Literature DB >> 34196698

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

Nadine Attal1,2, Frédérique Poindessous-Jazat1, Edwige De Chauvigny3, Charles Quesada4, Alaa Mhalla5, Samar S Ayache5,6, Christophe Fermanian7, Julien Nizard3, Roland Peyron4, Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur5,6, Didier Bouhassira1,2.   

Abstract

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.
© The Author(s) (2021). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  double-blind; neuropathic pain; randomized controlled trial; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; robotic neuronavigation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34196698     DOI: 10.1093/brain/awab208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain        ISSN: 0006-8950            Impact factor:   13.501


  8 in total

Review 1.  Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain.

Authors:  Qi-Hao Yang; Yong-Hui Zhang; Shu-Hao Du; Yu-Chen Wang; Yu Fang; Xue-Qiang Wang
Journal:  Front Mol Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 6.261

2.  Better Fields or Currents? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Transcranial Magnetic (rTMS) Versus Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Neuropathic Pain.

Authors:  Nathalie André-Obadia; Hasan Hodaj; Enkelejda Hodaj; Emile Simon; Chantal Delon-Martin; Luis Garcia-Larrea
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 6.088

Review 3.  Novel Therapies for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: Potential and Pitfalls.

Authors:  Pottathil Shinu; Mohamed A Morsy; Anroop B Nair; Abdulaziz K Al Mouslem; Katharigatta N Venugopala; Manoj Goyal; Monika Bansal; Shery Jacob; Pran Kishore Deb
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 4.964

4.  Prolonged Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation to Demonstrate a Larger Analgesia as Well as Cortical Excitability Changes Dependent on the Context of a Pain Episode.

Authors:  Ying Liu; Lina Yu; Xianwei Che; Min Yan
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 5.750

5.  Difference in Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation According to the Site of Pain.

Authors:  Nobuhiko Mori; Koichi Hosomi; Asaya Nishi; Dong Dong; Takufumi Yanagisawa; Hui Ming Khoo; Naoki Tani; Satoru Oshino; Youichi Saitoh; Haruhiko Kishima
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 3.473

6.  Neuropathic pain after spinal intradural benign tumor surgery: an underestimated complication?

Authors:  Vicki Marie Butenschoen; Annika Nehiba; Bernhard Meyer; Maria Wostrack
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.800

7.  Case report: The feasibility of rTMS with intrathecal baclofen pump for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Stevie D Foglia; Ravjot S Rehsi; Claudia V Turco; Harsha Shanthanna; Aimee J Nelson
Journal:  Front Rehabil Sci       Date:  2022-07-26

Review 8.  Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Primary Motor Cortex beyond Motor Rehabilitation: A Review of the Current Evidence.

Authors:  Abdulhameed Tomeh; Abdul Hanif Khan Yusof Khan; Liyana Najwa Inche Mat; Hamidon Basri; Wan Aliaa Wan Sulaiman
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-06-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.