Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for central post-stroke pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Although rare, central post-stroke pain remains one of the most refractory forms of neuropathic pain. It has been reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be effective in these cases of pain. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of rTMS in patients with central post-stroke pain (CPSP). Methods: We included randomized controlled trials or Controlled Trials published until October 3rd, 2022, which studied the effect of rTMS compared to placebo in CPSP. We included studies of adult patients (>18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke, in which the intervention consisted of the application of rTMS to treat CSP. Results: Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; 6 studies (4 RCT and 2 non-RCT), with 180 participants, were included in the quantitative analysis. A significant reduction in CPSP was found in favor of rTMS compared with sham, with a large effect size (SMD: -1.45; 95% CI: -1.87; -1.03; p < 0.001; I2: 58%). Conclusion: The findings of the present systematic review with meta-analysis suggest that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of rTMS in reducing CPSP. Systematic review registration: Identifier (CRD42022365655).

Conditioned pain modulation and psychological factors in young adults with recurrent or chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists with the presence of alterations in descending pain inhibition mechanisms in patients with non-specific neck pain (NSNP). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the status of conditioned pain modulation CPM, remote pressure pain thresholds (PPT), and psychological factors in a specific subgroup of patients with NSNP such as young adult students. In addition, possible associations between CPM, psychological factors, and pain characteristics were analyzed. METHODS: Thirty students with recurrent or chronic NSNP and 30 pain-free students were included in this cross-sectional study. The following measures were assessed: CPM, remote PPT, psychological factors (depression, anxiety, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia), pain characteristics (duration, intensity, severity of chronic pain, interference with daily life), and central sensitization inventory (CSI). RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the efficacy of CPM between students with chronic or recurrent NSNP and pain-free students (ß coefficient = -0.67; 95% CI = -1.54, 0.20). However, students with pain showed a significantly higher remote PPT (mean difference = -1.94; 95% CI = -2.71, -1.18). and a greater presence of anxious (mean difference = 6; 95% CI = 2, 9) and depressive symptoms (mean difference = 8.57; 95% CI = 3.97, 13.16). In addition, significant moderate or strong correlations were found between CPM and pain intensity (partial r = 0.41), pain catastrophizing and mean pain intensity (r = 0.37), grade (r = 0.50), and interference of pain (r = 0.57), kinesiophobia and disability (r = 0.38), and depression and CSI (r = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Young adult students with chronic or recurrent NSNP present remote hyperalgesia and symptoms of depression and anxiety but not dysfunctional CPM.

Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Heart Failure Patients: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 lockdown has been associated with reduced levels of physical activity, quality of life, and sleep quality, but limited evidence exists for its impact on heart failure patients. This study examined the influence of the COVID-19 lockdown on these aspects in heart failure patients, with specific comparisons by age and sex. METHODS: A quasi-experimental cross-sectional study of patients with heart failure was conducted. The assessment involved two time points: during the COVID-19 lockdown (March to June 2020) and post-lockdown (July to October 2020). A total of 107 HF patients participated, with assessments of overall PA (using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire), QoL (employing the Cantril Ladder of Life), and sleep quality (utilizing the Minimal Insomnia Symptom Scale) conducted during and after the COVID-19 lockdown. RESULTS: HF patients reported lower levels of total PA (p = 0.001) and walking PA (p < 0.0001) during lockdown than after lockdown, whilst no differences were observed in QoL nor sleep quality. In addition, both younger and older patients reported lower walking PA and total PA during lockdown than after lockdown, while older patients reported lower QoL during lockdown than after lockdown. Moreover, both men and women reported lower walking PA and total PA during lockdown than after lockdown, whilst women reported lower QoL. CONCLUSIONS: HF patients need improved PA programs during lockdowns, as these programs can elevate PA levels and enhance QoL, especially when faced with the risk of decompensation during health crises.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Effects on Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) and Nociceptive Processing in Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the effect that different tDCS protocols have on pain processing in healthy people, assessed using quantitative sensory tests (QST) and evoked pain intensity. METHODS: We systematically searched in EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles on tDCS on a healthy population and regarding QST, such as pressure pain thresholds (PPT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), cold pain threshold (CPT), or evoked pain intensity were selected. Quality was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and PEDro scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis and sixteen in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in PPTs between tDCS and sham, but differences were observed when applying tDCS over S1 in PPTs compared to sham. Significant differences in CPTs were observed between tDCS and sham over DLPFC and differences in pain intensity were observed between tDCS and sham over M1. Non-significant effects were found for the effects of tDCS on HPTs. CONCLUSION: tDCS anodic over S1 stimulation increases PPTs, while a-tDCS over DLPFC affects CPTs. The HPTs with tDCS are worse. Finally, M1 a-tDCS seems to reduce evoked pain intensity in healthy subjects.

Reversed Polarity bi-tDCS over M1 during a Five Days Motor Task Training Did Not Influence Motor Learning. A Triple-Blind Clinical Trial.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated as a way of improving motor learning. Our purpose was to explore the reversal bilateral tDCS effects on manual dexterity training, during five days, with the retention component measured after 5 days to determine whether somatosensory effects were produced. In this randomized, triple-blind clinical trial, 28 healthy subjects (14 women) were recruited and randomized into tDCS and placebo groups, although only 23 participants (13 women) finished the complete protocol. Participants received the real or placebo treatment during five consecutive days, while performing a motor dexterity training program of 20 min. The motor dexterity and the sensitivity of the hand were assessed pre- and post-day 1, post 5 days of training, and 5 days after training concluded. Training improved motor dexterity, but tDCS only produced a tendency to improve retention. The intervention did not produce changes in the somatosensory variables assessed. Thus, reversal bi-tDCS had no effects during motor learning on healthy subjects, but it could favor the retention of the motor skills acquired. These results do not support the cooperative inter-hemispheric model.

Effectiveness of Unihemispheric Concurrent Dual-Site Stimulation over M1 and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Stimulation on Pain Processing: A Triple Blind Cross-Over Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex (M1) produces short-term inhibition of pain. Unihemispheric concurrent dual-site tDCS (UHCDS-tDCS) over the M1 and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has greater effects on cortical excitability than when applied alone, although its effect on pain is unknown. The aim of this study was to test if anodal UHCDS-tDCS over the M1 and DLPFC in healthy participants could potentiate conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and diminish pain temporal summation (TS). METHODS: Thirty participants were randomized to receive a sequence of UHCDS-tDCS, M1-tDCS and sham-tDCS. A 20 min 0.1 mA/cm2 anodal or sham-tDCS intervention was applied to each participant during three test sessions, according to a triple-blind cross-over trial design. For the assessment of pain processing before and after tDCS intervention, the following tests were performed: tourniquet conditioned pain modulation (CPM), pressure pain temporal summation (TS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), pressure pain tolerance, mechanosensitivity and cold hyperalgesia. Motor function before and after tDCS intervention was assessed with a dynamometer to measure maximal isometric grip strength. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between groups for CPM, pressure pain TS, PPT, pressure pain tolerance, neural mechanosensitivity, cold hyperalgesia or grip strength (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Neither UHCDS-tDCS nor M1-tDCS facilitated CPM or inhibited TS in healthy subjects following one intervention session.