The Response of the Primary Motor Cortex to Neuromodulation is Altered in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Study

Cortical excitability and multifidus activation responses to transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain during remission

Evidence indicates that patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) have lumbar multifidus muscle (LM) activation deficit which might be caused by changes in cortical excitability. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) can be used to restore cortical excitability. This study aimed to (1) determine the immediate effects of a-tDCS on the cortical excitability and LM activation and (2) explore the relationship between cortical excitability and LM activation. Thirteen participants with CLBP during remission and 11 healthy participants were recruited. Cortical excitability (peak-to-peak motor evoked potential amplitude; P2P and cortical silent period; CSP) and LM activation were measured at pre- and post-intervention. We found significant difference (P < 0.05) in P2P between groups. However, no significant differences (P > 0.05) in P2P, CSP and LM activation were found between pre- and post-intervention in CLBP. The CLBP group demonstrated significant correlation (P = 0.05) between P2P and LM activation. Although our finding demonstrates change in P2P in the CLBP group, one-session of a-tDCS cannot induce changes in cortical excitability and LM activation. However, moderate to strong correlation between P2P and LM activation suggests the involvement of cortical level in LM activation deficit. Therefore, non-significant changes could have been due to inadequate dose of a-tDCS.

Time since onset might be of essence: A recommendation to assess the effects of combination of non-pharmacological neuromodulatory approaches at early stage since symptoms onset

In the past decade researchers began to assess the potential beneficial effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) combined with a behavioral task as a treatment approach for various medical conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the motor cortex combined with another treatment approach has been assessed as analgesic treatment in neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain conditions, and was found to exert only modest pain relief. Our group results show that combined tDCS and mirror therapy dramatically reduced acute phantom limb pain intensity with long-lasting effects, potentially preventing pain chronification. A review of the scientific literature indicates that our approach differs from that of others: We applied the intervention at the acute stage of the disease, whereas other studies applied the intervention in patients whose disease had already been established. We suggest that the timing of administration of the combined intervention is critical. Unlike in patients with chronic painful condition, in which the maladaptive plasticity associated with pain chronification and chronicity is well-consolidated, early treatment at the acute pain stage may be more successful in counterbalancing the not-yet consolidated maladaptive plasticity. We encourage the research community to test our hypothesis, both in the treatment of pain, and beyond.

Anodal-TDCS over Left-DLPFC Modulates Motor Cortex Excitability in Chronic Lower Back Pain

Chronic pain is associated with abnormal cortical excitability and increased pain intensity. Research investigating the potential for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate motor cortex excitability and reduce pain in individuals with chronic lower back pain (CLBP) yield mixed results. The present randomised, placebo-controlled study examined the impact of anodal-tDCS over left-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (left-DLPFC) on motor cortex excitability and pain in those with CLBP. Nineteen participants with CLBP (Mage = 53.16 years, SDage = 14.80 years) received 20-min of sham or anodal tDCS, twice weekly, for 4 weeks. Short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were assessed using paired-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation prior to and immediately following the tDCS intervention. Linear Mixed Models revealed no significant effect of tDCS group or time, on SICI or ICF. The interactions between tDCS group and time on SICI and ICF only approached significance. Bayesian analyses revealed the anodal-tDCS group demonstrated higher ICF and SICI following the intervention compared to the sham-tDCS group. The anodal-tDCS group also demonstrated a reduction in pain intensity and self-reported disability compared to the sham-tDCS group. These findings provide preliminary support for anodal-tDCS over left-DLPFC to modulate cortical excitability and reduce pain in CLBP.

Neuromodulation of somatosensory pain thresholds of the neck musculature using a novel transcranial direct current stimulation montage: a randomized double-blind, sham controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of primary motor cortex (M1) and cathodal of the primary sensory cortex (S1) have previously shown to modulate the sensory thresholds when administered with the reference electrode located over the contralateral supraorbital area (SO). Combining the two stimulation paradigms into one with simultaneous stimulation of the two brain areas (M1 + S1 - tDCS) may result in a synergistic effect inducing a prominent neuromodulation, noticeable in the pain thresholds. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of the novel M1 + S1 - tDCS montage compared to sham-stimulation in modulating the pain thresholds in healthy adults.

METHODS

Thirty-nine (20 males) subjects were randomly assigned to either receiving 20 min. active M1 + S1 - tDCS or sham tDCS in a double-blinded single session study. Thermal and mechanical pain thresholds were assessed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the pain thresholds within either group, or between the M1 + S1 - tDCS group and the Sham-tDCS group (p>0.05), indicating that the intervention was ineffective in inducing a neuromodulation of the somatosensory system.

