Non-invasive Brain and Spinal Stimulation for Pain and Related Symptoms in Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review

Brain stimulation for patients with multiple sclerosis: an umbrella review of therapeutic efficacy

Multiple sclerosis patients often experience various symptoms that can greatly impact their quality of life. There are various brain stimulation techniques that have been evaluated for their ability to reduce the symptoms of multiple sclerosis. However, there is inconsistency in the specific stimulation methods used and the symptoms targeted in the existing research. This umbrella review conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of brain stimulation and identify limitations and gaps for further research. In this umbrella review, we conducted a searched on Web of Knowledge, PubMed, and Scopus database. We specifically looked for reviews, with or without meta-analyses, that have investigated the effects of brain stimulation methods on symptoms of multiple sclerosis. All articles were examined by AMSTAR 2 (A Measure Tool to Assess Systematic Review 2). We identified 155 articles, of which 14 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, five were qualitative studies and nine were meta-analyses. Among the included studies, four examined the use of deep brain stimulation, while ten investigated the therapeutic potential of noninvasive brain stimulation. Considering the heterogeneity of studies, the current evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may be effective in treating pain and improving motor function, while transcranial direct current stimulation may be useful in alleviating fatigue and enhancing certain aspects of cognitive performance. Deep brain stimulation, on the other hand, appears to be effective in reducing tremors. However, further research is warranted to validate these findings and address the existing limitations in the field.

Nonpharmacological interventions and outcomes in the management of complications of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1-related myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis: A systematic review

Background

Human T-cell lymph tropic virus type 1 (HTLV-I)-related myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis (TSP) is a progressive inflammatory process affecting the spinal cord that occurs as a result of HTLV 1. The use of nonpharmacological approaches has always been one of the treatment strategies in these patients, but disagreement about these interventions and their results has led to their limited use. Therefore, this study aimed to identify nonpharmacological interventions and their consequences in these patients.

Materials and Methods

We followed the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The present report is organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This study was conducted at PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, among all published studies by December 30, 2021. Keywords were: HTLV-1, Human T-lymph tropic virus 1, HTLV-I-associated myelopathy, HAM/TSP, tropical spastic paraparesis, nonpharmacological intervention, nonpharmacological treatment, massage, physiotherapy, acupuncture, acupressure, and exercise. The quality of the studies was assessed using JADAD.

Results

Of 288 articles, 11 were eligible for data extraction published between 2014 and 2021. 90/9% of studies were randomized clinical trials. 81/8% of articles were of high quality. The total sample size was 253 people, of which 137 (54/15%) were women. Approaches such as exercise and motion therapy, electrotherapy, behavioral therapy, and virtual reality can be used for these patients. With these interventions, results such as improved mobility and balance, physical condition, pain, quality of life, muscle spasticity, maximum inspiratory pressure, and urinary symptoms can be achieved.

Conclusion

The most common physical therapy method used in studies was active and passive body movements, which are associated with positive results for patients. Due to the small sample size in this group of studies, it is necessary to conduct more clinical trials for more accurate conclusions. Furthermore, due to the limited number of studies that have used electrical stimulation or combined intervention packages, it is not possible to say with certainty what effect these methods have on patients. It is necessary to conduct more clinical trials.

Interventions to Improve Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis: New Opportunities and Key Talking Points

Background

Today, living well with multiple sclerosis (MS) is often measured by a person's overall quality of life rather than being limited to the more traditional metrics of reduced frequency of relapses or progression of disability. This change in focus, to a more holistic view of health, such as overall quality of life, has shifted the views of what both providers and people with multiple sclerosis view as essential for living well with MS.

Purpose

This narrative review aims to examine the relevant literature on existing and emerging non-pharmacological interventions shown to improve the quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis across all health domains.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus electronic databases using the following search terms: quality of life, health-related quality of life, life quality, life satisfaction, non-pharmacological intervention, non-drug, and intervention. After screening the abstracts, 24 were selected for this review.

Results

Common non-pharmacological interventions were used for fatigue and sleep, mental and emotional health, cognition, physical health, and chronic pain. Several non-pharmacological interventions included in this review positively improved the overall quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. These interventions included exercise, cognitive behavior therapy, and cognitive rehabilitation.

Conclusion

Non-pharmacological interventions such as exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy improve the quality of life for people with MS. These interventions should be prescribed more during routine medical care. Translating this research into standard clinical practice should be one area of focus. In addition, higher quality studies, such as randomized control trials, need to be conducted on emerging nonpharmacological interventions to assess effectiveness.

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive and motor functions in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on cognitive and motor functions in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).

Methods

A literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, CNKI, and Wan fang. The time interval used for database construction was up to December 2022, and the language was not limited. The collected trials were subsequently screened, the data were extracted, the quality was evaluated, and the effect sizes were computed using STATA/MP Version 13 for outcome analysis. Standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for domain of interest.

