Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Reduction of Clinical and Experimentally Induced Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Reduces Pressure Pain Sensitivity in Patients With Noncancer Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Noncancer chronic pain is a clinical challenge because pharmacological treatment often fails to relieve pain. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a treatment that could have the potential for pain relief and improvement in quality of life. However, there is a lack of clinical trials evaluating the effects of tDCS on the pain system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of 5 days of anodal tDCS treatment on the pain system in patients with chronic noncancer pain using quantitative sensory testing and quality of life questionnaires: (1) Brief Pain Inventory-short form, (2) European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30, and (3) Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale.

METHODS

Eleven patients with noncancer chronic pain (51 ± 13.6 y old, 5M) participated in the study. Anodal tDCS was applied for 5 consecutive days, followed by sham stimulation after a washout period of at least 2 weeks. Pressure pain thresholds and pain tolerance thresholds (PTT) were assessed in different body regions on days 1 and 5.

RESULTS

Anodal tDCS appeared to maintain PTT at C5 (clavicle) on day 5, but sham stimulation decreased PTT ( P = 0.007). In addition, anodal tDCS increased PTT compared with sham at day 5 at Th10 ventral dermatomes ( P = 0.014). Both anodal and sham tDCS decreased the Brief Pain Inventory-short form total and interference scores, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30 fatigue score, but no interaction effect was observed.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the evidence in the literature that tDCS may be a potential therapeutic tool for the management of noncancer chronic pain.

Investigating the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation on chronic pain management in endometriosis patients: A randomized controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Similar to chronic pain conditions, individuals with endometriosis can be affected by central sensitization syndrome (CSS), which is characterized by a loss of analgesia and central amplification of pain. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown potential as an effective intervention to improve pain generated by other chronic pain conditions impacted by CSS, such as fibromyalgia and chronic pelvic issues. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of tDCS on pain, fatigue, and quality of life among patients affected by endometriosis.

METHODS

This is a single-center, parallel, double-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial protocol study. We aim to recruit 40 participants affected by endometriosis (active group, n = 20; sham group, n = 20). Anodal tDCS will be delivered at an intensity of 2mA, applied over the primary motor cortex for 20 minutes per day for 10 consecutive days. There will be four assessment times: 1 week before beginning the intervention; on the 10th day following the last tDCS session; and 1 and 2 months after the last tDCS session. Pain evaluated by the algometry will be the primary outcome. Pain intensity, quality of life, fatigue, and global perception of change will be the secondary outcomes. We will calculate the effects of the active versus sham stimulation on primary and secondary outcomes by using generalized estimated equations or mixed model analysis. The effect size calculation will represent the effect measure. We expect that only the active group show reductions in pain, fatigue, and quality of life. The results of this trial will produce an important first step in providing evidence on the effectiveness of neuromodulation for the management of pain and will provide data to support new studies on tDCS.

REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (RBR-4q69573).

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.

Application of the herbal chemical marker ranking system (Herb MaRS) to the standardization of herbal raw materials: a case study

INTRODUCTION

Phytochemical standardization of herbal materials involves establishing consistent levels of one or more active ingredients or markers. It ensures the authenticity and quality of herbal materials, extracts, and their products. This research aimed to apply the herbal chemical marker ranking system (Herb MaRS) originally proposed for quality assurance of complex herbal products to establish markers for controlling the quality of herbal raw materials.

METHODS

The assessment of compounds for suitability as markers was based on the Herb MaRS, with minor modifications as follows: for more objective scoring, evidence of biological activity of the potential marker compound(s) was determined at three levels based on the number of symptoms of the disease condition a compound can treat or alleviate: (i) one symptom (1 point), two symptoms (2 points), and 3 or more symptoms (3 points). The reported concentrations of the compounds were also scored as follows: concentration not determined (0 points), concentration ≥ 5 ppm (1 point), concentration ≥ 50 ppm (2 points) and availability of analytical standards (1 point). Finally, the compounds were scored for the availability of an analytical method (1 point). The compounds were scored from 0 to 8, where 8 indicated the most suitable chemical marker.

RESULTS

The selected markers were as follows: aromadendrine, α-terpineol, globulol, and 1,8-cineol (in Eucalyptus globulus Labill. ); aloin, aloe emodin, acemannan (in Aloe barbadensis (L.) Burm.f. ), lupeol, lupenone, betulinic acid, betulin, and catechin (in Albizia coriaria Oliv.); mangiferin, catechin, quercetin, and gallic acid (in Mangifera indica L.); polygodial (in Warburgia ugandensis Sprague); azadirachtin, nimbin, nimbidin (in Azadirachta indica A. Juss. ); and 6,8,10-gingerols, and 6-shogaol (in Zingiber officinalis Roscoe).

CONCLUSIONS

Herb MaRS can be efficiently applied to select marker compounds for quality control of herbal materials. However, for herbs whose phytochemicals have not been sufficiently researched, it is difficult to establish evidence of activity, and there are no analytical standards and/or methods; this is the case for plants exclusively used in Africa. The markers identified should be incorporated into chromatographic fingerprints, their quantitative methods developed, and evaluated for applicability at the various stages of the production chain of herbal medicines; then, they can be included in future local plant monographs. There is also a need to build local capacity to isolate marker compounds, particularly those that are not sold by current vendors.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Efficacy of Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain in Older Adults with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Pilot Clinical Trial

Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is emerging as a convenient pain relief modality for several chronic pain conditions, its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy on pain in patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) have not been investigated. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of 5, 20-min home-based tDCS sessions on chronic pain in older adults with ADRD. We randomly assigned 40 participants to active (n = 20) or sham (n = 20) tDCS. Clinical pain intensity was assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS) with patients and a proxy measure (MOBID-2) with caregivers. We observed significant reductions of pain intensity for patients in the active tDCS group as reflected by both pain measures (NRS: Cohen's d = 0.69, p-value = 0.02); MOBID-2: Cohen's d = 1.12, p-value = 0.001). Moreover, we found home-based tDCS was feasible and acceptable intervention approach for pain in ADRD. These findings suggest the need for large-scale randomized controlled studies with larger samples and extended versions of tDCS to relieve chronic pain on the long-term for individuals with ADRD.

