New procedure of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for central neuropathic pain: a placebo-controlled randomized crossover study

A sensory-motor-sensory circuit underlies antinociception ignited by primary motor cortex in mice

Sensory-motor integration is crucial in the processing of chronic pain. The primary motor cortex (M1) is emerging as a promising target for chronic pain treatment. However, it remains elusive how nociceptive sensory inputs influence M1 activity and how rectifying M1 defects, in turn, regulates pain processing at cellular and network levels. We show that injury/inflammation leads to hypoactivity of M1Glu pyramidal neurons by excitation-inhibition imbalance between the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) and the M1. The impaired M1 output further weakens inputs to excitatory parvalbumin neurons of the lateral hypothalamus (LHPV) and impairs the descending inhibitory system, hence exacerbating spinal nociceptive sensitivity. When rectifying M1 defects with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), the imbalance of the S1-M1 microcircuitry can be effectively reversed, which aids in restoring the ability of the M1 to trigger the descending inhibitory system, thereby alleviating nociceptive hypersensitivity. Thus, a sensory-motor-sensory loop is identified for pain-related interactions between the sensory and motor systems and can be potentially exploited for treating chronic pain.

Analgesic efficacy of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques in chronic cancer pain: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Chronic pain remains one of the most frequent and disabling symptoms of cancer, arising from tumors and/or treatments, and is poorly controlled in 40% of patients. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is now widely recommended in drug-refractory neuropathic pain, but its effectiveness in chronic cancer-related pain remains unknown. A few observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the effectiveness of NIBS on pain in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review of neuromodulation studies on patients with chronic cancer-related pain involving transcranial direct currents stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was conducted to estimate the analgesic efficacy, safety and feasibility in clinical routine.

RESULTS

Eleven publications (N = 298 patients) were included and analyzed. For tDCS, three RCT had a moderate effect size of 0.7 [0.6; 0.9] on a rating scale (0-10), and two case reports showed a significant decrease of pain intensity on average by -4.25 ± 0.36 points. The rTMS provided similar pain relief, with two RCTs showing a large effect size of 0.9 [0.7; 1.1], two observational study studies reporting a significant pooled effect on pain intensity (-0.9 [-1.6; -0.1] and -2.3 [-3.3; -1.3]), and two case reports where pain was reduced on average by -4.75 ± 0.36 points. None of these studies reported serious adverse events, and discontinuations of treatment were associated with cancer complications.

CONCLUSIONS

NIBS appears to have an analgesic effect in cancer-related pain. However, due to the high heterogeneity of pain conditions, placebo-controlled trials with larger and homogeneous patient cohorts are required to confirm these promising results.

Identifying neural circuitry abnormalities in neuropathic pain with transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalogram co-registration

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technology such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) represents a promising treatment for neuropathic pain. However, neural circuitries underlying analgesia remain to be established, which is largely limiting treatment responses. Using TMS and electroencephalogram co-registration (TMS-EEG), this study quantified the circuitry abnormalities in neuropathic pain and their associations with pain symptoms. A group of 21 neuropathic pain individuals and 21 healthy controls were assessed with TMS-EEG delivering to the primary motor cortex (M1). With source modelling, local current density and current propagation were analysed with significant current density (SCD) and scattering (SCS) respectively. The SCS and SCD data converged on higher activities in neuropathic pain individuals than healthy controls, within the emotional affective (perigenual anterior cingulate cortex, pgACC), sensory nociceptive (primary somatosensory cortex, S1), and the attentional cognitive (anterior insula, aINS; supracallosal anterior cingulate cortex, scACC) structures of pain. Moreover, current propagation to the pgACC was associated with lower pain-related negative emotions, while current propagation to the aINS with higher pain-related negative emotions. Using concurrent TMS-EEG, our data identified abnormal pain circuitries that could be utilised to improve treatment efficacy with brain stimulation technologies.

An update on non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief

Chronic pain affects a substantial portion of the population, yet current treatments often fail to provide adequate relief. Non-pharmacological interventions, which target behaviors and brain processes underlying the experience of pain, hold promises in offering relief for people with chronic pain. This review consolidates the current knowledge concerning the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain. We focus on psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions and emotion-based therapies) that use mental techniques and physical practices (e.g., exercise, massage, acupuncture, and yoga) that use body techniques to reduce pain. The efficacy of neuromodulation is also discussed. Given that placebo and expectation effects may enhance benefits for non-pharmacological interventions, we also discuss placebo interventions and expectation management practices. Finally, we describe digital therapeutics as an emerging approach for managing chronic pain. We argue that non-pharmacological interventions are critical adjunctive or stand-alone interventions for chronic pain conditions.

Effects of multiple transcranial magnetic stimulation sessions on pain relief in patients with chronic neuropathic pain: A French cohort study in real-world clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Current clinical trials indicate that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is effective in reducing drug-resistant neuropathic pain (NP). However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the long-term feasibility and clinical efficacy of rTMS in large patient cohorts in real-world conditions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed 12 years of clinical data to assess the long-term analgesic effects of 20 Hz rTMS over the primary motor cortex in patients with NP. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify predictive factors and assess the potential role of epidural motor cortex stimulation (eMCS) as a sustained solution.

RESULTS

In total, 193 patients completed test period of 4 rTMS sessions and 42% of them reported a pain relief (PR) greater than 30%, with concurrent improvement in their most disabling symptom. Iterative rTMS sessions maintained analgesic effects over 10 years in certain patients identified as responders (≥10% PR) without adverse effects. Success probability was higher in patients with central NP compared to peripheral NP (OR = 2.03[1.04;4.00]), and among those with central post-stroke pain, this probability was higher in ischemic versus hemorrhagic strokes (OR = 3.36[1.17;10.05]). PR obtained with iterative rTMS sessions was an excellent predictor of eMCS efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

While rTMS shows promise as a therapeutic option for some patients with drug-resistant NP, it does not benefit all patients. Efficacy varies by NP aetiology, aiding patient selection. For responders, eMCS may offer a permanent solution. These findings support a tailored approach to rTMS in NP management, while recognizing both its potential and limitations across diverse patient profiles.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Multiple rTMS sessions demonstrate long-term efficacy and safety in treating drug-resistant neuropathic pain. Extending session numbers for the test period can enhance responder identification, especially in patients with initial low pain relief. This identification refines patient selection for neurosurgery, reducing non-responders. Central neuropathic pain shows higher success rates than peripheral. For post-stroke central pain, patients with ischemic stroke are more likely to respond than those with hemorrhagic stroke. These results support integrating rTMS into clinical practice for managing neuropathic pain.

