-
Brain Sciences Feb 2018Despite the advances in psychopharmacology and established psychotherapeutic interventions, more than 40% of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) do not... (Review)
Review
Despite the advances in psychopharmacology and established psychotherapeutic interventions, more than 40% of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) do not respond to conventional treatment approaches. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been recently proposed as a therapeutic tool to alleviate treatment-resistant symptoms in patients with OCD. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art and future clinical applications of tDCS in patients with OCD. A literature search conducted on the PubMed database following PRISMA guidelines and completed by a manual search yielded 12 results: eight case reports, three open-label studies (with 5, 8, and 42 participants), and one randomized trial with two active conditions (12 patients). There was no sham-controlled study. A total of 77 patients received active tDCS with a large diversity of electrode montages mainly targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the orbitofrontal cortex or the (pre-) supplementary motor area. Despite methodological limitations and the heterogeneity of stimulation parameters, tDCS appears to be a promising tool to decrease obsessive-compulsive symptoms as well as comorbid depression and anxiety in patients with treatment-resistant OCD. Further sham-controlled studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.
PubMed: 29495298
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci8020037 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018This 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Brain; Chronic Pain; Electric Impedance; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 29547226
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008208.pub4 -
Neurophysiologie Clinique = Clinical... Feb 2024To update a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for analgesia, for antidepressant effects, and to reduce the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To update a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for analgesia, for antidepressant effects, and to reduce the impact of fibromyalgia (FM), looking for optimal areas of stimulation.
METHODS
We searched five databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing active and sham tDCS for FM. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcome measures included FM Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) and depression score. Meta-analysis was conducted using standardized mean difference (SMD). Subgroup analysis was performed to determine the effects of different regional stimulation, over the primary motor cortex (M1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), opercular-insular cortex (OIC), and occipital nerve (ON) regions. We analyzed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) by the value of the mean difference (MD) for an 11-point scale for pain, the Beck Depressive Inventory-II (BDI-II), and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score. We described the certainty of the evidence (COE) using the tool GRADE profile.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included in the analysis. Active tDCS had a positive effect on pain (SMD= -1.04; 95 % CI -1.38 to -0.69), depression (SMD= -0.46; 95 % CI -0.64 to -0.29), FIQ (SMD= -0.73; 95 % CI -1.09 to -0.36), COE is moderate. Only group M1 (SD=-1.57) and DLPFC (SD=-1.44) could achieve MCID for analgesia; For BDI-II, only group DLPFC (SD=-5.36) could achieve an MCID change. Adverse events were mild.
CONCLUSION
tDCS is a safe intervention that relieves pain intensity, reduces depression, and reduces the impact of FM on life. Achieving an MCID is related to the stimulation site and the target symptom.
Topics: Humans; Fibromyalgia; Pain; Pain Management; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 38387108
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucli.2024.102944 -
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2023In recent years, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as a noninvasive and painless treatment for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI)....
BACKGROUND
In recent years, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as a noninvasive and painless treatment for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). However, few studies have analyzed the intervention parameters of cognitive function and the effectiveness and safety of rTMS for treating patients with PSCI. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to analyze the interventional parameters of rTMS and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rTMS for treating patients with PSCI.
METHODS
According to the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Embase to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rTMS for the treatment of patients with PSCI. Studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and two reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RevMan 5.40 software was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
12 RCTs involving 497 patients with PSCI met the inclusion criteria. In our analysis, rTMS had a positive therapeutic effect on cognitive rehabilitation in patients with PSCI ( < 0.05). Both high-frequency rTMS and low-frequency rTMS were effective in improving the cognitive function of patients with PSCI by stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), but their efficacy was not statistically different ( > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
rTMS treatment on the DLPFC can improve cognitive function in patients with PSCI. There is no significant difference in the treatment effect of high-frequency rTMS and low-frequency rTMS in patients with PSCI between high-frequency and low-frequency rTMS.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=323720, identifier CRD 42022323720.
PubMed: 37250691
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1177594 -
Brain Sciences Apr 2016To assess the neural activity associated with mindfulness-based alterations of pain perception. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the neural activity associated with mindfulness-based alterations of pain perception.
METHODS
The Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on 2 February 2016. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were independently screened by two reviewers. Data were independently extracted from records that included topics of functional neuroimaging, pain, and mindfulness interventions.