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.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pain assessed using numeric rating scale and algometry.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

RBR-469yd6.

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.

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).

Transcranial direct current stimulation of 3 cortical targets is no more effective than placebo as treatment for fibromyalgia: a double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex seem to improve pain and other symptoms of fibromyalgia (FM), although the evidence on the effectiveness of tDCS and the optimal stimulation target is not robust enough. Our main objective was to establish the optimal area of stimulation, comparing the 2 classical targets and a novel pain-related area, the operculo-insular cortex, in a sham-controlled trial. Using a double-blind design, we randomly assigned 130 women with FM to 4 treatment groups (M1, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, operculo-insular cortex, and sham), each receiving fifteen 20-minute sessions of 2 mA anodal tDCS over the left hemisphere. Our primary outcome was pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were the other core symptoms of FM (fatigue, mood, cognitive and sleep disorders, and hyperalgesia measured by the pressure pain threshold). We performed the assessment at 3 time points (before, immediately after treatment, and at 6 months follow-up). The linear mixed-model analysis of variances showed significant treatment effects across time for clinical pain and for fatigue, cognitive and sleep disturbances, and experimental pain, irrespective of the group. In mood, the 3 active tDCS groups showed a significantly larger improvement in anxiety and depression than sham. Our findings provide evidence of a placebo effect, support the use of tDCS for the treatment of affective symptoms, and challenge the effectiveness of tDCS as treatment of FM.

Effects of High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over the Primary Motor Cortex on Cold Pain Sensitivity Among Healthy Adults

Some clinical studies have shown promising effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) on pain relief. Nevertheless, a few studies reported no significant analgesic effects of tDCS, likely due to the complexity of clinical pain conditions. Human experimental pain models that utilize indices of pain in response to well-controlled noxious stimuli can avoid many confounds that are present in the clinical data. This study aimed to investigate the effects of high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) stimulation over M1 on sensitivity to experimental pain and assess whether these effects could be influenced by the pain-related cognitions and emotions. A randomized, double-blinded, crossover, and sham-controlled design was adopted. A total of 28 healthy participants received anodal, cathodal, or sham HD-tDCS over M1 (1 mA for 20 min) in different sessions, in which montage has the advantage of producing more focal stimulation. Using a cold pressor test, several indices reflecting the sensitivity to cold pain were measured immediately after HD-tDCS stimulation, such as cold pain threshold and tolerance and cold pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings. Results showed that only anodal HD-tDCS significantly increased cold pain threshold when compared with sham stimulation. Neither anodal nor cathodal HD-tDCS showed significant analgesic effects on cold pain tolerance, pain intensity, and unpleasantness ratings. Correlation analysis revealed that individuals that a had lower level of attentional bias to negative information benefited more from attenuating pain intensity rating induced by anodal HD-tDCS. Therefore, single-session anodal HD-tDCS modulates the sensory-discriminative aspect of pain perception as indexed by the increased pain threshold. In addition, the modulating effects of HD-tDCS on attenuating pain intensity to suprathreshold pain could be influenced by the participant’s negative attentional bias, which deserves to be taken into consideration in the clinical applications.

Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, which has been increasingly used as an investigational tool in neuroscience. In social and affective neuroscience research, the prefrontal cortex has been primarily targeted, since this brain region is critically involved in complex psychobiological processes subserving both Șhotș and Școldș domains. Although several studies have suggested that prefrontal tDCS can enhance neuropsychological outcomes, meta-analyses have reported conflicting results. Therefore, we aimed to assess the available evidence by performing an umbrella review of meta-analyses. We evaluated the effects of prefrontal active vs sham tDCS on different domains of cognition among healthy and neuropsychiatric individuals. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was employed to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses, and the GRADE system was employed to grade the quality of evidence of every comparison from each meta-analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched, and 11 meta-analyses were included resulting in 55 comparisons. Only 16 comparisons reported significant effects favoring tDCS, but 13 of them had either very low or low quality of evidence. Of the remaining 39 comparisons which reported non-significant effects, 38 had either very low or low quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were rated as having critically low and low quality. Among several reasons to explain these findings, the lack of consensus and reproducibility in tDCS research is discussed.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Fibromyalgia. Part 1: Diagnosis and treatment

OBJECTIVE

To prevent the impairment of fibromyalgia patients due to harmful actions in daily clinical practice that are potentially avoidable.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team identified the main areas of interest and carried out an analysis of scientific evidence and established recommendations based on the evidence and "formal evaluation" or "reasoned judgment" qualitative analysis techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 39 recommendations address diagnosis, unsafe or ineffective treatment interventions and patient and healthcare workers' education. This part I shows the first 27 recommendations on the first 2 areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing a diagnosis improves the patient's coping with the disease and reduces healthcare costs. NSAIDs, strong opioids and benzodiazepines should be avoided due to side effects. There is no good evidence to justify the association of several drugs. There is also no good evidence to recommend any complementary medicine. Surgeries show a greater number of complications and a lower degree of patient satisfaction and therefore should be avoided if the surgical indication is not clearly established.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on experimental pain perception: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Many studies have examined the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on human pain perception in both healthy populations and pain patients. Nevertheless, studies have yielded conflicting results, likely due to differences in stimulation parameters, experimental paradigms, and outcome measures. Human experimental pain models that utilize indices of pain in response to well-controlled noxious stimuli can avoid many confounds present in clinical data. This study aimed to assess the robustness of tDCS effects on experimental pain perception among healthy populations.

