Long-Term Effects of Self-Administered Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Episodic Migraine Prevention: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

[Using electricity to combat headache : Electrotherapy and tDCS in the 1870s/1880s and today]

Headache can be a widespread symptom as well as a disorder in itself. Headache syndromes such as migraine cause a lot of distress, disability and overall socioeconomic costs. Pharmacological treatments are often limited in their efficacy as well as due to side effects. The therapeutic application of electricity for this medical indication was a relevant field of research in the 19th century and-in the form of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)-is still widely studied today. This paper provides an overview of publications from the late 19th century (as the era of discovery and success of electrotherapy) as well as contemporary studies investigating the usage of weak currents for the treatment or prophylaxis of headache. Our results show a large number of highly favorable reports of treatment successes. However, the number of cases analysed is often rather small and the forms of electric stimulation applied were often highly heterogeneous. In summary, electric stimulation appears to be a promising field of research and a possible therapeutic agent for the treatment of headaches; however, further research is necessary, especially into the details of the stimulation techniques applied and the various indications in which it may be of use.

Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation and monoclonal antibodies acting on the CGRP as a combined treatment for migraine (TACTIC): Results of a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundMigraine pathogenesis involves both central and peripheral mechanisms. Although calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies have shown efficacy over placebo in migraine prevention, a proportion of individuals with migraine may experience a substantial residual burden while on treatment. Transcranial direct current stimulation is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that can target central migraine mechanisms and may therefore complement calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation as an adjunctive treatment to calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention and to investigate its neurophysiological effects.MethodsThis is a multicenter, randomized double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group trial including subjects with migraine on treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for ≥90 days and with ≥8 monthly migraine days in the last 30 days. Subjects were randomized to active or sham transcranial direct current stimulation. The transcranial direct current stimulation protocol consisted of five daily 20-minute sessions of bilateral cathodal stimulation on the occipital area and anodal stimulation on the M1 area. High-density electroencephalographic recordings were performed before the first and after the last transcranial direct current stimulation session. The primary endpoint was the number of headache days during the 28-day follow-up period controlling for the 28-days baseline value. Secondary endpoints included the number of migraine days during the follow-up period, disability measures and electroencephalographic spectral power. The active and sham groups were compared using analysis of covariance. For clinical outcomes with significant differences between groups, we also ran paired t-tests comparing baseline and follow-up assessment within groups.ResultsThirty participants were randomized (15 to active and 15 to sham group). Headache days during the 28-day follow-up period did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.560, ηp2 = 0.017). However, participants receiving active transcranial direct current stimulation reported fewer migraine days during follow-up compared to the sham group (p = 0.008, ηp2 = 0.241). Paired t-tests indicated that the active tDCS group reported a reduction in migraine days during the follow-up period compared to baseline (t = 2.557, p = 0.023, Cohen's d = 0.660), while no difference was found in the sham group. Referring to neurophysiological endpoints, active transcranial direct current stimulation induced a significant decrease in delta power at frontal regions compared to sham.ConclusionsThis randomized-controlled trial suggests that transcranial direct current stimulation is a promising potentially effective treatment that may give additional benefits to subjects with migraine who are already on prevention with calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies but who have a substantial residual migraien burden. Combination treatments need to be better explored to provide strategies to further improve benefits of migraine prevention.Trial Registration: NCT05161871 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Effect of different non-pharmacologic placebo treatments on migraine prevention: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Placebo control plays an important role in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Specifying differential effects of various placebo controls on migraine prevention would be essential in the explanation of preventive treatment for migraine and the indirect comparison between different prophylactic therapeutics.

OBJECTIVES

To access the impact of different non-pharmacologic placebo types on different outcomes in migraine patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and Web of Science databases from the date of creation to June 19, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of migraine that included sham intervention of acupuncture or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (nVNS) or repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) were conducted. The primary outcome was the migraine days, and the secondary outcomes were the number of migraine attacks, headache days, headache frequency, and responder's rate. Placebo effects were assessed using five individual placebos for network meta-analysis, using mean differences to measure the relative effect of pair-wise comparisons between interventions.

