Neuroplastic Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Painful Symptoms Reduction in Chronic Hepatitis C: A Phase II Randomized, Double Blind, Sham Controlled Trial

Anodal tDCS over the motor cortex improves pain but not physical function in chronic chikungunya arthritis: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is a globally prevalent pathogen, with outbreaks occurring in tropical regions. Chronic pain is the main symptom reported and is associated with decreased mobility and disability. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is emerging as a new therapeutic tool for chronic arthralgia.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of 10 consecutive sessions of anodal tDCS on pain (primary outcome) in participants with chronic CHIKV arthralgia. Secondary outcomes included functional status, quality of life, and mood.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 30 participants with chronic CHIKV arthralgia were randomly assigned to receive either active (n = 15) or sham (n = 15) tDCS. The active group received 10 consecutive sessions of tDCS over M1 using the C3/Fp2 montage (2 mA for 20 min). Visual analog scale of pain (VAS), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), short-form 36 health survey (SF-36), pain catastrophizing scale, Hamilton anxiety scale (HAS), timed up and go (TUG) test, lumbar dynamometry, 30-s arm curl and 2-min step test were assessed at baseline, day 10 and at 2 follow-up visits.

RESULTS

There was a significant interaction between group and time on pain (p = 0.03; effect size 95 % CI 0.9 (-1.67 to -0.16), with a significant time interaction (p = 0.0001). There was no interaction between time and group for the 2-minute step test (p = 0.18), but the groups differed significantly at day 10 (p = 0.01), first follow-up (p = 0.01) and second follow-up (p = 0.03). HAQ and SF-36 improved but not significantly. There was no significant improvement in mental health, and physical tests.

CONCLUSION

tDCS appears to be a promising intervention for reducing pain in participants with chronic CHIKV arthralgia, although further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore potential long-term benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR-245rh7.

Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have demonstrated their potential for chronic pain management, yet their efficacy exhibits variability across studies. Refining stimulation targets and exploring additional targets offer a possible solution to this challenge. This study aimed to identify potential brain surface targets for NIBS in treating chronic pain disorders by integrating literature review, neuroimaging meta-analysis, and functional connectivity analysis on 90 chronic low back pain patients. Our results showed that the primary motor cortex (M1) (C3/C4, 10-20 EEG system) and prefrontal cortex (F3/F4/Fz) were the most used brain stimulation targets for chronic pain treatment according to the literature review. The bilateral precentral gyrus (M1), supplementary motor area, Rolandic operculum, and temporoparietal junction, were all identified as common potential NIBS targets through both a meta-analysis sourced from Neurosynth and functional connectivity analysis. This study presents a comprehensive summary of the current literature and refines the existing NIBS targets through a combination of imaging meta-analysis and functional connectivity analysis for chronic pain conditions. The derived coordinates (with integration of the international electroencephalography (EEG) 10/20 electrode placement system) within the above brain regions may further facilitate the localization of these targets for NIBS application. Our findings may have the potential to expand NIBS target selection beyond current clinical trials and improve chronic pain treatment.

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.

Maternal Mid-Gestation Cytokine Dysregulation in Mothers of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disorder characterised by deficits in social interactions and communication, with stereotypical and repetitive behaviours. Recent evidence suggests that maternal immune dysregulation may predispose offspring to ASD. Independent samples t-tests revealed downregulation of IL-17A concentrations in cases, when compared to controls, at both 15 weeks (p = 0.02), and 20 weeks (p = 0.02), which persisted at 20 weeks following adjustment for confounding variables. This adds to the growing body of evidence that maternal immune regulation may play a role in foetal neurodevelopment.