METHODS

We conducted three meta-analyses that analyzed tDCS effects on ratings of perceived pain intensity to suprathreshold noxious stimuli, pain threshold and tolerance.

RESULTS

The meta-analyses showed a statically significant tDCS effect on attenuating pain-intensity ratings to suprathreshold noxious stimuli. In contrast, tDCS effects on pain threshold and pain tolerance were statistically non-significant. Moderator analysis further suggested that stimulation parameters (active electrode size and current density) and experimental pain modality moderated the effectiveness of tDCS in attenuating pain-intensity ratings.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of tDCS on attenuating experimental pain perception depends on both stimulation parameters of tDCS and the modality of experimental pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides some theoretical basis for the application of tDCS in pain management.

Effect of anodal high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on the pain sensitivity in a healthy population: a double-blind, sham-controlled study

ABSTRACT

High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of brain areas related to pain processing may provide analgesic effects evident in the sensory detection and pain thresholds. The somatosensory sensitivity was assessed after HD-tDCS targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) and/or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Eighty-one (40 females) subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 anodal HD-tDCS protocols (20 minutes) applied on 3 consecutive days: Sham-tDCS, DLPFC-tDCS, M1-tDCS, and DLPFC&M1-tDCS (simultaneous transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS] of DLPFC and M1). Subjects and experimenter were blinded to the tDCS protocols. The somatosensory sensitivity were assessed each day, before and after each tDCS by detection and pain thresholds to thermal and mechanical skin stimulation, vibration detection thresholds, and pressure pain thresholds. Subjects were effectively blinded to the protocol, with no significant difference in rates of whether they received real or placebo tDCS between the 4 groups. Compared with the Sham-tDCS, none of the active HD-tDCS protocols caused significant changes in detection or pain thresholds. Independent of tDCS protocols, pain and detection thresholds except vibration detection were increased immediately after the first tDCS protocol compared with baseline (P < 0.05). Overall, the active stimulation protocols were not able to induce significant modulation of the somatosensory thresholds in this healthy population compared with sham-tDCS. Unrelated to the HD-tDCS protocol, a decreased sensitivity was found after the first intervention, indicating a placebo effect or possible habituation to the quantitative sensory testing assessments. These findings add to the increasing literature of null findings in the modulatory effects of HD-tDCS on the healthy somatosensory system.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Fibromyalgia. Part 1: Diagnosis and Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To prevent the impairment of fibromyalgia patients due to harmful actions in daily clinical practice that are potentially avoidable.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team identified the main areas of interest and carried out an analysis of scientific evidence and established recommendations based on the evidence and "formal evaluation" or "reasoned judgment" qualitative analysis techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 39 recommendations address diagnosis, unsafe or ineffective treatment interventions and patient and healthcare workers' education. This part I shows the first 27 recommendations on the first 2 areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing a diagnosis improves the patient's coping with the disease and reduces healthcare costs. NSAIDs, strong opioids and benzodiazepines should be avoided due to side effects. There is no good evidence to justify the association of several drugs. There is also no good evidence to recommend any complementary medicine. Surgeries show a greater number of complications and a lower degree of patient satisfaction and therefore should be avoided if the surgical indication is not clearly established.

Additive Analgesic Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Together with Mirror Therapy for the Treatment of Phantom Pain

Objective

Current analgesic treatments for phantom pain are not optimal. One well-accepted yet limited nonpharmacological option is mirror therapy, which is thought to counterbalance abnormal plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach believed to affect the membrane potential and activity threshold of cortical neurons. tDCS analgesic effectiveness, however, is mild and short, rendering it a noneffective stand-alone treatment. This study aimed to assess if a combination of mirror therapy with tDCS results in a superior analgesic effect as compared with mirror therapy alone in patients suffering from phantom pain due to recent amputation.

Design

Following ethical approval, eligible patients provided informed consent and were randomly assigned to a study treatment group that continued for 2 weeks (once daily): 1) mirror therapy; 2) mirror therapy and sham tDCS; or 3) mirror therapy and tDCS. Assessments were done before treatment; at the end of treatment weeks 1 and 2; and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months following treatment. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity. Secondary measures were derived from the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Brief Pain Inventory.

Results

Thirty patients were recruited, and 29 patients completed the study. Three months following treatment, pain intensity was significantly (P&lt;0.001) reduced in the combined treatment group (reduction of 5.4±3.3 points) compared with the other study arms (mirror therapy, 1.2±1.1; mirror therapy and sham tDCS, 2.7±3.2). All secondary outcome results were in line with these findings.

Conclusions

Combining tDCS with mirror therapy results in a robust long-lasting analgesic effect. These encouraging findings may contribute to the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of phantom pain.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Accelerates The Onset of Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia: A Randomized Controlled Study

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) describes acute reductions in pain that occur following exercise. Current evidence suggests that the magnitude of EIH is small-to-moderate at best, warranting exploration of novel avenues to bolster these effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to relieve pain and represents a promising intervention that may enhance EIH. This study aimed to determine whether anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex (M1) can augment EIH in healthy individuals experiencing experimentally-induced musculoskeletal pain. Twenty-four healthy subjects attended 2 experimental sessions ("Day 0" and "Day 2"). On Day 0, subjects were injected with nerve growth factor into their right extensor carpi radialis brevis to induce persistent elbow pain. On Day 2, each subject received active or sham tDCS over M1 followed by an isometric grip exercise. Pain intensity, muscle soreness, sensitivity (pressure pain thresholds), and conditioned pain modulation were assessed prior to the nerve growth factor injection, on Day 2 before tDCS, immediately post-exercise, and 15 minutes post-exercise. Active tDCS expedited the onset of EIH, inducing immediate reductions in pain intensity that were not present until 15 minutes post-exercise in the sham group. However, active tDCS did not reduce muscle soreness or sensitivity when compared to sham tDCS. PERSPECTIVE: These findings suggest that active tDCS accelerates the onset of EIH in healthy individuals experiencing experimentally-induced pain. This may represent a promising means of enhancing adherence to exercise protocols. However, larger randomised controlled trials in persistent pain populations are required to confirm the clinical impact of these findings.

