventy applicable results. Twelve randomized controlled clinical trials were included involving 350 patients with focal and generalized chronic pain. An existing proof showed a null response of low-frequency rTMS stimulation, rTMS delivered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in chronic pain patients. However, a witnessed pain-killing response was documented when applying active high- frequency TMS on the motor cortex M1 area compared to sham. Pain relief was detected for a short time following the application of active high-frequency motor cortex stimulation in nine clinical trials, and the long-lasting analgesic effect was proved. No side effects were mentioned for the technique. Repetitive TMS can produce clinically meaningful relief from chronic pain, despite positive results, heterogeneity among all studies preclude firm conclusions regarding the optimal target stimulation site and parameters. Further studies are required to minimize bias, enhance performance, and define the best brain stimulation conditions and qualifications to maximize its potency. 

Neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic pain

The goal of this narrative review was to give an up-to-date overview of the peripheral and central neurostimulation methods that can be used to treat chronic pain. Special focus has been given to three pain conditions: neuropathic pain, nociplastic pain and primary headaches. Both non-invasive and invasive techniques are briefly presented together with their pain relief potentials. For non-invasive stimulation techniques, data concerning transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) are provided. Concerning invasive stimulation techniques, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are presented. The action mode of all these techniques is only partly understood but can be very different from one technique to the other. Patients' selection is still a challenge. Recent consensus-based guidelines for clinical practice are presented when available. The development of closed-loop devices could be of interest in the future, although the clinical benefit over open loop is not proven yet.

Visuo-tactile stimulation, but not type of movement, modulates pain during the vision of a moving virtual limb

Aim: Evidence has revealed a relationship between pain and the observation of limb movement, but it is unknown whether different types of movements have diverse modulating effects. In this immersive virtual reality study, we explored the effect of the vision of different virtual arm movements (arm vs wrist) on heat pain threshold of healthy participants. Patients & methods: 40 healthy participants underwent four conditions in virtual reality, while heat pain thresholds were measured. Visuo-tactile stimulation was used to attempt to modulate the feeling of virtual limb ownership while the participants kept their arms still. Results: Effects on pain threshold were present for type of stimulation but not type of movement. Conclusion: The type of observed movement does not appear to influence pain modulation, at least not during acute pain states.

[Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the diagnostic and treatment of pain syndromes in children and adults]

The authors review the literature and own data concerning therapeutic use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in children and adult patients with pain syndromes of different origins. TMS may act as a tool to excite or inhibit neuroplasticity in the central nervous system, which depends of the therapeutic regime used. TMS induces neurogenesis and synaptogenesis, rhythmic TMS may cause long-lasting after-effects, including pain inhibitory effect. A decrease in the threshold and an increase in the amplitude of motor evoked potentials in TMS are the most frequent changes in pain syndromes in the diagnostic modality. The efficacy of different regimes in the treatment of pain syndromes remains understudied. Despite vast knowledge on clinical use of TMS in pain syndromes in adults, in pediatrics its use is limited to migraine treatment. TMS is a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool that should be more often implemented in neurorehabilitation and treatment of neurological diseases in adults and children with pain syndromes.

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

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

Effects of continuous theta-burst stimulation of the primary motor and secondary somatosensory areas on the central processing and the perception of trigeminal nociceptive input in healthy volunteers

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Inactivating paired continuous theta-burst stimulation of the primary motor cortex but not on the secondary somatosensory area flattened the relationship between brain activation and stimulus strength while not impacting on the subjective perceptions.

Noninvasive modulation of the activity of pain-related brain regions by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation promises an innovative approach at analgesic treatments. However, heterogeneous successes in pain modulation by setting reversible “virtual lesions” at different brain areas point at unresolved problems including the optimum stimulation site. The secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) has been previously identified to be involved in the perception of pain-intensity differences. Therefore, impeding its activity should impede the coding of the sensory component of pain intensity, resulting in a flattening of the relationship between pain intensity and physical stimulus strength. This was assessed using inactivating spaced continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) in 18 healthy volunteers. In addition, cTBS was applied on the primary motor cortex (M1) shown previously to yield moderate and variable analgesic effects, whereas sham stimulation at both sites served as placebo condition. Continuous theta-burst stimulation flattened the relationship between brain activation and stimulus strength, mainly at S2, the insular cortex, and the postcentral gyrus (16 subjects analyzed). However, these effects were observed after inactivation of M1 while this effect was not observed after inactivation of S2. Nevertheless, both the M1 and the S2-spaced cTBS treatment were not reflected in the ratings of the nociceptive stimuli of different strengths (17 subjects analyzed), contrasting with the clear coding of stimulus strength by these data. Hence, while modulating the central processing of nociceptive input, cTBS failed to produce subjectively relevant changes in pain perception, indicating that the method in the present implementation is still unsuitable for clinical application.