Prediction of the response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in peripheral neuropathic pain and validation of a new algorithm

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02010281.

Management of Central Poststroke Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Central poststroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic pain condition prevalent in 8 to 35% of stroke patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide insight into the effectiveness of available pharmacological, physical, psychological, and neuromodulation interventions in reducing pain in CPSP patients (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022371835). Secondary outcomes included mood, sleep, global impression of change, and physical responses. Data extraction included participant demographics, stroke etiology, pain characteristics, pain reduction scores, and secondary outcome metrics. Forty-two original studies were included, with a total of 1,451 participants. No studies providing psychological therapy to CPSP patients were identified. Twelve studies met requirements for a random-effects meta-analyses that found pharmacological therapy to have a small effect on mean pain score (SMD = -.36, 96.0% confidence interval [-.68, -.03]), physical interventions did not show a significant effect (SMD = -.55 [-1.28, .18]), and neuromodulation treatments had a moderate effect (SMD = -.64 [-1.08, -.19]). Fourteen studies were included in proportional meta-analysis with pharmacological studies having a moderate effect (58.3% mean pain reduction [-36.51, -80.15]) and neuromodulation studies a small effect (31.1% mean pain reduction [-43.45, -18.76]). Sixteen studies were included in the narrative review, the findings from which largely supported meta-analysis results. Duloxetine, amitriptyline, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation had the most robust evidence for their effectiveness in alleviating CPSP-induced pain. Further multicenter placebo-controlled research is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of physical therapies, such as acupuncture and virtual reality, and invasive and noninvasive neuromodulation treatments. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a top-down and bottom-up overview of evidence for the effectiveness of different pharmacological, physical, and neuromodulation treatments of CPSP. This review could provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness and tolerability of different treatment types.

Classical, spaced, or accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex for treating neuropathic pain: A 3-arm parallel non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) at high frequency (HF) is an effective treatment of neuropathic pain. The classical HF-rTMS protocol (CHF-rTMS) includes a daily session for one week as an induction phase of treatment followed by more spaced sessions. Another type of protocol without an induction phase and based solely on spaced sessions of HF-rTMS (SHF-rTMS) has also been shown to produce neuropathic pain relief. However, CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS of M1 have never been compared regarding their analgesic potential. Another type of rTMS paradigm, called accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (ACC-iTBS), has recently been proposed for the treatment of depression, the other clinical condition for which HF-rTMS is proposed as an effective therapeutic strategy. ACC-iTBS combines a high number of pulses delivered in short sessions grouped into a few days of stimulation. This type of protocol has never been applied to M1 for the treatment of pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

The objective of this single-centre randomized study is to compare the efficacy of three different rTMS protocols for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS, and ACC-iTBS. The CHF-rTMS will consists of 10 stimulation sessions, including 5 daily sessions of 10Hz-rTMS (3,000 pulses per session) over one week, then one session per week for 5 weeks, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 10 stimulation days. The SHF-rTMS protocol will only include 4 sessions of 20Hz-rTMS (1,600 pulses per session), one every 15 days, for a total of 6,400 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. The ACC-iTBS protocol will comprise 5 sessions of iTBS (600 pulses per session) completed in half a day for 2 consecutive days, repeated 5 weeks later, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. Thus, CHF-rTMS and ACC-iTBS protocols will share a higher total number of TMS pulses (30,000 pulses) compared to SHF-rTMS protocol (6,400 pulses), while CHF-rTMS protocol will include a higher number of stimulation days (10 days) compared to ACC-iTBS and SHF-rTMS protocols (4 days). In all protocols, the M1 target will be defined in the same way and stimulated at the same intensity using a navigated rTMS (nTMS) procedure. The evaluation will be based on clinical outcomes with various scales and questionnaires assessed every week, from two weeks before the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation until 4 weeks after. Additionally, three sets of neurophysiological outcomes (resting-state electroencephalography (EEG), nTMS-EEG recordings, and short intracortical inhibition measurement with threshold tracking method) will be assessed the week before and after the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation.

DISCUSSION

This study will make it possible to compare the analgesic efficacy of the CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS protocols and to appraise that of the ACC-iTBS protocol for the first time. This study will also make it possible to determine the respective influence of the total number of pulses and days of stimulation delivered to M1 on the extent of pain relief. Thus, if their analgesic efficacy is not inferior to that of CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS and especially the new ACC-iTBS protocol could be an optimal compromise of a more easy-to-perform rTMS protocol for the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

Altered Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuations of rs-fMRI Signal followed by rTMS Analgesic Effects in Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) Patients

Background

Non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common painful condition and is responsible for different physical disorders. Despite alternative therapies, patients still suffer from persistent pain. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has provided much evidence of pain reduction, but results have not been examined deeply in CLBP symptoms.

Objective

The analgesic effect of rTMS in non-specific CLBP patients was evaluated by the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (ALFF) analysis in resting-state fMRI.

Material and Methods

In this experimental study, fifteen non-specific CLBP participants (46.87±10.89 years) received 20 Hz rTMS over the motor cortex. The pain intensity and brain functional scan were obtained during pre and post-stimulation for all participants. The ALFF maps of the brain in two scan sessions were identified and the percentage of pain reduction (PPR%) was determined using paired t-test. Also, correlation analysis was used to find a relationship between ALFFs and pain intensity.

Results

Pain intensity was significantly reduced after induced-rTMS in non-specific CLBP (36.22%±13.28, P<0.05). Positive correlation was found between ALFF in the insula (INS) and pain intensity (rpre-rTMS=0.59, rpost-rTMS=0.58) while ALFF in medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and pain intensity had negatively correlated (rpre-rTMS=-0.54, rpost-rTMS=-0.56) (P<0.05). ALFF increased in mPFC while INS, thalamus (THA), and supplementary motor area (SMA) showed decremental ALFF followed by rTMS.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that ALFF in INS, THA, mPFC, and SMA is associated with CLBP symptoms and analgesic effects of rTMS. ALFF potentially seems to be a proper objective neuroimaging parameter to link spontaneous brain activity with pain intensity in non-specific CLBP patients.