Noninvasive motor cortex stimulation effects on quantitative sensory testing in healthy and chronic pain subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

One of the potential mechanisms of motor cortex stimulation by noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) effects on pain is through the restoration of the defective endogenous inhibitory pain pathways. However, there are still limited data on quantitative sensory testing (QST), including conditioned pain modulation (CPM), supporting this mechanism. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of noninvasive motor cortex stimulation on pain perception as indexed by changes in QST outcomes. Database searches were conducted until July 2019 to include randomized controlled trials that performed sham-controlled NIBS on the motor cortex in either the healthy and/or pain population and assessed the QST and CPM. Quality of studies was assessed through the Cochrane tool. We calculated the Hedge's effect sizes of QST and CPM outcomes and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and performed random-effects meta-analyses. Thirty-eight studies were included (1178 participants). We found significant increases of pain threshold in healthy subjects (ES = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.02-0.31, I2 = 22.2%) and pain populations (ES = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.15-0.80, I2 = 68.8%), and homogeneous higher CPM effect (pain ratings reduction) in healthy subjects (ES = -0.39, 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.14, I2 = 17%) and pain populations (ES = -0.35, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.11, I2 = 0%) in the active NIBS group compared with sham. These results support the idea of top-down modulation of endogenous pain pathways by motor cortex stimulation as one of the main mechanisms of pain reduction assessed by QST, which could be a useful predictive and prognostic biomarker for chronic pain personalized treatment with NIBS.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Improve the Dysfunction of Descending Pain Modulatory System Related to Opioids in Chronic Non-cancer Pain: An Integrative Review of Neurobiology and Meta-Analysis

Background: Opioid long-term therapy can produce tolerance, opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH), and it induces dysfunction in pain descending pain inhibitory system (DPIS). Objectives: This integrative review with meta-analysis aimed: (i) To discuss the potential mechanisms involved in analgesic tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). (ii) To examine how the opioid can affect the function of DPIS. (ii) To show evidence about the tDCS as an approach to treat acute and chronic pain. (iii) To discuss the effect of tDCS on DPIS and how it can counter-regulate the OIH. (iv) To draw perspectives for the future about the tDCS effects as an approach to improve the dysfunction in the DPIS in chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: Relevant published randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing active (irrespective of the stimulation protocol) to sham tDCS for treating chronic non-cancer pain were identified, and risk of bias was assessed. We searched trials in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane trials databases. tDCS protocols accepted were application in areas of the primary motor cortex (M1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or occipital area. Results: Fifty-nine studies were fully reviewed, and 24 with moderate to the high-quality methodology were included. tDCS improved chronic pain with a moderate effect size [pooled standardized mean difference; -0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to -0.41]. On average, active protocols led to 27.26% less pain at the end of treatment compared to sham [95% CI; 15.89-32.90%]. Protocol varied in terms of anodal or cathodal stimulation, areas of stimulation (M1 and DLPFC the most common), number of sessions (from 5 to 20) and current intensity (from 1 to 2 mA). The time of application was 20 min in 92% of protocols. Conclusion: In comparison with sham stimulation, tDCS demonstrated a superior effect in reducing chronic pain conditions. They give perspectives that the top-down neuromodulator effects of tDCS are a promising approach to improve management in refractory chronic not-cancer related pain and to enhance dysfunctional neuronal circuitries involved in the DPIS and other pain dimensions and improve pain control with a therapeutic opioid-free. However, further studies are needed to determine individualized protocols according to a biopsychosocial perspective.

Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC2-NIN-CP)

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Chronic pain (CP) is highly prevalent and generally undertreated health condition. Noninvasive brain stimulation may contribute to decrease pain intensity and influence other aspects related to CP.

Objective:

To provide consensus-based recommendations for the use of noninvasive brain stimulation in clinical practice.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature searching for randomized clinical trials followed by consensus panel. Recommendations also involved a cost-estimation study.

Results:

The systematic review wielded 24 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and 22 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. The following recommendations were provided: (1) Level A for anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in fibromyalgia, and level B for peripheral neuropathic pain, abdominal pain, and migraine; bifrontal (F3/F4) tDCS and M1 high-definition (HD)-tDCS for fibromyalgia; Oz/Cz tDCS for migraine and for secondary benefits such as improvement in quality of life, decrease in anxiety, and increase in pressure pain threshold; (2) level A recommendation for high-frequency (HF) rTMS over M1 for fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, and level B for myofascial or musculoskeletal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and migraine; (3) level A recommendation against the use of anodal M1 tDCS for low back pain; and (4) level B recommendation against the use of HF rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the control of pain.

