Neuromodulation for chronic pain.

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (LOTES-2017): Engineering principles, regulatory statutes, and industry standards for wellness, over-the-counter, or prescription devices with low risk.

We present device standards for low-power non-invasive electrical brain stimulation devices classified as limited output transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). Emerging applications of limited output tES to modulate brain function span techniques to stimulate brain or nerve structures, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS), have engendered discussion on how access to technology should be regulated. In regards to legal regulations and manufacturing standards for comparable technologies, a comprehensive framework already exists, including quality systems (QS), risk management, and (inter)national electrotechnical standards (IEC). In Part 1, relevant statutes are described for medical and wellness application. While agencies overseeing medical devices have broad jurisdiction, enforcement typically focuses on those devices with medical claims or posing significant risk. Consumer protections regarding responsible marketing and manufacture apply regardless. In Part 2 of this paper, we classify the electrical output performance of devices cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) including over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription electrostimulation devices, devices available for therapeutic or cosmetic purposes, and devices indicated for stimulation of the body or head. Examples include iontophoresis devices, powered muscle stimulators (PMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) devices. Spanning over 13 FDA product codes, more than 1200 electrical stimulators have been cleared for marketing since 1977. The output characteristics of conventional tDCS, tACS, and tPCS techniques are well below those of most FDA cleared devices, including devices that are available OTC and those intended for stimulation on the head. This engineering analysis demonstrates that with regard to output performance and standing regulation, the availability of tDCS, tACS, or tPCS to the public would not introduce risk, provided such devices are responsibly manufactured and legally marketed. In Part 3, we develop voluntary manufacturer guidance for limited output tES that is aligned with current regulatory standards. Based on established medical engineering and scientific principles, we outline a robust and transparent technical framework for ensuring limited output tES devices are designed to minimize risks, while also supporting access and innovation. Alongside applicable medical and government activities, this voluntary industry standard (LOTES-2017) further serves an important role in supporting informed decisions by the public.

Developing patient-centered treatment protocols in brain stimulation: a rationale for combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in persons with HIV.

This article reports and discusses how quantitative (physiological and behavioral) and qualitative methods are being combined in an open-label pilot feasibility study. The study evaluates safety, tolerability, and acceptability of a protocol to treat depression in HIV-infected individuals, using a 2-week block of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the second most prevalent psychiatric disorder after substance abuse among HIV-positive adults, and novel antidepressant treatments are needed for this vulnerable population. The authors describe the challenges and contributions derived from different research perspectives and methodological approaches and provide a philosophical framework for combining quantitative and qualitative measurements for a fuller examination of the disorder. Four methodological points are presented: (1) the value of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches; (2) the need for context-specific measures when studying patients with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; (3) the importance of research designs that integrate physiological, behavioral, and qualitative approaches when evaluating novel treatments; and (4) the need to explore the relationships between biomarkers, clinical symptom assessments, patient self-evaluations, and patient experiences when developing new, patient-centered protocols. The authors conclude that the complexity of studying novel treatments in complex and new patient populations requires complex research designs to capture the richness of data that inform translational research.

Current and future options for the management of phantom-limb pain.

Phantom-limb pain (PLP) belongs among difficult-to-treat chronic pain syndromes. Treatment options for PLP are to a large degree implicated by the level of understanding the mechanisms and nature of PLP. Research and clinical findings acknowledge the neuropathic nature of PLP and also suggest that both peripheral as well as central mechanisms, including neuroplastic changes in central nervous system, can contribute to PLP. Neuroimaging studies in PLP have indicated a relation between PLP and the neuroplastic changes. Further, it has been shown that the pathological neuroplastic changes could be reverted, and there is a parallel between an improvement (reversal) of the neuroplastic changes in PLP and pain relief. These findings facilitated explorations of novel neuromodulatory treatment strategies, adding to the variety of treatment approaches in PLP. Overall, available treatment options in PLP include pharmacological treatment, supportive non-pharmacological non-invasive strategies (eg, neuromodulation using transcranial magnetic stimulation, visual feedback therapy, or motor imagery; peripheral transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, physical therapy, reflexology, or various psychotherapeutic approaches), and invasive treatment strategies (eg, surgical destructive procedures, nerve blocks, or invasive neuromodulation using deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, or spinal cord stimulation). Venues of further development in PLP management include a technological and methodological improvement of existing treatment methods, an implementation of new techniques and products, and a development of new treatment approaches.

Capsaicin (TRPV1 Agonist) therapy for pain relief: farewell or revival?

OBJECTIVE: In this review, we explain our current understanding of the molecular basis for pain relief by capsaicin and other transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily, member 1 (TRPV1) agonists. We summarize disease-related changes in TRPV1 expression and its implications for therapy and potential adverse effects. Last, we provide an overview of the current clinical uses of topical and injectable TRPV1 agonist preparations in both oncologic and nononcologic populations. METHOD: Search of MEDLINE and other databases. RESULTS: The capsaicin receptor TRPV1 is a polymodal nociceptor exhibiting a dynamic threshold of activation that could be lowered under inflammatory conditions. Consistent with this model, TRPV1 knock-out mice are devoid of post-inflammatory thermal hyperalgesia. TRPV1 desensitization of primary sensory neurons is a powerful approach to relieve symptoms of nociceptive behavior in animal models of chronic pain. However, over-the-counter capsaicin creams have shown moderate to poor analgesic efficacy. This is in part related to low dose, poor skin absorption, and compliance factors. Recently developed site-specific capsaicin therapy with high-dose patches and injectable preparations seem to be safe and reportedly provide long-lasting analgesia with rapid onset. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that TRPV1 agonists and antagonists are not mutually exclusive but rather complimentary pharmacologic approaches for pain relief and we predict a "revival" for capsaicin and other TRPV1 agonists in the clinical management of pain associated with inflammation, metabolic imbalances (eg, diabetes), infections (HIV), and cancer, despite the current focus of the pharmaceutical industry on TRPV1 antagonists.