Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Affective Symptoms and Functioning in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Anatomo-physiological basis and applied techniques of electrical neuromodulation in chronic pain

Chronic pain, a complex and debilitating condition, poses a significant challenge to both patients and healthcare providers worldwide. Conventional pharmacological interventions often prove inadequate in delivering satisfactory relief while carrying the risks of addiction and adverse reactions. In recent years, electric neuromodulation emerged as a promising alternative in chronic pain management. This method entails the precise administration of electrical stimulation to specific nerves or regions within the central nervous system to regulate pain signals. Through mechanisms that include the alteration of neural activity and the release of endogenous pain-relieving substances, electric neuromodulation can effectively alleviate pain and improve patients' quality of life. Several modalities of electric neuromodulation, with a different grade of invasiveness, provide tailored strategies to tackle various forms and origins of chronic pain. Through an exploration of the anatomical and physiological pathways of chronic pain, encompassing neurotransmitter involvement, this narrative review offers insights into electrical therapies' mechanisms of action, clinical utility, and future perspectives in chronic pain management.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for chronic headaches, a randomized, controlled trial

Background and objectives

Chronic headaches are a frequent cause of pain and disability. The purpose of this randomized trial was to examine whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the primary motor cortex, reduces pain and increases daily function in individuals suffering from primary chronic headache.

Materials and methods

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial, where participants and assessors were blinded, investigated the effect of active tDCS vs. sham tDCS in chronic headache sufferers. Forty subjects between 18 and 70 years of age, with a diagnosis of primary chronic headache were randomized to either active tDCS or sham tDCS treatment groups. All patients received eight treatments over four consecutive weeks. Anodal stimulation (2 mA) directed at the primary motor cortex (M1), was applied for 30 min in the active tDCS group. Participants in the sham tDCS group received 30 s of M1 stimulation at the start and end of the 30-minute procedure; for the remaining 29 min, they did not receive any stimulation. Outcome measures based on data collected at baseline, after eight treatments and three months later included changes in daily function, pain levels, and medication.

Results

Significant improvements in both daily function and pain levels were observed in participants treated with active tDCS, compared to sham tDCS. Effects lasted up to 12 weeks post-treatment. Medication use remained unchanged in both groups throughout the trial with no serious adverse effects reported.

Conclusion

These results suggest that tDCS has the potential to improve daily function and reduce pain in patients suffering from chronic headaches. Larger randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

The study was approved by the local ethics committee (2018/2514) and by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (54483).

Low-Intensity Focused Ultrasound to the Human Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Attenuates Acute Pain Perception and Autonomic Responses

The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) is a critical brain area for pain and autonomic processing, making it a promising noninvasive therapeutic target. We leverage the high spatial resolution and deep focal lengths of low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) to noninvasively modulate the dACC for effects on behavioral and cardiac autonomic responses using transient heat pain stimuli. A N = 16 healthy human volunteers (6 M/10 F) received transient contact heat pain during either LIFU to the dACC or Sham stimulation. Continuous electroencephalogram (EEG), electrocardiogram (ECG), and electrodermal response (EDR) were recorded. Outcome measures included pain ratings, heart rate variability, EDR response, blood pressure, and the amplitude of the contact heat-evoked potential (CHEP).LIFU reduced pain ratings by 1.09 ± 0.20 points relative to Sham. LIFU increased heart rate variability indexed by the standard deviation of normal sinus beats (SDNN), low-frequency (LF) power, and the low-frequency/high-frequency (LF/HF) ratio. There were no effects on the blood pressure or EDR. LIFU resulted in a 38.1% reduction in the P2 CHEP amplitude. Results demonstrate LIFU to the dACC reduces pain and alters autonomic responses to acute heat pain stimuli. This has implications for the causal understanding of human pain and autonomic processing in the dACC and potential future therapeutic options for pain relief and modulation of homeostatic signals.

