Classical, spaced, or accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex for treating neuropathic pain: A 3-arm parallel non-inferiority study

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
{"title":"Classical, spaced, or accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex for treating neuropathic pain: A 3-arm parallel non-inferiority study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.neucli.2024.103012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) at high frequency (HF) is an effective treatment of neuropathic pain. The classical HF-rTMS protocol (CHF-rTMS) includes a daily session for one week as an induction phase of treatment followed by more spaced sessions. Another type of protocol without an induction phase and based solely on spaced sessions of HF-rTMS (SHF-rTMS) has also been shown to produce neuropathic pain relief. However, CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS of M1 have never been compared regarding their analgesic potential. Another type of rTMS paradigm, called accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (ACC-iTBS), has recently been proposed for the treatment of depression, the other clinical condition for which HF-rTMS is proposed as an effective therapeutic strategy. ACC-iTBS combines a high number of pulses delivered in short sessions grouped into a few days of stimulation. This type of protocol has never been applied to M1 for the treatment of pain.</p></div><div><h3>Methods/Design</h3><p>The objective of this single-centre randomized study is to compare the efficacy of three different rTMS protocols for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS, and ACC-iTBS. The CHF-rTMS will consists of 10 stimulation sessions, including 5 daily sessions of 10Hz-rTMS (3,000 pulses per session) over one week, then one session per week for 5 weeks, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 10 stimulation days. The SHF-rTMS protocol will only include 4 sessions of 20Hz-rTMS (1,600 pulses per session), one every 15 days, for a total of 6,400 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. The ACC-iTBS protocol will comprise 5 sessions of iTBS (600 pulses per session) completed in half a day for 2 consecutive days, repeated 5 weeks later, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. Thus, CHF-rTMS and ACC-iTBS protocols will share a higher total number of TMS pulses (30,000 pulses) compared to SHF-rTMS protocol (6,400 pulses), while CHF-rTMS protocol will include a higher number of stimulation days (10 days) compared to ACC-iTBS and SHF-rTMS protocols (4 days). In all protocols, the M1 target will be defined in the same way and stimulated at the same intensity using a navigated rTMS (nTMS) procedure. The evaluation will be based on clinical outcomes with various scales and questionnaires assessed every week, from two weeks before the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation until 4 weeks after. Additionally, three sets of neurophysiological outcomes (resting-state electroencephalography (EEG), nTMS-EEG recordings, and short intracortical inhibition measurement with threshold tracking method) will be assessed the week before and after the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>This study will make it possible to compare the analgesic efficacy of the CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS protocols and to appraise that of the ACC-iTBS protocol for the first time. This study will also make it possible to determine the respective influence of the total number of pulses and days of stimulation delivered to M1 on the extent of pain relief. Thus, if their analgesic efficacy is not inferior to that of CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS and especially the new ACC-iTBS protocol could be an optimal compromise of a more easy-to-perform rTMS protocol for the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19134,"journal":{"name":"Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0987705324000704","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) at high frequency (HF) is an effective treatment of neuropathic pain. The classical HF-rTMS protocol (CHF-rTMS) includes a daily session for one week as an induction phase of treatment followed by more spaced sessions. Another type of protocol without an induction phase and based solely on spaced sessions of HF-rTMS (SHF-rTMS) has also been shown to produce neuropathic pain relief. However, CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS of M1 have never been compared regarding their analgesic potential. Another type of rTMS paradigm, called accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (ACC-iTBS), has recently been proposed for the treatment of depression, the other clinical condition for which HF-rTMS is proposed as an effective therapeutic strategy. ACC-iTBS combines a high number of pulses delivered in short sessions grouped into a few days of stimulation. This type of protocol has never been applied to M1 for the treatment of pain.

Methods/Design

The objective of this single-centre randomized study is to compare the efficacy of three different rTMS protocols for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS, and ACC-iTBS. The CHF-rTMS will consists of 10 stimulation sessions, including 5 daily sessions of 10Hz-rTMS (3,000 pulses per session) over one week, then one session per week for 5 weeks, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 10 stimulation days. The SHF-rTMS protocol will only include 4 sessions of 20Hz-rTMS (1,600 pulses per session), one every 15 days, for a total of 6,400 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. The ACC-iTBS protocol will comprise 5 sessions of iTBS (600 pulses per session) completed in half a day for 2 consecutive days, repeated 5 weeks later, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. Thus, CHF-rTMS and ACC-iTBS protocols will share a higher total number of TMS pulses (30,000 pulses) compared to SHF-rTMS protocol (6,400 pulses), while CHF-rTMS protocol will include a higher number of stimulation days (10 days) compared to ACC-iTBS and SHF-rTMS protocols (4 days). In all protocols, the M1 target will be defined in the same way and stimulated at the same intensity using a navigated rTMS (nTMS) procedure. The evaluation will be based on clinical outcomes with various scales and questionnaires assessed every week, from two weeks before the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation until 4 weeks after. Additionally, three sets of neurophysiological outcomes (resting-state electroencephalography (EEG), nTMS-EEG recordings, and short intracortical inhibition measurement with threshold tracking method) will be assessed the week before and after the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation.