[Interest of transcranial stimulation in pelvic and perineal disorders]

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Identifying and Engaging Neuronal Oscillations by Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Crossover, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Pilot Study

Chronic pain is associated with maladaptive reorganization of the central nervous system. Recent studies have suggested that disorganization of large-scale electrical brain activity patterns, such as neuronal network oscillations in the thalamocortical system, plays a key role in the pathophysiology of chronic pain. Yet, little is known about whether and how such network pathologies can be targeted with noninvasive brain stimulation as a nonpharmacological treatment option. We hypothesized that alpha oscillations, a prominent thalamocortical activity pattern in the human brain, are impaired in chronic pain and can be modulated with transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). We performed a randomized, crossover, double-blind, sham-controlled study in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) to investigate how alpha oscillations relate to pain symptoms for target identification and whether tACS can engage this target and thereby induce pain relief. We used high-density electroencephalography to measure alpha oscillations and found that the oscillation strength in the somatosensory region at baseline before stimulation was negatively correlated with pain symptoms. Stimulation with alpha-tACS compared to sham (placebo) stimulation significantly enhanced alpha oscillations in the somatosensory region. The stimulation-induced increase of alpha oscillations in the somatosensory region was correlated with pain relief. Given these findings of successful target identification and engagement, we propose that modulating alpha oscillations with tACS may represent a target-specific, nonpharmacological treatment approach for CLBP. This trial has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03243084). PERSPECTIVE: This study suggests that a rational design of transcranial alternating current stimulation, which is target identification, engagement, and validation, could be a nonpharmacological treatment approach for patients with CLBP.

Non-invasive brain stimulation in chronic orofacial pain: a systematic review

Background

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being explored as therapeutic alternatives for the management of various chronic pain conditions.

Objective

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of TMS and tDCS in reducing clinical pain intensity in chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders. The secondary objectives are to describe adverse effects, duration of relief, and TMS/tDCS methodologies used in chronic OFP disorders.

Methods

A search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) population: adults diagnosed with chronic OFP including neuropathic and non-neuropathic disorders; 2) intervention: active TMS or tDCS stimulation regardless of the used protocol; 3) comparison: sham TMS or tDCS stimulation; and 4) outcome: primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were duration of pain relief, adverse effects, and methodological parameters. Risk of bias and quality of study reporting were also assessed.

Results

A total of 556 individual citations were identified by the search strategy, with 14 articles meeting selection criteria (TMS=11; tDCS=3). Data were obtained for a total of 228 patients. Included OFP disorders were trigeminal neuralgia, trigeminal neuropathy, burning mouth syndrome, atypical facial pain, and temporomandibular disorders. Significant pain reductions were obtained in both techniques. More number of sessions yielded to more durable effects. Overall, high risk of bias and poor study quality were found.

Conclusion

TMS and tDCS appear to be safe and promising alternatives to reduce pain intensity in different chronic OFP disorders. Additional research effort is needed to reduce bias, improve quality, and characterize optimal brain stimulation parameters to promote their efficacy.

Clinical study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex for thalamic pain

Thalamic pain is a severe pain that is often unresponsive to medical therapy. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) entirely non-invasively modulates neuronal plasticity to produce therapeutic benefit. Since the rTMS stimulation parameters varied, it is difficult to determine which specific parameters are best for clinical use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analgesic lasting effect of 10-Hz rTMS over the motor cortex (M1) for 10 consecutive days to treat thalamic pain.Patients were treated with daily 10-Hz rTMS sessions for 1000 pulses applied over the M1 for 10 consecutive days. Pain severity and mood were assessed at baseline, immediately after, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks after rTMS. Pain severity was measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the percentage of pain relief on VAS score was calculated between baseline and final examination. Mood was monitored using the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD).Seven patients with thalamic pain were enrolled. VAS score was significantly decreased after rTMS. Mean VAS scores were 7 at baseline and decreased to 5.6 at 2 weeks after rTMS and then decreased to 3.9 at 8 weeks after rTMS. The analgesic effect of rTMS can last up to 8 weeks. The percentage of pain relief ranges from 25.0% to 66.7% at the 8th week. Four patients (3 moderate pain and 1 severe pain) achieved satisfactory relief (pain relief ≥40-69%).Although this was an open-label study without a control group, our findings show that 10 Hz rTMS over the M1 for 10 consecutive days can produce satisfactory or partial antalgic effect on patients with thalamic pain.

Less Might Be More: Conduction Failure as a Factor Possibly Limiting the Efficacy of Higher Frequencies in rTMS Protocols

Introduction: rTMS has been proven effective in the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions, with class A (definite efficacy) evidence for treatment of depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). The efficacy in stimulation protocols is, however, quite heterogeneous. Saturation of neuronal firing by HFrTMS without allowing time for recovery may lead to neuronal response failures (NRFs) that compromise the efficacy of stimulation with higher frequencies.