Conclusion:

Transcranial DCS and rTMS are recommended techniques to be used in the control of CP conditions, with low to moderate analgesic effects, and no severe adverse events. These recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus made by experts in the field. Readers should use it as part of the resources available to decision-making.

Neuromodulation treats Chikungunya arthralgia: a randomized controlled trial

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

MRI-Guided Regional Personalized Electrical Stimulation in Multisession and Home Treatments

The shape and position of the electrodes is a key factor for the efficacy of transcranial electrical stimulations (tES). We have recently introduced the Regional Personalized Electrode (RePE), a tES electrode fitting the personal cortical folding, that has been able to differentiate the stimulation of close by regions, in particular the primary sensory (S1) and motor (M1) cortices, and to personalize tES onto such an extended cortical district. However, neuronavigation on individual brain was compulsory for the correct montage. Here, we aimed at developing and testing a neuronavigation-free procedure for easy and quick positioning RePE, enabling multisession RePE-tES at home. We used off-line individual MRI to shape RePE via an ad-hoc computerized procedure, while an ad-hoc developed Adjustable Helmet Frame (AHF) was used to properly position it in multisession treatments, even at home. We used neuronavigation to test the RePE shape and position obtained by the new computerized procedure and the re-positioning obtained via the AHF. Using Finite Element Method (FEM) model, we also estimated the intra-cerebral current distribution induced by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) comparing RePE vs. non-RePE with fixed reference. Additionally, we tested, using FEM, various shapes, and positions of the reference electrode taking into account possible small displacements of RePE, to test feasibility of RePE-tES sessions at home. The new RePE neuronavigation-free positioning relies on brain MRI space distances, and produced a mean displacement of 3.5 ± 0.8 mm, and the re-positioning of 4.8 ± 1.1 mm. Higher electric field in S1 than in M1 was best obtained with the occipital reference electrode, a montage that proved to feature low sensitivity to typical RePE millimetric displacements. Additionally, a new tES accessory was developed to enable repositioning the electrodes over the scalp also at home, with a precision which is acceptable according to the modeling-estimated intracerebral currents. Altogether, we provide here a procedure to simplify and make easily applicable RePE-tDCS, which enables efficacious personalized treatments.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Preoperative transcranial direct current stimulation: Exploration of a novel strategy to enhance neuroplasticity before surgery to control postoperative pain. A randomized sham-controlled study

BACKGROUND

An imbalance in the excitatory/inhibitory systems in the pain networks may explain the persistent chronic pain after hallux valgus surgery. Thus, to contra-regulate this dysfunction, the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) becomes attractive.

OBJECTIVE

We tested the hypothesis that two preoperative active(a)-tDCS sessions compared with sham(s)-tDCS could improve the postoperative pain [as indexed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at rest and during walking (primary outcomes)]. To assess their effect on the change in the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS0-10) during Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM-task), disability related to pain (DRP) and analgesic consumption (secondary outcomes). Also, we assessed if the brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) after tDCS could predict the intervention's effect on the DRP.

METHODS

It is a prospective, double blind, sham-controlled, randomized single center, 40 women (18-70 years-old) who had undergone hallux valgus surgery were randomized to receive two sessions (20 minutes each) of anodal a-tDCS or s-tDCS on the primary motor cortex at night and in the morning before the surgery. To assess the DRP was used the Brazilian Profile of Chronic Pain: Screen (B-PCP:S).

RESULTS

A-tDCS group showed lower scores on VAS at rest and during walking (P<0.001). At rest, the difference between groups was 2.13cm (95%CI = 1.59 to 2.68) while during walking was 1.67cm (95%CI = 1.05 to 2.28). A-tDCS, when compared to s-tDCS reduced analgesic doses in 73.25% (P<0.001), produced a greater reduction in B-PCP:S (mean difference of 9.41 points, 95%CI = 0.63 to 18.21) and higher function of descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) during CPM-task.

CONCLUSION

A-tDCS improves postoperative pain, the DRP and the function of DPMS. Also, the CSF BDNF after a-tDCS predicted the improvement in the DRP. In overall, these findings suggest that a-tDCS effects may be mediated by top-down regulatory mechanisms associated with the inhibitory cortical control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02360462.