RESULTS
The literature search produced 946 total records, of which five met the inclusion criteria. Records reported pain in terms of anticipation (n = 2), unpleasantness (n = 5), and intensity (n = 5), and how mindfulness conditions altered the neural activity during noxious stimulation accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the studies were inconsistent in relating pain components to neural activity, in general, mindfulness was able to reduce pain anticipation and unpleasantness ratings, as well as alter the corresponding neural activity. The major neural underpinnings of mindfulness-based pain reduction consisted of altered activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, insula, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
PubMed: 27104572
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci6020014 -
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Jan 2017To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation for fibro-myalgia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transcranial direct current stimulation for fibro-myalgia.
METHODS
Databases, conference records and registered trials were searched for articles published from the date of establishment of the database through to October 2015. Six randomized controlled trials (n=192) of transcranial direct current stimulation for fibromyalgia were included in the current study.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two researchers independently screened the literature, assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and extracted data.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Studies were divided into 3 groups for meta-analysis according to stimulation site and polarity. Significant improvement in pain and general fibromyalgia-related function was seen with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex (p<0.05). However, the pressure pain threshold did not improve (p>0.05). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex did not significantly reduce pain or improve general fibromyalgia-related function compared with sham stimulation (p>0.05). Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex did not improve the pressure pain threshold compared with sham stimulation (p>0.05). No significant adverse effects were seen.
CONCLUSION
Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex is more likely than sham transcranial direct current stimulation to relieve pain and improve general fibromyalgia-related function.
Topics: Adult; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Pain Management; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 27983739
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2179 -
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2023Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) depicts a transitory phase between healthy elderly and the onset of Alzheimer's disease (AD) with worsening cognitive impairment. Some...
BACKGROUND
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) depicts a transitory phase between healthy elderly and the onset of Alzheimer's disease (AD) with worsening cognitive impairment. Some functional MRI (fMRI) research indicated that the frontoparietal network (FPN) could be an essential part of the pathophysiological mechanism of MCI. However, damaged FPN regions were not consistently reported, especially their interactions with other brain networks. We assessed the fMRI-specific anomalies of the FPN in MCI by analyzing brain regions with functional alterations.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to screen neuroimaging studies exploring brain function alterations in the FPN in MCI using fMRI-related indexes, including the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation, regional homogeneity, and functional connectivity. We integrated distinctive coordinates by activating likelihood estimation, visualizing abnormal functional regions, and concluding functional alterations of the FPN.
RESULTS
We selected 29 studies and found specific changes in some brain regions of the FPN. These included the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, insula, precuneus cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, inferior parietal lobule, middle temporal gyrus, superior frontal gyrus, and parahippocampal gyrus. Any abnormal alterations in these regions depicted interactions between the FPN and other networks.
CONCLUSION
The study demonstrates specific fMRI neuroimaging alterations in brain regions of the FPN in MCI patients. This could provide a new perspective on identifying early-stage patients with targeted treatment programs.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023432042, identifier: CRD42023432042.
PubMed: 37448688
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1165908 -
Pain Physician Jul 2016Offset analgesia (OA) is an increasingly described phenomenon to measure endogenous pain inhibition, in which a greater decrease in pain intensity is experienced than... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Offset analgesia (OA) is an increasingly described phenomenon to measure endogenous pain inhibition, in which a greater decrease in pain intensity is experienced than would be predicted by the decrease in painful stimulation. The temporal filtering in this OA phenomenon differs from the spatial filtering in the commonly described conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Yet, the knowledge on the efficacy of OA in chronic pain patients is scarce, compared to CPM efficacy.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review has been conducted to provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding OA, and to compare it to CPM.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of research studies that investigated the application or mechanisms of OA.
SETTING
The present study took place at Ghent University and the University of Antwerp.
METHODS
This systematic review follows the PRISMA guidelines. The electronic databases Pubmed and Web of Science were searched in January 2015. Full text clinical reports addressing OA were included. The checklists for randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and cohort-studies provided by the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the Dutch Cochrane Centre were used to assess methodological quality. The articles received a level of evidence A1, A2, B, C, or D, based on study design and risk of bias. These levels were used to determine the strength of conclusion (level 1 to 4).
RESULTS
Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies used quantitative sensory testing to provoke OA; however, differences in protocols are present. OA can function as a non-opioid mediated assessment tool for endogenous pain inhibition, and activates brain regions such as periaqueductal gray (PAG), dorsolateral prefontral cortex, insula, medulla, pons and cerebellum, indicating strong brain derived pain modulation. The primary somatosensory cortex is, conversely, less activated during OA. OA is decreased in neuropathic patients. Nonetheless, evidence for the influence of individual factors on OA is limited. OA and CPM seem to rely on different mechanisms.
