Thibaut Aurore, Ohrtman Emily A, Morales-Quezada Leon, Simko Laura C, Ryan Colleen M, Zafonte Ross, Schneider Jeffrey C, Fregni Felipe
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States; GIGA-Institute and Neurology Department, University of Liège and University hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Neurosci Lett. 2019 Jan 18;690:89-94. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.10.013. Epub 2018 Oct 10.
It is still unclear whether chronic neuropathic pain and itch share similar neural mechanisms. They are two of the most commonly reported challenges following a burn injury and can be some of the most difficult to treat. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has previously been studied as a method to modulate pain related neural circuits. Therefore, we aimed to test the effects of tDCS on post-burn neuropathic pain and itch as to understand whether this would induce a simultaneous modulation of these two sensory manifestations. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial comprised of two phases of active or sham M1 tDCS (Phase I: 10 sessions followed by a follow-up period of 8 weeks; Phase II: additional 5 sessions followed by a follow-up period of 8 weeks, and a final visit 12 months from baseline). Pain levels were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and levels of itch severity were assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Measurements were collected at baseline, after the stimulation periods, at 2, 4 and 8-week follow up both for Phase I and II, and at the final visit. Sixteen patients were assigned to the active group and 15 to the sham group. Ten sessions of active tDCS did not reduce the level of pain or itch. We identified that itch levels were reduced at 2-week follow-up after the sham tDCS session, while no placebo effect was found for the active group. No difference between active and sham groups was observed for pain. We did not find any treatment effects during Phase II. Based on these findings, it seems that an important placebo effect occurred during sham tDCS for itch, while active M1 tDCS seems to disrupt sensory compensatory mechanisms. We hypothesize that pain and itch are complementary but distinct mechanisms of adaptation after peripheral sensory injury following a burn injury and need to be treated differently.
慢性神经性疼痛和瘙痒是否具有相似的神经机制仍不清楚。它们是烧伤后最常报告的两大难题,且可能是最难治疗的问题。经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)此前已作为一种调节疼痛相关神经回路的方法进行了研究。因此,我们旨在测试tDCS对烧伤后神经性疼痛和瘙痒的影响,以了解这是否会同时调节这两种感觉表现。我们进行了一项试点随机对照临床试验,该试验包括两个阶段的主动或假M1 tDCS(第一阶段:10次治疗,随后是8周的随访期;第二阶段:额外5次治疗,随后是8周的随访期,以及距基线12个月的最后一次就诊)。使用简明疼痛量表(BPI)评估疼痛水平,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估瘙痒严重程度。在基线、刺激期后、第一阶段和第二阶段的2、4和8周随访以及最后一次就诊时收集测量数据。16名患者被分配到主动组,15名患者被分配到假手术组。10次主动tDCS治疗并未降低疼痛或瘙痒水平。我们发现,假tDCS治疗后2周随访时瘙痒水平降低,而主动组未发现安慰剂效应。主动组和假手术组在疼痛方面未观察到差异。在第二阶段我们未发现任何治疗效果。基于这些发现,似乎在假tDCS治疗瘙痒期间出现了重要的安慰剂效应,而主动M1 tDCS似乎破坏了感觉代偿机制。我们推测,疼痛和瘙痒是烧伤后外周感觉损伤后互补但不同的适应机制,需要进行不同的治疗。