Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

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.

Gauging and controlling excitability in cortical disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cortical excitability, defined as the cortex's responsiveness to incoming stimuli, is a fundamental concept in neuroscience and a targetable mechanism for controlling brain dysfunctions such as epilepsy, as well as other neurological and psychiatric disorders. In this review, we delineate the boundaries between physiological and pathological excitability, highlighting recent theoretical, experimental, and translational advances relevant to human brain disorders. Specifically, we describe the dynamic regulation of cortical excitability and propose practical means to monitor its known fluctuations as to guide therapeutic interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

From a conceptual standpoint, the last decade of research on cortical excitability has benefited from dynamical systems theory, which studies the behavior of nonlinear systems (here, the cortex) and their resilience to perturbations in different conditions (here, variable excitability). We review how fundamental relationships between excitability and resilience were verified in the brain in a series of recent studies. We also review natural fluctuations in cortical excitability, and how these may open windows of vulnerability for the expression of cortical dysfunctions. We then turn to the practicalities of measuring and monitoring cortical excitability, a latent variable that must be actively probed.

SUMMARY

Practical means for gauging cortical excitability likely have broad applicability. To enable new developments in clinical practice, a principled design of pharmacological and neurostimulation therapies must leverage current understanding of cortical dynamics.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Is it an Effective Treatment for Cancer Pain?

Cancer is a major public health issue, with an estimated 20 million new cases and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths worldwide in 2022. Approximately 44.5% of patients experience cancer pain, significantly impacting their quality of life and causing physical and psychological burdens. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, shows potential in managing cancer pain. This review summarizes current research on rTMS for cancer pain, focusing on pain directly caused by tumors, pain from cancer treatments, postoperative pain, and cancer-related symptoms. Additionally, rTMS shows promise in improving cancer-related fatigue, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction, which can indirectly reduce cancer pain. The analgesic mechanisms of rTMS include inhibiting nociceptive signal transmission in the spinal cord, modulating hemodynamic changes in brain regions, and promoting endogenous opioid release. High-frequency stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) has shown significant analgesic effects, improving patients' emotional and cognitive functions and overall quality of life. rTMS has a favorable safety profile, with most studies reporting no severe adverse events. In conclusion, rTMS holds substantial potential for cancer pain management, offering a non-invasive and multifaceted therapeutic approach. Continued research and clinical application are expected to establish rTMS as an essential component of comprehensive cancer pain treatment strategies, significantly enhancing the overall well-being of patients with cancer.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for fibromyalgia: are we there yet?

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has increasingly been used to modify cortical maladaptive plastic changes shown to occur in fibromyalgia (FM) and to correlate with symptoms. Evidence for its efficacy is currently inconclusive, mainly due to heterogeneity of stimulation parameters used in trials available to date. Here, we reviewed the current evidence on the use of rTMS for FM control in the format of a narrative review, in which a systematic dissection of the different stimulation parameters would be possible. We conducted a search in Medline and Embase for controlled trials on rTMS in people with FM with at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, and treatment/follow-up of at least 3 weeks. The search identified 482 abstracts, of which 45 were screened to full review, and 11 met inclusion criteria. Six out of 11 trials were positive. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was the target in 218 patients (49.2%), and the primary motor cortex (M1) in 225 (50.8%). Studies targeting M1 at 10 Hz, with stimulation current delivered in the posterior-anterior, were systematically positive, frequently showing that maintenance sessions delivered weekly, and biweekly were able to maintain the analgesic effects seen after daily induction sessions. Studies assessing the effects of rTMS for FM are still marked by heterogeneity in stimulation petameters, choice of primary outcomes, and inclusion criteria. The selection of the stimulation parameters associated with significant analgesic effects is likely to benefit following larger multicenter trials and improve the overall management of pain and associated symptoms in people with FM.

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.

A Comprehensive Overview of the Current Status and Advancements in Various Treatment Strategies against Epilepsy

Epilepsy affects more than 70 million individuals of all ages worldwide and remains one of the most severe chronic noncommunicable neurological diseases globally. Several neurotransmitters, membrane protein channels, receptors, enzymes, and, more recently noted, various pathways, such as inflammatory and mTORC complexes, play significant roles in the initiation and propagation of seizures. Over the past two decades, significant developments have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy. Various pharmacological drugs with diverse mechanisms of action and other treatment options have been developed to control seizures and treat epilepsy. These options include surgical treatment, nanomedicine, gene therapy, natural products, nervous stimulation, a ketogenic diet, gut microbiota, etc., which are in various developmental stages. Despite a plethora of drugs and other treatment options, one-third of affected individuals are resistant to current medications, while the majority of approved drugs have severe side effects, and significant changes can occur, such as pharmacoresistance, effects on cognition, long-term problems, drug interactions, risks of poor adherence, specific effects for certain medications, and psychological complications. Therefore, the development of new drugs and other treatment options that have no or minimal adverse effects is needed to combat this deadly disease. In this Review, we comprehensively summarize and explain all of the treatment options that have been approved or are in developmental stages for epilepsy as well as their status in clinical trials and advancements.

Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on trigeminal-mediated headshaking in 17 horses

BACKGROUND

Trigeminal-mediated headshaking is a neuropathic facial pain condition in horses. No treatment has been entirely successful. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is used in human medicine as a treatment for various neuropathic pain conditions, and good results have been achieved in cases of trigeminal neuralgia.

OBJECTIVES

Apply rTMS to horses with trigeminal-mediated headshaking (TMHS) and to evaluate tolerability, application of the setting, and success rate.

ANIMALS

Seventeen horses with nonseasonal signs of TMHS.

METHODS

Other underlying causes of headshaking were ruled out. The rTMS was performed under standing sedation on 5 consecutive days applying 3 sets of 500 stimulations each, with a stimulation strength of 5 Hz. Horses were evaluated on Day 1 (t0) and Day 5 (t1) of the treatment and 2 (t2) and 4 weeks (t3) afterwards using a special scoring system.

RESULTS

The rTMS was well tolerated. Headshaking signs during exercise were decreased by 70% (Day 5; t1). Four weeks after rTMS, signs were still decreased (mean reduction of 50%) during exercise. Improvement of mean resting and exercise scores was significant (P < .05) and effect sizes between pretreatment and all time points after treatment (t1, t2, t3) were large (>±0.8).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may be a promising treatment for neuropathic pain and headshaking in affected horses. Pain-free periods after treatment differ individually, and repeated treatment may be necessary. More studies should be performed to determine ideal settings for horses.

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.

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.

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.

Crosstalk between Mu-Opioid receptors and neuroinflammation: Consequences for drug addiction and pain

Mu-Opioid Receptors (MORs) are well-known for participating in analgesia, sedation, drug addiction, and other physiological functions. Although MORs have been related to neuroinflammation their biological mechanism remains unclear. It is suggested that MORs work alongside Toll-Like Receptors to enhance the release of pro-inflammatory mediators and cytokines during pathological conditions. Some cytokines, including TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6, have been postulated to regulate MORs levels by both avoiding MOR recycling and enhancing its production. In addition, Neurokinin-1 Receptor, also affected during neuroinflammation, could be regulating MOR trafficking. Therefore, inflammation in the central nervous system seems to be associated with altered/increased MORs expression, which might regulate harmful processes, such as drug addiction and pain. Here, we provide a critical evaluation on MORs' role during neuroinflammation and its implication for these conditions. Understanding MORs' functioning, their regulation and implications on drug addiction and pain may help elucidate their potential therapeutic use against these pathological conditions and associated disorders.