RESULT

A total of 50 trials with 4880 subjects were included. Twenty-seven trials were evaluated for low risk of bias. The results of indirect comparisons show that sham rTMS and sham tDCS had optimal and similar effects in reducing migraine days; sham acupuncture has the greatest effect on reducing the number of migraine attacks and relieving headache frequency; sham rTMS had a highly significant advantage in reducing headache days compared with the other placebo controls.

CONCLUSION

Based on the network meta-analysis results, we found that sham acupuncture had the greatest effect on migraine prophylaxis. The strong placebo effect of sham acupuncture should be considered when assessing the therapeutic effect.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Clinical Outcomes, Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide, and Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide-38 Levels in Menstrual Migraine

OBJECTIVES

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been suggested as an alternative treatment option for migraine. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS on clinical outcomes in addition to calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide 38 (PACAP-38) levels in individuals with menstrual-related migraine (MRM) for the first time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this parallel study, 58 female patients between the ages of 18 and 45 years, including 36 with MRM and 22 with nonmenstrual migraines (nMM), were recruited. Sessions of 2-mA 20-minute anodal tDCS were administered over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex within three consecutive days (1:1 active and sham stimulation). Migraine attack frequency, severity, analgesic usage, CGRP, and PACAP-38 levels of the patients were evaluated before and one month after tDCS.

RESULTS

After tDCS, in the active group compared with the sham group, the frequency (p = 0.031), the severity of attacks (p = 0.003), the number of days with headache (p = 0.004), and the analgesic usage (p = 0.024) were all decreased. In both MRM and nMM groups, the frequency and severity of attacks and analgesic usage were decreased in those receiving active stimulation (p < 0.001 for each). CGRP and PACAP-38 levels were no different in the active group and the sham group after tDCS.

CONCLUSIONS

tDCS was shown to be efficacious in migraine prophylaxis and a valuable option for migraine and MRM treatment. The absence of changes in serum CGRP and PACAP-38 levels suggests that tDCS efficacy may stem from distinct cerebral electrophysiological mechanisms.

Effects of Transcranial Ultrasound Stimulation on Blood Oxygen Metabolism and Brain Rhythms in Nitroglycerin-Induced Migraine Mice

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to investigate the regulatory mechanism of transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) on nitroglycerin-induced migraine in mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was divided into four groups, namely, the normal saline control group (n = 9), ultrasound stimulation control group (n = 6), nitroglycerin-induced migraine group (n = 9), and ultrasound stimulation group (n = 9). The behavior, blood oxygen metabolism, and brain rhythm distribution of the four groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

We found that after TUS, the movement time and speed of mice with migraine are modulated to those of the control groups, and the number of head scratching and grooming events is significantly reduced. TUS increased the deoxygenated hemoglobin, and the power of the 4-to-40 Hz frequency band of local field potentials in the cortex of migraine mice. TUS also decreased the expression of plasma calcitonin gene-related peptide and cortical c-Fos protein.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound stimulation can regulate brain rhythm and blood oxygen metabolism and reduce migraine symptoms in mice. The regulatory mechanism may be related to reducing calcitonin gene-related peptide in blood vessels.

TDCS at home for depressive disorders: an updated systematic review and lessons learned from a prematurely terminated randomized controlled pilot study

The application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) at home for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) is the subject of current clinical trials. This is due to its positive safety profile, cost-effectiveness, and potential scalability for a wide outreach in clinical practice. Here, we provide a systematic review of the available studies and also a report on the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on tDCS at home for the treatment of MDD. This trial had to be prematurely terminated due to safety concerns. The HomeDC trial is a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients with MDD (DSM-5) were randomized to active or sham tDCS. Patients conducted tDCS at home for 6 weeks with 5 sessions/week (30 min at 2 mA) anode over F3, cathode over F4. Sham tDCS resembled active tDCS, with ramp-in and ramp-out periods, but without intermittent stimulation. The study was prematurely terminated due to an accumulation of adverse events (AEs, skin lesions), so that only 11 patients were included. Feasibility was good. Safety monitoring was not sufficient enough to detect or prevent AEs within an appropriate timeframe. Regarding antidepressant effects, the reduction in depression scales over time was significant. However, active tDCS was not superior to sham tDCS in this regard. Both the conclusions from this review and the HomeDC trial show that there are several critical issues with the use of tDCS at home that need to be addressed. Nevertheless the array of transcranial electric simulation (TES) methods that this mode of application offers, including tDCS, is highly interesting and warrants further investigation in high quality RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov .

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05172505. Registration date: 12/13/2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05172505 . *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers) **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 . For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.

Occipital transcranial direct current stimulation in episodic migraine patients: effect on cerebral perfusion

Cerebral blood flow differs between migraine patients and healthy controls during attack and the interictal period. This study compares the brain perfusion of episodic migraine patients and healthy controls and investigates the influence of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the occipital cortex. We included healthy adult controls and episodic migraineurs. After a 28-day baseline period and the baseline visit, migraine patients received daily active or sham anodal tDCS over the occipital lobe for 28 days. All participants underwent a MRI scan at baseline; migraineurs were also scanned shortly after the stimulation period and about five months later. At baseline, brain perfusion of migraine patients and controls differed in several areas; among the stimulated areas, perfusion was increased in the cuneus of healthy controls. At the first visit, the active tDCS group had an increased blood flow in regions processing visual stimuli and a decreased perfusion in other areas. Perfusion did not differ at the second follow-up visit. The lower perfusion level in migraineurs in the cuneus indicates a lower preactivation level. Anodal tDCS over the occipital cortex increases perfusion of several areas shortly after the stimulation period, but not 5 months later. An increase in the cortical preactivation level could mediate the transient reduction of the migraine frequency.Trial registration: NCT03237754 (registered at clincicaltrials.gov; full date of first trial registration: 03/08/2017).

Non-invasive brain stimulation treatments for migraine prophylaxis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Migraine is a major public health problem owing to its long disease duration and disease relapse. Non-invasive brain stimulation treatments were reported effective for the management of migraine, but the comparative effectiveness of three main NIBSs, rTMS, nVNS, and tDCS, has not been studied. We aimed to explore the relative efficacy of rTMS, tDCS, and nVNS in migraine prophylaxis by using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Web of Science from inception to 1 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the efficacy of rTMS, tDCS or nVNS in the prophylactic treatment of migraine were included. The primary outcome was monthly migraine frequency, and secondary outcomes were headache intensity and the impact of headaches on daily life. The relative effects of the treatments in contrast to the others were measured by using standard mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

We included 31 trials with 1659 participants. Fourteen trials were rated as low risk of bias. The results showed that tDCS (SMD - 1.58; 95%CI, - 2.38 to  - 0.79; P-score = 0.92) had the largest effect on migraine frequency when compared with sham interventions in reducing monthly migraine frequency, and tDCS had a larger effect than rTMS (SMD - 0.62; 95%CI, - 1.81 to 0.57) and nVNS (SMD - 1.39; 95%CI, - 3.27 to 0.49). tDCS had also the largest effect in reducing pain intensity when compared with sham intervention (SMD - 1.49; 95%CI, - 2.46 to  - 0.52) and rTMS (SMD - 0.48; 95%CI, - 2.06 to 1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

For the prophylactic treatment of migraine, tDCS was relatively more effective than rTMS and nVNS. Head-to-head comparison trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Imaging the brain and vascular reactions to headache treatments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Neuroimaging studies have made an important contribution to our understanding of headache pathophysiology. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview and critical appraisal of mechanisms of actions of headache treatments and potential biomarkers of treatment response disclosed by imaging studies.