Non-invasive TMS attenuates neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury associated with enhancing brain functional connectivity and HPA axis activity

Patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) often suffer from varying degrees of neuropathic pain. Non-invasive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been shown to improve neuropathic pain, while the appropriate intervention strategies of TMS treatment and how TMS affects brain function after SCI were not entirely clear. To investigate the effects and mechanisms of TMS on neuropathic pain after SCI, high-frequency TMS on primary motor cortex (M1) of mice was performed after SCI and pain response was evaluated through an electronic Von-Frey device and cold/hot plates. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), bulk RNA sequencing, immunofluorescence and molecular experiments were used to evaluate brain and spinal cord function changes and mechanisms. TMS significantly improved SCI induced mechanical allodynia, cold and thermal hyperalgesia with a durative effect, and TMS intervention at 1 week after SCI had pain relief advantages than at 2 weeks. TMS intervention not only affected the functional connections between the primary motor cortex and the thalamus, but also increased the close connection of multiple brain regions. Importantly, TMS treatment activated the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis and increased the transcript levels of genes encode hormone proteins, accompanied with the attenuation of inflammatory microenvironment in spinal cord associated with pain relief. Totally, these results elucidate that early intervention with TMS could improve neuropathic pain after SCI associated with enhancing brain functional connectivity and HPA axis activity which should be harnessed to modulate neuropathic pain after SCI.

Pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neurostimulation for neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain poses a significant challenge due to its complex mechanisms, necessitating specific treatments. In recent decades, significant progress has been made in the clinical research of neuropathic pain, marking a shift from empirical strategies to evidence-based medicine in its management. This review outlines both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Antidepressants (tricyclic and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors), antiepileptics (gabapentin, pregabalin), and topical agents constitute the main pharmacological treatments. These approaches target peripheral or central mechanisms associated with neuropathic pain. Noninvasive neurostimulation, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), provides non-pharmacological alternatives. However, challenges persist in effectively targeting existing medications and developing drugs that act on novel targets, necessitating innovative therapeutic strategies.

Neuropathic pain: Evidence based recommendations

Neuropathic pain continues to be a significant problem that lacks effective solutions for every single patient. In 2015, international guidelines (NeuPSIG) were published, while the French recommendations were updated in 2020. The purpose of this minireview is to provide an update on the process of developing evidence-based recommendations and explore potential changes to the current recommendations. Primary treatments for neuropathic pain include selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such as duloxetine and venlafaxine, gabapentin, tricyclic antidepressants, as well as topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which are specifically suggested for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Pregabalin is a first line treatment according to international guidelines but second-line in the more recent French guidelines, due to lower efficacy seen in more recent studies and misuse risk. Additionally, tramadol, combination therapies, and psychotherapy as adjuncts are proposed second line; high-concentration capsaicin patches, and botulinum toxin A are proposed specifically for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. In cases where primary and secondary treatments prove insufficient, third-line options come into play. These include high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation, and the use of strong opioids when no alternative is available. To ensure optimal management of neuropathic pain in real-life situations, it is imperative to disseminate these recommendations widely and secure the acceptance of practitioners. By doing so, we can bridge the gap between theory and practice, and enhance the overall care and treatment of individuals suffering from neuropathic pain.

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

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

Field recordings of transcranial magnetic stimulation in human brain postmortem models

Introduction

The ability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to deliver a magnetic field (MF) in deep brain targets is debated and poorly documented.

Objective

To quantify the decay of MF in the human brain.

Methods

Magnetic field was generated by single pulses of TMS delivered at maximum intensity using a flat or angulated coil. Magnetic field was recorded by a 3D-magnetic probe. Decay was measured in the air using both coils and in the head of 10 postmortem human heads with the flat coil being positioned tangential to the scalp. Magnetic field decay was interpreted as a function of distance to the coil for 6 potential brain targets of noninvasive brain stimulation: the primary motor cortex (M1, mean depth: 28.5 mm), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC: 28 mm), secondary somatosensory cortex (S2: 35.5 mm), posterior and anterior insulae (PI: 38.5 mm; AI: 43.5 mm), and midcingulate cortex (MCC: 57.5 mm).

Results

In air, the maximal MF intensities at coil center were 0.88 and 0.77 T for the flat and angulated coils, respectively. The maximal intracranial MF intensity in the cadaver model was 0.34 T, with a ∼50% decay at 15 mm and a ∼75% MF decay at 30 mm. The decay of the MF in air was similar for the flat coil and significantly less attenuated with the angulated coil (a ∼50% decay at 20 mm and a ∼75% MF decay at 45 mm).

Conclusions

Transcranial magnetic stimulation coil MFs decay in brain structures similarly as in air, attenuation with distance being significantly lower with angulated coils. Reaching brain targets deeper than 20 mm such as the insula or Antérior Cingulate Cortex seems feasible only when using angulated coils. The abacus of MF attenuation provided here can be used to adjust modalities of deep brain stimulation with rTMS in future research protocols.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of the analgesic effects of "superficial" and "deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with central neuropathic pain: a randomized sham-controlled multicenter international crossover study

ABSTRACT

We directly compared the analgesic effects of "superficial" and 'deep" repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex in patients with central neuropathic pain. Fifty-nine consecutive patients were randomly assigned to active or sham "superficial" (using a figure-of-8 [F8]-coil) or "deep" (using a Hesed [H]-coil) stimulation according to a double-blind crossover design. Each treatment period consisted of 5 daily stimulation sessions and 2 follow-up visits at 1 and 3 weeks after the last stimulation session. The primary outcome was the comparison of the mean change in average pain intensity over the course of the treatment (group × time interaction). Secondary outcomes included neuropathic symptoms (NPSI), pain interference, patient global impression of change (PGIC), anxiety, depression, and catastrophizing. In total, 51 patients participated in at least one session of both treatments. There was a significant interaction between "treatment" and "time" (F = 2.7; P = 0.0024), indicating that both figure-8 (F8-coil) and H-coil active stimulation induced significantly higher analgesic effects than sham stimulation. The analgesic effects of both types of coils had a similar magnitude but were only moderately correlated ( r = 0.39, P = 0.02). The effects of F8-coil stimulation appeared earlier, whereas the effects of H-coil stimulation were delayed, but tended to last longer (up to 3 weeks) as regards to several secondary outcomes (PGIC and total NPSI score). In conclusion, "deep" and "superficial" rTMS induced analgesic effects of similar magnitude in patients with central pain, which may involve different mechanisms of action.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Treat Neuropathic Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system and is one of the most incapacitating pain types, representing a significant non-met medical need. Due to the increase in research in the field and since innovative therapeutic strategies are required, namely in intractable neuropathic pain, neurostimulation has been used. Within this approach, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) that uses a transient magnetic field to produce electrical currents over the cortex emerges as a popular method in the literature. Since this is an area in expansion and due to the putative role of TMS, we performed a bibliometric analysis in Scopus with the primary objective of identifying the scientific production related to the use of TMS to manage neuropathic pain. The research had no restrictions, and the analysis focused on the characteristics of the literature retrieved, scientific collaboration and main research topics from inception to 6 July 2023. A total of 474 articles were collected. A biggest co-occurrence between the terms "neuropathic pain" and "transcranial magnetic stimulation" was obtained. The journal "Clinical Neurophysiology" leads the Top 5 most productive sources. The United States is the most productive country, with 50% of US documents being "review articles", followed by France, with 56% of French documents being "original articles". Lefaucheur, JP and Saitoh, Y are the two most influential authors. The most frequent type of document was "original article". Most of the studies (34%) that identified the neuropathic pain type focused on traumatic neuropathic pain, although a large proportion (38%) did not report the neuropathic pain type. This study allows us to provide a general overview of the field of TMS application for neuropathic pain and is useful for establishing future directions of research in this field.