CONCLUSIONS

Experimental investigations of novel tDCS electrode montages, that are scientifically based on existing studies or computational modelling, are essential to establish better tDCS protocols. Here simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex and primary sensory cortex showed no effect on the pain thresholds of the neck musculature in healthy subjects. This tDCS montage may have been ineffective due to how the electrical field reaches the targeted neurons, or may have been limited by the design of a single tDCS administration. The study adds to the existing literature of the studies investigating effects of new tDCS montages with the aim of establishing novel non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for chronic neck pain rehabilitation. North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics (VN-20180085) ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04658485).

Modulation Of Experimental Prolonged Pain and Sensitization Using High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Study

High definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) targeting brain areas involved in pain processing has shown analgesic effects in some chronic pain conditions, but less modulatory effect on mechanical and thermal pain thresholds in asymptomatic subjects. This double-blinded study assessed the HD-tDCS effects on experimental pain and hyperalgesia maintained for several days in healthy participants. Hyperalgesia and pain were assessed during three consecutive days following provocation of experimental pain (nerve growth factor injected into the right-hand muscle) and daily HD-tDCS sessions (20-minutes). Forty subjects were randomly assigned to Active-tDCS targeting primary motor cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex simultaneously or Sham-tDCS. Tactile and pressure pain sensitivity were assessed before and after each HD-tDCS session, as well as the experimentally-induced pain intensity scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS). Subjects were effectively blinded to the type of HD-tDCS protocol. The Active-tDCS did not significantly reduce the NGF-induced NRS pain score (3.5±2.4) compared to Sham-tDCS (3.9±2.0, P > .05) on day 3 and both groups showed similarly NGF-decreased pressure pain threshold in the right hand (P < .001). Comparing Active-tDCS with Sham-tDCS, the manifestation of pressure hyperalgesia was delayed on day 1, and an immediate (pre-HD-tDCS to post-HD-tDCS) reduction in pressure hyperalgesia was found across all days (P < .05). PERSPECTIVE: The non-significant differences between Active-tDCS and Sham-tDCS on experimental prolonged pain and hyperalgesia suggest that HD-tDCS has no effect on moderate persistent experimental pain. The intervention may still have a positive effect in more severe pain conditions, with increased intensity, more widespread distribution, or increased duration and/or involving stronger affective components.

High-definition transcranial infraslow pink noise stimulation for chronic low back pain: protocol for a pilot, safety and feasibility randomised placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common disabling health condition. Current treatments demonstrate modest effects, warranting newer therapies. Brain imaging demonstrates altered electrical activities in cortical areas responsible for pain modulation, emotional and sensory components of pain experience. Treatments targeting to change electrical activities of these key brain regions may produce clinical benefits. This pilot study aims to (1) evaluate feasibility, safety and acceptability of a novel neuromodulation technique, high-definition transcranial infraslow pink noise stimulation (HD-tIPNS), in people with CLBP, (2) explore the trend of effect of HD-tIPNS on pain and function, and (3) derive treatment estimates to support sample size calculation for a fully powered trial should trends of effectiveness be present.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A pilot, triple-blinded randomised two-arm placebo-controlled parallel trial. Participants (n=40) with CLBP will be randomised to either sham stimulation or HD-tIPNS (targeting somatosensory cortex and dorsal and pregenual anterior cingulate cortex). Primary outcomes include feasibility and safety measures, and clinical outcomes of pain (Brief Pain Inventory) and disability (Roland-Morris disability questionnaire). Secondary measures include clinical, psychological, quantitative sensory testing and electroencephalography collected at baseline, immediately postintervention, and at 1-week, 1-month and 3 months postintervention. All data will be analysed descriptively. A nested qualitative study will assess participants perceptions about acceptability of intervention and analysed thematically.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Ref:20/NTB/67). Findings will be reported to regulatory and funding bodies, presented at conferences, and published in a scientific journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000505909p.