MAIN BODY

We performed a systematic literature search on PubMed and Embase databases for imaging studies investigating central and vascular effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used to abort and prevent headache attacks. Sixty-three studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. Of these, 54 investigated migraine patients, 4 cluster headache patients and 5 patients with medication overuse headache. Most studies used functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (n = 33) or molecular imaging (n = 14). Eleven studies employed structural MRI and a few used arterial spin labeling (n = 3), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (n = 3) or magnetic resonance angiography (n = 2). Different imaging modalities were combined in eight studies. Despite of the variety of imaging approaches and results, some findings were consistent. This systematic review suggests that triptans may cross the blood-brain barrier to some extent, though perhaps not sufficiently to alter the intracranial cerebral blood flow. Acupuncture in migraine, neuromodulation in migraine and cluster headache patients, and medication withdrawal in patients with medication overuse headache could promote headache improvement by reverting headache-affected pain processing brain areas. Yet, there is currently no clear evidence for where each treatment acts, and no firm imaging predictors of efficacy. This is mainly due to a scarcity of studies and heterogeneous treatment schemes, study designs, subjects, and imaging techniques. In addition, most studies used small sample sizes and inadequate statistical approaches, which precludes generalizable conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Several aspects of headache treatments remain to be elucidated using imaging approaches, such as how pharmacological preventive therapies work, whether treatment-related brain changes may influence therapy effectiveness, and imaging biomarkers of clinical response. In the future, well-designed studies with homogeneous study populations, adequate sample sizes and statistical approaches are needed.

The longitudinal influence of tDCS on occipital GABA and glutamate/glutamine levels in episodic migraineurs

This study investigated differences in the concentration of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and the combination of glutamine and glutamate (as GLX) in the early visual cortex of patients with episodic migraine and the influence of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on GABA and GLX. In this single-blind, sham-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with episodic migraine to receive daily anodal tDCS or sham stimulation. In addition, we included healthy controls. We acquired proton MR spectroscopy data of the visual cortex with 3 Tesla MRI at baseline and from migraine patients directly after the stimulation period and 4 months later. In 22 migraineurs and 25 controls, the GABA and the GLX concentrations did not differ at baseline between the groups. tDCS resulted in reduced concentrations of GABA but not GLX or the migraine frequency directly after the stimulation period, but not 4 months later. The changes in the levels of GABA in the early visual cortex of patients with episodic migraine in the interictal period suggest an effect of tDCS that allowed for subsequent changes in the migraine frequency. However, we might have missed relevant variations in the concentrations of these neurotransmitters during the follow-up period, as changes in migraine frequency appeared after the first MRI and disappeared before the second.

Single Session Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Different Cortical Areas

Abstract. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) studies in healthy volunteers have shown conflicting results in terms of modulation in pain thresholds. The aim of this study was to investigate how single session anodal tDCS and modulated tDCS (mtDCS) of distinct cortical areas affected pain and perception thresholds in healthy participants. Five different stimulation conditions were applied at different cortical sites to 20 healthy volunteers to investigate the effects of tDCS and mtDCS (20 Hz) on pain and perception thresholds. TDCS over the motor cortex (M1), mtDCS over the motor cortex, tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), mtDCS of the DLPFC, and mtDCS over the occipital cortex were the stimulation conditions. All of the stimulations were anodal. The stimulations were given in a randomized order at 20-minute intervals. For comparison, electrical pain and perception thresholds were obtained from the right middle finger before and during the tDCS. After each measurement, participants were asked to give a score to their pain. In repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) test, the Condition × Time interaction showed no significant influence on changes in pain, perception thresholds, and pain scores ( p = .48, p = .89, and p = .50, respectively). However, regardless of the condition types, there was a significant difference in pain and perceptual thresholds during tDCS ( p = .01, p = .025, respectively). Our findings did not support difference in pain and perception modulation by a single session anodal tDCS over M1 and DLPFC compared to the occipital cortex in healthy volunteers. The increase in all thresholds during tDCS, irrespective of conditions, and peripheral sensations, including an active control group, taken together, suggest a placebo effect of active tDCS. Future studies about pain and perception in healthy subjects should consider the level of experimental pain and a strong placebo effect.

Transcranial direct current stimulation for migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising method for migraine treatment. In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of tDCS for migraine by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to December 02, 2021 for RCTs reporting tDCS for migraine treatment. Two authors independently evaluated the eligibility of the retrieved trials and extracted relevant data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were reduction in migraine days per month and adverse events.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs that included 425 patients with migraine were evaluated in the meta-analysis. The efficacy and safety of anodal or cathodal stimulation targeting different brain areas, including primary motor cortex (M1), primary sensory cortex (S1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and visual cortex (VC), were assessed in the RCTs enrolled. We found that tDCS with M1 and VC activation could reduce No. of migraine days per month in patients with migraine. Meanwhile, tDCS with VC inhibition could also reduce No. of migraine days per month in patients with migraine. However, there were no differences in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

tDCS activates M1 or activates/inhibits VC which could improve migraine symptoms. tDCS is an effective, preventive, and safe treatment for migraine.

Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Monoclonal Antibodies Acting on the CGRP as a Combined Treatment for Migraine (TACTIC): Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Trial

Background

Migraine is a recurrent headache disorder that has a still unclear pathophysiology, involving several circuits of both the central and peripheral nervous system. Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related (CGRP) pathway (CGRP-MAbs) are the first drugs specifically designed for migraine; those drugs act peripherally on the trigeminal ganglion without entering the blood-brain barrier. Conversely, neuromodulation techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) act centrally by increasing or decreasing the neuronal firing rate of brain cortical areas. The aim of the study will be to evaluate whether tDCS, in addition to CGRP-MAbs, is an effective add-on treatment in reducing headache frequency, intensity and acute medication use in patients with migraine. To demonstrate the biological effects of tDCS, the electroencephalographic (EEG) power changes after tDCS will be assessed.

Methods

We will include patients with migraine on treatment with CGRP-MAbs and reporting ≥8 monthly migraine days. During a prospective 28-day baseline period, patients will fill in a headache diary and questionnaires to evaluate migraine-related disability, anxiety and depressive symptoms, sleep quality, and health-related quality of life. Subjects will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to active or sham tDCS. The stimulation protocol will consist in five daily sessions, the cathodes will be applied bilaterally above the occipital areas, with the reference anode electrodes positioned above the primary motor areas. Before the first, and immediately after the last stimulation session, patients will perform a 10-min resting EEG recording. During a 28-day follow-up period following tDCS, patients will have to fill in a headache diary and questionnaires identical to those of the baseline period.

Discussion

This trial will evaluate the efficacy of an add-on treatment acting on the brain in patients with migraine, who are already treated with peripherally acting drugs, showing how tDCS acts in restoring the dysfunctional brain networks typical of the migraine patient.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT05161871.

Effectiveness and acceptability of noninvasive brain and nerve stimulation techniques for migraine prophylaxis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have exhibited limited efficacy, with response rates as low as 40%-50%. In addition to the limited efficacy, the acceptability of those pharmacologic prophylactic strategies were unacceptable. Although noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation strategies may be effective, the evidence has been inconsistent. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare strategies of noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation for migraine prophylaxis with respect to their effectiveness and acceptability.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov , ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched to date of June 4th, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Patients with diagnosis of migraine, either episodic migraine or chronic migraine, were included. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were included (N = 1493; mean age = 38.2 years; 82.0% women). We determined that the high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over C3 yielded the most decreased monthly migraine days among all the interventions [mean difference = - 8.70 days, 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs): - 14.45 to - 2.95 compared to sham/control groups]. Only alternating frequency (2/100 Hz) transcutaneous occipital nerve stimulation (tONS) over the Oz (RR = 0.36, 95%CIs: 0.16 to 0.82) yielded a significantly lower drop-out rate than the sham/control groups did.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provided a new direction for the design of more methodologically robust and larger RCTs based on the findings of the potentially beneficial effect on migraine prophylaxis in participants with migraine by different noninvasive brain/nerve stimulation, especially the application of rTMS and tONS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42021252638. The current study had been approval by the Institutional Review Board of the Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center (TSGHIRB No. B-109-29).

Which is the best transcranial direct current stimulation protocol for migraine prevention? A systematic review and critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could counteract the pathophysiological triggers of migraine attacks by modulating cortical excitability. Several pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the efficacy of tDCS for migraine prevention. We reviewed and summarized the state of the art of tDCS protocols for migraine prevention, discussing study results according to the stimulations parameters and patients' populations.