Modulating Anxiety and Functional Capacity with Anodal tDCS Over the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Primary Dysmenorrhea

BACKGROUND

Primary dysmenorrhea is a common and often debilitating condition affecting 40-90% of menstruating women. This condition reduces functionality, quality of life, and social activities. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used in many chronic pain syndromes, with evidence of improved pain, functionality, and mood in women with primary dysmenorrhea. The objective of this study was to determine whether tDCS could offer clinical benefits on pain, anxiety, affectivity, and functionality in women with primary dysmenorrhea.

METHODS

This parallel, sham, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted with 26 women randomized into sham tDCS and active tDCS. Anodal tDCS was applied for 5 consecutive days over F3 corresponding to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the cathode electrode over Fp2 for 20 min with an intensity of 2 mA. A numeric rating scale (NRS) was used to assess pain, anxiety, positive and negative affect, and submaximal aerobic performance during two consecutive menstrual cycles.

RESULTS

No significant interaction was found between intervention and time on the NRS [F(2,44) = 1.358, p = 0.26], and a significant main effect of time [F(2,44) = 4.446, p = 0.01] was found. The active group showed a significant reduction in anxiety (p = 0.03) with a mean difference of 5.12 (95% CI 0.79 to 11.05). No significant differences in positive and negative affect were found (p = 0.95 and p = 0.15, respectively). Submaximal aerobic performance was significantly greater in the active group [F(2,21) = 5.591, p = 0.02], with a mean difference of 70.87 (95% CI 8.53 to 133.21).

CONCLUSION

Anodal tDCS over the DLPFC seems to be an effective therapeutic approach for improving anxiety and functionality in women with primary dysmenorrhea.

Longitudinal effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on knee osteoarthritis patients measured by functional infrared spectroscopy: a pilot study

Significance: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common joint disease causing chronic pain and functional alterations (stiffness and swelling) in the elderly population. OA is currently treated pharmacologically with analgesics, although neuromodulation via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has recently generated a growing interest as a safe side-effect free treatment alternative or a complement to medications for chronic pain conditions. Although a number of studies have shown that tDCS has a beneficial effect on behavioral measures of pain, the mechanistic action of neuromodulation on pain sensitivity and coping at the central nervous system is not well understood. Aim: We aimed at observing longitudinal changes of cortical hemodynamics in older adults with knee OA associated with a two-week-long tDCS self-treatment protocol. Approach: Hemodynamics was measured bilaterally in the motor and somatosensory cortices with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in response to thermal pain induced ipsilaterally to the knee primarily affected by OA. Results: We found that both oxyhemoglobin- and deoxyhemoglobin-related functional activations significantly increased during the course of the tDCS treatment, supporting the notion that tDCS yields an increased cortical excitability. Concurrently, clinical measures of pain decreased with tDCS treatment, hinting at a potential spatial dissociation between cortically mediated pain perception and suppression and the prevalence of neuromodulatory effects over cortical pain processing. Conclusions: fNIRS is a valid method for objectively tracking pain in an ambulatory setting and it could potentially be used to inform strategies for optimized tDCS treatment and to develop innovative tDCS protocols.

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

Objective

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

Design

This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Subjects

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Large Treatment Effect With Extended Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Fibromyalgia: A Proof of Concept Sham-Randomized Clinical Study

This randomized, double-blind controlled trial tested the hypothesis that 60 sessions of home-based anodal (a)-transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) would be better than home-based sham-tDCS to improve the widespread pain and the disability-related to pain. The anodal-tDCS (2 mA for 30 minutes) over the left DLPFC was self-administered with a specially developed device following in-person training. Twenty women, 18 to 65 years old were randomized into 2 groups [active-(a)-tDCS (n = 10) or sham-(s)-tDCS (n = 10)]. Post hoc analysis revealed that after the first 20 sessions of a-tDCS, the cumulative pain scores reduced by 45.65% [7.25 (1.43) vs 3.94 (1.14), active vs sham tDCS, respectively]. After 60 sessions, during the 12-week assessment, pain scores reduced by 62.06% in the actively group [visual analogue scale reduction, 7.25 (1.43) to 2.75 (.85)] compared to 24.92% in the s-tDCS group, [mean (SD) 7.10 (1.81) vs 5.33 (.90)], respectively. It reduced the risk for analgesic use in 55%. Higher serum levels of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor predicted higher decreases on the pain scores across of treatment. PERSPECTIVE: These findings bring 3 important insights: 1) show that an extended period of treatment (60 sessions, to date the largest number of tDCS sessions tested) for fibromyalgia induces large pain decreases (a large effect size of 1.59) and 2) support the feasibility of home-based tDCS as a method of intervention; 3) provide additional data on DLPFC target for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Finally, our findings also highlight that brain-derived neurotrophic factor to index neuroplasticity may be a valuable predictor of the tDCS effect on pain scores decreases across the treatment.

Home-based self-administered transcranial direct current stimulation in older adults with knee osteoarthritis pain: An open-label study

Clinic-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that has been shown to improve pain. However, no published studies have reported using home-based self-administered tDCS in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The present study aimed to evaluate the preliminary efficacy and feasibility of home-based self-administered tDCS with real-time remote supervision on clinical pain, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances in older adults with knee OA. Twenty 50- to 85-year-old community-dwelling participants with knee OA received 10 daily home-based sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 20 min with real-time remote supervision. We measured clinical pain severity via the Visual Analog Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. We assessed anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety-short form, depression-short form, and sleep disturbance-short form, respectively. All 20 participants completed all 10 home-based tDCS sessions without serious adverse effects. Both clinical pain severity and sleep disturbances were improved after completion of the 10 tDCS sessions. Anxiety and depression scores were not significantly improved. We demonstrated that home-based self-administered tDCS with real-time remote supervision was feasible and beneficial in alleviating clinical pain in older adults with knee OA. These findings support future studies with larger samples and longer-term follow-up evaluations.