LIMITATIONS
Search strategy was taken wide, wherefore a large variety of research perspectives were included.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review displays OA as a temporal filtering mechanisms that is more brain-derived compared to the spatial assessment method CPM. There is strong evidence for reduced OA in neuropathic patients, however, evidence regarding OA in (sub)acute and central sensitization patients, and the influence of personal factors on OA is currently scarce and needs further investigation.
Topics: Analgesia; Central Nervous System Sensitization; Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 27454261
DOI: No ID Found -
Brain Sciences Sep 2023Traumatic brain injury, cardiac arrest, intracerebral hemorrhage, and ischemic stroke may cause disorders of consciousness (DoC). Repetitive transcranial magnetic... (Review)
Review
Traumatic brain injury, cardiac arrest, intracerebral hemorrhage, and ischemic stroke may cause disorders of consciousness (DoC). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been used to promote the recovery of disorders of consciousness (DoC) patients. In this meta-analysis, we examined whether rTMS can relieve DoC patient symptoms. We searched through journal articles indexed in PubMed, the Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library until 20 April 2023. We assessed whether studies used rTMS as an intervention and reported the pre- and post-rTMS coma recovery scale-revised (CRS-R) scores. A total of 207 patients from seven trials were included. rTMS significantly improved the recovery degree of patients; the weighted mean difference (WMD) of the change in the CRS-R score was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-2.39; < 0.00001) in comparison with controls. The subgroup analysis showed a significant improvement in CRS-R scores in rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (WMD = 2.24; 95% CI: 1.55-2.92; < 0.00001; = 31%) and the primary motor cortex (WMD = 1.63; 95% CI: 0.69-2.57; = 0.0007; = 14%). Twenty-hertz rTMS significantly improved CRS-R scores in patients with DoC (WMD = 1.61; 95% CI: 0.39-2.83; = 0.010; = 31%). Furthermore, CRS-R scores in rTMS over 20 sessions significantly improved (WMD = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.95-2.55; < 0.0001; = 12%). rTMS improved the symptoms of DoC patients; however, the available evidence remains limited and inadequate.
PubMed: 37891731
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13101362 -
Brain Sciences Mar 2022Although Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent worldwide, treating this condition remains challenging. Further, potential treatments for AUD do not fully... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent worldwide, treating this condition remains challenging. Further, potential treatments for AUD do not fully address alcohol-induced neuroadaptive changes. Understanding the effects of pharmacotherapies for AUD on the human brain may lead to tailored, more effective treatments, and improved individual clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
We systematically reviewed the literature for studies investigating pharmacotherapies for AUD that included neuroimaging-based treatment outcomes. We searched the PubMed, Scielo, and PsycINFO databases up to January 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
Eligible studies included those investigating pharmacotherapies for AUD and employing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and/or proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (H-MRS).
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Two independent reviewers screened studies' titles and abstracts for inclusion. Data extraction forms were shared among all the authors to standardize data collection. We gathered information on the following variables: sample size; mean age; sociodemographic and clinical characteristics; alcohol use status; study design and methodology; main neuroimaging findings and brain-regions of interest (i.e., brain areas activated by alcohol use and possible pharmacological interactions); and limitations of each study.
RESULTS
Out of 177 studies selected, 20 studies provided relevant data for the research topic. Findings indicate that: (1) Acamprosate and gabapentin may selectively modulate limbic regions and the anterior cingulate cortex; (2) Naltrexone and disulfiram effects may involve prefrontal, premotor, and cerebellar regions; (3) Pharmacotherapies acting on glutamate and GABA neurotransmission involve primarily areas underpinning reward and negative affective states, and; (4) Pharmacotherapies acting on opioid and dopamine systems may affect areas responsible for the cognitive and motor factors of AUD.
LIMITATIONS
Most of the studies were focused on naltrexone. A small number of studies investigated the action of disulfiram and gabapentin, and no neuroimaging studies investigated topiramate. In addition, the time between medication and neuroimaging scans varied widely across studies.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified key-brain regions modulated by treatments available for AUD. Some of the regions modulated by naltrexone are not specific to the brain reward system, such as the parahippocampal gyrus (temporal lobe), parietal and occipital lobes. Other treatments also modulate not specific regions of the reward system, but play a role in the addictive behaviors, including the insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The role of these brain regions in mediating the AUD pharmacotherapy response warrants investigation in future research studies.
PubMed: 35326342
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12030386