MAIN BODY

We combined the keywords 'migraine', 'headache', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', and 'tDCS' and searched Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science, from the beginning of indexing to June 22, 2021. We only included RCTs comparing the efficacy of active tDCS with sham tDCS to decrease migraine frequency, intensity, and/or acute drug utilization. The risk of bias of each RCT was assessed by using the RoB-2 tool (Cochrane Collaboration). Thirteen RCTs (from 2011 to 2021) were included in the review. The included patients ranged from 13 to 135. RCTs included patients with any migraine (n=3), chronic migraine (n=6), episodic migraine (n=3) or menstrual migraine (n=1). Six RCTs used cathodal and five anodal tDCS, while two RCTs compared the efficacy of both cathodal and anodal tDCS with that of sham. In most of the cathodal stimulation trials, the target areas were the occipital regions, with reference on central or supraorbital areas. In anodal RCTs, the anode was usually placed above the motor cortical areas and the cathode on supraorbital areas. All RCTs adopted repeated sessions (from 5 to 28) at variable intervals, while the follow-up length spanned from 1 day up to 12 months. Efficacy results were variable but overall positive. According to the RoB-2 tool, only four of the 13 RCTs had a low risk of bias, while the others presented some concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Both anodal and cathodal tDCS are promising for migraine prevention. However, there is a need for larger and rigorous RCTs and standardized procedures. Additionally, the potential benefits and targeted neurostimulation protocols should be assessed for specific subgroups of patients.

Tracking tDCS induced grey matter changes in episodic migraine: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Occipital transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an effective and safe treatment for migraine attack prevention. Structural brain alterations have been found in migraineurs in regions related to pain modulation and perception, including occipital areas. However, whether these structural alterations can be dynamically modulated through tDCS treatment is understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To track longitudinally grey matter volume changes in occipital areas in episodic migraineurs during and up to five months after occipital tDCS treatment in a single-blind, and sham-controlled study.

METHODS

24 episodic migraineurs were randomized to either receive verum or sham occipital tDCS treatment for 28 days. To investigate dynamic grey matter volume changes patients underwent structural MRI at baseline (prior to treatment), 1.5 months and 5.5 months (after completion of treatment). 31 healthy controls were scanned with the same MRI protocol. Morphometry measures assessed rate of changes over time and between groups by means of tensor-based morphometry.

RESULTS

Before treatment, migraineurs reported 5.6 monthly migraine days on average. A cross-sectional analysis revealed grey matter volume increases in the left lingual gyrus in migraineurs compared to controls. Four weeks of tDCS application led to a reduction of 1.9 migraine days/month and was paralleled by grey matter volume decreases in the left lingual gyrus in the treatment group; its extent overlapping with that seen at baseline.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that migraineurs have increased grey matter volume in the lingual gyrus, which can be modified by tDCS. Tracking structural plasticity in migraineurs provides a potential neuroimaging biomarker for treatment monitoring.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03237754 . Registered 03 August 2017 - retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03237754 .

Non-Invasive Neurostimulation Methods for Acute and Preventive Migraine Treatment-A Narrative Review

Neurostimulation methods have now been studied for more than 20 years in migraine treatment. They can be divided into invasive and non-invasive methods. In this narrative review, the non-invasive methods are presented. The most commonly studied and used methods are vagal nerve stimulation, electric peripheral nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation. Other stimulation techniques, including mechanical stimulation, play only a minor role. Nearly all methods have been studied for acute attack treatment and for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. The evidence of efficacy is poor for most procedures, since no stimulation device is based on consistently positive, blinded, controlled trials with a sufficient number of patients. In addition, most studies on these devices enrolled patients who did not respond sufficiently to oral drug treatment, and so the role of neurostimulation in an average population of migraine patients is unknown. In the future, it is very important to conduct large, properly blinded and controlled trials performed by independent researchers. Otherwise, neurostimulation methods will only play a very minor role in the treatment of migraine.

Noninvasive Neuromodulation in Headache: An Update

Background

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache condition. Although strives have been made in treatment, there remains an unmet need for safe, effective acute, and preventative treatments. The promising concept of neuromodulation of relevant neuronal targets in a noninvasive fashion for the treatment of primary headache disorders has led to the trial of numerous devices over the years.

Objective

We aimed to review the evidence on current neuromodulation treatments available for the management of primary headache disorders.

Methods

Randomized controlled trial as well as open-label and real-world studies on central and peripheral cephalic and noncephalic neuromodulation modalities in primary headaches were critically reviewed.