Motor cortex excitability in chronic low back pain

Chronic pain is associated with dysfunctional cortical excitability. Research has identified altered intracortical motor cortex excitability in Chronic Lower Back Pain (CLBP). However, research identifying the specific intracortical changes underlying CLBP has been met with inconsistent findings. In the present case-control study, we examined intracortical excitability of the primary motor cortex using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in individuals with CLBP. Twenty participants with CLBP (M_age = 54.45 years, SD_age = 15.89 years) and 18 age- and gender-matched, pain-free controls (M = 53.83, SD = 16.72) were included in this study. TMS was applied to the hand motor area of the right hemisphere and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle of the contralateral hand. Resting motor threshold (rMT) and MEP amplitude were measured using single-pulse stimulation. Short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were assessed using paired-pulse stimulation. Individuals with CLBP had significantly higher rMT (decreased corticospinal excitability) and lower ICF compared to controls. No significant differences were found in MEP amplitude and SICI. These findings add to the growing body of evidence that CLBP is associated with deficits in intracortical modulation involving glutamatergic mechanisms.

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.

Chronic Low Back Pain Occurring in Association With Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome

BACKGROUND

This review paper outlines recent advances in diagnostic criteria for hypermobility spectrum disorder (HSD) and its association with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as current literature on the association between joint hypermobility syndrome and lumbar back pain. We outline the optimal multidisciplinary management of lumbar back pain in the context of joint hypermobility syndrome, as well as the indications and possible side effects of surgical management of patients with these conditions.Several studies have suggested a link between chronic low back pain and hypermobility. HSD has been described as an excessive range of motion in a joint, when accounting for patient demographics. The nomenclature surrounding symptomatic joint hypermobility has varied historically, and various groups, including most notably the international EDS consortium, have introduced new classification schemes to acknowledge the systemic effects of joint hypermobility, which were previously poorly understood.

METHODS

Narrative literature review.

RESULTS

Not applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower back pain experienced in patients on the HSD-EDS spectrum is multifactorial in origin and should not be considered solely in anatomical terms. Caution has been advised in the surgical management of patients on the HSD-hEDS spectrum, particularly where the subtype is unclear. The vascular type of EDS has a particular propensity for severe bleeding complications. Rates of perioperative complications after lumbar spinal surgery in the hypermobile EDS population have been reported to be up to 50%. When hypermobility and chronic lumbar back pain coexist, we advocate management in a multidisciplinary setting involving physiotherapists, pain physicians, surgeons, and psychologists.

Diminished corticomotor excitability in Gulf War Illness related chronic pain symptoms; evidence from TMS study

Chronic diffuse body pain is unequivocally highly prevalent in Veterans who served in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War and diagnosed with Gulf War Illness (GWI). Diminished motor cortical excitability, as a measurement of increased resting motor threshold (RMT) with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), is known to be associated with chronic pain conditions. This study compared RMT in Veterans with GWI related diffuse body pain including headache, muscle and joint pain with their military counterparts without GWI related diffuse body pain. Single pulse TMS was administered over the left motor cortex, using anatomical scans of each subject to guide the TMS coil, starting at 25% of maximum stimulator output (MSO) and increasing in steps of 2% until a motor response with a 50 µV peak to peak amplitude, defined as the RMT, was evoked at the contralateral flexor pollicis brevis muscle. RMT was then analyzed using Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM-ANOVA). Veterans with GWI related chronic headaches and body pain (N = 20, all males) had a significantly (P < 0.001) higher average RMT (% ± SD) of 77.2% ± 16.7% compared to age and gender matched military controls (N = 20, all males), whose average was 55.6% ± 8.8%. Veterans with GWI related diffuse body pain demonstrated a state of diminished corticomotor excitability, suggesting a maladaptive supraspinal pain modulatory state. The impact of this observed supraspinal functional impairment on other GWI related symptoms and the potential use of TMS in rectifying this abnormality and providing relief for pain and co-morbid symptoms requires further investigation.Trial registration: This study was registered on January 25, 2017, on ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT03030794. Retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03030794 .

Corticomotor reorganization during short-term visuomotor training in the lower back: A randomized controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Accumulating evidence suggests that motor skill training is associated with structural and functional reorganization of the primary motor cortex. However, previous studies have focussed primarily upon the upper limb, and it is unclear whether comparable reorganization occurs following training of other regions, such as the lower back. Although this holds important implications for rehabilitation, no studies have examined corticomotor adaptations following short-term motor training in the lower back.

METHOD

The aims of this study were to (a) determine whether a short-term lumbopelvic tilt visuomotor task induced reorganization of the corticomotor representations of lower back muscles, (b) quantify the variability of corticomotor responses to motor training, and (c) determine whether any improvements in task performance were correlated with corticomotor reorganization. Participants were allocated randomly to perform a lumbopelvic tilt motor training task (n = 15) or a finger abduction control task involving no lumbopelvic movement (n = 15). Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to map corticomotor representations of the lumbar erector spinae before, during, and after repeated performance of the allocated task.

