Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat neuropathic pain but the quality of evidence remains low. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neuronavigated rTMS to the primary motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in neuropathic pain over 25 weeks. We carried out a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at four outpatient clinics in France. Patients aged 18-75 years with peripheral neuropathic pain were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to M1 or DLPFC-rTMS and rerandomized at a 2:1 ratio to active or sham-rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses/session, 15 sessions over 22 weeks). Patients and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The primary end point was the comparison between active M1-rTMS, active DLPCF-rTMS and sham-rTMS for the change over the course of 25 weeks (Group × Time interaction) in average pain intensity (from 0 no pain to 10 maximal pain) on the Brief Pain Inventory, using a mixed model repeated measures analysis in patients who received at least one rTMS session (modified intention-to-treat population). Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain intensity and relief, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, quality of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue (patients diary), Patient and Clinician Global Impression of Change (PGIC, CGIC), quality of life, sleep, mood and catastrophizing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010281. A total of 152 patients were randomized and 149 received treatment (49 for M1; 52 for DLPFC; 48 for sham). M1-rTMS reduced pain intensity versus sham-rTMS (estimate for Group × Session interaction: -0.048 ± 0.02; 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01; P = 0.01). DLPFC-rTMS was not better than sham (estimate: -0.003 ± 0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03, P = 0.9). M1-rRMS, but not DLPFC-rTMS, was also superior to sham-rTMS on pain relief, sensory dimension of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue, PGIC and CGIC. There were no effects on quality of pain, mood, sleep and quality of life as all groups improved similarly over time. Headache was the most common side effect and occurred in 17 (34.7%), 23 (44.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients from M1, DLPFC and sham groups, respectively (P = 0.2). Our results support the clinical relevance of M1-rTMS, but not of DLPFC-rTMS, for peripheral neuropathic pain with an excellent safety profile.

Efficacy of Occipital Nerve Stimulation to Treat Refractory Occipital Headaches: A Single-Institution Study of 60 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is shown to be effective in treating various forms of headache. Most studies describe the treatment of occipital neuralgia (ON), but in many patients, the clinical description could also correspond to cervicogenic headache (CGH) or occipital migraine (OM). These different entities (ON, CGH, and OM) may be grouped together under the term occipital headaches. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of ONS to treat occipital headaches in a large series of patients with a long-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of data on 60 patients with intractable occipital headaches treated with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), who were referred to our center between October 2008 and October 2014. Details of pain evaluation, location, duration, cause and previous treatment were analyzed. Evaluations included the visual analog scale (VAS), the number of headache days per month (NHD), and the Medication Quantification Scale (MQS). Trials with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS-ONS) were performed and served as a guide for surgery indication (see Patients and Method section). RESULTS: After one year of ONS, mean VAS had decreased from 8.4/10 to 2.8/10 (72.2% reduction [p < 0.001]), and 76% of patients had at least a 50% decrease in mean VAS score. The mean MQS score decreased from 18 to 8.8, corresponding to a reduction of pain medication by an average of 50%. Adverse events concerned 12 patients (20%). Six patients presented with electrode displacement or fracture (10%) and six patients presented with cases of infection (10%) associated with the pulse generator. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this large series confirm that ONS is an effective treatment option for patients with intractable occipital headaches, but the frequency of complications remains quite high and must be taken into account in the surgical decision.

Interest of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in the management of refractory cancer pain in palliative care: Two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Non-drug treatments should be systematically associated to the medical analgesic treatment during the terminal phase of cancer. CASES PRESENTATION: Patient 1, a 23-year-old woman, presented an adenocarcinoma of the rectum, with liver and lung metastases. Pain was initially treated by oral morphine and a combination of pregabalin and amitriptyline. Ketamine and intrathecal administration of morphine were both ineffective. Patient 2, a 69-year-old woman, presented a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. She was admitted to the palliative care unit with mixed pain related to cutaneous lymphomatous infiltration. World Health Organization (WHO) step 3 analgesics had not been tolerated. CASES MANAGEMENT: Both patients received five consecutive 20-min sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the right motor cortex. CASES OUTCOME: Patient 1 experienced a marked improvement of her pain over the days following the first repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation session. Medical treatment was able to be rapidly decreased by about 50%, which restored an almost normal level of consciousness and lucidity. Patient 2's pain was also markedly decreased over the days following these five consecutive sessions, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation also appeared to have had a beneficial effect on the patient's anxiety and mood. CONCLUSION: In the context of palliative care of cancer patients experiencing refractory pain that is difficult to control by the usual treatments, motor cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, due to its noninvasive nature, can be used as an adjuvant therapy to improve various components of pain, including the emotional components. By reducing the doses of analgesics, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation decreases the severity of their adverse effects and improves the patient's quality of life.

Motor cortex stimulation in refractory pelvic and perineal pain: report of two successful cases.

AIMS: In some patients, with refractory chronic pelvic and perineal pain, pain and quality of life are barely alleviated despite optimal medical treatment, infiltrations and surgical release of the pudendal nerve. The management of these patients is complex, especially after failure of neuromodulation techniques (spinal cord stimulation. S3 nerve root stimulation and direct stimulation of the pudendal nerve). We report the first two cases illustrating the value of motor cortex stimulation (MCS), in this new indication. METHODS: The history, decision-making process, intraoperative findings and results of this technique are presented. The perineal cortical area was identified by intraoperative motor evoked potentials in the external anal sphincter, confirming its location in the primary motor cortex between the inferior and superior limb positions. As predictive value of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the identification of responders to MCS for pain is now established, we performed pre-operative rTMS sessions for both patients. RESULTS: The first patient was a 74-years-old woman who reported an 11-year history of left lateral perineal pain. The second patient was a 45-year-old woman who reported a 4-year history of perineal pain following hysterectomy with ovariectomy. After respectively 40 months and 19 months of follow up, both patients reported an improvement of pain ranging from 40 to 50%. Time to onset of pain on sitting was markedly improved from a few minutes to 90 minutes, and largely contributing to improvement of activities of daily living and of quality of life. CONCLUSION: These two first cases suggest that motor cortex stimulation constitutes a new treatment for refractory pelvic and perineal pain, and should be considered after failure of conventional neuromodulation techniques, especially spinal cord stimulation.

Non-invasive stimulation therapies for the treatment of refractory pain.

Drug-refractory pain is an indication for neurostimulation therapy, which can be either non-invasive [mainly transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)] or invasive which requires the intervention of a surgeon to implant electrodes and a pulse generator [peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), nerve root stimulation (NRS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and motor cortex stimulation (MCS)]. In this review, the respective mechanisms of action and efficacy of TENS, rTMS, and tDCS are discussed. The advantages of TENS include non-invasiveness and ease to use, so that the technique can be operated by the patient. TENS can be indicated as a first-line treatment in patients suffering from peripheral neuropathic pain if the painful area is limited and the sensory deficit moderate. The current best indications are chronic radiculopathies, mononeuropathies, and postherpetic pain. Test sessions allow to select suitable patients and to determine the site, frequency, and optimal intensity of stimulation. Three to four 30- to 60-minute sessions per day are usually recommended. With regard to rTMS, published randomized controlled studies in chronic neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain (fibromyalgia) reached a sufficient level of evidence to recommend this technique for the indication of implanted motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain or as a long-term treatment for pain syndromes, in which surgery is not indicated, such as fibromyalgia. Other indications, concerning either chronic or acute pain syndromes, such as postoperative pain, should be developed in parallel with the optimization of stimulation parameters. This also includes the availability of new coils and magnetic field waveforms and progress in neuronavigation techniques, especially by the integration of functional imaging and high-resolution EEG data.