Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treating Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Objective: To systematically review the literature to date applying repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Method: Electronic bibliography databases screened included PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. The keyword “fibromyalgia” was combined with (“transcranial” and “stimulation”) or “TMS” or “tDCS” or “transcranial magnetic stimulation” or “transcranial direct current stimulation”. Results: Nine of 23 studies were included; brain stimulation sites comprised either the primary motor cortex (M1) or the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Five studies used rTMS (high‐frequency‐M1: 2, low‐frequency‐DLPFC: 2, high‐frequency‐DLPFC: 1), while 4 applied tDCS (anodal‐M1: 1, anodal‐M1/DLPFC: 3). Eight were double‐blinded, randomized controlled trials. Most (80%) rTMS studies that measured pain reported significant decreases, while all (100%) tDCS studies with pain measures reported significant decreases. Greater longevity of significant pain reductions was observed for excitatory M1 rTMS/tDCS. Conclusion: Studies involving excitatory rTMS/tDCS at M1 showed analogous pain reductions as well as considerably fewer side effects compared to FDA apaproved FMS pharmaceuticals. The most commonly reported side effects were mild, including transient headaches and scalp discomforts at the stimulation site. Yearly use of rTMS/tDCS regimens appears costly ($11,740 to 14,507/year); however, analyses to apapropriately weigh these costs against clinical and quality of life benefits for patients with FMS are lacking. Consequently, rTMS/tDCS should be considered when treating patients with FMS, particularly those who are unable to find adequate symptom relief with other therapies. Further work into optimal stimulation parameters and standardized outcome measures is needed to clarify associated efficacy and effectiveness.     

经颅磁刺激与经颅直流电刺激的比较

对经颅磁刺激和经颅直流电刺激技术在基本原理、安全性、脑功能检测、临床应用治疗方面进行比较,以便于合理地选择和有效利用这两种方法。     

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Migraine: A Safety Review

(Headache 2010;50:1153‐1163) Objective.— To review potential and theoretical safety concerns of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), as obtained from studies of single‐pulse (sTMS) and repetitive TMS (rTMS) and to discuss safety concerns associated with sTMS in the context of its use as a migraine treatment. Methods.— The published literature was reviewed to identify adverse events that have been reported during the use of TMS; to assess its potential effects on brain tissue, the cardiovascular system, hormone levels, cognition and psychomotor tests, and hearing; to identify the risk of seizures associated with TMS; and to identify safety issues associated with its use in patients with attached or implanted electronic equipment or during pregnancy. Results.— Two decades of clinical experience with sTMS have shown it to be a low risk technique with promise in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of neurological and psychiatric disease in adults. Tens of thousands of subjects have undergone TMS for diagnostic, investigative, and therapeutic intervention trial purposes with minimal adverse events or side effects. No discernable evidence exists to suggest that sTMS causes harm to humans. No changes in neurophysiological function have been reported with sTMS use. Conclusions.— The safety of sTMS in clinical practice, including as an acute migraine headache treatment, is supported by biological, empirical, and clinical trial evidence. Single‐pulse TMS may offer a safe nonpharmacologic, nonbehavioral therapeutic approach to the currently prescribed drugs for patients who suffer from migraine.     

经颅直流电刺激的研究进展

经颅直流电刺激是一种无创性大脑皮层刺激方法。本文简要回顾其起源和发展,着重综述其机制。目前观点认为,经颅直流电刺激可能通过改变皮层兴奋性、增加突触可塑性、影响皮质兴奋/抑制平衡、改变局部脑血流、调节局部皮层和脑网联系等途径发挥调节脑功能的作用。本文通过比较分析相关文献、总结研究结果,提出要取得理想的刺激效果,仍有待深入探讨的两个问题,即刺激参数的选择及经颅直流电刺激与任务执行的时间关系。     

不同强度的经颅直流电刺激对脑梗死后吞咽障碍患者的疗效比较

目的 探讨经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)对脑梗死后吞咽障碍的有效强度及其神经机制。方法 2016年1月至2018年12月,脑梗死后吞咽障碍住院患者60例随机分为低强度组(n = 20)、中强度组(n = 20)和高强度组(n = 20),分别给予1.0 mA、1.5 mA和2.0 mA tDCS,共30 d。治疗前后观察吞咽造影和脑电α波变化。结果 与治疗前相比,高强度组口腔期评分升高(t = -2.196, P < 0.05),α波优势频率显著升高( t = -6.488, P < 0.001)。 结论 高强度tDCS可提高脑梗死后吞咽障碍患者脑兴奋性,改善吞咽功能。     