Results

In total, 17 articles that examined 364 patients with multiple sclerosis were included in this analysis. Non-invasive brain stimulation did not improve the overall cognitive function [SMD = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.32, 0.69), P = 0.475] but helped improve motor function in patients [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.19, 0.85), P = 0.002]. Moreover, this study specifically indicated that non-invasive brain stimulation improved alerting [SMD = 0.68, 95% CI (0.09, 1.26), P = 0.02], whereas non-invasive brain stimulation intervention improved motor function in patients aged <45 years [SMD = 0.67, 95% CI (0.23, 1.10), P = 0.003] and in patients with expanded disability status scale scores (EDSS) <3.5 [SMD = 0.82, 95% CI (0.22, 1.42), P = 0.007]. In particular, NIBS contributed to the improvement of spasticity in pwMS [SMD = 0.68, 95% CI (0.13, 1.23), P = 0.015].

Conclusion

These results of this present study provide evidence that non-invasive brain stimulation could improve alertness in pwMS. Furthermore, NIBS may help pwMS with motor function and those who are under 45 years of age or with EDSS < 3.5 improve their motor function. For the therapeutic use of NIBS, we recommend applying transcranial magnetic stimulation as an intervention and located on the motor cortex M1 according to the subgroup analysis of motor function. These findings warrant verification.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022301012.

Review of the Treatments for Central Neuropathic Pain

Central neuropathic pain (CNP) affects millions worldwide, with an estimated prevalence of around 10% globally. Although there are a wide variety of treatment options available, due to the complex and multidimensional nature in which CNP arises and presents symptomatically, many patients still experience painful symptoms. Pharmaceutical, surgical, non-invasive, cognitive and combination treatment options offer a generalized starting point for alleviating symptoms; however, a more customized approach may provide greater benefit. Here, we comment on the current treatment options that exist for CNP and further suggest the need for additional research regarding the use of biomarkers to help individualize treatment options for patients.

Non-invasive brain stimulation therapy on neurological symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis: A network meta analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) [including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES)] on neurological symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis (PwMS).

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Ovid MEDLINE until February 2022. And we evaluated the included studies for methodological quality by the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and assessed the studies' certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We performed network meta analysis (NMA) by using Stata 15 and ranked the results of the NMA by using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking chart.

RESULT

Twenty seven clinical trials were finally included (N = 596, 66.4% women). For the immediate effects, rTMS over M1 yielded the most optimal scheme for fatigue reduction among all the interventions compared to the sham stimulation groups [MD = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.57, -0.14)] (SUCRA = 82.6%). iTBS over M1 yielded the most signifcant reduced pain level than the sham groups did [MD = -1.26, 95% CI (-2.40, -0.11)] (SUCRA = 98.4%). tDCS over F3 was the best protocol of NIBS to improve quality of life (QOL) [MD = 1.41, 95% CI = (0.45,2.36)] (SUCRA = 76.7%), and iTBS over M1 may significantly reduce spasticity compared to sham stimulation [MD = -1.20, 95% CI = (-1.99, -0.41)] (SUCRA = 90.3%). Furthermore, rTMS, tRNS, and tDCS on certain areas may improve PwMS accuracy, response time, manual dexterity, pain relief and QOL, but does not show statistically significant differences. The evidence assessed using GRADE is very low.

CONCLUSION

Based on the NMA and SUCRA ranking, we can conclude that symptoms including fatigue, pain, spasticity, and QOL can be improved by following NIBS protocol after treatment. Nonetheless, most of the included studies lack a good methodology, and more high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological rehabilitation interventions in pain management in patients with multiple sclerosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a progressive inflammatory and autoimmune neurological disease caused by inflammation and demyelination of the central nervous system. Pain is a typical symptom of central nervous system demyelination, affecting 63% of adults with MS. Recently, the role of non-pharmacological pain management in patients is growing because the non-pharmacological interventions are considered safe, affordable, easy, and accessible. However, to date, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses have comprehensively examined the therapeutic effects of the variety of non-pharmacological therapeutic interventions in the management of pain in patients with MS.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmacological rehabilitation interventions in pain management in patients with MS.

METHODS

A comprehensive search using PubMed, Cochrane, and Science Direct databases was performed and included all randomized controlled trials, randomized cross-over trials, and quasi-experimental trials assessing the effect of non-pharmacological interventions for managing pain in patients with MS. This study was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines of a systematic review and pair-wise meta-analysis. Meta-analyses were performed by calculating the standardized mean difference at a 95% confidence interval using Review Manager software.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine papers were included in the systematic review, and only 22 of them were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed a significant effect of neuromodulation and transcranial direct current stimulation on pain intensity reduction in patients with MS (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.09, P = 0.02), (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.16 P = 0.01), respectively. The analysis showed significant improvement in pain intensity in patient with MS after mind-body therapies (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.7, P = 0.02), mindfulness (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.14, P = 0.009), hypnosis (SMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.46, P = 0.0001), trigger point therapies (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.01, P = 0.05) and cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11, P = 0.02). However, there is no significant effect of relaxation therapy on pain reduction in patients with MS (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.94 to 0.31, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that the majority of the non-pharmacological rehabilitation interventions showed potential therapeutic effects in reducing pain intensity in patients with MS.

