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

Author:

Attal Nadine12ORCID,Poindessous-Jazat Frédérique1,De Chauvigny Edwige3,Quesada Charles4,Mhalla Alaa5,Ayache Samar S56,Fermanian Christophe7,Nizard Julien3,Peyron Roland4,Lefaucheur Jean-Pascal56,Bouhassira Didier12

Affiliation:

1. INSERM U 987, CETD, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, APHP, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France

2. UVSQ, Paris Saclay University, 78000 Versailles, France

3. Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Department, UIC22 and EA3826, University Hospital Nantes, 44000 Nantes, France

4. INSERM U1028 & CETD, CHU Bellevue, 42100 Saint Etienne, France

5. Clinical Neurophysiology Unit, Hôpital Henri Mondor, APHP, 94000 Créteil, France

6. EA 4391, Paris Est Créteil University, 94000 Créteil, France

7. EHESP, 75013 Paris, France

Abstract

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.

Funder

French ‘Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Cinique

INSERM

PHRC

Clinical Research Unit of Ambroise Paré hospital

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Neurology (clinical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3