Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: evidence and theory for mechanisms of action.

Well-established in the field of bioelectronic medicine, Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) offers an implantable, non-pharmacologic treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain conditions. Chronic pain is a widely heterogenous syndrome with regard to both pathophysiology and the resultant phenotype. Despite advances in our understanding of SCS-mediated antinociception, there still exists limited evidence clarifying the pathways recruited when patterned electric pulses are applied to the epidural space. The rapid clinical implementation of novel SCS methods including burst, high frequency and dorsal root ganglion SCS has provided the clinician with multiple options to treat refractory chronic pain. While compelling evidence for safety and efficacy exists in support of these novel paradigms, our understanding of their mechanisms of action (MOA) dramatically lags behind clinical data. In this review, we reconstruct the available basic science and clinical literature that offers support for mechanisms of both paresthesia spinal cord stimulation (P-SCS) and paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (PF-SCS). While P-SCS has been heavily examined since its inception, PF-SCS paradigms have recently been clinically approved with the support of limited preclinical research. Thus, wide knowledge gaps exist between their clinical efficacy and MOA. To close this gap, many rich investigative avenues for both P-SCS and PF-SCS are underway, which will further open the door for paradigm optimization, adjunctive therapies and new indications for SCS. As our understanding of these mechanisms evolves, clinicians will be empowered with the possibility of improving patient care using SCS to selectively target specific pathophysiological processes in chronic pain

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation alters neural response and physiological autonomic tone to noxious thermal challenge.

The mechanisms by which noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) affect central and peripheral neural circuits that subserve pain and autonomic physiology are not clear, and thus remain an area of intense investigation. Effects of nVNS vs sham stimulation on subject responses to five noxious thermal stimuli (applied to left lower extremity), were measured in 30 healthy subjects (n = 15 sham and n = 15 nVNS), with fMRI and physiological galvanic skin response (GSR). With repeated noxious thermal stimuli a group × time analysis showed a significantly (p < .001) decreased response with nVNS in bilateral primary and secondary somatosensory cortices (SI and SII), left dorsoposterior insular cortex, bilateral paracentral lobule, bilateral medial dorsal thalamus, right anterior cingulate cortex, and right orbitofrontal cortex. A group × time × GSR analysis showed a significantly decreased response in the nVNS group (p < .0005) bilaterally in SI, lower and mid medullary brainstem, and inferior occipital cortex. Finally, nVNS treatment showed decreased activity in pronociceptive brainstem nuclei (e.g. the reticular nucleus and rostral ventromedial medulla) and key autonomic integration nuclei (e.g. the rostroventrolateral medulla, nucleus ambiguous, and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus nerve). In aggregate, noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation reduced the physiological response to noxious thermal stimuli and impacted neural circuits important for pain processing and autonomic output

Toward Composite Pain Biomarkers of Neuropathic Pain—Focus on Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

Chronic pain affects ~10–20% of the U.S. population with an estimated annual cost of $600 billion, the most significant economic cost of any disease to-date. Neuropathic pain is a type of chronic pain that is particularly difficult to manage and leads to significant disability and poor quality of life. Pain biomarkers offer the possibility to develop objective pain-related indicators that may help diagnose, treat, and improve the understanding of neuropathic pain pathophysiology. We review neuropathic pain mechanisms related to opiates, inflammation, and endocannabinoids with the objective of identifying composite biomarkers of neuropathic pain. In the literature, pain biomarkers typically are divided into physiological non-imaging pain biomarkers and brain imaging pain biomarkers. We review both types of biomarker types with the goal of identifying composite pain biomarkers that may improve recognition and treatment of neuropathic pain

Effects of Noninvasive Cervical Vagal Nerve Stimulation on Cognitive Performance But Not Brain Activation in Healthy Adults.

ObjectivesWhile preliminary evidence suggests that noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) may enhance cognition, to our knowledge, no study has directly assessed the effects of nVNS on brain function and cognitive performance in healthy individuals. The aim of this study was therefore to assess whether nVNS enhances complex visuospatial problem solving in a normative sample. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to examine underlying neural substrates.Material and methodsParticipants received transcutaneous cervical nVNS (N = 15) or sham (N = 15) stimulation during a 3 T fMRI scan. Stimulation lasted for 2 min at 24 V for nVNS and at 4.5 V for sham. Subjects completed a matrix reasoning (MR) task in the scanner and a forced-choice recognition task outside the scanner. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess group differences in cognitive performance. And linear mixed effects (LMEs) regression analysis was used to assess main and interaction effects of experimental groups, level of MR task difficulty, and recall accuracy on changes in blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal.ResultsSubjects who received nVNS showed higher accuracy for both easy (p = 0.017) and hard (p = 0.013) items of the MR task, slower reaction times for hard items (p = 0.014), and fewer false negative errors during the forced-choice recognition task (p = 0.047). MR task difficulty related to increased activation in frontoparietal regions (p < 0.001). No difference between nVNS and sham stimulation was found on BOLD response during performance of the MR task.ConclusionsWe hypothesize that nVNS increased attention compared to sham, and that this effect led to enhanced executive functions, and consequently to better performance on visuospatial reasoning and recognition tasks. Results provide initial support that nVNS may be a low risk, low-cost treatment for cognitive disorders