The Central Sensitization Inventory validated and adapted for a Brazilian population: psychometric properties and its relationship with brain-derived neurotrophic factor

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to assess the psychometric properties (including internal consistency, construct validity, reproducibility, and factor structure) of the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), adapted and validated for a Brazilian population (CSI-BP). Additionally, we evaluated the relationship between the CSI-BP and the serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and determined if the symptoms elicited by the CSI-BP discriminate between subjects who do/do not respond to the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) task, as assessed by change in numeric pain scale (0-10) score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in a pain clinic in a tertiary teaching hospital. A total of 222 adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain and 63 healthy control subjects completed the CSI-BP and the Brazilian Portuguese pain-catastrophizing scale (BP-PCS). A team of experts translated the CSI according to the international guidelines. Test-retest, item analysis, convergent validity, and factor analysis were performed. Later, a random subsample (n=77) was used to correlate the CSI-BP adjusted index with change in numeric pain-scale score during the CPM task and a BDNF blood sample.

RESULTS

The CSI-BP presented strong psychometric properties (test-retest reliability 0.91, Cronbach's α=0.91). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a four-factor structure, supporting the original English version. The CSI-BP adjusted index showed moderate positive correlation with the BP-PCS, and classified more than 80% of patients correctly vs healthy controls. Serum BDNF levels explained 27% of the variation in the CSI-BP adjusted index. Subjects with impairment in the descending modulatory system had higher CSI-BP adjusted index scores than subjects who responded normally to the CPM task: 49.35 (12.1) vs 39.5 (12.33), respectively (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The CSI-BP was found to be a psychometrically strong and reliable instrument, with primary evidence of validity. Higher scores on the CSI-BP were correlated positively with serum BDNF and with greater dysfunction of the descending pain-modulatory system.

Strategies for replacing non-invasive brain stimulation sessions: recommendations for designing neurostimulation clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the potential impact of missed visits on the outcomes of neuromodulation treatments, it is not clear how this issue has been addressed in clinical trials. Given this gap in the literature, we reviewed articles on non-invasive brain stimulation in participants with depression or chronic pain, and investigated how missed visits were handled. Areas covered: We performed a search on PUBMED/MEDLINE using the keywords: 'tDCS', 'transcranial direct current stimulation', 'transcranial magnetic stimulation', 'depression', and 'pain'. We included studies with a minimum of five participants who were diagnosed with depression or chronic pain, who underwent a minimum of five tDCS or TMS sessions. A total of 181 studies matched our inclusion criteria, 112 on depression and 69 on chronic pain. Of these, only fifteen (8%) articles reported or had a protocol addressing missed visits. This review demonstrates that, in most of the trials, there is no reported plan to handle missed visits. Expert commentary: Based on our findings and previous studies, we developed suggestions on how to handle missed visits in neuromodulation protocols. A maximum of 20% of missing sessions should be allowed before excluding a patient and these sessions should be replaced at the end of the stimulation period.

Transcranial Electric Stimulation for Precision Medicine: A Spatiomechanistic Framework

During recent years, non-invasive brain stimulation, including transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) in general, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in particular, have created new hopes for treatment of neurological and psychiatric diseases. Despite promising primary results in some brain disorders, a more widespread application of tES is hindered by the unsolved question of determining optimum stimulation protocols to receive meaningful therapeutic effects. tES has a large parameter space including various montages and stimulation parameters. Moreover, inter- and intra-individual differences in responding to stimulation protocols have to be taken into account. These factors contribute to the complexity of selecting potentially effective protocols for each disorder, different clusters of each disorder, and even each single patient. Expanding knowledge in different dimensions of basic and clinical neuroscience could help researchers and clinicians to select potentially effective protocols based on tES modulatory mechanisms for future clinical studies. In this article, we propose a heuristic spatiomechanistic framework which contains nine levels to address tES effects on brain functions. Three levels refer to the spatial resolution (local, small-scale networks and large-scale networks) and three levels of tES modulatory effects based on its mechanisms of action (neurochemical, neuroelectrical and oscillatory modulations). At the group level, this framework could be helpful to enable an informed and systematic exploration of various possible protocols for targeting a brain disorder or its neuroscience-based clusters. Considering recent advances in exploration of neurodiversity at the individual level with different brain mapping technologies, the proposed framework might also be used in combination with personal data to design individualized protocols for tES in the context of precision medicine in the future.

Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents

Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques.

Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions’ magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models.

Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS.

Conclusion: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.

Neural signature of tDCS, tPCS and their combination: Comparing the effects on neural plasticity

Transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are two noninvasive neuromodulatory brain stimulation techniques whose effects on human brain and behavior have been studied individually. In the present study we aimed to quantify the effects of tDCS and tPCS, individually and in combination, on cortical activity, sensitivity and pain-related assessments in healthy individuals in order to understand their neurophysiological mechanisms and potential applications in clinical populations. A total of 48 healthy individuals participated in this randomized double blind sham controlled study. Participants were randomized to receive a single stimulation session of either: active or sham tPCS and active or sham tDCS. Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), sensitivity and pain assessments were used before and after each stimulation session. We observed that tPCS had a higher effect on power, as compared to tDCS, in several bandwidths on various cortical regions: the theta band in the parietal region (p=0.021), the alpha band in the temporal (p=0.009), parietal (p=0.0063), and occipital (p<0.0001) regions. We found that the combination of tPCS and tDCS significantly decreased power in the low beta bandwidth of the frontal (p=0.0006), central (p=0.0001), and occipital (p=0.0003) regions, when compared to sham stimulation. Additionally, tDCS significantly increased power in high beta over the temporal (p=0.0015) and parietal (p=0.0007) regions, as compared to sham. We found no effect on sensitivity or pain-related assessments. We concluded that tPCS and tDCS have different neurophysiological mechanisms, elicit distinct signatures, and that the combination of the two leads to no effect or a decrease on qEEG power. Further studies are required to examine the effects of these techniques on clinical populations in which EEG signatures have been found altered.

Motor Cortex Excitability and BDNF Levels in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain According to Structural Pathology

The central sensitization syndrome (CSS) encompasses disorders with overlapping symptoms in a structural pathology spectrum ranging from persistent nociception [e.g., osteoarthritis (OA)] to an absence of tissue injuries such as the one presented in fibromyalgia (FM) and myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). First, we hypothesized that these syndromes present differences in their cortical excitability parameters assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), namely motor evoked potential (MEP), cortical silent period (CSP), short intracortical inhibition (SICI) and short intracortical facilitation (SICF). Second, considering that the presence of tissue injury could be detected by serum neurotrophins, we hypothesized that the spectrum of structural pathology (i.e., from persistent nociception like in OA, to the absence of tissue injury like in FM and MPS), could be detected by differential efficiency of their descending pain inhibitory system, as assessed by the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm. Third, we explored whether brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) had an influence on the relationship between motor cortex excitability and structural pathology. This cross-sectional study pooled baseline data from three randomized clinical trials. We included females (n = 114), aged 19-65 years old with disability by chronic pain syndromes (CPS): FM (n = 19), MPS (n = 54), OA (n = 27) and healthy subjects (n = 14). We assessed the serum BDNF, the motor cortex excitability by parameters the TMS measures and the change on numerical pain scale [NPS (0-10)] during CPM-task. The adjusted mean (SD) on the SICI observed in the absence of tissue injury was 56.36% lower than with persistent nociceptive input [0.31(0.18) vs. 0.55 (0.32)], respectively. The BDNF was inversely correlated with the SICI and with the change on NPS (0-10)during CPM-task. These findings suggest greater disinhibition in the motor cortex and the descending pain inhibitory system in FM and MPS than in OA and healthy subjects. Likewise, the inter-hemispheric disinhibition as well as the dysfunction in the descending pain modulatory system is higher in chronic pain without tissue injury compared to a structural lesion. In addition, they suggest that a greater level of serum BDNF may be involved in the processes that mediate the disinhibition of motor cortex excitability, as well as the function of descending inhibitory pain modulation system, independently of the physiopathology mechanism of musculoskeletal pain syndromes.