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

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

Comparative effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) can seriously impair the quality of life of patients and has a remarkable comorbidity with psychological symptoms, which, in turn, can further exacerbate the symptoms of CLBP. Psychological treatments are critical and nonnegligent for the management of CLBP, and thus, should attract sufficient attention. However, current evidence does not suggest the superiority and effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP.Thus, this study was designed to compare the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP and to recommend preferred strategies for attenuating psychological symptoms in clinical practice.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), PubMed, Embase Database, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception until March 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare different nonpharmacological interventions for depression, anxiety, and mental health among patients with CLBP were eligible. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was used. Four reviewers in pairs and divided into two groups independently performed literature selection, data extraction, and risk of bias, and certainty of evidence assessments. This NMA was conducted with a random effects model under a frequentist framework. The major outcomes were depression, anxiety, and mental health presented as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with the corresponding 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 66 RCTs that randomized 4806 patients with CLBP met the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was typically low or some risks of bias (47 out of 66 trials, 71.3%), and the precision of summary estimates for effectiveness varied substantially. In addition, 7 categories of interventions with 26 specific treatments were evaluated. For depression, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.63 to -0.78), biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.12), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.02) exhibited remarkable effectiveness in reducing depression compared with the control group. For managing anxiety, mind body therapy (pooled SMD = -1.35, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.80), multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.06), and a biopsychosocial approach (pooled SMD = -0.46, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.14) were substantially superior to the control group. For improving mental health, multicomponent intervention (pooled SMD = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.39), exercise (pooled SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.11), and physical therapy (pooled SMD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.02-0.92) demonstrated statistically substantial effectiveness compared with the control group. The rank probability indicated that mind body therapy achieved the highest effectiveness in reducing depression and anxiety among patients with CLBP. Besides, the combined results should be interpreted cautiously based on the results of analyses evaluating the inconsistency and certainty of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

This systemic review and NMA suggested that nonpharmacological interventions show promise for reducing psychological symptoms among patients with CLBP. In particular, mind body therapy and a biopsychosocial approach show considerable promise, and mind body therapy can be considered a priority choice in reducing depression and anxiety. These findings can aid clinicians in assessing the potential risks and benefits of available treatments for CLBP comorbidity with psychological symptoms and provide evidence for selecting interventions in clinical practice. More RCTs involving different interventions with rigorous methodology and an adequate sample size should be conducted in future research.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with Pilates-based exercises in the treatment of chronic low back pain in outpatient rehabilitation service in Brazil: double-blind randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain may be associated with pathoanatomical, neurophysiological, physical, psychological and social factors; thus, treatments to reduce symptoms are important to improve the quality of life of this population. We aimed to evaluate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with Pilates-based exercises compared with sham stimulation on pain, quality of life and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial with participants, outcome assessor and statistician blinded. We will include 36 individuals with a history of non-specific chronic low back pain for more than 12 weeks and minimum pain intensity of 3 points on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Individuals will be randomised into two groups: (1) active tDCS combined with Pilates-based exercises and (2) sham tDCS combined with Pilates-based exercises. Three weekly sessions of the protocol will be provided for 4 weeks, and individuals will be submitted to three assessments: the first (T0) will be performed before the intervention protocol, the second (T1) immediately after the intervention protocol and the third (T2) will be a follow-up 1 month after the end of the intervention. We will assess pain, disability, central sensitisation, quality of life, pressure pain threshold, global impression of change, adverse events and medication use. The Numerical Pain Rating Scale and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire will be used at T1 to assess pain and disability, respectively, as primary outcome measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov website and ethically approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi (report number: 5.411.244) before data collection. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal and on institution websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05467566).

Investigation into the Effectiveness of Combining Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation as Treatment Options for Poststroke Shoulder Pain by Utilizing Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Objective

The aim of this study is to explore the therapeutic effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on post stroke shoulder pain (PSSP).

Methods

We enrolled 13 individuals in this study who underwent three different treatments in a random sequence: active tDCS+active TENS, active tDCS+sham TENS, and sham tDCS+active TENS. Each treatment was administered once, with a 3-day washout period between interventions. A blinded rater assessed the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, fNIRS readings, and sensory and pain tolerance thresholds of the participants before and after the stimulation.

Results

All three treatment methods can significantly alleviate PSSP (p<0.05). Compared with using tDCS alone, tDCS+TENS can significantly improve pain, with a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). In the 2KHz PTT task, the three treatment methods showed significant differences (p<0.05) in the mean oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) levels in the false premotor cortex (PMC)/auxiliary motor area (SMA) before and after intervention.

Conclusion

The combination of tDCS+TENS can increase the pain-relieving impact on PSSP when compared to using tDCS alone. TENS may contribute an additional effect on the inhibitory systems influenced by tDCS that help reduce pain.

Clinical Registration Number

Registration website: https://www.chictr.org.cn. Registration date: 2022-02-25. Registration number: ChiCTR2200056970.

Management of Chronic Pain and PTSD in Veterans With tDCS+Prolonged Exposure: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are prevalent comorbid conditions, particularly in Veterans; however, there are few integrated treatments for chronic pain and PTSD. Instead, interventions are typically implemented separately and may involve addictive opioids. Although there are highly effective, non-pharmacological treatments for PTSD, they are plagued by high dropout, which may be exacerbated by comorbid pain, as these PTSD treatments typically require increased activity. Importantly, a noninvasive pain treatment, tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation) shows indications of effectiveness and may be integrated with psychological treatments, even when delivered via telehealth. This study examines the feasibility and initial efficacy of integrating home telehealth tDCS with prolonged exposure (PE), an evidence-based PTSD treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine Veterans were contacted, 31 consented to evaluation, 21 were enrolled, and 16 completed treatment and provided pre- and post-treatment data at one of two Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Transcranial direct current stimulation sessions corresponded with PE exposure assignments, as there is theoretical reason to believe that tDCS may potentiate extinction learning featured in PE.

RESULTS

Patients evinced significant improvement in both pain interference and PTSD symptoms and a trend toward improvement in depression symptoms. However, a significant change in pain intensity was not observed, likely because of the small sample size.

DISCUSSION

The findings provide initial support for the feasibility of an entirely home-based, integrated treatment for comorbid PTSD and pain.

Does Multisession Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Prime the Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Fear of Pain, Fear of Movement, and Disability in Patients with Nonspecific Low Back Pain? A Randomized Clinical Trial Study

Many studies have shown that low back pain (LBP) is associated with psychosomatic symptoms which may lead to brain changes. This study aimed to investigate the effect of the concurrent application of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and transcranial direct electrical stimulation (tDCS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on fear of pain, fear of movement, and disability in patients with nonspecific LBP. This study was performed on 45 LBP patients (23 women, 22 men; mean age 33.00 ± 1.77 years) in three groups: experimental (2 mA cathodal tDCS (c-tDCS)), sham (c-tDCS turned off after 30 s), and control (only received CBT). In all groups, CBT was conducted for 20 min per session, with two sessions per week for four weeks. Fear of pain, fear of movement, and disability were evaluated using questionnaires at baseline, immediately after, and one month after completion of interventions. Results indicated that all three different types of intervention could significantly reduce fear and disability immediately after intervention (p > 0.05). However, improvement in the experimental group was significantly higher than in the other groups immediately after and at the one-month follow-up after interventions (p < 0.05). DLPFC c-tDCS can prime the immediate effects of CBT and also the lasting effects on the reduction in the fear of pain, fear of movement, and disability in LBP patients.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation beneficial for treating pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is often accompanied by emotional dysfunction. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used for reducing pain, depressive and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients, but its therapeutic effect remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the treatment effect of tDCS on pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms of patients suffering from chronic pain, and potential factors that modulate the effectiveness of tDCS.

METHODS

Literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the effects of tDCS on pain and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in this review. Overall pooled results indicated that the use of tDCS can effectively alleviate short-term pain intensity [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.75 to -0.12, P = 0.007] and depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.31, 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.14, P < 0.001), middle-term depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.11, P = 0.004), long-term depressive symptoms (ES: -0.38, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.13, P = 0.003) and anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.02, P = 0.03) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

tDCS may be an effective short-term treatment for the improvement of pain intensity and concomitant depression and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients. Stimulation site, stimulation frequency, and type of chronic pain were significant influence factors for the therapeutic effect of tDCS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=297693, identifier: CRD42022297693.

Non-invasive brain neuromodulation techniques for chronic low back pain

Structural and functional changes of the brain occur in many chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (CLBP), and these brain abnormalities can be reversed by effective treatment. Research on the clinical applications of non-invasive brain neuromodulation (NIBS) techniques for chronic pain is increasing. Unfortunately, little is known about the effectiveness of NIBS on CLBP, which limits its application in clinical pain management. Therefore, we summarized the effectiveness and limitations of NIBS techniques on CLBP management and described the effects and mechanisms of NIBS approaches on CLBP in this review. Overall, NIBS may be effective for the treatment of CLBP. And the analgesic mechanisms of NIBS for CLBP may involve the regulation of pain signal pathway, synaptic plasticity, neuroprotective effect, neuroinflammation modulation, and variations in cerebral blood flow and metabolism. Current NIBS studies for CLBP have limitations, such as small sample size, relative low quality of evidence, and lack of mechanistic studies. Further studies on the effect of NIBS are needed, especially randomized controlled trials with high quality and large sample size.