Non-invasive Motor Cortex Neuromodulation Reduces Secondary Hyperalgesia and Enhances Activation of the Descending Pain Modulatory Network

Central sensitization is a driving mechanism in many chronic pain patients, and manifests as hyperalgesia and allodynia beyond any apparent injury. Recent studies have demonstrated analgesic effects of motor cortex (M1) stimulation in several chronic pain disorders, yet its neural mechanisms remain uncertain. We evaluated whether anodal M1 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would mitigate central sensitization as measured by indices of secondary hyperalgesia. We used a capsaicin-heat pain model to elicit secondary mechanical hyperalgesia in 27 healthy subjects. In an assessor and subject-blind randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial, anodal M1 tDCS decreased the intensity of pinprick hyperalgesia more than cathodal or sham tDCS. To elucidate the mechanism driving analgesia, subjects underwent fMRI of painful mechanical stimuli prior to and following induction of the pain model, after receiving M1 tDCS. We hypothesized that anodal M1 tDCS would enhance engagement of a descending pain modulatory (DPM) network in response to mechanical stimuli. Anodal tDCS normalized the effects of central sensitization on neurophysiological responses to mechanical pain in the medial prefrontal cortex, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, and periaqueductal gray, important regions in the DPM network. Taken together, these results provide support for the hypothesis that anodal M1-tDCS reduces central sensitization-induced hyperalgesia through the DPM network in humans.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Pediatric Migraine: A Perspective From Evidence in Adult Migraine

Pediatric migraine remains still a challenge for the headache specialists as concerns both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. The less ability of children to describe the exact features of their migraines and the lack of reliable biomarker for migraine contribute to complicate the diagnostic process. Therefore, there's need for new effective tools for supporting diagnostic and therapeutic approach in children with migraine. Recently, promising results have been obtained in adult headache by means of application of neurostimulation techniques both for investigating pathophysiological mechanisms and also for therapeutical applications. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) indeed proved to be generally safe and showing also some evidence of efficacy particularly for the symptomatic treatment. On such basis, in the last years increasing interest is rising in scientific pediatric community to evaluate the potential of such approaches for treatment pediatric headaches, particularly in migraine, even if the evidence provided is still very poor. Here we present a perspective for application of TMS and tDCS technique in children migraine principally based on evidence coming by studies in adults.

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.

Neuromodulation treats Chikungunya arthralgia: a randomized controlled trial

The Chikungunya (CHIK) virus is epidemic in Brazil, with 170,000 cases in the first half of 2016. More than 60% of patients present relapsing and remitting chronic arthralgia with debilitating pain lasting years. There are no specific therapeutic agents to treat and rehabilitee infected persons with CHIK. Persistent pain can lead to incapacitation, requiring long-term pharmacological treatment. Advances in non-pharmacological treatments are necessary to promote pain relief without side effects and to restore functionality. Clinical trials indicate transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can treat a broad range of chronic pain disorders, including diffuse neuromuscular pain and arthralgia. Here, we demonstrate that the tDCS across the primary motor cortex significantly reduces pain in the chronic phase of CHIK. High-resolution computational model was created to analyze the cortical electric field generated during tDCS and a diffuse and clustered brain current flow including M1 ipsilateral and contralateral, left DLPFC, nucleus accumbens, and cingulate was found. Our findings suggest tDCS could be an effective, inexpensive and deployable therapy to areas lacking resources with a significant number of patients with chronic CHIK persistent pain.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Bayesian analysis of the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on experimental pain sensitivity in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: randomized sham-controlled pilot clinical study

Purpose

Previous studies have indicated that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with the anode over the motor cortex and the cathode over the contralateral supraorbital region is effective in reducing clinical pain in patients with chronic pain, but these studies have not focused on experimental pain sensitivity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the effect of tDCS on experimental pain sensitivity in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Patients and methods

Forty community-dwelling participants aged 50–70 years with knee OA pain were randomly assigned to receive five daily sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 20 minutes (n = 20) or sham tDCS (n = 20) using a parallel group design. A multimodal quantitative sensory testing battery was completed, including heat pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), punctate mechanical pain, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM).

Results

The active tDCS group showed greater increases in heat pain thresholds and tolerances, PPTs, and CPM, and reductions in punctate pain. In addition, beneficial changes in experimental pain measures were associated with reductions in clinical pain. Future studies are needed to extend these findings to better understand the underlying mechanisms of tDCS as well as to optimize treatment parameters including number and duration of stimulation sessions.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that tDCS reduces experimental pain sensitivity, and these beneficial changes in experimental pain measures were associated with reductions in clinical pain.

Anisotropic conductivity tensor imaging for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) using magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging (MR-DTI)

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a widely used non-invasive brain stimulation technique by applying low-frequency weak direct current via electrodes attached on the head. The tDCS using a fixed current between 1 and 2 mA has relied on computational modelings to achieve optimal stimulation effects. Recently, by measuring the tDCS current induced magnetic field using an MRI scanner, the internal current pathway has been successfully recovered. However, up to now, there is no technique to visualize electrical properties including the electrical anisotropic conductivity, effective extracellular ion-concentration, and electric field using only the tDCS current in-vivo. By measuring the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the magnetic flux density induced by the tDCS, we propose a method to visualize the electrical properties. We reconstruct the scale parameter, which connects the anisotropic conductivity tensor to the diffusion tensor of water molecules, by introducing a repetitive scheme called the diffusion tensor J-substitution algorithm using the recovered current density and the measured ADCs. We investigate the proposed method to explain why the iterative scheme converges to the internal conductivity. We verified the proposed method with an anesthetized canine brain to visualize electrical properties including the electrical properties by tDCS current.