Central Neuropathic Pain Syndromes: Current and Emerging Pharmacological Strategies

Central neuropathic pain is caused by a disease or lesion of the brain or spinal cord. It is difficult to predict which patients will develop central pain syndromes after a central nervous system injury, but depending on the etiology, lifetime prevalence may be greater than 50%. The resulting pain is often highly distressing and difficult to treat, with no specific treatment guidelines currently available. This narrative review discusses mechanisms contributing to central neuropathic pain, and focuses on pharmacological approaches for managing common central neuropathic pain conditions such as central post-stroke pain, spinal cord injury-related pain, and multiple sclerosis-related neuropathic pain. Tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids have some evidence for efficacy in central neuropathic pain. Medications from other pharmacologic classes may also provide pain relief, but current evidence is limited. Certain non-pharmacologic approaches, neuromodulation in particular, may be helpful in refractory cases. Emerging data suggest that modulating the primary afferent input may open new horizons for the treatment of central neuropathic pain. For most patients, effective treatment will likely require a multimodal therapy approach.

Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is vast published literature proposing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology on the motor cortex (M1) for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Systematic reviews (SRs) focus on a specific problem and do not provide a comprehensive overview of a research area. This study aimed to summarize and analyze the evidence of rTMS on the M1 for NP treatment through a new synthesis method called evidence mapping.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library to identify the studies that summarized the effectiveness of rTMS for NP. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, was included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted following a defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions [frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)] and compared. The evidence map was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 38 SRs met the eligibility criteria. After duplicate primary studies were removed, these reviews included 70 primary studies that met the scope of evidence mapping. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the quality of the included SRs was critically low. Of these studies, 34 SRs scored "critically low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SR scored "low," 1 SR scored "moderate," and 1 SR scored "high."

CONCLUSION

Evidence mapping is a useful methodology to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of studies on rTMS for NP. Evidence mapping also shows that further investigations are necessary to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols and standardize all parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Given that the methodological quality of most included SRs was "critically low," further investigations are advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

Neuropathic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis and Its Animal Models: Focus on Mechanisms, Knowledge Gaps and Future Directions

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a multifaceted, complex and chronic neurological disease that leads to motor, sensory and cognitive deficits. MS symptoms are unpredictable and exceedingly variable. Pain is a frequent symptom of MS and manifests as nociceptive or neuropathic pain, even at early disease stages. Neuropathic pain is one of the most debilitating symptoms that reduces quality of life and interferes with daily activities, particularly because conventional pharmacotherapies do not adequately alleviate neuropathic pain. Despite advances, the mechanisms underlying neuropathic pain in MS remain elusive. The majority of the studies investigating the pathophysiology of MS-associated neuropathic pain have been performed in animal models that replicate some of the clinical and neuropathological features of MS. Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is one of the best-characterized and most commonly used animal models of MS. As in the case of individuals with MS, rodents affected by EAE manifest increased sensitivity to pain which can be assessed by well-established assays. Investigations on EAE provided valuable insights into the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain. Nevertheless, additional investigations are warranted to better understand the events that lead to the onset and maintenance of neuropathic pain in order to identify targets that can facilitate the development of more effective therapeutic interventions. The goal of the present review is to provide an overview of several mechanisms implicated in neuropathic pain in EAE by summarizing published reports. We discuss current knowledge gaps and future research directions, especially based on information obtained by use of other animal models of neuropathic pain such as nerve injury.

An updated brief overview on post-traumatic headache and a systematic review of the non-pharmacological interventions for its management

INTRODUCTION

Post-traumatic headache (PTH), a common type of headache secondary to traumatic brain injury (TBI) or whiplash, carries a relevant burden on patients. PTH is still an undertreated condition because of limited pharmacological treatment options. Therefore, multimodal non-pharmacologic approaches, which account for comorbidities and biopsychosocial factors, are often used in PTH patients.

AREAS COVERED

After providing a brief overview of PTH, a systematic review was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations on recently published (2015-2020) papers on non-pharmacological interventions for PTH. We also collected data on ongoing trials on this topic. Studies and results are reviewed and discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

PTH is one of the most common complications of TBI and accounts for almost 4% of symptomatic headache disorders. The most common clinical presentations of PTH are migraine-like or tension type (TTH)-like headache, neck pain, cognitive complaints, and psychological/psychiatric symptoms. Growing evidence suggests that combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, encompassing noninvasive neuromodulation, physical therapy, cognitive-behavioral treatment, and education, may be the best approaches for PTH and related comorbidities. Acute/preemptive pharmacological treatments for PTH include drugs used for migraine and TTH. When PTH management is multidisciplinary, the patient benefits most.