RESULTS

No relationship between corticomotor reorganization and improved task performance was identified. Substantial variability was observed in terms of corticomotor responses to motor training, with approximately 50% of participants showing no corticomotor reorganization despite significant improvements in task performance.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that short-term improvements in lower back visuomotor task performance may be driven by changes in remote subcortical and/or spinal networks rather than adaptations in corticomotor pathways. However, further research using tasks of varying complexities and durations is required to confirm this hypothesis.

Electrical Stimulation of Back Muscles Does Not Prime the Corticospinal Pathway

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) of back extensor muscles changes excitability of the corticospinal pathway of the stimulated muscle and synergist trunk muscles.

METHODS

In 12 volunteers with no history of low back pain (LBP), intramuscular fine-wire electrodes recorded electromyography (EMG) from the deep multifidus (DM) and longissimus muscles. Surface electrodes recorded general EMG from the erector spinae and abdominal muscles. Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms tested corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI-2 and 3 ms), and intracortical facilitation (ICF) optimized for recordings of DM. Active motor threshold (aMT) to evoke a motor-evoked potential (MEP) in DM was determined and stimulation was applied at 120% of this intensity. PES was provided via electrodes placed over the right multifidus. The effect of 20-min PES (ramped motor activation) was studied.

RESULTS

Mean aMT for DM was 42.7 ± 10% of the maximal stimulator output. No effects of PES were found on MEP amplitude (single-pulse TMS) for any trunk muscles examined. There was no evidence for changes in SICI or ICF; that is, conditioned MEP amplitude was not different between trials after PES.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that, unlike previous reports that show increased corticospinal excitability of limb muscles, PES of back muscles does not modify the corticospinal excitability. This difference in response of the motor pathway of back muscles to PES might be explained by the lesser importance of voluntary cortical drive to these muscles and the greater role of postural networks. Whether PES influences back muscle training remains unclear, yet the present results suggest that potential effects are unlikely to be explained by the effects of PES at corticospinal level with the parameters used in this study.

More subjects are required for ventrolateral than dorsolateral prefrontal TMS because of intolerability and potential drop-out

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the human lateral prefrontal cortex, particularly the ventral region, often causes considerable discomfort to subjects. To date, in contrast to abundant literature on stimulations to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex has been less frequently stimulated, partly because some subjects are intolerable of stimulation to the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. To predict the additional number of subjects required for the stimulation of the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortices, 20 young healthy subjects reported two evaluation scores: the discomfort caused by TMS and the resulting intolerability to complete the TMS experiments. Single-pulse stimulation (SPS) or theta-burst stimulation (TBS) was administered to the lateral prefrontal cortex. The high-resolution extended 10–20 system was used to provide accurate estimation of the voxelwise scores. The discomfort ratings with the SPS and TBS were relatively higher in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex than those in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Both the SPS and TBS elicited maximal discomfort at the stimulation position F8. The SPS and TBS to F8 under the standard TMS protocols were intolerable for approximately one half (11 and 10, respectively) of the subjects. The intolerability was further calculated for all voxels in the lateral prefrontal cortex, which enabled us to estimate the additional number of subjects required for specific target areas. These results suggest that prior knowledge of subjects’ discomfort during stimulation of the lateral prefrontal cortex can be of practical use in the experimental planning of the appropriate number of recruited subjects and provide the database for the probability of intolerability that can be used to predict the additional number of subjects.

Neuroplasticity of Sensorimotor Control in Low Back Pain

Low back pain (LBP) is an important medical and socioeconomic problem. Impaired sensorimotor control has been suggested to be a likely mechanism underlying development and/or maintenance of pain. Although early work focused on the structural and functional abnormalities within the musculoskeletal system, in the past 20 years there has been an increasing realization that patients with LBP might also have extensive neuroplastic changes within the central nervous system. These include changes related to both the structure (eg, gray matter changes) and function (eg, organization of the sensory and motor cortices) of the nervous system as related to processing of pain and nociception and to motor and somatosensory systems. Moreover, clinical interventions increasingly aim to drive neuroplasticity with treatments to improve pain and sensorimotor function. This commentary provides a contemporary overview of neuroplasticity of the pain/nociceptive and sensorimotor systems in LBP. This paper addresses (1) defining neuroplasticity in relation to control of the spine and LBP, (2) structural and functional nervous system changes as they relate to nonspecific LBP and sensorimotor function, and (3) related clinical implications. Individuals with recurrent and persistent LBP differ from those without LBP in several markers of the nervous system's function and structure. Neuroplastic changes may be addressed by top-down cognitive-based interventions and bottom-up physical interventions. An integrated clinical approach that combines contemporary pain neuroscience education, cognition-targeted sensorimotor control, and physical or function-based treatments may lead to better outcomes in patients with recurrent and persistent LBP. This approach will need to consider variation among individuals, as no single finding/mechanism is present in all individuals, and no single treatment that targets neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor system is likely to be effective for all patients with LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(6):402-414. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8489.

