Background: Several neuromodulation methods exists for migraine treatment. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on migraine treatment using neurostimulation methods.Methods: We searched Medline and Embase up to July 1, 2020 for RCTs reporting acute or preventive treatment of migraine with either non-invasive or invasive neurostimulation methods. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the retrieved studies and extracted data. Outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were 2 h pain free for acute treatment and headache days per month for preventive treatment. We performed subgroup analyses by treatment (stimulation method and site of application). Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.Results: Thirty-eight articles were included in the qualitative analysis (7 acute, 31 preventive) and 34 in the quantitative evaluation (6 acute, 28 preventive). Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) was effective for acute treatment. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions for any other techniques (single studies). Invasive occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was effective for migraine prevention, with a large effect size but considerable heterogeneity, whereas supra-orbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) were effective, with small to medium effect sizes. Vagus-nerve stimulation, left prefrontal cortex rTMS, and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the M1 had no significant effect and heterogeneity was high.Conclusion: Several neuromodulation methods are of potential interest for migraine management, but the quality of the evidence is very poor. Future large and well-conducted studies are needed and could improve on the present results.

Dynamic mechanical allodynia is a widespread and intractable symptom of neuropathic pain for which there is a lack of effective therapy. We recently provided a novel perspective on the mechanisms of this symptom by showing that a simple switch in trigeminal glycine synaptic inhibition can turn touch into pain by unmasking innocuous input to superficial dorsal horn nociceptive specific neurons through a local excitatory, NMDA-dependent neural circuit involving neurons expressing the gamma isoform of protein kinase C. Here, we further investigated the clinical relevance and processing of glycine disinhibition. First, we showed that glycine disinhibition with strychnine selectively induced dynamic but not static mechanical allodynia. The induced allodynia was resistant to morphine. Second, morphine did not prevent the activation of the neural circuit underlying allodynia as shown by study of Fos expression and extracellular-signal regulated kinase phosphorylation in dorsal horn neurons. Third, in contrast to intradermal capsaicin injections, light, dynamic mechanical stimuli applied under disinhibition did not produce neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor internalization in dorsal horn neurons. Finally, light, dynamic mechanical stimuli applied under disinhibition induced Fos expression only in neurons that did not express NK1 receptor. To summarize, the selectivity and morphine resistance of the glycine-disinhibition paradigm adequately reflect the clinical characteristics of dynamic mechanical allodynia. The present findings thus reveal the involvement of a selective dorsal horn circuit in dynamic mechanical allodynia, which operates through superficial lamina nociceptive-specific neurons that do not bear NK1 receptor and provide an explanation for the differences in the pharmacological sensitivity of neuropathic pain symptoms.