28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: guidelines for pain treatment research

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Recognizing that electrically stimulating the motor cortex could relieve chronic pain sparked development of noninvasive technologies. In transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), electromagnetic coils held against the scalp influence underlying cortical firing. Multiday repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can induce long-lasting, potentially therapeutic brain plasticity. Nearby ferromagnetic or electronic implants are contraindications. Adverse effects are minimal, primarily headaches. Single provoked seizures are very rare. Transcranial magnetic stimulation devices are marketed for depression and migraine in the United States and for various indications elsewhere. Although multiple studies report that high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex reduces neuropathic pain, their quality has been insufficient to support Food and Drug Administration application. Harvard's Radcliffe Institute therefore sponsored a workshop to solicit advice from experts in TMS, pain research, and clinical trials. They recommended that researchers standardize and document all TMS parameters and improve strategies for sham and double blinding. Subjects should have common well-characterized pain conditions amenable to motor cortex rTMS and studies should be adequately powered. They recommended standardized assessment tools (eg, NIH's PROMIS) plus validated condition-specific instruments and consensus-recommended metrics (eg, IMMPACT). Outcomes should include pain intensity and qualities, patient and clinician impression of change, and proportions achieving 30% and 50% pain relief. Secondary outcomes could include function, mood, sleep, and/or quality of life. Minimum required elements include sample sources, sizes, and demographics, recruitment methods, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline and posttreatment means and SD, adverse effects, safety concerns, discontinuations, and medication-usage records. Outcomes should be monitored for at least 3 months after initiation with prespecified statistical analyses. Multigroup collaborations or registry studies may be needed for pivotal trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references99

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation targets for depression is related to intrinsic functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate.

          Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is used clinically for the treatment of depression. However, the antidepressant mechanism remains unknown and its therapeutic efficacy remains limited. Recent data suggest that some left DLPFC targets are more effective than others; however, the reasons for this heterogeneity and how to capitalize on this information remain unclear. Intrinsic (resting state) functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 98 normal subjects were used to compute functional connectivity with various left DLPFC TMS targets employed in the literature. Differences in functional connectivity related to differences in previously reported clinical efficacy were identified. This information was translated into a connectivity-based targeting strategy to identify optimized left DLPFC TMS coordinates. Results in normal subjects were tested for reproducibility in an independent cohort of 13 patients with depression. Differences in functional connectivity were related to previously reported differences in clinical efficacy across a distributed set of cortical and limbic regions. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex TMS sites with better clinical efficacy were more negatively correlated (anticorrelated) with the subgenual cingulate. Optimum connectivity-based stimulation coordinates were identified in Brodmann area 46. Results were reproducible in patients with depression. Reported antidepressant efficacy of different left DLPFC TMS sites is related to the anticorrelation of each site with the subgenual cingulate, potentially lending insight into the antidepressant mechanism of TMS and suggesting a role for intrinsically anticorrelated networks in depression. These results can be translated into a connectivity-based targeting strategy for focal brain stimulation that might be used to optimize clinical response. Copyright © 2012 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil designs.

            Various transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil designs are available or have been proposed. However, key coil characteristics such as electric field focality and attenuation in depth have not been adequately compared. Knowledge of the coil focality and depth characteristics can help TMS researchers and clinicians with coil selection and interpretation of TMS studies. To quantify the electric field focality and depth of penetration of various TMS coils. The electric field distributions induced by 50 TMS coils were simulated in a spherical human head model using the finite element method. For each coil design, we quantified the electric field penetration by the half-value depth, d(1/2), and focality by the tangential spread, S(1/2), defined as the half-value volume (V(1/2)) divided by the half-value depth, S(1/2) = V(1/2)/d(1/2). The 50 TMS coils exhibit a wide range of electric field focality and depth, but all followed a depth-focality tradeoff: coils with larger half-value depth cannot be as focal as more superficial coils. The ranges of achievable d(1/2) are similar between coils producing circular and figure-8 electric field patterns, ranging 1.0-3.5 cm and 0.9-3.4 cm, respectively. However, figure-8 field coils are more focal, having S(1/2) as low as 5 cm(2) compared to 34 cm(2) for circular field coils. For any coil design, the ability to directly stimulate deeper brain structures is obtained at the expense of inducing wider electrical field spread. Novel coil designs should be benchmarked against comparison coils with consistent metrics such as d(1/2) and S(1/2). Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Resting-state networks link invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation across diverse psychiatric and neurological diseases.

              Brain stimulation, a therapy increasingly used for neurological and psychiatric disease, traditionally is divided into invasive approaches, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), and noninvasive approaches, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. The relationship between these approaches is unknown, therapeutic mechanisms remain unclear, and the ideal stimulation site for a given technique is often ambiguous, limiting optimization of the stimulation and its application in further disorders. In this article, we identify diseases treated with both types of stimulation, list the stimulation sites thought to be most effective in each disease, and test the hypothesis that these sites are different nodes within the same brain network as defined by resting-state functional-connectivity MRI. Sites where DBS was effective were functionally connected to sites where noninvasive brain stimulation was effective across diseases including depression, Parkinson's disease, obsessive-compulsive disorder, essential tremor, addiction, pain, minimally conscious states, and Alzheimer's disease. A lack of functional connectivity identified sites where stimulation was ineffective, and the sign of the correlation related to whether excitatory or inhibitory noninvasive stimulation was found clinically effective. These results suggest that resting-state functional connectivity may be useful for translating therapy between stimulation modalities, optimizing treatment, and identifying new stimulation targets. More broadly, this work supports a network perspective toward understanding and treating neuropsychiatric disease, highlighting the therapeutic potential of targeted brain network modulation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pain
                Pain
                JPAIN
                Pain
                JOP
                Pain
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                0304-3959
                1872-6623
                25 April 2015
                September 2015
                : 156
                : 9
                : 1601-1614
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [b ]Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [c ]Berenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [d ]US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Division of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices, Office of Device Evaluation, Bethesda, MD, USA
                [e ]US National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Mental Health, Experimental Therapeutics and Pathophysiology Branch, Bethesda, MD, USA
                [f ]Pain Research Institute, Neuroscience Research Centre, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [g ]Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [h ]Department of Physiology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, France,
                [i ]EA 4391, Nerve Excitability and Therapeutic Team, Faculty of Medicine, Paris Est Créteil University, Créteil, France,
                [j ]Human Motor Control Section, Medical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA,
                [k ]Departments of Anesthesiology, Medicine, and Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA,
                [l ]Department of Pathology (Neuropathology), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 275 Charles St/Warren Bldg. 310, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. Tel.: 617-233-4476; fax: 617-726-0473. E-mail address: mklein@ 123456mgh.harvard.edu (M. M. Klein).
                Article
                PAIN-D-14-12755 00007
                10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000210
                4545735
                25919472
                66d42406-752a-4d7c-a5c9-3c614c6d872e
                © 2015 International Association for the Study of Pain
                History
                : 22 August 2014
                : 30 March 2015
                : 17 April 2015
                Categories
                Comprehensive Review

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                neuropathic pain,neuromodulation,treatment,human,device
                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                neuropathic pain, neuromodulation, treatment, human, device

                Comments

                Comment on this article