低频重复经颅磁刺激治疗重性抑郁障碍有效性和安全性的系统评价

目的系统评价低频重复经颅磁刺激(低频rTMS)治疗重性抑郁障碍的效果。方法计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、EMbase、CBMdisk、CNKI、VIP等数据库,收集1985～2011年国内外关于低频rTMS作用于右侧额叶背外侧皮质治疗重性抑郁障碍的随机对照试验(RCT)。由两位研究者独立提取资料和评价纳入研究质量后,采用RevMan 4.2软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入7个随机双盲对照试验,包括234例重性抑郁障碍患者。质量评价结果显示,7个研究中A级1个,B级5个,C级1个。Meta分析结果显示:治疗2周后,低频rTMS组的临床治愈率显著高于假刺激组[RR=3.11,95%CI(1.56,6.19)],而HDRS评分和MADRS评分则显著低于假刺激组[WMD=–6.41,95%CI(–9.32,–3.50);WMD=–5.27,95%CI(–9.08,–1.46)],但有效性与假刺激组无显著差异[RR=1.72,95%CI(0.74,4.01)]。7个纳入研究均未报道任何严重、不可耐受的不良反应。结论低频rTMS是一种无创、安全的治疗技术,可提高重度抑郁障碍患者的临床治愈率,降低抑郁量表评分,但有效率与假刺激组无显著差异。建议进行重性抑郁障碍治疗时,rTMS的参数选择:频率为1Hz,强度为运动阈值的90%～110%,作用位置右侧额叶背外侧区,治疗周期2周。但在将其应用到临床一线治疗之前,仍需开展更多大样本多中心的高质量研究。     

经颅直流电刺激治疗阿尔茨海默氏病临床疗效观察

目的:探讨经颅直流电刺激(t DCS)治疗阿尔茨海默氏病(AD)的临床疗效。方法:AD患者120例随机分为对照组和t DCS组各60例,对照组给予假电流治疗,t DCS组给予t DCS治疗,连续治疗5个疗程,比较2组治疗前及治疗后、治疗后1月和2月简易智力状态检查量表(MMSE)和韦氏成人智能量表评分以及治疗前后事件相关电位(P300)的潜伏期、波幅和反应时间。结果:t DCS组治疗后的MMSE评分高于治疗前,且持续上升(P<0.05);治疗后、治疗后1月和治疗后2月的MMSE评分高于对照组(P<0.05);t DCS组治疗后的词汇表、信息以及数字广度评分高于治疗前(P<0.05),治疗后、治疗后1月和治疗后2月词汇表、信息以及数字广度评分高于对照组(P<0.05);t DCS组治疗后的P300电位潜伏期低于治疗前(P<0.05)和对照组(P<0.05)。结论:t DCS治疗显著改善AD患者的认知功能,降低其P300潜伏期。     

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Motor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

To systematically examine the safety and effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) interventions in pediatric motor disorders.

经颅直流电刺激调节迷走神经兴奋性对脑卒中后吞咽障碍的效果

目的 研究经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)调节迷走神经兴奋性对卒中后吞咽功能障碍的疗效.方法 2020年9月至2021年2月,本院康复科卒中后吞咽障碍患者28例随机分为对照组和tDCS组,各14例.两组均行吞咽功能训练,tDCS组行迷走神经tDCS,对照组行迷走神经假刺激.治疗前后,采用改良曼恩吞咽能力评估量表(MMASA)...     