Non-invasive cervical vagus nerve stimulation effects on reaction time and valence image anticipation response

BackgroundNorepinephrine (NE) driven noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), which improves attention and reduces reaction time, augments learning. Equally important, endogenous NE mediated arousal is highly dependent on the valence (positive or negative) of the exogenous stimulus. But to date, no study has measured valence specific effects of nVNS on both functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) anticipation task response and reaction time in healthy individuals. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study was to assess whether nVNS vs sham modulates valence cortical anticipation task response and reaction time in a normative sample.MethodsParticipants received right sided transcutaneous cervical nVNS (N = 12) or sham (N = 12) stimulation during a 3T fMRI scan. Subjects first performed a continuous performance task (CPT) and then a cued anticipation task to images of positively and negatively valenced events during fMRI. Reaction times to cues and Blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) response were examined over phase to identify effects of nVNS/sham over time.ResultsnVNS reduced reaction time for all valenced image anticipation trials. With the fMRI anticipation task, we observed a valence-specific effect; nVNS increased responsivity to images with negative valence and decreased responsivity to images with positive valence, whereas sham showed an inverse valence response.ConclusionsnVNS was linked to reduced reaction time during the anticipation task. In tandem, nVNS consistently enhanced responsivity to negatively valenced images and diminished responsivity to positively valenced images, suggesting specific nVNS driven endogenous neurotransmitter signaling may contribute

Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain.

IntroductionSpinal cord stimulation (SCS), an FDA-approved therapy for chronic pain, uses paresthesia (low frequency SCS (LF-SCS)) or paresthesia-free (such as high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS)) systems, providing analgesia through partially-elucidated mechanisms, with recent studies indicating a sexual dimorphism in pain pathogenesis (Bretherton et al., Neuromodulation, 2021; Paller et al., Pain Med 10:289-299, 2009; Slyer et al., Neuromodulation, 2019; Van Buyten et al., Neuromodulation 20:642-649, 2017; Mekhail et al., Pain Pract, 2021). We aim to evaluate SCS therapy sex effects based on paradigm, utilizing visual analog scores (VAS), perceived pain reduction (PPR), and opioid use.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of SCS patients implanted between 2004 and 2020 (n = 237) was conducted. Descriptive statistics and linear mixed methods analyses were used.ResultsHF-SCS (10 kHz) was implanted in 94 patients (40 females, 54 males), and LF-SCS in 143 (70 females, 73 males). At 3 months and 6 months, HF-SCS (p < 0.001) and LF-SCS (p < 0.005) had lower VAS scores compared to baseline (p < 0.005), with no differences across groups. PPR improved in both post-implantation (p < 0.006) and at 3 months (p < 0.004 respectively), compared to baseline persisting to 6 (p < 0.003) and 12 months (p < 0.01) for HF-SCS, with significantly better PPR for HF-SCS at 3 (p < 0.008) and 6 (p < 0.001) months compared to LF-SCS. There were no differences in opioid use from baseline for either modality; however LF-SCS patients used more opioids at every time point (p < 0.05) compared to HF-SCS. VAS was improved for all modalities in both sexes at 3 months (p = 0.001), which persisted to 6 months (p < 0.05) for HF-SCS males and females, and LF-SCS females. Female HF-SCS had improved PPR at 3 (p = 0.016) and 6 (p = 0.022) months compared to baseline, and at 6 (p = 0.004) months compared to LF-SCS. Male HF-SCS and LF-SCS had improved PPR post-implantation (p < 0.05) and at 3 months (p < 0.05), with HF-SCS having greater benefit at 3 (p < 0.05) and 6 (p < 0.05) months. LF-SCS males but not females used less opioids at 6 months (p = 0.017) compared to baseline; however this effect did not persist. On linear mixed model analyses, including age, sex and stimulator type, VAS decreased with age, at each timepoint, and had a trend towards increasing with female sex, while PPR increased at 3 and 6 months and lastly HF-SCS was associated with decreased opioid use.DiscussionPPR at 3 and 6 months improved to a greater extent in HF-SCS. HF-SCS females had improved PPR at 3 and 6 months, and only LF-SCS males used less opioids at 6 months, potentially indicating sex-based pathway. Future studies should further elucidate differences in sex-based pathways and identify optimal SCS opioid-sparing paradigms for chronic pain patients