The effect of combined transcranial direct current stimulation and peripheral nerve electrical stimulation on corticospinal excitability

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PES) can change corticospinal excitability. tDCS can be used to non-invasively modulate the cerebral cortex’s excitability by applying weak current to an electrode attached to the head, and the effect varies with the electrode’s polarity. Previous studies have reported the effect of combined tDCS and PES on corticospinal excitability; when compared to single stimulation, combined stimulation increases cortical excitability. In contrast, another study reported that the effect of tDCS is attenuated by PES; hence, there is no consensus opinion on the effect on combined stimulation. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the effect of combined tDCS and PES on corticospinal excitability. In Experiment 1, the combined stimulation of anodal tDCS and PES (anodal tDCS + PES) was performed, and in Experiment 2, a combined stimulation with PES, after cathodal tDCS (PES after cathodal tDCS), was performed using a homeostatic metaplasticity theoretical model. In Experiment 1, anodal tDCS produced a significant increase from baseline in motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude 10 min after stimulation, but no significant changes in MEP amplitude were observed with PES or the anodal tDCS + PES condition. Experiment 2 showed a significant decrease in MEP amplitude immediately after cathodal tDCS, and a significant increase in MEP amplitude 15 min after PES, but no significant change in MEP amplitude was observed with sequential PES following cathodal tDCS. In conclusion, our data indicate that PES with anodal tDCS suppressed the effect of tDCS. Also, PES after cathodal tDCS did not induce homeostatic metaplasticity and increase corticospinal excitability.

Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC2-NIN-CP)

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Chronic pain (CP) is highly prevalent and generally undertreated health condition. Noninvasive brain stimulation may contribute to decrease pain intensity and influence other aspects related to CP.

Objective:

To provide consensus-based recommendations for the use of noninvasive brain stimulation in clinical practice.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature searching for randomized clinical trials followed by consensus panel. Recommendations also involved a cost-estimation study.

Results:

The systematic review wielded 24 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and 22 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. The following recommendations were provided: (1) Level A for anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in fibromyalgia, and level B for peripheral neuropathic pain, abdominal pain, and migraine; bifrontal (F3/F4) tDCS and M1 high-definition (HD)-tDCS for fibromyalgia; Oz/Cz tDCS for migraine and for secondary benefits such as improvement in quality of life, decrease in anxiety, and increase in pressure pain threshold; (2) level A recommendation for high-frequency (HF) rTMS over M1 for fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, and level B for myofascial or musculoskeletal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and migraine; (3) level A recommendation against the use of anodal M1 tDCS for low back pain; and (4) level B recommendation against the use of HF rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the control of pain.

Conclusion:

Transcranial DCS and rTMS are recommended techniques to be used in the control of CP conditions, with low to moderate analgesic effects, and no severe adverse events. These recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus made by experts in the field. Readers should use it as part of the resources available to decision-making.

Developing an optimized strategy with transcranial direct current stimulation to enhance the endogenous pain control system in fibromyalgia

INTRODUCTION

Fibromyalgia affects more than 5 million people in the United States and has a detrimental impact on individuals' quality of life. Current pharmacological treatments provide limited benefits to relieve the pain of fibromyalgia, along with a risk of adverse effects; a scenario that explains the increasing interest for multimodal approaches. A tailored strategy to focus on this dysfunctional endogenous pain inhibitory system is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex. By combining tDCS with aerobic exercise, the effects can be optimized. Areas covered: The relevant literature was reviewed and discussed the methodological issues for designing a mechanistic clinical trial to test this combined intervention. Also, we reviewed the neural control of different pathways that integrate the endogenous pain inhibitory system, as well as the effects of tDCS and aerobic exercise both alone and combined. In addition, potential neurophysiological assessments are addressed: conditioned pain modulation, temporal slow pain summation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and electroencephalography in the context of fibromyalgia. Expert commentary: By understanding the neural mechanisms underlying pain processing and potential optimized interventions in fibromyalgia with higher accuracy, the field has an evident potential of advancement in the direction of new neuromarkers and tailored therapies.

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.