Pacheco-Barrios Kevin, Lima Daniel, Pimenta Danielle, Slawka Eric, Navarro-Flores Alba, Parente Joao, Rebello-Sanchez Ingrid, Cardenas-Rojas Alejandra, Gonzalez-Mego Paola, Castelo-Branco Luis, Fregni Felipe
Neuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Lima, Peru.
Brain Netw Modul. 2022 Apr-Jun;1(2):88-101. doi: 10.4103/2773-2398.348254. Epub 2022 Jun 29.
Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common and refractory chronic pain condition with multiple clinical phenotypes. The current diagnosis is based on a syndrome identification which can be subjective and lead to under or over-diagnosis. Therefore, there is a need for objective biomarkers for diagnosis, phenotyping, and prognosis (treatment response and follow-up) in fibromyalgia. Potential biomarkers are measures of cortical excitability indexed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, no systematic analysis of current evidence has been performed to assess the role of TMS metrics as a fibromyalgia biomarker. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate evidence on corticospinal and intracortical motor excitability in fibromyalgia subjects and to assess the prognostic role of TMS metrics as response biomarkers in FM. We conducted systematic searches on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases for observational studies and randomized controlled trials on fibromyalgia subjects that used TMS as an assessment. Three reviewers independently selected and extracted the data. Then, a random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to compare fibromyalgia and healthy controls in observational studies. Also, to compare active versus sham treatments, in randomized controlled trials. Correlations between changes in TMS metrics and clinical improvement were explored. The quality and evidence certainty were assessed following standardized approaches. We included 15 studies (696 participants, 474 FM subjects). The main findings were: (1) fibromyalgia subjects present less intracortical inhibition (mean difference (MD) = -0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to -0.11) and higher resting motor thresholds (MD = 6.90 μV, 95% CI 4.16 to 9.63 μV) when compared to controls; (2) interventions such as exercise, pregabalin, and non-invasive brain stimulation increased intracortical inhibition (MD = 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.29) and cortical silent period (MD = 14.92 ms, 95% CI 4.86 to 24.98 ms), when compared to placebo or sham stimulation; (3) changes on intracortical excitability are correlated with clinical improvements - higher inhibition moderately correlates with less pain, depression, and pain catastrophizing; lower facilitation moderately correlates with less fatigue. Measures of intracortical inhibition and facilitation indexed by TMS are potential diagnostic and treatment response biomarkers for fibromyalgia subjects. The disruption in the intracortical inhibitory system in fibromyalgia also provides additional evidence that fibromyalgia has some neurophysiological characteristics of neuropathic pain. Treatments inducing an engagement of sensorimotor systems (e.g., exercise, motor imagery, and non-invasive brain stimulation) could restore the cortical inhibitory tonus in FM and induce clinical improvement.
纤维肌痛(FM)是一种常见且难治的慢性疼痛病症,具有多种临床表型。目前的诊断基于综合征识别,这可能具有主观性,会导致诊断不足或过度诊断。因此,纤维肌痛需要客观的生物标志物用于诊断、表型分析和预后评估(治疗反应及随访)。潜在的生物标志物是通过经颅磁刺激(TMS)索引的皮质兴奋性测量指标。然而,尚未对现有证据进行系统分析以评估TMS指标作为纤维肌痛生物标志物的作用。因此,本研究旨在评估纤维肌痛患者皮质脊髓和皮质内运动兴奋性的证据,并评估TMS指标作为FM中反应生物标志物的预后作用。我们在PubMed/Medline、Embase和Cochrane Central数据库中进行了系统检索,以查找使用TMS作为评估方法的关于纤维肌痛患者的观察性研究和随机对照试验。三位评审员独立选择并提取数据。然后,进行随机效应模型荟萃分析,以比较观察性研究中的纤维肌痛患者和健康对照。此外,在随机对照试验中比较活性治疗与假治疗。探讨了TMS指标变化与临床改善之间的相关性。按照标准化方法评估质量和证据确定性。我们纳入了15项研究(696名参与者,474名FM患者)。主要发现如下:(1)与对照组相比,纤维肌痛患者表现出较少的皮质内抑制(平均差(MD)=-0.40,95%置信区间(CI)-0.69至-0.11)和较高的静息运动阈值(MD = 6.90 μV,95% CI 4.16至9.63 μV);(2)与安慰剂或假刺激相比,运动、普瑞巴林和非侵入性脑刺激等干预措施可增加皮质内抑制(MD = 0.19,95% CI 0.10至0.29)和皮质静息期(MD = 14.92 ms,95% CI 4.86至24.98 ms);(3)皮质内兴奋性的变化与临床改善相关——较高的抑制与较少的疼痛、抑郁和疼痛灾难化中度相关;较低的易化与较少的疲劳中度相关。由TMS索引 的皮质内抑制和易化测量指标是纤维肌痛患者潜在的诊断和治疗反应生物标志物。纤维肌痛中皮质内抑制系统的破坏也提供了额外证据,表明纤维肌痛具有一些神经性疼痛 的神经生理学特征。诱导感觉运动系统参与的治疗(如运动、运动想象和非侵入性脑刺激)可恢复FM中的皮质抑制张力并诱导临床改善。