Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial.

IF 12.7 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ACS Central Science Pub Date : 2021-12-16 DOI:10.1093/brain/awab208
Nadine Attal, Frédérique Poindessous-Jazat, Edwige De Chauvigny, Charles Quesada, Alaa Mhalla, Samar S Ayache, Christophe Fermanian, Julien Nizard, Roland Peyron, Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur, Didier Bouhassira
{"title":"Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial.","authors":"Nadine Attal,&nbsp;Frédérique Poindessous-Jazat,&nbsp;Edwige De Chauvigny,&nbsp;Charles Quesada,&nbsp;Alaa Mhalla,&nbsp;Samar S Ayache,&nbsp;Christophe Fermanian,&nbsp;Julien Nizard,&nbsp;Roland Peyron,&nbsp;Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur,&nbsp;Didier Bouhassira","doi":"10.1093/brain/awab208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat neuropathic pain but the quality of evidence remains low. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neuronavigated rTMS to the primary motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in neuropathic pain over 25 weeks. We carried out a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at four outpatient clinics in France. Patients aged 18-75 years with peripheral neuropathic pain were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to M1 or DLPFC-rTMS and rerandomized at a 2:1 ratio to active or sham-rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses/session, 15 sessions over 22 weeks). Patients and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The primary end point was the comparison between active M1-rTMS, active DLPCF-rTMS and sham-rTMS for the change over the course of 25 weeks (Group × Time interaction) in average pain intensity (from 0 no pain to 10 maximal pain) on the Brief Pain Inventory, using a mixed model repeated measures analysis in patients who received at least one rTMS session (modified intention-to-treat population). Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain intensity and relief, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, quality of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue (patients diary), Patient and Clinician Global Impression of Change (PGIC, CGIC), quality of life, sleep, mood and catastrophizing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010281. A total of 152 patients were randomized and 149 received treatment (49 for M1; 52 for DLPFC; 48 for sham). M1-rTMS reduced pain intensity versus sham-rTMS (estimate for Group × Session interaction: -0.048 ± 0.02; 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01; P = 0.01). DLPFC-rTMS was not better than sham (estimate: -0.003 ± 0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03, P = 0.9). M1-rRMS, but not DLPFC-rTMS, was also superior to sham-rTMS on pain relief, sensory dimension of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue, PGIC and CGIC. There were no effects on quality of pain, mood, sleep and quality of life as all groups improved similarly over time. Headache was the most common side effect and occurred in 17 (34.7%), 23 (44.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients from M1, DLPFC and sham groups, respectively (P = 0.2). Our results support the clinical relevance of M1-rTMS, but not of DLPFC-rTMS, for peripheral neuropathic pain with an excellent safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":10,"journal":{"name":"ACS Central Science","volume":" ","pages":"3328-3339"},"PeriodicalIF":12.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"42","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Central Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab208","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