Effectiveness and mechanism of action of rTMS combined with quadriceps strength training in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Quadriceps training is necessary in function and activity of daily living for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, it did not reduce the rate of surgical treatment for end-stage KOA in the long term. This may be related to brain structure changes and maladaptive plasticity in KOA patients. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) could enhance the functional connectivity of brain regions and improves maladaptive plasticity. However, the synergistic effect of the combination of the two for treat KOA is still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate whether the High-Frequency rTMS combined with quadriceps strength training can improve the pain and function in KOA more effectively than quadriceps training alone and explore the mechanism of action.

METHODS

This study is an assessor-blind, sham-controlled, randomized controlled trial involving 12 weeks of intervention and 6 months follow-up. 148 participants with KOA will receive usual care management and be randomized into four subgroups equally, including quadriceps strength training, high-frequency rTMS training, sham rTMS and quadriceps strength training, high-frequency rTMS and quadriceps strength training. The rehabilitation interventions will be carried out 5 days per week for a total of 12 weeks. All outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks during the intervention and 1 month, 3 months and 6 months during the follow-up period. The effectiveness outcomes will be included visual analog scale, isokinetic knee muscle strength, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score; The act mechanism outcomes will be included motor evoked potential, grey matter density, white matter, subcortical nuclei volumes, cortical thickness and functional connectivity by MRI. Two-way of variance with repeated measures will be used to test the group and time effect for outcome measures.

DISCUSSION

The study will be the first protocol to examine whether there are synergistic effects following high-frequency rTMS combined with quadriceps strength training for treat KOA and clarify the mechanism of action. High-frequency rTMS can be added into the training program for KOA patients if it is proven effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300067617. Registered on Jan.13,2023.

Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation in central post-stroke pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) in the treatment of central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation versus placebo or other usual therapy in patients with CPSP. Articles in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French were included. A bibliographic search was independently conducted on June 1, 2022, by two authors, using the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. The risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 2,674 records were identified after removing duplicates, of which 5 eligible studies were included, involving a total of 119 patients. All five studies evaluated repetitive TMS, four of which stimulated the primary motor cortex (M1) and one stimulated the premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Only the former one reported a significant pain reduction in the short term, while the latter one was interrupted due to a consistent lack of analgesic effect.

CONCLUSION

NBS in the M1 area seems to be effective in reducing short-term pain; however, more high-quality homogeneous studies, with long-term follow-up, are required to determine the efficacy of this treatment in CSPS.

Central neuropathic pain

Central neuropathic pain arises from a lesion or disease of the central somatosensory nervous system such as brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis or related neuroinflammatory conditions. The incidence of central neuropathic pain differs based on its underlying cause. Individuals with spinal cord injury are at the highest risk; however, central post-stroke pain is the most prevalent form of central neuropathic pain worldwide. The mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain are not fully understood, but the pathophysiology likely involves intricate interactions and maladaptive plasticity within spinal circuits and brain circuits associated with nociception and antinociception coupled with neuronal hyperexcitability. Modulation of neuronal activity, neuron-glia and neuro-immune interactions and targeting pain-related alterations in brain connectivity, represent potential therapeutic approaches. Current evidence-based pharmacological treatments include antidepressants and gabapentinoids as first-line options. Non-pharmacological pain management options include self-management strategies, exercise and neuromodulation. A comprehensive pain history and clinical examination form the foundation of central neuropathic pain classification, identification of potential risk factors and stratification of patients for clinical trials. Advanced neurophysiological and neuroimaging techniques hold promise to improve the understanding of mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain and as predictive biomarkers of treatment outcome.

Research Trends and Hotspots of Neuromodulation in Neuropathic Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NeuP), the result of a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system, is tricky to cure clinically. Mounting researches reveal that neuromodulation can safely and effectively ameliorate NeuP. The number of publications associated with neuromodulation and NeuP increases with time. However, bibliometric analysis on the field is rare. The present study aims to analyze trends and topics in neuromodulation and NeuP research by using a bibliometric method.

METHODS

This study systematically collected the relevant publications on the Science Citation Index Expanded of Web of Science from January 1994 to January 17, 2023. CiteSpace software was used to draw and analyze corresponding visualization maps.

RESULTS

A total of 1404 publications were ultimately obtained under our specified inclusion criteria. The analysis showed that the focus of research on neuromodulation and NeuP had been developing steadily in recent years, with papers published in 58 countries/regions and 411 academic journals. The Journal of Neuromodulation and the author J.P. Lefaucheur published the most papers. The papers published in Harvard University and the United States contributed significantly. The cited keywords show that motor cortex stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, electrical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and mechanism are the research hotspots in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

The bibliometric analysis showed that the number of publications on neuromodulation and NeuP are increasing rapidly, especially in the past 5 years. "Motor cortex stimulation," "electrical stimulation," "spinal cord stimulation," "transcranial magnetic stimulation" and "mechanism" catch the most attention among researchers in this field.

Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the motor cortex provides supplementary relief for some individuals with chronic pain who are refractory to pharmacological treatment. As rTMS slowly enters treatment guidelines for pain relief, its starts to be confronted with challenges long known to pharmacological approaches: efficacy at the group-level does not grant pain relief for a particular patient. In this review, we present and discuss a series of ongoing attempts to overcome this therapeutic challenge in a personalized medicine framework.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Relevant scientific publications published in main databases such as PubMed and EMBASE from inception until March 2023 were systematically assessed, as well as a wide number of studies dedicated to the exploration of the mechanistic grounds of rTMS analgesic effects in humans, primates and rodents.

RESULTS

The main strategies reported to personalize cortical neuromodulation are: (i) the use of rTMS to predict individual response to implanted motor cortex stimulation; (ii) modifications of motor cortex stimulation patterns; (iii) stimulation of extra-motor targets; (iv) assessment of individual cortical networks and rhythms to personalize treatment; (v) deep sensory phenotyping; (vi) personalization of location, precision and intensity of motor rTMS. All approaches except (i) have so far low or moderate levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current evidence for most strategies under study remains at best moderate, the multiple mechanisms set up by cortical stimulation are an advantage over single-target 'clean' drugs, as they can influence multiple pathophysiologic paths and offer multiple possibilities of individualization.