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.

The management of fibromyalgia from a psychosomatic perspective: an overview

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a central sensitization syndrome characterized by chronic widespread pain. FM is often comorbid with psychiatric disorders, as well as psychological distress that worsens the quality-of-life of people affected. The aim was to collect current evidence about the management of FM from a psychosomatic perspective. The literature was synthesized and summarized in a narrative format. The literature search was carried out in PubMed; review articles, meta-analysis, overview, and guidelines published in the last 10 years written in English were included. Five main topics (Diagnostic criteria of FM; Pathogenesis of chronic widespread pain in FM; Early stress and trauma as predisposing factors for central sensitization; FM and Psychiatric comorbidity; Implications for treatment) were pointed out and discussed. Much evidence underlies the importance of considering and treating the comorbidity of FM with psychiatric disorders and psychological factors that affect pain management. Validation of FM as a central sensitization syndrome by a clinician facilitates therapeutic strategies that involve patients as active participants in the pain management process, likely leading to improved outcomes.

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation over primary motor cortex (anode) and contralateral supraorbital area (cathode) on clinical pain severity and mobility performance in persons with knee osteoarthritis: An experimenter- and participant-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot clinical study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies indicate that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with anode over motor cortex (M1) and cathode over contralateral supraorbital region (SO) may be effective in reducing pain, but these studies are limited in number and have not focused on older adults with osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the preliminary efficacy and safety of M1-SO applied tDCS on clinical pain severity and mobility performance in adults with knee OA pain.

METHODS

Forty 50- to 70-year-old community-dwelling participants with knee OA were randomly assigned to receive five daily sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 20 min (n = 20) or sham tDCS (n = 20). We measured clinical pain severity via Numeric Rating Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. In addition, we measured mobility performance using the 6-Minute Walk Test and the Short Physical Performance Battery. Moreover, we obtained a sensation/safety questionnaire and measured cognition changes using the PROMIS-Applied Cognition-Abilities-Short Form 8a.

RESULTS

Active tDCS over M1-SO significantly reduced Numeric Rating Scale of pain compared to sham tDCS after completion of the five daily sessions, and remained up to three weeks. No other measures were significantly different from sham. Participants tolerated tDCS over M1-SO well without serious adverse effects or cognition changes.

CONCLUSION

Although not consistent in all pain measurements, our findings demonstrate promising clinical efficacy for reduction in pain perception for older adults with knee OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02512393.

Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain

BACKGROUND

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies. However, there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain, which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions.

METHODS

We identified and systematically reviewed empirical studies of MCID in acute pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, and included prospective studies determining MCID using a patient-reported anchor and a one-dimensional pain scale (e.g. 100 mm visual analogue scale). We summarised results and explored reasons for heterogeneity applying meta-regression, subgroup analyses and individual patient data meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 37 studies (8479 patients). Thirty-five studies used a mean change approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the mean difference in pain score among patients who reported a minimum degree of improvement, while seven studies used a threshold approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the threshold in pain reduction associated with the best accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for identifying improved patients. Meta-analyses found considerable heterogeneity between studies (absolute MCID: I² = 93%, relative MCID: I² = 75%) and results were therefore presented qualitatively, while analyses focused on exploring reasons for heterogeneity. The reported absolute MCID values ranged widely from 8 to 40 mm (standardised to a 100 mm scale) and the relative MCID values from 13% to 85%. From analyses of individual patient data (seven studies, 918 patients), we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief. Subgroup analyses showed that the definition of improved patients (one or several categories improvement or meaningful change) and the design of studies (single or multiple measurements) also influenced MCID values.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain, definitions of improved patients and study design. MCID is context-specific and potentially misguiding if determined, applied or interpreted inappropriately. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of a reference value are required when using MCID to classify research results as clinically important or trivial.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation and Other Neuromodulation Methods for Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury

The objective of this paper is to review the current literature regarding the use of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in preclinical models of traumatic brain injury (TBI) as well as discuss the potential role of VNS along with alternative neuromodulation approaches in the treatment of human TBI. Data from previous studies have demonstrated VNS-mediated improvement following TBI in animal models. In these cases, VNS was observed to enhance motor and cognitive recovery, attenuate cerebral edema and inflammation, reduce blood brain barrier breakdown, and confer neuroprotective effects. Yet, the underlying mechanisms by which VNS enhances recovery following TBI remain to be fully elucidated. Several hypotheses have been offered including: a noradrenergic mechanism, reduction in post-TBI seizures and hyper-excitability, anti-inflammatory effects, attenuation of blood-brain barrier breakdown, and cerebral edema. We present other potential mechanisms by which VNS acts including enhancement of synaptic plasticity and recruitment of endogenous neural stem cells, stabilization of intracranial pressure, and interaction with the ghrelin system. In addition, alternative methods for the treatment of TBI including deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and focused ultrasound stimulation are discussed. Although the primary source data show that VNS improves TBI outcomes, it remains to be determined if these findings can be translated to clinical settings.