Review of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Epilepsy

PurposeDespite the availability of numerous pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic antiseizure therapies, a fraction of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to current treatment options, underscoring the need for novel drugs and neuromodulatory therapies. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), coupled with either electromyography or electroencephalography, enables rapid measurement of the cortical excitation/inhibition ratio, which is pathologically shifted toward excess excitability in patients with epilepsy. In this review, we summarize: (1) TMS protocols that have been deployed to identify promising compounds in the antiepilepsy drug (AED)-development pipeline, and (2) the therapeutic potential of TMS in the treatment of drug-resistant seizures.MethodsA focused literature review of the use of TMS in epilepsy, using a PubMed search, was performed. Over 70 articles were included that pertained to: (1) the use of TMS-EMG and TMS-EEG in elucidating the mechanisms of action of AEDs and in discovering potential new AEDs; and (2) the use of repetitive TMS in the treatment of seizures.FindingsStudies from the literature have reported that AEDs alter TMS-derived metrics, typically by leading to a net increase in cortical inhibition with successful therapy. Preclinical TMS work in rodent models of epilepsy has led to the development of novel antiseizure drug compounds. Clinical translational studies of TMS have been used to determine guidelines on the dosages of other agents in the AED pipeline in preparation for clinical trials. Several studies have described the use of therapeutic repetitive TMS in both the ictal and interictal states of epilepsy, with inconsistent results.ImplicationsTMS has diagnostic and therapeutic potential in epilepsy. TMS-derived markers can enable early-stage measures of AED target engagement, and can facilitate studies of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of AEDs. TMS may also be used in the early prediction of the efficacy of different AEDs in treating patients, and in direct neuromodulation of epileptic networks. From the therapeutics perspective, despite favorable results in some trials, the optimization of treatment paradigms and the determination of ideal candidates for TMS are still needed. Finally, preclinical experiments of TMS have provided mechanistic insight into its effects on the excitation/inhibition ratio, and may facilitate rational drug–device coupling paradigms. Overall, the capacity of TMS in both the modulation and measurement of changes in cortical excitability highlights its unique role in advancing antiepilepsy therapeutics     

重复经颅磁刺激联合神经肌肉电刺激治疗卒中后吞咽障碍的疗效分析

目的:探讨重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)联合神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)对单侧脑卒中吞咽障碍的治疗作用.方法:单侧卒中后吞咽障碍患者96例,随机分为(rTMS+NMS)组、rTMS组、NMES组,每组32例,分别给予(真rTMS+真NMES)、(真rTMS+假NMES)和(假rTMS+真NMES)治疗.在基线、治疗2周后、治...     

经颅直流电刺激对脑卒中患者上肢运动功能障碍的疗效

目的探讨经颅直流电刺激(t DCS)对脑卒中患者上肢运动功能障碍恢复的效果。方法 80例脑卒中偏瘫患者随机分为实验组(n=40)与对照组(n=40)。两组均行常规康复训练,实验组行t DCS治疗,对照组行伪刺激。治疗前及治疗1个月后采用Brunnstrom上肢和手分级、Fugl-Meyer评定(FMA)中上肢运动功能、手臂动作调查测试(ARAT)、卒中患者运动功能评估量表(MAS)和改良Barthel指数(MBI)进行评定。结果治疗后,两组患者各项评分均优于治疗前(P0.05),实验组上肢和手Brunnstrom分级、FMA、ARAT评分优于对照组(P0.05)。结论 t DCS有助于改善脑卒中患者上肢运动功能。     

经颅直流电刺激对脑卒中患者上肢运动功能康复的效果

目的 探讨经颅直流电刺激对脑卒中患者上肢运动功能康复的作用.方法 选取2017年12月至2019年12月本院康复医学科住院的初发脑卒中患者50例,病程<6个月,随机分为对照组(n=25)和试验组(n=25),两组均接受上肢常规康复治疗和上肢康复机器人训练,试验组在对照组基础上给予经颅直流电刺激,共2周.治疗前后采用Re...     

Site-specific Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Sleep and Pain in Fibromyalgia: A Randomized, Sham-controlled Study

Objective: To investigate whether active anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC] and primary motor cortex [M1]) as compared to sham treatment is associated with changes in sleep structure in fibromyalgia. Methods: Thirty‐two patients were randomized to receive sham stimulation or active tDCS with the anode centered over M1 or DLPFC (2 mA, 20 minutes for five consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the clinical symptoms of fibromyalgia. All‐night polysomnography was performed before and after five consecutive sessions of tDCS. Results: Anodal tDCS had an effect on sleep and pain that was specific to the site of stimulation: such as that M1 and DLPFC treatments induced opposite effects on sleep and pain, whereas sham stimulation induced no significant sleep or pain changes. Specifically, whereas M1 treatment increased sleep efficiency (by 11.8%, P = 0.004) and decreased arousals (by 35.0%, P = 0.001), DLPFC stimulation was associated with a decrease in sleep efficiency (by 7.5%, P = 0.02), an increase in rapid eye movement (REM) and sleep latency (by 47.7%, P = 0.0002, and 133.4%, P = 0.02, respectively). In addition, a decrease in REM latency and increase in sleep efficiency were associated with an improvement in fibromyalgia symptoms (as indexed by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire). Finally, patients with higher body mass index had the worse sleep outcome as indexed by sleep efficiency changes after M1 stimulation. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that one possible mechanism to explain the therapeutic effects of tDCS in fibromyalgia is via sleep modulation that is specific to modulation of primary M1 activity. ?