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-invasive neuromodulation is on the verge of personalised medicine. Strategies ranging from integration of detailed clinical phenotyping into treatment design to advanced patient neurophysiological characterisation are being actively explored and creating a framework for actual individualisation of care.

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques are being increasingly used to alleviate pain and enhance quality of life. Non-invasive cortical stimulation was originally intended to predict the efficacy of invasive (neurosurgical) techniques, but has now gained a place as an analgesic procedure in its own right.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): Evidence from 14 randomised, placebo-controlled trials (~750 patients) supports a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency motor cortex rTMS in neuropathic pain. Dorsolateral frontal stimulation has not proven efficacious so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is an attractive target but evidence remains insufficient. Short-term efficacy can be achieved with NNT (numbers needed to treat) ~2-3, but long-lasting efficacy remains a challenge.Like rTMS, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) induces activity changes in distributed brain networks and can influence various aspects of pain. Lower cost relative to rTMS, few safety issues and availability of home-based protocols are practical advantages. The limited quality of many published reports lowers the level of evidence, which will remain uncertain until more prospective controlled studies are available.

SUMMARY

Both rTMS and tDCS act preferentially upon abnormal hyperexcitable states of pain, rather than acute or experimental pain. For both techniques, M1 appears to be the best target for chronic pain relief, and repeated sessions over relatively long periods of time may be required to obtain clinically significant benefits. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS.

Advances and challenges in neuropathic pain: a narrative review and future directions

Over the past few decades, substantial advances have been made in neuropathic pain clinical research. An updated definition and classification have been agreed. Validated questionnaires have improved the detection and assessment of acute and chronic neuropathic pain; and newer neuropathic pain syndromes associated with COVID-19 have been described. The management of neuropathic pain has moved from empirical to evidence-based medicine. However, appropriately targeting current medications and the successful clinical development of drugs acting on new targets remain challenging. Innovative approaches to improving therapeutic strategies are required. These mainly encompass rational combination therapy, drug repurposing, non-pharmacological approaches (such as neurostimulation techniques), and personalised therapeutic management. This narrative review reports historical and current perspectives regarding the definitions, classification, assessment, and management of neuropathic pain and explores potential avenues for future research.

Long-term analgesic effect of trans-spinal direct current stimulation compared to non-invasive motor cortex stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome

The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation using high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Thirty-three patients with complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to one of the three treatment groups (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, n = 11; transcranial direct current stimulation, n = 10; transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, n = 12) and received a series of 12 sessions of stimulation for 3 weeks (induction phase) and 11 sessions for 4 months (maintenance therapy). The primary end-point was the mean pain intensity assessed weekly with a visual numerical scale during the month prior to treatment (baseline), the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month after the treatment. The weekly visual numerical scale pain score was significantly reduced at all time points compared to baseline in the transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation group, at the last two time points in the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group (end of the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month later), but at no time point in the transcranial direct current stimulation group. A significant pain relief was observed at the end of induction phase using transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.008) and to transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.003). In this trial, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation was more efficient to relieve pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome compared to motor cortex stimulation techniques (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation). This efficacy was found during the induction phase and was maintained thereafter. This study warrants further investigation to confirm the potentiality of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation as a therapeutic option in complex regional pain syndrome.

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

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

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation regulates neuroinflammation in neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a frequent condition caused by a lesion in, or disease of, the central or peripheral somatosensory nervous system and is associated with excessive inflammation in the central and peripheral nervous systems. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a supplementary treatment for NP. In clinical research, rTMS of 5-10 Hz is widely placed in the primary motor cortex (M1) area, mostly at 80%-90% RMT, and 5-10 treatment sessions could produce an optimal analgesic effect. The degree of pain relief increases greatly when stimulation duration is greater than 10 days. Analgesia induced by rTMS appears to be related to reestablishing the neuroinflammation system. This article discussed the influences of rTMS on the nervous system inflammatory responses, including the brain, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia (DRG), and peripheral nerve involved in the maintenance and exacerbation of NP. rTMS has shown an anti-inflammation effect by decreasing pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, and increasing anti-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-10 and BDNF, in cortical and subcortical tissues. In addition, rTMS reduces the expression of glutamate receptors (mGluR5 and NMDAR2B) and microglia and astrocyte markers (Iba1 and GFAP). Furthermore, rTMS decreases nNOS expression in ipsilateral DRGs and peripheral nerve metabolism and regulates neuroinflammation.

Better Fields or Currents? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Transcranial Magnetic (rTMS) Versus Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Neuropathic Pain

While high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) is now included in the armamentarium to treat chronic neuropathic pain (NP), direct-current anodal stimulation (a-tDCS) to the same cortical targets may represent a valuable alternative in terms of feasibility and cost. Here we performed a head-to-head, randomized, single-blinded, cross-over comparison of HF-rTMS versus a-tDCS over the motor cortex in 56 patients with drug-resistant NP, who received 5 daily sessions of each procedure, with a washout of at least 4 weeks. Daily scores of pain, sleep, and fatigue were obtained during 5 consecutive weeks, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to a motor task was performed in a subgroup of 31 patients. The percentage of responders, defined by a reduction in pain scores of > 2 SDs from pre-stimulus levels, was similar to both techniques (42.0% vs. 42.3%), while the magnitude of "best pain relief" was significantly skewed towards rTMS. Mean pain ratings in responders decreased by 32.6% (rTMS) and 29.6% (tDCS), with half of them being sensitive to only one technique. Movement-related fMRI showed significant activations in motor and premotor areas, which did not change after 5 days of stimulation, and did not discriminate responders from non-responders. Both HF-rTMS and a-tDCS showed efficacy at 1 month in drug-resistant NP, with magnitude of relief slightly favoring rTMS. Since a significant proportion of patients responded to one procedure only, both modalities should be tested before declaring a patient as unresponsive.

Network Effects of Brain Lesions Causing Central Poststroke Pain

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to test whether lesions causing central poststroke pain (CPSP) are associated with a specific connectivity profile, whether these connections are associated with metabolic changes, and whether this network aligns with neuromodulation targets for pain.

METHODS

Two independent lesion datasets were utilized: (1) subcortical lesions from published case reports and (2) thalamic lesions with metabolic imaging using 18F- fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Functional connectivity between each lesion location and the rest of the brain was assessed using a normative connectome (n = 1,000), and connections specific to CPSP were identified. Metabolic changes specific to CPSP were also identified and related to differences in lesion connectivity. Therapeutic relevance of the network was explored by testing for alignment with existing brain stimulation data and by prospectively targeting the network with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in 7 patients with CPSP.