Feasibility of Non-invasive Brain Modulation for Management of Pain Related to Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

Patients with head and neck cancer often experience a significant decrease in their quality of life during chemoradiotherapy (CRT) due to treatment-related pain, which is frequently classified as severe. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a method of non-invasive brain stimulation that has been frequently used in experimental and clinical pain studies. In this pilot study, we investigated the clinical impact and central mechanisms of twenty primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation sessions with tDCS during 7 weeks of CRT for head and neck cancer. From 48 patients screened, seven met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Electroencephalography (EEG) data were recorded before and after tDCS stimulation as well as across the trial to monitor short and long-term impact on brain function. The compliance rate during the long trial was extremely high (98.4%), and patients mostly reported mild side effects in line with the literature (e.g., tingling). Compared to a large standard of care study from our institution, our initial results indicate that M1-tDCS stimulation has a pain relief effect during the CRT that resulted in a significant attenuation of weight reduction and dysphagia normally observed in these patients. These results translated to our patient cohort not needing feeding tubes or IV fluids. Power spectra analysis of EEG data indicated significant changes in α, β, and γ bands immediately after tDCS stimulation and, in addition, α, δ, and θ bands over the long term in the seventh stimulation week (p < 0.05). The independent component EEG clustering analysis showed estimated functional brain regions including precuneus and superior frontal gyrus (SFG) in the seventh week of tDCS stimulation. These areas colocalize with our previous positron emission tomography (PET) study where there was activation in the endogenous μ-opioid system during M1-tDCS. This study provides preliminary evidence demonstrating the feasibility and safety of M1-tDCS as a potential adjuvant neuromechanism-driven analgesic therapy for head and neck cancer patients receiving CRT, inducing immediate and long-term changes in the cortical activity and clinical measures, with minimal side-effects.

The effects of add-on non-invasive brain stimulation in fibromyalgia: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS), in treating FM remain inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate present evidence of using NBS as an add-on treatment in treating FM.

METHODS

We conducted a database search of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases, from inception to July 2015, to analyse randomized controlled trials of NBS in treating FM. A total of 16 studies were included in the current meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pooled mean effect sizes of the 16 included studies revealed significant favourable effects of NBS. The weighted mean effect size in reducing pain, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance and tender points and improving general health/function were 0.667 (95% CI 0.446, 0.889), 0.322 (95% CI 0.140, 0.504), 0.511 (95% CI 0.247, 0.774), 0.682 (95% CI 0.350, 1.014), 0.867 (95% CI 0.310, 1.425) and 0.473 (95% CI 0.285, 0.661), respectively. rTMS stimulation yielded a greater effect size compared with that of TDCS (effect size 0.698 and 0.568, respectively; P < 0.0001). The primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation yielded a subtle greater effect size in pain reduction compared with that of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (effect size 0.709 and 0.693, respectively; P < 0.0001). No linear relationships were found between the effect sizes and treatment regimens and dose. Most of reported adverse effects were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

Both rTMS and TDCS may be feasible and safe modalities for treating FM. The general effects of rTMS and TDCS are compatible in FM patients. M1 stimulation may be better in pain reduction and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be better in depression improvement.

Management of fibromyalgia syndrome in 2016

Fibromyalgia syndrome is a chronic pain disorder and defies definitively efficacious therapy. In this review, we summarize the results from the early treatment research as well as recent research evaluating the pharmacological, interventional and nonpharmacological therapies. We further discuss future directions of fibromyalgia syndrome management; we specifically focus on the issues that are associated with currently available treatments, such as the need for personalized approach, new technologically oriented and interventional treatments, the importance of understanding and harnessing placebo effects and enhancement of patient engagement in therapy.

Inter- and Intra-individual Variability in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) at Varying Current Intensities

BACKGROUND

Translation of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from research to clinical practice is hindered by a lack of consensus on optimal stimulation parameters, significant inter-individual variability in response, and in sufficient intra-individual reliability data.

OBJECTIVES

Inter-individual differences in response to anodal tDCS at a range of current intensities were explored. Intra-individual reliability in response to anodal tDCS across two identical sessions was also investigated.

METHODS

Twenty-nine subjects participated in a crossover study. Anodal-tDCS using four different current intensities (0.2, 0.5, 1 and 2 mA), with an anode size of 16 cm2, was tested. The 0.5 mA condition was repeated to assess intra-individual variability. TMS was used to elicit 40 motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) before 10 min of tDCS, and 20 MEPs at four time-points over 30 min following tDCS.

RESULTS

ANOVA revealed no main effect of TIME for all conditions except the first 0.5 mA condition, and no differences in response between the four current intensities. Cluster analysis identified two clusters for the 0.2 and 2 mA conditions only. Frequency distributions based on individual subject responses (excitatory, inhibitory or no response) to each condition indicate possible differential responses between individuals to different current intensities. Test-retest reliability was negligible (ICC(2,1) = -0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant inter-individual variability in response to tDCS across a range of current intensities was found. 2 mA and 0.2 mA tDCS were most effective at inducing a distinct response. Significant intra-individual variability in response to tDCS was also found. This has implications for interpreting results of single-session tDCS experiments.

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation for the management of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on reducing neuropathic pain intensity in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched for all relevant articles published from 1980 to November 2014. Trials were included if (i) tDCS intervention group and a placebo control group were present; (ii) at least 50% of participants in the study had an SCI and there were at least three participants; (iii) participants were aged 18 years or older; and (iv) persistent pain for at least 3 months. Studies were excluded if: (i) the tDCS intervention group was compared with an active treatment group; (ii) there was insufficient reporting detail to enable pooling of data; and (iii) it was a nonclinical trial (that is, reviews, epidemiology, basic sciences). A standardized mean difference (SMD) ± s.e. and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each outcome of interest and the results were pooled using a fixed or random effects model, as appropriate. Effect sizes were interpreted as: small > 0.2, moderate > 0.5, large > 0.8.

RESULTS

Five studies met inclusion criteria of which four were randomized controlled trials and one was a prospective controlled trial. The pooled analysis found a significant effect of tDCS on reducing neuropathic pain after SCI post treatment (SMD = 0.510 ± 0.202; 95% CI, 0.114-0.906; P < 0.012); however, this effect was not maintained at follow-up (SMD = 0.353 ± 0.272; 95% CI, -0.179 to 0.886; P < 0.194). A reduction of 1.33 units on a 10-item scale was observed post treatment. No significant adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analytic results indicate a moderate effect of tDCS in reducing neuropathic pain among individuals with SCI; however, the effect was not maintained at follow-up. A mean pooled decrease of 1.33 units on a 10-item scale was found post treatment. Several factors were implicated in the effectiveness of tDCS in reducing pain. Due to the limited number of studies and lack of follow-up, more evidence is required before treatment recommendations can be made.