Discussion

This study will make it possible to compare the analgesic efficacy of the CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS protocols and to appraise that of the ACC-iTBS protocol for the first time. This study will also make it possible to determine the respective influence of the total number of pulses and days of stimulation delivered to M1 on the extent of pain relief. Thus, if their analgesic efficacy is not inferior to that of CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS and especially the new ACC-iTBS protocol could be an optimal compromise of a more easy-to-perform rTMS protocol for the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

经典、间隔或加速经颅磁刺激运动皮层治疗神经病理性疼痛:三臂平行非劣效性研究
背景高频(HF)经颅磁刺激(rTMS)初级运动皮层(M1)是治疗神经性疼痛的有效方法。经典的高频经颅磁刺激方案(CHF-rTMS)包括为期一周的每日疗程,作为治疗的诱导阶段,随后是间隔更长的疗程。另一种方案没有诱导阶段,仅基于高频经颅磁刺激(SHF-rTMS)的间隔疗程,也已证明可缓解神经病理性疼痛。然而,CHF-rTMS 和 SHF-rTMS 对 M1 的镇痛潜力从未进行过比较。另一种经颅磁刺激范式被称为加速间歇θ脉冲刺激(ACC-iTBS),最近被提出用于治疗抑郁症,这也是高频经颅磁刺激被认为是有效治疗策略的另一种临床症状。ACC-iTBS 将大量脉冲结合起来,在短时间内对患者进行为期数天的刺激。这项单中心随机研究的目的是比较三种不同经颅磁刺激方案治疗慢性神经病理性疼痛的疗效:CHF-rTMS、SHF-rTMS 和 ACC-iTBS。CHF-经颅磁刺激方案将包括 10 次刺激疗程,其中包括一周内每天 5 次 10Hz 经颅磁刺激(每次 3,000 个脉冲),然后在 5 周内每周 1 次,10 个刺激日共 30,000 个脉冲。SHF-经颅磁刺激方案只包括4次20Hz-经颅磁刺激(每次1,600个脉冲),每15天一次,4个刺激日共6,400个脉冲。ACC-iTBS 方案包括 5 次 iTBS(每次 600 个脉冲),连续 2 天,每半天完成一次,5 周后重复,4 个刺激日共 30,000 个脉冲。因此,CHF-rTMS 和 ACC-iTBS 方案的 TMS 脉冲总数(30,000 脉冲)将高于 SHF-rTMS 方案(6,400 脉冲),而 CHF-rTMS 方案的刺激天数(10 天)将高于 ACC-iTBS 和 SHF-rTMS 方案(4 天)。在所有方案中,M1 目标将以相同的方式定义,并使用导航经颅磁刺激(nTMS)程序以相同的强度进行刺激。评估将以临床结果为基础,从为期 7 周的治疗刺激前两周到治疗刺激后 4 周,每周使用各种量表和问卷进行评估。此外,还将在 7 周治疗刺激前后一周评估三组神经生理学结果(静息态脑电图(EEG)、nTMS-EEG 记录和用阈值跟踪法进行的皮层内短时抑制测量)。 讨论这项研究将有可能比较 CHF-rTMS 和 SHF-rTMS 方案的镇痛效果,并首次评估 ACC-iTBS 方案的镇痛效果。这项研究还将确定刺激 M1 的脉冲总数和天数对疼痛缓解程度的影响。因此,如果其镇痛效果不逊于CHF-rTMS,那么SHF-rTMS,尤其是新的ACC-iTBS方案,可能是治疗慢性神经病理性疼痛患者的一种更易于操作的经颅磁刺激方案的最佳折衷方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
55
审稿时长
60 days
期刊介绍: Neurophysiologie Clinique / Clinical Neurophysiology (NCCN) is the official organ of the French Society of Clinical Neurophysiology (SNCLF). This journal is published 6 times a year, and is aimed at an international readership, with articles written in English. These can take the form of original research papers, comprehensive review articles, viewpoints, short communications, technical notes, editorials or letters to the Editor. The theme is the neurophysiological investigation of central or peripheral nervous system or muscle in healthy humans or patients. The journal focuses on key areas of clinical neurophysiology: electro- or magneto-encephalography, evoked potentials of all modalities, electroneuromyography, sleep, pain, posture, balance, motor control, autonomic nervous system, cognition, invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation, signal processing, bio-engineering, functional imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信