RESULTS

Lesion locations causing CPSP showed a specific pattern of brain connectivity that was consistent across two independent lesion datasets (spatial r = 0.82, p < 0.0001). Connectivity differences were correlated with postlesion metabolism (r = -0.48, p < 0.001). The topography of this lesion-based pain network aligned with variability in pain improvement across 12 prior neuromodulation targets and across 32 patients who received rTMS to primary motor cortex (p < 0.05). Prospectively targeting this network with rTMS improved CPSP in 6 of 7 patients.

INTERPRETATION

Lesions causing pain are connected to a specific brain network that shows metabolic abnormalities and promise as a neuromodulation target. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:834-845.

A Hidden Markov Model reveals magnetoencephalography spectral frequency-specific abnormalities of brain state power and phase-coupling in neuropathic pain

Neuronal populations in the brain are engaged in a temporally coordinated manner at rest. Here we show that spontaneous transitions between large-scale resting-state networks are altered in chronic neuropathic pain. We applied an approach based on the Hidden Markov Model to magnetoencephalography data to describe how the brain moves from one activity state to another. This identified 12 fast transient (~80 ms) brain states including the sensorimotor, ascending nociceptive pathway, salience, visual, and default mode networks. Compared to healthy controls, we found that people with neuropathic pain exhibited abnormal alpha power in the right ascending nociceptive pathway state, but higher power and coherence in the sensorimotor network state in the beta band, and shorter time intervals between visits of the sensorimotor network, indicating more active time in this state. Conversely, the neuropathic pain group showed lower coherence and spent less time in the frontal attentional state. Therefore, this study reveals a temporal imbalance and dysregulation of spectral frequency-specific brain microstates in patients with neuropathic pain. These findings can potentially impact the development of a mechanism-based therapeutic approach by identifying brain targets to stimulate using neuromodulation to modify abnormal activity and to restore effective neuronal synchrony between brain states.

The Effectiveness of High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Patients with Neuropathic Orofacial Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been widely used in the treatment of neuropathic orofacial pain (NOP). The consistency of its therapeutic efficacy with the optimal protocol is highly debatable.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of rTMS on pain intensity, psychological conditions, and quality of life (QOL) in individuals with NOP based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We carefully screened and browsed 5 medical databases from inception to January 1, 2022. The study will be included that use of rTMS as the intervention for patients with NOP. Two researchers independently completed record retrieval, data processing, and evaluation of methodological quality. Quality and evidence were assessed using the PEDro scores and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

Results

Six RCTs with 214 participants were included in this systematic review: 2 studies were considered level 1 evidence, and 4 were considered level 2 evidence. Six studies found that high-frequency rTMS had a pain-relieving effect, while 4 studies found no improvement in psychological conditions and QOL. Quality of evidence (GRADE system) ranged from moderate to high. No significant side effects were found.

Conclusions

There is moderate-to-high evidence to prove that high-frequency rTMS is effective in reducing pain in individuals with NOP, but it has no significant positive effect on psychological conditions and QOL. High-frequency rTMS can be used as an alternative treatment for pain in individuals with NOP, but further studies will be conducted to unify treatment parameters, and the sample size will be expanded to explore its influence on psychological conditions and QOL.

Case report: The feasibility of rTMS with intrathecal baclofen pump for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury

The main objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain in an individual with spinal cord injury and an intrathecal baclofen pump. A 62-year-old male presented with drug resistant neuropathic pain as a result of a complete spinal cord lesion at T8 level. Pain was classified into four types: pressure pain in the left foot, burning pain in buttocks, burning pain in sternum, and electrical attacks in the trunk. The treatment period involved 6 weeks of rTMS stimulation performed 5 days per week, a 6-week follow up period with no stimulation, and an 8-week top up session period which began 5-weeks after the end of the follow up period. 2004 pulses were delivered at 10Hz over the right-hand representation of the left primary motor cortex at 80% resting motor threshold during each session. Assessments were based on the numerical rating scale (NRS), neuropathic pain scale (NPS), Hamilton Depression and Anxiety rating scales. Following the treatment period there was a 30, 13, and 29% reduction in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain respectively, as reported by the NRS. During this time, electrical attacks were abolished following the third week of treatment. These changes corresponded to a 38% decrease in NPS scores and a 65 and 25% reduction in anxiety and depressions scores respectively. The changes in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain reported on the NRS persisted for 1 week following treatment. Top up sessions delivered 11 weeks after the end of the treatment period were unsuccessful in reducing pain to the level achieved during the treatment period. A 13% reduction in NPS was seen during these 8-weeks. Anxiety and depression scores decreased 78 and 67% respectively. The frequency of electrical attacks was zero during this time. rTMS stimulation delivered throughout this study did not cause any interference with the functioning of the intrathecal baclofen pump. This case study illustrates that rTMS may be effective at reducing drug resistant neuropathic pain with certain pain types exhibiting greater propensity for change.

Overcoming clinical challenges of refractory neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

: Refractory neuropathic pain (ReNP), and its definition, is widely disputed amongst clinicians due in part to unclear categorical diagnosing guidelines, overall time duration of neuropathic pain, and the exhaustiveness of treatment options. Usually ReNP is defined as chronic, intractable, and unresponsive neuropathic pain that have otherwise been untreatable.

AREAS COVERED

: In this narrative review, we discuss and summarize the effectiveness of prospective ReNP research conducted over the past 10 years. This research looks at pharmacological and interventional therapies in clinical trial settings. The pharmacological therapies discussed include the use of adjuvant treatments to improve the safety and efficacy of conventional approaches. Different modalities of administration, such as injection therapy and intrathecal drug delivery systems, provide targeted drug delivery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulation, pulse radiofrequency, and nerve lesioning are more invasive, however, they are increasingly utilized in the field, as reflected in ongoing clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

: Based on the current data from RCTs and systematic reviews, it is clear that single drug therapy cannot be effective and has significant limitations. Transitioning to interventional modalities that showed more promising results sooner rather than later may be even more cost-efficient than attempting different conservative treatments with a high failure rate.

