Medial Prefrontal High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Improve Pain Modulation in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Randomized Double-blinded Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial

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.

Current Neurostimulation Therapies for Chronic Pain Conditions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neurostimulation treatment options have become more commonly used for chronic pain conditions refractory to these options. In this review, we characterize current neurostimulation therapies for chronic pain conditions and provide an analysis of their effectiveness and clinical adoption. This manuscript will inform clinicians of treatment options for chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Non-invasive neurostimulation includes transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, while more invasive options include spinal cord stimulation (SCS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, and deep brain stimulation. Developments in transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and peripheral nerve stimulation render these modalities most promising for the alleviating chronic pain. Neurostimulation for chronic pain involves non-invasive and invasive modalities with varying efficacy. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to delineate the outcomes of neurostimulatory modalities more precisely.

Effects of High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting the Anterior Cingulate Cortex on the Pain Thresholds: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The majority of existing clinical studies used active transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over superficial areas of the pain neuromatrix to regulate pain, with conflicting results. Few studies have investigated the effect of tDCS on pain thresholds by focusing on targets in deep parts of the pain neuromatrix.

METHODS

This study applied a single session of high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) targeting the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and used a parallel and sham-controlled design to compare the antinociceptive effects in healthy individuals by assessing changes in pain thresholds. Sixty-six female individuals (mean age, 20.5 ± 2.4 years) were randomly allocated into the anodal, cathodal, or sham HD-tDCS groups. The primary outcome of the study was pain thresholds (pressure pain threshold, heat pain threshold, and cold pain threshold), which were evaluated before and after stimulation through the use of quantitative sensory tests.

RESULTS

Only cathodal HD-tDCS targeting the ACC significantly increased heat pain threshold (P < 0.05) and pressure pain threshold (P < 0.01) in healthy individuals compared with sham stimulation. Neither anodal nor cathodal HD-tDCS showed significant analgesic effects on cold pain threshold. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found in pain thresholds between anodal and sham HD-tDCS (P > 0.38). Independent of HD-tDCS protocols, the positive and negative affective schedule scores were decreased immediately after stimulation compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has found that cathodal HD-tDCS targeting the ACC provided a strong antinociceptive effect (increase in pain threshold), demonstrating a positive biological effect of HD-tDCS.

Is transcranial direct current stimulation beneficial for treating pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is often accompanied by emotional dysfunction. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used for reducing pain, depressive and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients, but its therapeutic effect remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the treatment effect of tDCS on pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms of patients suffering from chronic pain, and potential factors that modulate the effectiveness of tDCS.

METHODS

Literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the effects of tDCS on pain and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic pain were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in this review. Overall pooled results indicated that the use of tDCS can effectively alleviate short-term pain intensity [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.75 to -0.12, P = 0.007] and depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.31, 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.14, P < 0.001), middle-term depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.11, P = 0.004), long-term depressive symptoms (ES: -0.38, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.13, P = 0.003) and anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.02, P = 0.03) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

tDCS may be an effective short-term treatment for the improvement of pain intensity and concomitant depression and anxiety symptoms in chronic pain patients. Stimulation site, stimulation frequency, and type of chronic pain were significant influence factors for the therapeutic effect of tDCS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=297693, identifier: CRD42022297693.

Non-invasive brain neuromodulation techniques for chronic low back pain

Structural and functional changes of the brain occur in many chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (CLBP), and these brain abnormalities can be reversed by effective treatment. Research on the clinical applications of non-invasive brain neuromodulation (NIBS) techniques for chronic pain is increasing. Unfortunately, little is known about the effectiveness of NIBS on CLBP, which limits its application in clinical pain management. Therefore, we summarized the effectiveness and limitations of NIBS techniques on CLBP management and described the effects and mechanisms of NIBS approaches on CLBP in this review. Overall, NIBS may be effective for the treatment of CLBP. And the analgesic mechanisms of NIBS for CLBP may involve the regulation of pain signal pathway, synaptic plasticity, neuroprotective effect, neuroinflammation modulation, and variations in cerebral blood flow and metabolism. Current NIBS studies for CLBP have limitations, such as small sample size, relative low quality of evidence, and lack of mechanistic studies. Further studies on the effect of NIBS are needed, especially randomized controlled trials with high quality and large sample size.