Advances in Non-Invasive Neuromodulation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pain medicine is rapidly expanding. The gap in treatment for patients with chronic pain in between traditional conservative therapy and major invasive surgery is closing. Neuromodulation is one therapeutic area that has continued to show promise for treatment of chronic pain. Our aim is to review updates in non-invasive neuromodulation (NIN) techniques as an adjunct for various chronic pain conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall, the literature suggests that NIN techniques such as tCDS, TMS, TENS, tVNS, and HIFUS/LIFUS have utility in treating various types of chronic pain and have a promising future. There is a better understanding of the mechanistic basis for pain relief from NIN, as well as refinement in technology improving NIN therapy success. Future studies will need to focus on continuing to refine protocols for optimal benefit from NIN as well as implementing larger RCTs to improve the quality of data being generated in the field.

Advances in Pain Medicine: a Review of New Technologies

Purpose of Review

This narrative review highlights the interventional musculoskeletal techniques that have evolved in recent years.

Recent Findings

The recent progress in pain medicine technologies presented here represents the ideal treatment of the pain patient which is to provide personalized care. Advances in pain physiology research and pain management technologies support each other concurrently.

Summary

As new technologies give rise to new perspectives and understanding of pain, new research inspires the development of new technologies

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.

Determining the Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Tinnitus, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Tinnitus is the awareness of a sound in the absence of an external source. It affects around 10–15% of people, a significant proportion of whom also experience symptoms such as depression or anxiety that negatively affect their quality of life. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique involving constant low-intensity direct current delivered via scalp electrodes. It is a potential treatment option for tinnitus, as well as tinnitus-related conditions such as depression and anxiety. This systematic review estimates the effects of tDCS on outcomes relevant to tinnitus. In addition, it sheds light on the relationship between stimulation parameters and the effect of tDCS on these outcomes; (2) Methods: Exhaustive searches of electronic databases were conducted. Randomised controlled trials were included if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: tinnitus symptom severity, anxiety, or depression. Where available, data on quality of life, adverse effects, and neurophysiological changes were also reviewed. GRADE was used to assess the certainty in the estimate; (3) Results: Meta-analyses revealed a statistically significant reduction in tinnitus (moderate certainty) and depression (low certainty)-but not anxiety-following active tDCS compared to sham control. Network meta-analyses revealed potential optimal stimulation parameters; (4) Conclusions: The evidence synthesised in this review suggests tDCS has the potential to reduce symptom severity in tinnitus and depression. It further narrows down the number of potentially optimal stimulation parameters.

Neuromodulation for Pain: A Comprehensive Survey and Systematic Review of Clinical Trials and Connectomic Analysis of Brain Targets

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition that imposes a tremendous burden on health-care systems around the world. While frontline treatments for chronic pain involve pharmacological and psychological approaches, neuromodulation can be considered for treatment-resistant cases. Neuromodulatory approaches for pain are diverse in both modality and target and their mechanism of action is incompletely understood.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to (i) understand the current landscape of pain neuromodulation research through a comprehensive survey of past and current registered clinical trials (ii) investigate the network underpinnings of these neuromodulatory treatments by performing a connectomic mapping analysis of cortical and subcortical brain targets that have been stimulated for pain relief.

METHODS

A search for clinical trials involving pain neuromodulation was conducted using 2 major trial databases (ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). Trials were categorized by variables and analyzed to gain an overview of the contemporary research landscape. Additionally, a connectomic mapping analysis was performed to investigate the network connectivity patterns of analgesic brain stimulation targets using a normative connectome based on a functional magnetic resonance imaging dataset.

RESULTS

In total, 487 relevant clinical trials were identified. Noninvasive cortical stimulation and spinal cord stimulation trials represented 49.3 and 43.7% of this count, respectively, while deep brain stimulation trials accounted for <3%. The mapping analysis revealed that superficial target connectomics overlapped with deep target connectomics, suggesting a common pain network across the targets.

CONCLUSIONS

Research for pain neuromodulation is a rapidly growing field. Our connectomic network analysis reinforced existing knowledge of the pain matrix, identifying both well-described hubs and more obscure structures. Further studies are needed to decode the circuits underlying pain relief and determine the most effective targets for neuromodulatory treatment.