Exploring sex differences in alpha brain activity as a potential neuromarker associated with neuropathic pain

ABSTRACT

Alpha oscillatory activity (8-13 Hz) is the dominant rhythm in the awake brain and is known to play an important role in pain states. Previous studies have identified alpha band slowing and increased power in the dynamic pain connectome (DPC) of people with chronic neuropathic pain. However, a link between alpha-band abnormalities and sex differences in brain organization in healthy individuals and those with chronic pain is not known. Here, we used resting-state magnetoencephalography to test the hypothesis that peak alpha frequency (PAF) abnormalities are general features across chronic central and peripheral conditions causing neuropathic pain but exhibit sex-specific differences in networks of the DPC (ascending nociceptive pathway [ANP], default mode network, salience network [SN], and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex). We found that neuropathic pain (N = 25 men and 25 women) was associated with increased PAF power in the DPC compared with 50 age- and sex-matched healthy controls, whereas slower PAF in nodes of the SN (temporoparietal junction) and the ANP (posterior insula) was associated with higher trait pain intensity. In the neuropathic pain group, women exhibited lower PAF power in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and faster PAF in the ANP and SN than men. The within-sex analyses indicated that women had neuropathic pain-related increased PAF power in the ANP, SN, and default mode network, whereas men with neuropathic pain had increased PAF power restricted to the ANP. These findings highlight neuropathic pain-related and sex-specific abnormalities in alpha oscillations across the DPC that could underlie aberrant neuronal communication in nociceptive processing and modulation.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Novel Therapies for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: Potential and Pitfalls

Neuropathic pain affects more than one million people across the globe. The quality of life of people suffering from neuropathic pain has been considerably declining due to the unavailability of appropriate therapeutics. Currently, available treatment options can only treat patients symptomatically, but they are associated with severe adverse side effects and the development of tolerance over prolonged use. In the past decade, researchers were able to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in neuropathic pain; thus, continuous efforts are evident, aiming to develop novel interventions with better efficacy instead of symptomatic treatment. The current review discusses the latest interventional strategies used in the treatment and management of neuropathic pain. This review also provides insights into the present scenario of pain research, particularly various interventional techniques such as spinal cord stimulation, steroid injection, neural blockade, transcranial/epidural stimulation, deep brain stimulation, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, neuroablative procedures, opto/chemogenetics, gene therapy, etc. In a nutshell, most of the above techniques are at preclinical stage and facing difficulty in translation to clinical studies due to the non-availability of appropriate methodologies. Therefore, continuing research on these interventional strategies may help in the development of promising novel therapies that can improve the quality of life of patients suffering from neuropathic pain.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

Epidural stimulation of the motor cortex (eMCS) was devised in the 1990's, and has now largely supplanted thalamic stimulation for neuropathic pain relief. Its mechanisms of action involve activation of multiple cortico-subcortical areas initiated in the thalamus, with involvement of endogenous opioids and descending inhibition toward the spinal cord. Evidence for clinical efficacy is now supported by at least seven RCTs; benefits may persist up to 10 years, and can be reasonably predicted by preoperative use of non-invasive repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS). rTMS first developed as a means of predicting the efficacy of epidural procedures, then as an analgesic method on its own right. Reasonable evidence from at least six well-conducted RCTs favors a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex in neuropathic pain (NP), and less consistently in widespread/fibromyalgic pain. Stimulation of the dorsolateral frontal cortex (DLPFC) has not proven efficacious for pain, so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is a new and attractive target but evidence remains inconsistent. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is applied upon similar targets as rTMS and eMCS; it does not elicit action potentials but modulates the neuronal resting membrane state. tDCS presents practical advantages including low cost, few safety issues, and possibility of home-based protocols; however, the limited quality of most published reports entails a low level of evidence. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS, and in both cases repeated sessions over a long time may be required to achieve clinically significant relief. Both invasive and non-invasive procedures exert their effects through multiple distributed brain networks influencing the sensory, affective and cognitive aspects of chronic pain. Their effects are mainly exerted upon abnormally sensitized pathways, rather than on acute physiological pain. Extending the duration of long-term benefits remains a challenge, for which different strategies are discussed in this review.

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of Neuropathic pain based on Web of Science and CiteSpace over the last 20 years

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to explore disciplinary hotspots and collaborative networks in research on neuropathic pain (NPP) research in the past 20 years.

METHODS

The articles related to NPP were obtained from Web of Science database. Global publications on neuropathic pain were analyzed in terms of different aspects such as number of papers, citation rates, authors, institutions, countries/regions, journals, and funding, as well as relevant partnerships and topic hotspots RESULTS: From 2001 to 2020, 6905 articles related to NPP research were published worldwide. The number of publications had increased over the last 20 years continually. Pain was the most productive and the most frequently co-cited journal. Baron R was the most productive and influential author. The most productive country and institution were USA and Harvard University respectively. Researchers and institutions from the USA, Japan and China were the core research forces. There was a broad and close cooperation in the field worldwide. The top authors and top institutions had collaborated relatively closely with others.

CONCLUSIONS

The research of NPP is a well-developed and prospective field of medical study. Pain, European Journal of Pain, and Molecular Pain show more interested in this field. The USA, Harvard University, and Ralf Baron were the top country, institution, and author, respectively. Global research collaboration is extensive. Top institutions and authors had cooperation.

Transcranial direct current and transcranial magnetic stimulations for chronic pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic pain is debilitating and difficult to treat with pharmacotherapeutics alone. Consequently, exploring alternative treatment methods for chronic pain is essential. Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are increasingly being investigated for their neuropharmacological effects in the treatment of chronic pain. This review aims to examine and evaluate the present state of evidence regarding the use of tDCS and TMS in the treatment of chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite conflicting evidence in the early literature, evidence from recent rigorous research supports the use of tDCS and TMS in treating chronic pain conditions. For both tDCS and TMS, standardized stimulation parameters have been identified with the recommendation for repeated maintenance stimulation to ensure that the analgesic effect is sustained beyond discontinuation of therapy.

SUMMARY

Due to a lack of defined stimulation protocols, early findings on the efficacy of tDCS and TMS are mixed. Although the application of tDCS and TMS as pain relief approaches is still in its early stages, the introduction of standardized stimulation protocols is paving the way for more robust and informed research.

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

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

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

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

Exploratory study of optimal parameters of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain in the lower extremities

Introduction

Pain relief from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) is particularly poor in patients with leg pain. The optimal parameters for relieving leg pain remain poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to explore the optimal stimulation parameters of M1-rTMS for patients with leg pain.

Methods

Eleven patients with neuropathic pain in the leg randomly underwent 6 conditions of M1-rTMS with different stimulation intensities, sites, and coil directions, including sham stimulation. The 5 active conditions were as follows: 90% or 110% of the resting motor threshold (RMT) on the M1 hand with an anteroposterior coil direction, 90% or 110% RMT on the M1 foot in the anteroposterior direction, and 90% RMT on the M1 foot in the mediolateral direction. Each condition was administered for 3 days. Pain intensity was evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 at baseline and up to 7 days after each intervention.