Objectives: To examine the efficacy of different rTMS temporal stimulation patterns focusing on a possible upper stimulation limit related to response failures. Protocol patterns were derived from published clinical studies on therapeutic rTMS for depression and pain. They were compared with conduction failures in cell cultures.

Methodology: From 57 papers using protocols rated class A for depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014) we extracted Inter-train interval (ITI), average frequency, total duration and total number of pulses and plotted them against the percent improvement on the outcome scale. Specifically, we compared 10 Hz trains with ITIs of 8 s (protocol A) and 26 s (protocol B) in vitro on cultured cortical neurons.

Results: In the in vitro experiments, protocol A with 8-s ITIs resulted in more frequent response failures, while practically no response failures occurred with protocol B (26-s intervals). The HFrTMS protocol analysis exhibited no significant effect of ITIs on protocol efficiency.

Discussion: In the neuronal culture, longer ITIs appeared to allow the neuronal response to recover. In the available human dataset on both depression and chronic pain, data concerning shorter ITIs is does not allow a significant conclusion.

Significance: NRF may interfere with the efficacy of rTMS stimulation protocols when the average stimulation frequency is too high, proposing ITIs as a variable in rTMS protocol efficacy. Clinical trials are necessary to examine effect of shorter ITIs on the clinical outcome in a controlled setting.

Effects of Excitatory Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the P3 Point in Chronic Stroke Patients—Case Reports

Objective: To evaluate the effects of excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the international 10–20 system P3 point (intraparietal sulcus region) in chronic patients with a frontal lesion and parietal sparing due to stroke on the impaired upper (UL) and lower limb (LL) as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA). Methods: Three patients (C1: 49.83/2.75, C2: 53.17/3.83, C3: 63.33/3.08-years-old at stroke/years post-stroke, respectively) received two weeks (five days/week) of rTMS at 10 Hz of P3. A patient was treated in similar conditions with a sham coil (S1: 56.58/4.33). Patients were evaluated before, after, and two months post-treatment (A1, A2, and A3, respectively). Results: For LL, the scores of the motor function subsection of C1 and C3 as well as the sensory function of C2 increased by A2 and remained by A3. For UL, the score of the motor function of C2 and C3 also increased, but the score of C3 decreased by A3. The score of the range of motion subsection of C3 increased by the two follow-up evaluations. Conclusion: This study suggests excitatory rTMS over P3 may be of use for some chronic stroke patients, but these findings need to be verified in a future clinical trial.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Modeling Intracochlear Magnetic Stimulation: A Finite-Element Analysis

This study models induced electric fields, and their gradient, produced by pulsatile current stimulation of submillimeter inductors for cochlear implantation. Using finite-element analysis, the lower chamber of the cochlea, scala tympani, is modeled as a cylindrical structure filled with perilymph bounded by tissue, bone, and cochlear neural elements. Single inductors as well as an array of inductors are modeled. The coil strength (~100 nH) and excitation parameters (peak current of 1-5 A, voltages of 16-20 V) are based on a formative feasibility study conducted by our group. In that study, intracochlear micromagnetic stimulation achieved auditory activation as measured through the auditory brainstem response in a feline model. With respect to the finite element simulations, axial symmetry of the inductor geometry is exploited to improve computation time. It is verified that the inductor coil orientation greatly affects the strength of the induced electric field and thereby the ability to affect the transmembrane potential of nearby neural elements. Furthermore, upon comparing an array of micro-inductors with a typical multi-site electrode array, magnetically excited arrays retain greater focus in terms of the gradient of induced electric fields. Once combined with further in vivo analysis, this modeling study may enable further exploration of the mechanism of magnetically induced, and focused neural stimulation.

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

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

EAN guidelines on central neurostimulation therapy in chronic pain conditions

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Our aim was to update previous European Federation of Neurological Societies guidelines on neurostimulation for neuropathic pain, expanding the search to new techniques and to chronic pain conditions other than neuropathic pain, and assessing the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials published between 2006 and December 2014 was conducted. Pain conditions included neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I and post-surgical chronic back and leg pain (CBLP). Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct electrical stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) were assessed. The GRADE system was used to assess quality of evidence and propose recommendations.

RESULTS

The following recommendations were reached: 'weak' for SCS added to conventional medical management in diabetic painful neuropathy, CBLP and CRPS, for SCS versus reoperation in CBLP, for MCS in neuropathic pain, for rTMS of M1 in neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia and for tDCS of M1 in neuropathic pain; 'inconclusive' for DBS in neuropathic pain, rTMS and tDCS of the DLPFC, and for motor cortex tDCS in fibromyalgia and spinal cord injury pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the poor to moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale multicentre studies of non-invasive and invasive neurostimulation are encouraged. The collection of higher quality evidence of the predictive factors for the efficacy of these techniques, such as the duration, quality and severity of pain, is also recommended.