Medial Prefrontal High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Improve Pain Modulation in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Randomized Double-blinded Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is highly disabling, but often without identifiable source. Focus has been on impaired anti-nociceptive mechanisms contributing to pain maintenance, though methods of targeting this impairment remain limited. This randomised-controlled cross-over pilot trial used active versus sham medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) for 3-consecutive days to improve descending pain inhibitory function. Twelve CLBP patients were included with an average visual analogue scale (VAS) pain intensity of 3.0 ± 1.5 and pain duration of 5.3 ± 2.6 years. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), and temporal summation of pain (TSP) assessed by cuff algometry, as well as pain symptomatology (intensity, unpleasantness, quality, disability) and related psychological features (pain catastrophizing, anxiety, affect), were assessed on Day1 before 3 consecutive days of HD-tDCS sessions (each 20 minutes), at 24-hours (Day 4) and 2-weeks (Day 21) following final HD-tDCS. Blinding was successful. No significant differences in psychophysical (PPT, CPM, TSP), symptomatology or psychological outcomes were observed between active and sham HD-tDCS on Day4 and Day21. CPM-effects at Day 1 negatively correlated with change in CPM-effect at Day4 following active HD-tDCS (P = .002). Lack of efficacy was attributed to several factors, not least that patients did not display impaired CPM at baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: : ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03864822). PERSPECTIVE: Medial prefrontal HD-tDCS did not alter pain, psychological nor psychophysical outcomes, though correlational analysis suggested response may depend on baseline pain inhibitory efficacy, with best potential effects in patients with severe impairments in descending pain inhibitory mechanisms. Future work should focus on appropriate patient selection and optimising stimulation targeting.

The Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation to Reduce Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to evaluate noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) efficacy to alleviate pain and improve disability in low back pain (LBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed by a librarian in MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases (last search: January 14, 2021). Data were pooled by the number of sessions and follow-up periods. Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias. Pain reduction and disability were used as outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 8 in the meta-analysis. A single session of NIBS reduced pain compared with sham (standardized mean difference: -0.47; P<0.001; very low-quality evidence). Repeated sessions of NIBS did not impact pain at short-term (mean difference [MD]: -0.31; P=0.23) or midterm (MD: -0.56; P=0.33; moderate quality evidence). Combining NIBS with cointerventions did not influence pain (MD: -0.31; P=0.30; moderate quality evidence). NIBS did not have a statistically significant impact on disability.

DISCUSSION

There is very low-quality evidence suggesting that a single NIBS session reduces LBP intensity. In contrast, there is moderate quality evidence that repeated NIBS sessions or combination with cointervention did not improve pain or disability. Thus, current results do not support NIBS use to treat chronic LBP. Considering that tDCS was tested in 8 of 12 studies with little success, studies focusing on different NIBS techniques or innovative parameters are required to determine their potential to improve pain and disability in chronic LBP.

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.

OBJECTIVE

We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.

METHODS

Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.

RESULTS

Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).

CONCLUSION

All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for nonspecific low back pain: double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial

Introduction: Low back pain is recognized as a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Between 70 and 80% of adults experience at least one occasion of low back pain with duration of 3 months or longer in their lifetime. Aside from the classic treatment methods, there are other new techniques yet to be clinically investigated. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been reported to alleviate pain by affecting the central nervous system. To date only a small number of studies have been published on the effects of tDCS on chronic low back pain. Some of these were pilot studies and others were low-powered in terms of their inference. Therefore the clinical application of tDCS requires further careful evaluation. Objective: To assess the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation for treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Materials and methods: We carried out a double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial in a University Hospital. In total 70 people (15 women) with low back pain were randomized to either active or sham stimulation. The primary outcome was intensity of low back pain on the Visual Analog Scale. We also used the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire to evaluate the effects of back pain on daily activities. For the active stimulation group we administered 2 mA tDCS, 20 minutes for each session, once daily, 5 days per week for 2 weeks, totaling 10 sessions. For the sham stimulation group a similar program was followed with no stimulation. Both groups used analgesic medication. Results: Within-group analysis showed that an initial decrease in pain intensity was significant in both groups (both p < 0.001). However, pain reduction became stable only in the active treatment group. There was a significant difference in the pattern of change in mean pain scores in favor of tDCS (p < 0.001). Active treatment also significantly reduced disability scores (all p values < 0.001), whereas participants in the sham treatment group did not experience functional recovery. Mixed ANOVA indicated that the pattern of change in mean scores of disability differed between the two groups throughout the study course, in favor of active stimulation (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Transcranial direct current stimulation is an effective and safe initial treatment for chronic nonspecific low back pain, and the benefits remain for at least several months.