Results

Visual Analogue Scale scores were significantly reduced after the following active rTMS conditions: 90% RMT on the M1 hand, 90% RMT on the M1 foot with any coil direction, and 110% RMT on the M1 foot. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 results were similar to those obtained using the Visual Analogue Scale. The analgesic effect of rTMS with stimulus intensity above the RMT was not superior to that below the RMT.

Conclusion

We suggest that the optimal stimulation parameters of rTMS for patients with neuropathic pain in the leg may target the M1 foot or M1 hand with an intensity below the RMT.

French guidelines for neuropathic pain: An update and commentary

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet need. French recommendations were updated in 2020. The goal of this minireview is to provide an update on these published guidelines. Despite newer relevant studies, our proposed algorithm remains relevant. First-line treatments include serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants, topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation being specifically proposed for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Second-line treatments include pregabalin (such position being confirmed by newer studies), tramadol, combinations and psychotherapy as add on, high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A being proposed specifically for focal peripheral neuropathic pain. Third-line treatments include high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation and strong opioids (in the lack of alternative). Disseminating these recommendations and ensuring that they are well accepted by French practitioners will be necessary to optimize neuropathic pain management in real life.

Advances in the treatment of neuropathic pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuropathic pain remains difficult to treat. This review provides an update regarding recent advances in therapeutic management, particularly with regards to newer drugs, neurostimulation techniques and original study designs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the mainstay of neuropathic pain management is still represented by drug therapy, particularly antidepressants and antiepileptics, the place of nonpharmacological therapy including in particular brain neuromodulation techniques has substantially increased in recent years. Newer study designs are also increasingly implemented, based on in depth phenotypic profiling to achieve more individualized therapy, or on screening strategies to decrease placebo effect and contribute to increase assay sensitivity. These approaches are now considered the most promising to decrease therapeutic failures in neuropathic pain.

SUMMARY

Neuropathic pain management should not be restricted to pharmacotherapy but now encompasses multiple approaches including particularly neuromodulation techniques. Multimodal assessment can also help identify predictors of the response in clinical trials in order to ensure appropriate management.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat neuropathic pain but the quality of evidence remains low. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neuronavigated rTMS to the motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in neuropathic pain over 25 weeks. We did a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at four outpatient clinics in France. Patients aged 18-75 years with peripheral neuropathic pain were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to M1 or DLPFC-rTMS and re-randomised in a 2:1 ratio to active or sham rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses/session, 15 sessions over 22 weeks). Patients and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the comparison between active M1-rTMS, active DLPCF-rTMS and sham-rTMS for the change over the course of 25 weeks (group by time interaction) in average pain intensity (from 0 no pain to 10 maximal pain) on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), using a mixed model repeated measures analysis in patients who received at least one rTMS session (modified ITT population). Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain intensity and relief, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, quality of pain, self reported pain intensity and fatigue (patients diary), patient and clinician global impression of change (PGIC, CGIC), quality of life, sleep, mood and catastrophizing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010281. A total of 152 patients were randomised and 149 received treatment (49 for M1; 52 for DLPFC; 48 for sham). M1-rTMS reduced pain intensity versus sham-rTMS (estimate for group x session interaction: -0.048 ± 0.02; 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01; p = 0.01). DLPFC-rTMS was not better than sham (estimate: -0.003 ± 0.01; 95% CI:-0.04 to 0.03, p = 0.9). M1-rRMS, but not DLPFC-rTMS, was also superior to sham-rTMS on pain relief, sensory dimenson of pain, self reported pain intensity and fatigue, PGIC and CGIC. There were no effect on quality of pain, mood, sleep and quality of life as all groups improved similarly over time. Headache was the most common side effect and occurred in 17 (34.7%), 23 (44.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients from M1, DLPFC and sham groups respectively (p = 0.2). Our results support the clinical relevance of M1-rTMS, but not of DLPFC-rTMS, for peripheral neuropathic pain with an excellent safety profile.

Theta-burst versus 20 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuropathic pain: A head-to-head comparison

OBJECTIVE

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to reduce neuropathic pain, but intermittent "theta-burst" stimulation (iTBS) could be a better alternative because of shorter duration and greater ability to induce cortical plasticity. Here we compared head-to-head the pain-relieving efficacy of the two modalities when applied daily for 5 days to patients with neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Forty-six patients received 20 Hz-rTMS and/or iTBS protocols and 39 of them underwent the full two procedures in a random cross-over design. They rated pain intensity, sleep quality, fatigue and general health status daily during 5 consecutive weeks.

RESULTS

Pain relief during the month following stimulation was superior after 20 Hz-rTMS relative to iTBS (F(1,38) = 4.645; p = 0.037). Correlation between respective levels of maximal relief showed a significant deviation toward the 20 Hz-rTMS effect. A greater proportion of individuals responded to 20 Hz-rTMS (52% vs 32%, 95 %CI[0.095-3.27]; p = 0.06), and reports of fatigue significantly improved after 20 Hz-rTMS relative to iTBS (p = 0.01). General health and sleep quality scores did not differentiate both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS appeared superior to iTBS for neuropathic pain relief.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adequate matching between the oscillatory activity of motor cortex and that of rTMS may increase synaptic efficacy, thus enhancing functional connectivity of motor cortex with distant structures involved in pain regulation.

Sex differences in brain modular organization in chronic pain

ABSTRACT

Men and women can exhibit different pain sensitivities, and many chronic pain conditions are more prevalent in one sex. Although there is evidence of sex differences in the brain, it is not known whether there are sex differences in the organization of large-scale functional brain networks in chronic pain. Here, we used graph theory with modular analysis and machine-learning of resting-state-functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 220 participants: 155 healthy controls and 65 individuals with chronic low back pain due to ankylosing spondylitis, a form of arthritis. We found an extensive overlap in the graph partitions with the major brain intrinsic systems (ie, default mode, central, visual, and sensorimotor modules), but also sex-specific network topological characteristics in healthy people and those with chronic pain. People with chronic pain exhibited higher cross-network connectivity, and sex-specific nodal graph properties changes (ie, hub disruption), some of which were associated with the severity of the chronic pain condition. Females exhibited atypically higher functional segregation in the mid cingulate cortex and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and lower connectivity in the network with the default mode and frontoparietal modules, whereas males exhibited stronger connectivity with the sensorimotor module. Classification models on nodal graph metrics could classify an individual's sex and whether they have chronic pain with high accuracies (77%-92%). These findings highlight the organizational abnormalities of resting-state-brain networks in people with chronic pain and provide a framework to consider sex-specific pain therapeutics.

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

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