Results

The current evidence suggests a role of single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and remote noncephalic electrical stimulation as migraine abortive treatments, with stronger evidence in episodic rather than in chronic migraine. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation and supraorbital nerve stimulation also hold promising evidence in episodic migraine prevention and initial positive evidence in chronic migraine prevention. More evidence should clarify the therapeutic role of the external vagus nerve stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation in migraine. However, external vagus nerve stimulation may be effective in the acute treatment of episodic but not chronic cluster headache, in the prevention of hemicrania continua and paroxysmal hemicrania but not of short-lasting neuralgiform headache attacks. The difficulty in setting up sham-controlled studies has thus far prevented the publication of robust trials. This limitation along with the cost of these therapies has meant that their use is limited in most countries.

Conclusion

Neuromodulation is a promising nonpharmacological treatment approach for primary headaches. More studies with appropriate blinding strategies and reduction of device cost may allow more widespread approval of these treatments and in turn increase clinician's experience in neuromodulation.

Is Allodynia a Determinant Factor in the Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Prophylaxis of Migraine?

OBJECTIVES

Allodynia, the clinical marker of central sensitization, affects even simple daily living activities and increases the tendency for migraine to be more resistant to treatment and have a chronic course. Migraine that impairs quality of life can often be treated with variable pharmaceutical agents, but with various side effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a potential alternative treatment for migraine prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-seven patients diagnosed with migraine (48 with allodynia and 29 without allodynia) were included in the study. Randomly, 41 of the 77 patients received sham stimulation and 36 patients underwent three sessions of anodal left primary motor cortex stimulation for 2 mA, 20 min. Migraine attack characteristics (frequency, severity, and duration) and analgesic drug use were followed with headache diaries for one month after the stimulation.

RESULTS

After tDCS, migraine attack frequency (p = 0.021), the number of headache days (p = 0.005), duration of attacks (p = 0.008), and symptomatic analgesic drug use (p = 0.007) decreased in patients receiving active tDCS, compared to the sham group. The therapeutic gain of tDCS was calculated as 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22-60%) for headache days and 76% (95% CI: 55-86) for headache duration. Response to tDCS treatment was higher in patients without allodynia (60% vs. 24%; p = 0.028) and allodynia came out as an independent predictor of response to tDCS with logistic regression analysis. Side effects were rare and similar to the sham group.

CONCLUSIONS

tDCS is a safe, efficacious, and fast method for migraine prophylaxis. However, the administration of tDCS before allodynia occurs, that is, before central sensitization develops, will provide increased responsiveness to the treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

tDCS is more effective before the development of allodynia, but it also improves the quality of life even after the development of allodynia.

Structural brain network characteristics in patients with episodic and chronic migraine

Background

Migraine is a primary headache disorder that can be classified into an episodic (EM) and a chronic form (CM). Network analysis within the graph-theoretical framework based on connectivity patterns provides an approach to observe large-scale structural integrity. We test the hypothesis that migraineurs are characterized by a segregated network.

Methods

19 healthy controls (HC), 17 EM patients and 12 CM patients were included. Cortical thickness and subcortical volumes were computed, and topology was analyzed using a graph theory analytical framework and network-based statistics. We further used support vector machines regression (SVR) to identify whether these network measures were able to predict clinical parameters.

Results

Network based statistics revealed significantly lower interregional connectivity strength between anatomical compartments including the fronto-temporal, parietal and visual areas in EM and CM when compared to HC. Higher assortativity was seen in both patients’ group, with higher modularity for CM and higher transitivity for EM compared to HC. For subcortical networks, higher assortativity and transitivity were observed for both patients’ group with higher modularity for CM. SVR revealed that network measures could robustly predict clinical parameters for migraineurs.

Conclusion

We found global network disruption for EM and CM indicated by highly segregated network in migraine patients compared to HC. Higher modularity but lower clustering coefficient in CM is suggestive of more segregation in this group compared to EM. The presence of a segregated network could be a sign of maladaptive reorganization of headache related brain circuits, leading to migraine attacks or secondary alterations to pain.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01216-8.