Abstract

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat neuropathic pain but the quality of evidence remains low. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neuronavigated rTMS to the primary motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in neuropathic pain over 25 weeks. We carried out a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at four outpatient clinics in France. Patients aged 18-75 years with peripheral neuropathic pain were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to M1 or DLPFC-rTMS and rerandomized at a 2:1 ratio to active or sham-rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses/session, 15 sessions over 22 weeks). Patients and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The primary end point was the comparison between active M1-rTMS, active DLPCF-rTMS and sham-rTMS for the change over the course of 25 weeks (Group × Time interaction) in average pain intensity (from 0 no pain to 10 maximal pain) on the Brief Pain Inventory, using a mixed model repeated measures analysis in patients who received at least one rTMS session (modified intention-to-treat population). Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain intensity and relief, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, quality of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue (patients diary), Patient and Clinician Global Impression of Change (PGIC, CGIC), quality of life, sleep, mood and catastrophizing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010281. A total of 152 patients were randomized and 149 received treatment (49 for M1; 52 for DLPFC; 48 for sham). M1-rTMS reduced pain intensity versus sham-rTMS (estimate for Group × Session interaction: -0.048 ± 0.02; 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01; P = 0.01). DLPFC-rTMS was not better than sham (estimate: -0.003 ± 0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03, P = 0.9). M1-rRMS, but not DLPFC-rTMS, was also superior to sham-rTMS on pain relief, sensory dimension of pain, self-reported pain intensity and fatigue, PGIC and CGIC. There were no effects on quality of pain, mood, sleep and quality of life as all groups improved similarly over time. Headache was the most common side effect and occurred in 17 (34.7%), 23 (44.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients from M1, DLPFC and sham groups, respectively (P = 0.2). Our results support the clinical relevance of M1-rTMS, but not of DLPFC-rTMS, for peripheral neuropathic pain with an excellent safety profile.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重复经颅磁刺激治疗神经性疼痛:一项随机多中心假对照试验。
重复性经颅磁刺激(rTMS)已被提出用于治疗神经性疼痛,但证据质量仍然很低。我们的目的是评估神经导航rTMS对初级运动皮质(M1)或背外侧前额叶皮质(DLPFC)治疗神经性疼痛25周的疗效和安全性。我们在法国的四家门诊诊所进行了一项随机双盲、安慰剂对照试验。年龄在18-75岁的周围神经性疼痛患者以1:1的比例随机分配到M1或DLPFC-rTMS,并以2:1的比例重新分配到活动或假rtms (10 Hz, 3000次脉冲/次,15次疗程,22周)。患者和研究者对治疗分配一无所知。主要终点是在接受至少一次rTMS治疗的患者(修改意向治疗人群)中,使用混合模型重复测量分析,比较在25周(组x时间交互作用)过程中,活跃M1-rTMS、活跃DLPCF-rTMS和假rTMS在简短疼痛量表上的平均疼痛强度(从0无疼痛到10最大疼痛)的变化。次要结果包括疼痛强度和缓解、疼痛的感觉和情感维度、疼痛质量、自我报告的疼痛强度和疲劳(患者日记)、患者和临床医生对变化的总体印象(PGIC, CGIC)、生活质量、睡眠、情绪和灾难化。本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册NCT02010281。共有152例患者被随机分组,149例接受治疗(49例为M1;DLPFC为52;48为假)。与假rtms相比,M1-rTMS降低了疼痛强度(组x交互作用估计值:-0.048±0.02;95% CI: -0.09 ~ -0.01;p = 0.01)。DLPFC-rTMS不优于sham(估计:-0.003±0.01;95% CI: -0.04 ~ 0.03, P = 0.9)。在疼痛缓解、疼痛感觉维度、自述疼痛强度和疲劳、PGIC和CGIC方面,M1-rRMS优于sham-rTMS,而DLPFC-rTMS优于sham-rTMS。疼痛质量、情绪、睡眠和生活质量都没有受到影响,因为随着时间的推移,所有小组都有了类似的改善。头痛是最常见的副作用,M1组、DLPFC组和sham组分别有17例(34.7%)、23例(44.2%)和13例(27.1%)患者出现头痛(P = 0.2)。我们的研究结果支持M1-rTMS的临床相关性,而不是DLPFC-rTMS,具有良好的安全性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Central Science
ACS Central Science Chemical Engineering-General Chemical Engineering
CiteScore
25.50
自引率
0.50%
发文量
194
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: ACS Central Science publishes significant primary reports on research in chemistry and allied fields where chemical approaches are pivotal. As the first fully open-access journal by the American Chemical Society, it covers compelling and important contributions to the broad chemistry and scientific community. "Central science," a term popularized nearly 40 years ago, emphasizes chemistry's central role in connecting physical and life sciences, and fundamental sciences with applied disciplines like medicine and engineering. The journal focuses on exceptional quality articles, addressing advances in fundamental chemistry and interdisciplinary research.
期刊最新文献
Issue Publication Information Issue Editorial Masthead Bespoke and Accessible Electrochemical Reactors Bespoke and Accessible Electrochemical Reactors. Post-Translational Modifications Control Phase Transitions of Tau
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1