Pain trajectories of dorsomedial prefrontal intermittent theta burst stimulation versus sham treatment in depression

Erika Malm, Wiebke Struckmann, Jonas Persson, Robert Bodén, Erika Malm, Wiebke Struckmann, Jonas Persson, Robert Bodén

Abstract

Background: Prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is an established add-on treatment for major depressive disorder and is increasingly feasible with protocols of short duration, such as intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS). The most common and limiting side effect is pain at the site of application. Our objective was to investigate how pain develops over time in patients with depression receiving iTBS compared to sham stimulation.

Methods: This is a subsample from a randomized clinical trial. Patients received daily sessions of 2400 pulses of dorsomedial prefrontal iTBS or sham stimulation with transcutaneous electric stimulation during 2 to 3 weeks. After unmasking of treatment allocation, patients receiving sham treatment were offered active iTBS in an open phase. Patients rated pain on a scale from 0 to 10 after the last train of stimulation on the first, fifth and final treatment day. A Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted to test for group differences and related-samples Friedman's tests to analyze changes in pain ratings over time.

Results: The scalp pain in the group receiving iTBS was rated higher than sham treatment on the first (U = 263.5, p = 0.035) and fifth day (U = 271.0, p = 0.020) but not on the final day (U = 210.5, p = 0.121). The pain decreased mainly during the first 5 days of treatment (χ2 = 0.875, p = 0.040). In the open phase the pain decreased from the first day to the final day (χ2 = 1.194, p = 0.001).

Conclusions: The subjective pain perception of active dorsomedial iTBS was higher than sham treatment but decreased over time, indicating an analgesic effect, or habituation. The result from this study can be used to inform patients about what to expect regarding pain during an iTBS treatment course.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02905604 . Registered 19 September 2016.

Keywords: Depressive disorder; Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; Scalp pain; Side-effect.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Median of pain rating compensated for titration in the sham and active group in the blind phase, whiskers indicate interquartile range, * indicate p < 0.05. N=21/18 on the first and fifth day, and 19/17 on the final day in sham/active groups respectively
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Median of pain rating compensated for titration in the open phase, whiskers indicate interquartile range. N = 19 on the first day and N = 18 on the fifth and on the final day

References

    1. Lefaucheur J-P, André-Obadia N, Antal A, Ayache SS, Baeken C, Benninger DH, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) Clin Neurophysiol Off J Int Fed Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;125:2150–2206.
    1. Downar J, Daskalakis ZJ. New targets for rTMS in depression: a review of convergent evidence. Brain Stimulat. 2013;6:231–240.
    1. Bakker N, Shahab S, Giacobbe P, Blumberger DM, Daskalakis ZJ, Kennedy SH, et al. rTMS of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex for major depression: safety, tolerability, effectiveness, and outcome predictors for 10 Hz versus intermittent theta-burst stimulation. Brain Stimulat. 2015;8:208–215.
    1. Blumberger DM, Vila-Rodriguez F, Thorpe KE, Feffer K, Noda Y, Giacobbe P, et al. Effectiveness of theta burst versus high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression (THREE-D): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1683–1692.
    1. Janicak PG, Dokucu ME. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of major depression. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2015;11:1549–1560.
    1. Borckardt JJ, Nahas ZH, Teal J, Lisanby SH, McDonald WM, Avery D, et al. The painfulness of active, but not sham, transcranial magnetic stimulation decreases rapidly over time: results from the double-blind phase of the OPT-TMS trial. Brain Stimulat. 2013;6:925–928.
    1. Pettersson A, Modin S, Wahlström R, af Winklerfelt Hammarberg S, Krakau I. The mini-international neuropsychiatric interview is useful and well accepted as part of the clinical assessment for depression and anxiety in primary care: a mixed-methods study. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19:19.
    1. Llerena K, Park SG, McCarthy JM, Couture SM, Bennett ME, Blanchard JJ. The motivation and pleasure scale-self-report (MAP-SR): reliability and validity of a self-report measure of negative symptoms. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54:568–574.
    1. Svanborg P, Asberg M. A comparison between the Beck depression inventory (BDI) and the self-rating version of the Montgomery Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) J Affect Disord. 2001;64:203–216.
    1. Motor Threshold Assessment Tool 2.0. . Accessed 5 Nov 2019.
    1. Mishory A, Molnar C, Koola J, Li X, Kozel FA, Myrick H, et al. The maximum-likelihood strategy for determining transcranial magnetic stimulation motor threshold, using parameter estimation by sequential testing is faster than conventional methods with similar precision. J ECT. 2004;20:160–165.
    1. Mir-Moghtadaei A, Giacobbe P, Daskalakis ZJ, Blumberger DM, Downar J. Validation of a 25% Nasion-inion heuristic for locating the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Stimulat. 2016;9:793–795.
    1. Opitz A, Legon W, Mueller J, Barbour A, Paulus W, Tyler WJ. Is sham cTBS real cTBS? The effect on EEG dynamics. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:1043.
    1. Struckmann W, Persson J, Weigl W, Gingnell M, Bodén R. Modulation of the prefrontal blood oxygenation response to intermittent theta-burst stimulation in depression: a sham-controlled study with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2020;1:1.
    1. Duerden EG, Albanese M-C. Localization of pain-related brain activation: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging data. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013;34:109–149.
    1. Bingel U, Schoell E, Herken W, Büchel C, May A. Habituation to painful stimulation involves the antinociceptive system. Pain. 2007;131:21–30.
    1. Weigand A, Horn A, Caballero R, Cooke D, Stern AP, Taylor SF, et al. Prospective validation that Subgenual connectivity predicts antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation sites. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84:28–37.
    1. Fox MD, Buckner RL, White MP, Greicius MD, Pascual-Leone A. Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation targets for depression is related to intrinsic functional connectivity with the subgenual cingulate. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72:595–603.
    1. Salomons TV, Dunlop K, Kennedy SH, Flint A, Geraci J, Giacobbe P, et al. Resting-state cortico-thalamic-striatal connectivity predicts response to dorsomedial prefrontal rTMS in major depressive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacol Off Publ Am Coll Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;39:488–498.
    1. Kaster TS, Chen L, Daskalakis ZJ, Hoy KE, Blumberger DM, Fitzgerald PB. Depressive symptom trajectories associated with standard and accelerated rTMS. Brain Stimulat. 2020;13:850–857.
    1. Borckardt JJ, Smith AR, Hutcheson K, Johnson K, Nahas Z, Anderson B, et al. Reducing pain and unpleasantness during repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. J ECT. 2006;22:259–264.
    1. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41:1073–1093.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren