A randomised controlled trial of prophylactic neuroleptic treatment. Efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for the treatment of fibromyalgia: results of a randomized, sham-controlled longitudinal clinical trial. A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. A randomized, sham-controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on chronic neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.
Out of 253 patients fulfilling criteria for a first episode of schizophrenic illness, 120 entered a randomised placebo-controlled trial of maintenance neuroleptic medication on discharge; they were followed to relapse or loss to follow-up, for two years or to the end of the study. Of those on active medication, 46% relapsed, as did 62% of those on placebo; the most important determinant of relapse was duration of illness prior to starting neuroleptic medication. This finding might be because extended duration of symptoms before admission is more likely to be present in illnesses which in any case will have poor prognosis, or because susceptibility to relapse is reduced by early institution of treatment. The study provides no data on which a decision between these alternative explanations can be based. Fibromyalgia has been recognized as a central pain disorder with evidence of neuroanatomic and neurophysiologic alterations. Previous studies with techniques of noninvasive brain stimulation--transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)--have shown that these methods are associated with a significant alleviation of fibromyalgia-associated pain and sleep dysfunction. Here we sought to determine whether a longer treatment protocol involving 10 sessions of 2 mA, 20 min tDCS of the left primary motor (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) could offer additional, more long-lasting clinical benefits in the management of pain from fibromyalgia. METHODS: Forty-one women with chronic, medically refractory fibromyalgia were randomized to receive 10 daily sessions of M1, DLPFC, or sham tDCS. RESULTS: Our results show that M1 and DLPFC stimulation both display improvements in pain scores (VAS) and quality of life (FIQ) at the end of the treatment protocol, but only M1 stimulation resulted in long-lasting clinical benefits as assessed at 30 and 60 days after the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the importance of the duration of the treatment period, suggesting that 10 daily sessions of tDCS result in more long lasting outcomes than only five sessions. Furthermore, this study supports the findings of a similarly designed rTMS trial as both induce pain reductions that are equally long-lasting. Past evidence has shown that motor cortical stimulation with invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation is effective to relieve central pain. Here we aimed to study the effects of another, very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation--transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)--on pain control in patients with central pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients were randomized to receive sham or active motor tDCS (2mA, 20 min for 5 consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the pain using the visual analogue scale for pain, Clinician Global Impression and Patient Global Assessment. Safety was assessed with a neuropsychological battery and confounders with the evaluation of depression and anxiety changes. There was a significant pain improvement after active anodal stimulation of the motor cortex, but not after sham stimulation. These results were not confounded by depression or anxiety changes. Furthermore, cognitive performance was not significantly changed throughout the trial in both treatment groups. The results of our study suggest that this new approach of cortical stimulation can be effective to control pain in patients with spinal cord lesion. We discuss potential mechanisms for pain amelioration after tDCS, such as a secondary modulation of thalamic nuclei activity. Recent evidence suggests that fibromyalgia is a disorder characterized by dysfunctional brain activity. Because transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can modulate brain activity noninvasively and can decrease pain in patients with refractory central pain, we hypothesized that tDCS treatment would result in pain relief in patients with fibromyalgia.
                Thirty-two patients were randomized to receive sham stimulation or real tDCS with the anode centered over the primary motor cortex (M1) or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (2 mA for 20 minutes on 5 consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the patient's pain, using the visual analog scale for pain, the clinician's global impression, the patient's global assessment, and the number of tender points. Other symptoms of fibromyalgia were evaluated using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire and the Short Form 36 Health Survey. Safety was assessed with a battery of neuropsychological tests. To assess potential confounders, we measured mood and anxiety changes throughout the trial.
                Anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex induced significantly greater pain improvement compared with sham stimulation and stimulation of the DLPFC (P < 0.0001). Although this effect decreased after treatment ended, it was still significant after 3 weeks of followup (P = 0.004). A small positive impact on quality of life was observed among patients who received anodal M1 stimulation. This treatment was associated with a few mild adverse events, but the frequency of these events in the active-treatment groups was similar to that in the sham group. Cognitive changes were similar in all 3 treatment groups.
                Our findings provide initial evidence of a beneficial effect of tDCS in fibromyalgia, thus encouraging further trials. Neuropathic pain in patients with MS is frequent and is associated with a great interference with daily life activities. In the present study, we investigated whether anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be effective in reducing central chronic pain in MS patients. Patients received sham tDCS or real tDCS in a 5-day period of treatment in a randomized, double blind, sham-controlled study. Pain was measured using visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the short form McGill questionnaire (SF-MPQ). Quality of life was measured using the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 scale (MSQoL-54). Depressive symptoms and anxiety were also evaluated as confounding factors using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and VAS for anxiety. Evaluations were performed at baseline, immediately after the end of treatment, and once a week during a 3-week follow-up period. Following anodal but not sham tDCS over the motor cortex, there was a significant pain improvement as assessed by VAS for pain and McGill questionnaire, and of overall quality of life. No depression or anxiety changes were observed. Our results show that anodal tDCS is able to reduce pain-scale scores in MS patients with central chronic pain and that this effect outlasts the period of stimulation, leading to long-lasting clinical effects.
                This article presents a new, noninvasive therapeutic approach to chronic, central neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis, poorly responsive to current conventional medications. tDCS is known to cause long-lasting changes of neuronal excitability at the site of stimulation and in the connected areas in healthy subjects. This led us to hypothesize that pain decrease may be the result of functional plastic changes in brain structures involved in the pathogenesis of chronic neuropathic pain.
                Copyright 2010 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Limited data from small studies using neuroleptic reduction or specific neuroleptic drugs as treatments for TD did not provide any convincing evidence of the value of these approaches. There is a need for larger trials of a longer duration in order to fully investigate this area.