A meta-analysis of site-specific effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on sensory perception and pain

The primary aim of our meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) on sensory and pain thresholds (STh and PTh) in healthy individuals and pain level (PL) in patients with chronic pain. Electronic databases were searched for c-tDCS studies. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro and Downs and Black (D&B) assessment tools. C-tDCS of the primary motor cortex (S1) increases both STh (P<0.001, effect size of 26.84%) and PTh (P<0.001, effect size of 11.62%). In addition, c-tDCS over M1 led to STh increase (P<0.005, effect size of 30.44%). Likewise, PL decreased significantly in the patient group following application of c-tDCS. The small number of studies precluded subgroup analysis. Nevertheless, meta-analysis showed that in all groups (except c-tDCS of S1) active c-tDCS and sham stimulation produced significant differences in STh/PTh in healthy and PL in patient group. This review provides evidence for the site-specific effectiveness of c-tDCS in increasing STh/PTh in healthy individuals and decreasing PL in patients with chronic pain. However, due to small sample sizes in the included studies, our results should be interpreted with caution. Given that the level of blinding was not considered in the inclusion criteria, the results of the current study should be interpreted with caution.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain.

METHODS

The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors.

RESULTS

The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

Interdisciplinary chronic pain centre.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Immediate and Sustained Effects of 5-Day Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in Phantom Limb Pain

The study explored the analgesic effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the motor cortex on postamputation phantom limb pain (PLP). Eight subjects with unilateral lower or upper limb amputation and chronic PLP were enrolled in a crossover, double-blind, sham-controlled treatment program. For 5 consecutive days, anodal (active or sham) tDCS was applied over the motor cortex for 15 minutes at an intensity of 1.5 mA. The 5-day treatment with active, but not sham, tDCS induced a sustained decrease in background PLP and in the frequency of PLP paroxysms, which lasted for 1 week after the end of treatment. Moreover, on each day of active tDCS, patients reported an immediate PLP relief, along with an increased ability to move their phantom limb. Patients' immediate responses to sham tDCS, on the contrary, were variable, marked by an increase or decrease of PLP levels from baseline. These results show that a 5-day treatment of motor cortex stimulation with tDCS can induce stable relief from PLP in amputees. Neuromodulation targeting the motor cortex appears to be a promising option for the management of this debilitating neuropathic pain condition, which is often refractory to classic pharmacologic and surgical treatments.

PERSPECTIVE

The study describes sustained and immediate effects of motor cortex stimulation by tDCS on postamputation PLP, whose analgesic action seems linked to the motor reactivation of the phantom limb. These results are helpful for the exploitation of tDCS as a therapeutic tool for the management of neuropathic pain.

How does anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the pain neuromatrix affect brain excitability and pain perception? A randomised, double-blind, sham-control study

Background

Integration of information between multiple cortical regions of the pain neuromatrix is thought to underpin pain modulation. Although altered processing in the primary motor (M1) and sensory (S1) cortices is implicated in separate studies, the simultaneous changes in and the relationship between these regions are unknown yet. The primary aim was to assess the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) over superficial regions of the pain neuromatrix on M1 and S1 excitability. The secondary aim was to investigate how M1 and S1 excitability changes affect sensory (STh) and pain thresholds (PTh).

Methods

Twelve healthy participants received 20 min a-tDCS under five different conditions including a-tDCS of M1, a-tDCS of S1, a-tDCS of DLPFC, sham a-tDCS, and no-tDCS. Excitability of dominant M1 and S1 were measured before, immediately, and 30 minutes after intervention respectively. Moreover, STh and PTh to peripheral electrical and mechanical stimulation were evaluated. All outcome measures were assessed at three time-points of measurement by a blind rater.

Results

A-tDCS of M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) significantly increased brain excitability in M1 (p < 0.05) for at least 30 min. Following application of a-tDCS over the S1, the amplitude of the N20-P25 component of SEPs increased immediately after the stimulation (p < 0.05), whilst M1 stimulation decreased it. Compared to baseline values, significant STh and PTh increase was observed after a-tDCS of all three stimulated areas. Except in M1 stimulation, there was significant PTh difference between a-tDCS and sham tDCS.

Conclusion

a-tDCS of M1 is the best spots to enhance brain excitability than a-tDCS of S1 and DLPFC. Surprisingly, a-tDCS of M1 and S1 has diverse effects on S1 and M1 excitability. A-tDCS of M1, S1, and DLPFC increased STh and PTh levels. Given the placebo effects of a-tDCS of M1 in pain perception, our results should be interpreted with caution, particularly with respect to the behavioural aspects of pain modulation.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials, ACTRN12614000817640, http://www.anzctr.org.au/.

Regulatory Considerations for the Clinical and Research Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): review and recommendations from an expert panel

The field of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) has experienced significant growth in the past 15 years. One of the tES techniques leading this increased interest is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Significant research efforts have been devoted to determining the clinical potential of tDCS in humans. Despite the promising results obtained with tDCS in basic and clinical neuroscience, further progress has been impeded by a lack of clarity on international regulatory pathways. We therefore convened a group of research and clinician experts on tDCS to review the research and clinical use of tDCS. In this report, we review the regulatory status of tDCS, and we summarize the results according to research, off-label and compassionate use of tDCS in the following countries: Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Portugal, South Korea, Taiwan and United States. Research use, off label treatment and compassionate use of tDCS are employed in most of the countries reviewed in this study. It is critical that a global or local effort is organized to pursue definite evidence to either approve and regulate or restrict the use of tDCS in clinical practice on the basis of adequate randomized controlled treatment trials.